LaBarbera condemns gays for refusing to be condemned
So late on Friday, Peter LaBarbera (pic.) posted a very long-winded response to the gay activists who are challenging the "It's Not Gay" video because, among other things, it prominently features an "ex-gay" man who was later found to still be having sexual relations other men. But since it would be far too time-consuming for a Monday morning to address every point raised in Mr. LaBabs' article, we will instead respond to his overall thesis, which is that by refuting the "ex-gay" sham, we gay activists are "celebrating failures." From his article:
Why do “gay” advocates celebrate failure? Because sadly, like the pro-abortion lobby, they are on the side of sin and against God and nature, having convinced themselves that homosexuality (“being gay”) is a big part of “who they are.”
Ah, but you protest: homosexuality is so complex. How can we judge it? Why would a person “choose” that lifestyle with all the hardships that come with it? Well, why does a man or woman “choose” to embrace any wrong lifestyle/behavior: bulimia, porn addiction, alcoholism? We can sympathize with the person who faces intense personal struggles, but it is not our right to normalize and celebrate homosexuality or ANY aberration/sin just because we don’t fully understand its genesis. Doing so runs counter to several millennia of understanding of humanity as fallen beings whose hearts tend toward wrongdoing.
Wait, we gays, many of whom have known we were attracted to the same-sex from our earliest of days and whose natural desires took hold both with and independently of Jesus, are the ones who are acting against nature. REALLY?! Never mind that homosexuality exists all throughout nature. Never mind that homosexuality has existed for all recorded time. Never mind common sense. It is those in the "ex-gay" movement -- which, it must be noted, is shunned by all professional organizations, dates back to only around the mid-70's, and generally requires Jesus for success -- that are acting in the God-given natural way. Never mind that THEY are the ones who had to attend therapy, conferences, seminars, or whatever to "learn" that they are actually "straight" -- it's the gays, who had to JUST SIMPLY EXIST in order for their natural desire to take hold, that have "convinced themselves" of their truths.
As for Mr. LaBabs' rationale about why people "choose" homosexuality -- the three examples he gives actually would seem to refute his case more than prove it. People "choose" bulimia because society's idea of a perfect body image has convinced many folks that they are not pretty, thin, or perfect enough to exist in modern society. People "choose" porn addiction because we are all sexual beings, and the allure and easy access to pornography can be tempting. And while alcoholism is widely believed to be a disease, alcohol is a substance that many people find soothing, as it can take their cares away and lower their inhibitions. All three of these things -- and, we should mention, we are not judging them -- take hold or are embraced because of some sort of want or desire (or physiological/psychological reason).
Homosexuality, however, is not the same sort of situation. Yes, it too deals with want and desire, but it is the sort of desire that would exist independent of any outside factor. And unlike the three examples, there is no "reason" why one would logically make a decision at a young age (and trust us, most of us do know at a young age) to get their kicks from the same-sex rather than the opposite. Homosexuality offers no "benefit" that would tempt one into embracing it instead of heterosexuality. None of us have ever grown up in a society where we are overwhelmingly told gay is good from day one! It just makes no sense that we would shun heterosexuality for pastures that we full-well know are seen by many as less green.
So getting back to the idea that by highlighting "ex-gays" who are found to still be gay we are "celebrating failures" -- well, that all depends on the way you look at things. From our perspective, the "ex-gay" movement represents a failure in logic, science, biology, research, common sense, rational thought, morality, natural order, etc. Therefore, when one's found to have justified our idea that homosexuality is simply a part of one's identity, we do chock it up as a victory for the side of reason. Quite unapologetically, we might add! But it isn't the "ex-gay" individual's failure that we are celebrating; it's the ex-gay movement's! However, If an "ex-gay" individual is going to be bold enough to put themselves out there publicly and paint our lives and loves as "a lifestyle of sin," then they have to expect to be challenged directly by gay rights supporters. And when someone who so vocally, politically testifies to this sort of "change" is found to be having sex with men over a decade after he claims to have "left homosexuality," then we are understandably going to highlight that!
The ironic (for lack of a batter word) thing is that in watching the "It's Not Gay" video, we actually agree with Mr. LaBarbera that Mr. Johnston tells the tale of a man who was heading down the wrong path. He tells of risky sex, anonymous encounters, drugs, non-stop clubbing and partying, non-commital relationships, etc. Not to make moral judgments (we'll leave that to our opposition), but had Mr. Johnston been close to our own lives, we would have likely encouraged them to settle down and focus on making a life for himself. However, this has nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather behavior that was clearly making Mr. Johnston miserable. But since such behavior and homosexuality are one and the same for our opposition, Johnston and his new "pro-family" cronies try and paint his life tale as representative of gays worldwide. Yet Mr. LaBarbera expects those of us who don't enjoy being painted as anonymous, unsafe sex-obsessed perverts to just sit back and let Mr. Johnston lie about our community while still dabbling in the sort of behavior that he's condemning?! For our genuinely truth-filled cause, THAT would be the definition of failure!
Babs really needs a lesson in valid comparisons. You're right, the three comparative 'ailments' he listed really do serve to refute his supposition. Of course, he'll likely never see the incongruence of his comparison.
Posted by: Kristen | Jan 22, 2007 3:10:37 PMcomments powered by Disqus