RECENT  POSTS:  » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate » Leave beloved children's author Beverly Cleary out of your dastardly agenda, NOM! » Video: Another hour, another anti-gay activist warning society of its impending, gay-initiated doom » Video: Target features gay dads in new ad #MadeToMatter  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/31/2007

The Barbers of Antigay-ville

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images BarbercolorWhat's more anti-gay than a piece penned by the Concerned Women For America's Matt Barber? Well, that would be a piece penned by both Matt and his Concerned Brother For America, Jared Barber. And that's exactly what is being offered up today on CWA's website.

In an article titled "Homosexuality: What’s all the Fuss?" Matt gives his 19-year-old bro' a chance to express his own thoughts on homosexuality. And while Jared also views gay life as contrary to decency, he does see misplaced priorities at play within his sibling's movement. This is the money quote from Jared's thoughts:

"Christians, as a whole, focus too much on the homosexual issue alone. They attack it solely, denounce it, and live whichever way they please. Adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition, drunkenness; all of these immoral acts take to the background in view of homosexuality, and so we as Christians are set up as anti-gay instead of anti-immorality."

Well, of course that's not going to sit well with Matt Barber, a man who dedicates his existence to decrying gay lives and loves. So the elder Barber proceeds to tell the younger why, exactly, his thoughts are not gay-unfriendly enough. And here's a sampling of Matt's "reasons" why to those who bastardize the word "family," homosexuality is of far more importance than anything else:

"...we find ourselves — back against the ropes — in a fight we did not pick, struggling in a culture war we did not ask for. It’s a clash of worldviews in a zero-sum-game. Make no mistake; the sin of homosexuality is the bunker-buster bomb in this war against morality.

The very firm response by defenders of Biblical truth to the homosexual lobby’s relentless assault on our nation’s Judeo-Christian tradition is indeed a defensive reaction, not an act of aggression. The sheer mechanics of homosexual conduct very naturally elicits revulsion in most rational folk. Therefore, most of us would prefer not to even imagine it, much less struggle to defend against its wholesale promotion. But regrettably, our hand has been forced.

Scripture cautions, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” That Scripture becomes manifest in the left’s insistence that homosexual behavior — which God unequivocally condemns and which human biology coldly rejects — be either embraced, or opposed under penalty of law.
"

Yea? Opposing homosexuality is a defensive reaction? REEEEALLLLLLY. So we guess Matt's very next line, "The sheer mechanics of homosexual conduct very naturally elicits revulsion in most rational folk,' was meant not as an attack on those who feel that they were made to love members of their own gender, but rather as a defense against his own learned gag reflex. And when he goes on to paint homosexuality as "evil" and to make it sound as if it is unequivocally condemned by God (when it is MOST CERTAINLY NOT), he is not throwing flames, but rather defending himself against the threat of gay people sitting next to him on the church pew on Sunday mornings. Or by presenting biology as rejecting homosexual activity when millions of gay animals prove that to be untrue on a daily basis, Matt is not being hostile towards the truth that exists in nature. No, no -- he is merely defending against the idea that the actuality of the world should inform people's worldviews.

Lest you be confused, dear reader, we need to let you know right here and now: Matt is not the aggressive, attacker that his words and actions would make you assume. He is a poor victim of a "a culture war [he] did not ask for," who is simply fending off the "radical" idea that gays are deserving of humane treatment. He works day and night to resist hate crimes protections, workplace nondiscrimintion, marriage equality, gay adoptions, and all else homo-centric not because he is anti-gay. He does so in order to defend culture from the gay "bunker-buster bomb" and its society-destroying shrapnel. He's a hero, really.

Oh, and if you believe that, then we plan on going as you for Halloween. After all, anyone who swallows that load of crap frightens us more than Dracula, Frankenstein, and the threat of a Mitt Romney presidency combined!

Homosexuality: What’s all the Fuss? [CWA]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

::Thinking to myself:: Now If I can send a Terminator to mama Barber's house, say 1967?

HAVE A HAPPY GAYLICIOUS HALLOWEEN FOLKS!

Posted by: Franc | Oct 31, 2007 3:55:21 PM

Hmmmm. Christ spoke against divorce, but did not say one word about same gender love (the term homosexuality didn't come into use until the late 1800's). Perhaps Christ was trying to tell the world something about priorities.

Posted by: Mike in the Tndra | Oct 31, 2007 4:52:25 PM

I once posted the very first reply to a column of Matt Barber's that was published at townhall.com. In his column, Barber described several attacks on gay people that were first reported as hate crimes but were later found out not to be so or were of uncertain motivation. He described them as phony anti-gay hate crimes.

In my reply I explained why Barber's description of each of the attacks as a phony hate crime was unfair. I then stated that Barber was a cranky, homophobic bigot.

No one raised any objection to the ways in which I corrected Barber's characterization of the crimes, but oh, what grief I got for calling Barber names!

From this screed of Matt's it seems those who took me to task owe me an apology. My labeling of Matt Barber obviously hit the nail on the head!

Posted by: David | Nov 2, 2007 1:21:40 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails