RECENT  POSTS:  » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out  

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

03/25/2008

Peter guns for yours truly; yours truly replies, 'FINALLY -- he throws some traffic this direction for a change!'

by Jeremy Hooper

200803251617In response to our piece from yesterday in which we unapologetically scoffed at the way Peter LaBarbera was likening homosexuality to everything from womanizing to gambling rather than to its much more rational counterpart, heterosexuality, Pete has written a reply in which he tries to trivialize your humble scribe's words as being built out of nothing more than Godless misinformation.  After first complimenting this writer's "indefatigable" drive, "amazing alacrity," and youth (ah, thanks Pete!), LaBarbera proceeds to make comments like the following:

What Jeremy doesn’t understand is that just because he feels that his homosexuality is some innate “orientation” — a natural, innocuous desire — that does not make it true. The Bible — regarded by Christi-followers throughout the centuries as the divinely-inspired Word of God — takes a view that is polar opposite that of today’s homosexual advocates.
...
No, Jeremy, you weren’t “born gay,” but you were born a sinner. Join the club. It’s got billions of members
.

Oh, dear Peter.  You obviously don't agree with me on, well, just about anything.  But do not, my friend, make suppositions about what I do and do not understand!  I absolutely understand that you view the Bible as containing a lock-solid condemnation of gays and their "lifestyles."  I just think that in holding such a view while refusing to listen to any contrarian points or interpretations (instead just writing them off as secularist propaganda), you are working from a myopic place, doing a disservice to the wonderfully complex analytical mind, monopolizing America's religious conversation, overlooking (or justifying) less convenient pages from the same book, polarizing society by acting as if evangelicals are the only ones who have it all figured out, and hurting American freedom by trying to foist your personal faith-based ideals into the public spectrum and onto all of this country's tax-paying inhabitants.  There is a BIG difference between not understanding what you are saying and not understanding why you choose to operate from such a mindset!

Another idea Pete raises is this one:

"..if you believe the Bible, God does not give homosexual-practicing sinners a pass because homosexuality is a some “always-present biological desire” (a thesis which is not supported by facts or science, although you’d never know it by the frequent assertions to the contrary by Jeremy and fellow homosexual activists)"

Yea, Peter?  You really want to play the science game?  Because while you are right in saying that we have not pinpointed one concrete, specific root of all gayness (nor has this writer ever asserted that we have), there are a few points that give those of us on the pro-gay side a little more right to cite biology.  For one, as gay people, we know about our own personal biological yearnings.  For another, as ones who spend time with gay people, we know that there are certain traits and characteristics (both outward ones and inner ones)that are undeniably more present within our community.  And then there is the fact -- FACT! -- that not only does your pro-"ex-gay" viewpoint not have any credible scientific backing (thus the reason why you rely on folks like Paul Cameron and NARTH to make it seems like it does), but most if not all of the credible bodies of health and science are actually quite non-supportive of the very idea that gays can or should "change" who they are.  And speaking of the idea that saying something does not make it so, Peter -- No matter how many times you all try and discredit credible science and research as "liberal propaganda," the frequency with which you stay on that message does not increase its veracity!

After many attempts to pass off his theological ideas as the only ones deserving of any credence, Peter concludes his article by asking Christians to pray for me.  However, I'm going to go another route: I'm going to DEMAND that evangelical christians stop PREYING on my life and love!!!!!!!!!!!

The ‘Gay’ Exception and the Gospel Misunderstood [AFT]

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


Your thoughts

You Go Boy!

Was that kinda lame?

Posted by: Alonzo | Mar 25, 2008 4:42:31 PM

I might come after you for wearing a Jimmy Carter shirt. Talk about a "sinful lifestyle choice"...

;-)

Posted by: KipEsquire | Mar 25, 2008 4:59:27 PM

LOL. The Mondale, Dukakis, and Clinton ones were all in the dryer.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 25, 2008 5:01:31 PM

WONDERFUL response, Jeremy. Totally unsurprising that he'd throw out the same "biblical absolutes" and yet also try to throw science in there. Funny how far they try to run from science until they feel it fits their agenda.

Also? Stop being so darn cute. I'm sure the heterosexualist activists out there - like Petey - can find some kind of "Scientific" proof that looks make you more prone to satanic possession or something.

Posted by: Eric | Mar 25, 2008 5:09:04 PM

Well, one thing Peter mentions in his article (talk about doing semantics back-flips! My soul, he applies Bush-on-weapons-of-mass-destruction-esque semantics on crack throughout) is the fact that you don’t see a National Adultery Task Force. But really, Pete, is there a need?

I mean, as long as you’re heterosexual, there’s not. After all a heterosexual adulterer can get married (and remarried), can’t they Pete? So can a drug addicted pimp, prostitute who killed fifty people and is currently on death row gossiping about all the prison guards as long as they are heterosexual.

As long as they are heterosexual they can marry with impunity. Ten, twenty, thirty times.

But you know what? I have never heard Peter make an argument as to why a heterosexual gossip, killing pimp should not get married. In fact, in all the language I have ever read regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment not once has it included restricting a heterosexuals access to marriage.

Now I know Pete would respond that homosexuals can get married too, they just have to marry someone of the opposite gender. And he is right. But when he and others make that argument they are really saying they advocate loveless marriages, and since it’s all about the children (right, Pete?) there is hardly anything more heartbreaking for a child than parents that don’t love each other. The only thing more heartbreaking would be, it seems to me, if a child had two parents that did love each other but, because of people like Pete, could not get married.

Posted by: Jon-Marc | Mar 25, 2008 5:20:01 PM

Give him hell, Jeremy!

Posted by: A. MCEWEN | Mar 25, 2008 6:05:24 PM

Why oh why won't LaBarbera ever visit my site and make comments like that. I'd love to tear him a new one.

He's guilty of the sin of omission by the way. For he selects only certain passages of his Bible to reinforce his narrow views, but yet he rejects other passages which is verbotten in the Christian religious doctrine and dogma.

For example, Mr. LaBarbera doesn't still believe slavery is permissible because the Bible says so, or does he?

Or how about the other prohibitions in Leviticus, the ones regarding hooves, shellfish, and menses. I just bet he doesn't consider those on the same level of abomination as hot sticky man on man sex.

People like LaBarbera annoy me because of the selectivity of their views. You are a cafeteria Christian Pete, seek salvation now before it is too late for your already damned soul.

Posted by: Reverend Tony P | Mar 25, 2008 8:18:46 PM

I find it interesting when Peter said just because you believe Homosexuality is natural does not make it true....because I would argue just because Peter and other fundamentalist believe their interpretation of the Bible is true.....does not make it true.

Posted by: Rob | Mar 25, 2008 10:10:24 PM

A century from now it will be those who still believe in religion who will be considered the defectives. I can't argue against folks like Peter LaBarbera or Sally Kern et al - they base their venom on irrational beliefs which is why so many religious-tinged disputes have to resort to violence. But we do need a full court press to make sure we are heard in the mainstream media, that out voices of reason are heard by anyone who will listen with an open mind.

Posted by: Pete | Mar 26, 2008 12:11:52 AM

Why is Babs so hostile to the gays who aren't having sex on film for him?

LaBarbera is equally as guilty for living this "homosexual lifestyle", as he's been an amateur gay sex pornographer for years. For that matter, he's got more gay porn in his collection, than any gay man I've ever met.

Posted by: Scott | Mar 26, 2008 7:07:13 AM

I actually getting sick of all these reports on LaBarbera. I my opinion he is like a child desperate for attention so he has to act out in silly ways to get people to notice him. He simply is not newsworthy.

Posted by: Mark | Mar 26, 2008 8:47:50 AM

Mark: Well, as long as Peter runs the only national "group" that is dedicated wholly to combatting gays, we're going to have to acknowledge his words. No stone(-thrower) left unturned.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 26, 2008 8:52:32 AM

Peter's arguments frustrate the bejeebus out of me. It's funny for someone that considers the Bible the divinely inspired word of God, very few evangelicals seem to take that too seriously. How many evangelicals ever studied Hebrew and Greek to get a better understanding of the words. I had a good friend who was Jewish and she used to regularly correct people on their misinterpretations. She would tell them that they are not understanding the true meaning and the subtle differences that is evident in the original Hebrew writing.

More importantly though, while I believe that Pete is misinterpreting the Divine Word, I feel that regardless, he can believe what he wants just don't impose that on me. If I prefer to live my life reading the Bible informed by science and understanding and that gives me a different viewpoint, I prefer Pete not to get in my face about it. Essentially, Pete has claimed equality with God because his understanding of the word is the only "true understanding". That is a big claim from a mere man.

Posted by: Ed | Mar 26, 2008 10:27:42 AM

All good... or all bad.. as your frame of reference requires.
But you need to redo the pic Jeremy and use different fingers and you could win
the Jay Leno... "Gayest Face' collection on PHB today.

Posted by: Orion45 | Mar 26, 2008 11:15:53 AM

You used too many big words for little Pete to understand. He only knows short ones like hate, lie, defame and abuse. Those are the basis of his chosen path.

Posted by: Dave | Mar 26, 2008 12:41:35 PM

I do not recognize Peter's authority in interpreting the Scriptures so his bleatings mean very little to me. However, I am intrigued that he chooses to emphasize certain passages over others without acknowledging the significant changes in Jewish/Christian thinking over the centuries. The most classic example is the express condemnation of usury (Ex 22:25-27; Levit. 25:35-37; Deut. 23:19-20; Ps. 15:5; Prov. 28:8; Is 24:1,2; Jer 15:10; Ez 18:8-17; Lk 19:23) which the worldwide economy is based upon. I've yet to hear a preacher talk about giving or accepting an interest-bearing loan as being sinful. Btw, it matters not the amount of interest because in and of itself it is condemned by the Scriptures even though we have moved away from such an interpretation. Then of course there is divorce and remarriage, something Evangelical Protestants have had no problem accepting. Perhaps Peter should focus on the beam in his own eye before concentrating on the splinter in those of others.

Posted by: John | Mar 26, 2008 12:45:50 PM

You know, it's a shame, but it took Porno Pete's endorsement to bring me back here! I have *got* to sit down and update my blogroll!

It amazes me how someone can make their whole living, and go home at night feeling proud of themselves, by finding new ways to make LGBTs look downright horrible and keep us away from our full civil rights.

As a Witch, I get accused of dishing out curses right and left, often by LaBarbera's co-religionists. But the thing is, I would never do a ritual or speak a spell asking my Gods to separate someone else from their spouse, friends, community, and identity simply because I don't approve of the way they live their life. If I asked people to work with me so that LaBarbera gets a divorce, I'd be run up and down as a truly bad Witch who curses Christians, and the people doing so would be absolutely right.

Yet homophobic Christians curse LGBTs so casually, and then bray loudly that they are the "moral" ones.

(I speak more about this concept here: http://crackerlilo.blogspot.com/2005/06/duschevnost.html)

I'll come back this way again, without Porno Pete's encouragement. (People mentioned by him really need an award-type graphic, don't you think?) You handled him in style.

Posted by: Lilo | Mar 26, 2008 1:37:55 PM

The problem with LaBarbera (and others of his kind)is he honestly believes he has the right to demand the entire country bow down to his holy book, his concept of god, and his notions of sin.

When he brings up the Bible perhaps you should just remind him that argument from authority is invalid.

Uh, wait a minute. I'm agreeing with you here! Is the world coming to an end?

Posted by: David | Mar 27, 2008 2:00:25 PM

I was just over at Peter's hate site and saw that. I came over here to see if you'd stumbled across it. I should have known you would have already done so.

My, my, my. Peter needs to get life and stop being so obsessed with what LGBT people are doing. Maybe he can picket the offices of divorce lawyers or become one of those "private detectives" that run around snapping pictures of people engaging in adultery on one another. After all, the Bible has a lot more to say about divorce and adultery than it does homosexuality. Those two things also do much more to damage "traditional marriage" and families than homosexuality.

But then that would be too logical, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Buffy | Mar 27, 2008 3:41:51 PM

G-A-Y,

You may find this article about Pete to be pretty interesting.

I had no idea exactly how much Babs was living the high life. And he tries to play it off like he's some poor man?

http://www.phatpage.org/news/032608.html

Posted by: Scott | Mar 30, 2008 12:28:46 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails