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


But he means 'force of evil' in the loving, Christian way

by Jeremy Hooper

200805291139How willing is our opposition to reduce our progressive ideas to nothing more than self-serving, destructive game-playing? Well, of the gay community's work to encourage the Boy Scouts of America to stop fostering a world in which gays are discriminated against and young boys have homophobic ideals emboldened, Peter LaBarbera has today written the following:

Surely the homosexual (and atheist) lobby’s vindictive, selfish and shameless campaign against the Boy Scouts of America is one of the cruelest ever orchestrated by the Left. They could care less about this wonderful organization for boys, which they are helping to destroy and bankrupt through endless legal harassment.

Do you still have a problem saying that organized homosexuality is a force for evil in our society?

Yes, that's right -- Peter is referring to us as a "force for evil" because we have the "radical" idea that it's wrong to reject people on the basis of their sexual orientation. We are the "cruel" ones because we are standing up for our piece of the humanity pie rather than allowing prominent organizations to carry out their invidious membership practices in an unchecked fashion. We gays are "destroying and bankrupting" the Boy Scouts, not those in charge who refuse to open their doors to us. And to Peter, it's not those who are setting unreasonable, partial standards who are the "vindictive" ones -- it's those who want to live their lives in fully equitable peace!

Do you still have a problem saying that this "culture war" is a forceful attack against gay lives rather than a two-sided discourse wherein we can just "agree to disagree"?

Will the Boy Scouts Be Forcibly Evicted by Philadelphia? [AFT]

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

Your thoughts

What really annoys me is that this is an issue really created by the BSA for the sole purpose of stirring up anti-gay sentiment. What BSA is not saying is that the city is not evicting them. The city has a "sweetheart" deal with the BSA that allows them to lease city property for $1 a year.

The city essentially told the BSA over a year ago that it is unfair for the city to extend a special deal to the BSA to use city property for free in light of the fact that the BSA openly violates city law against non-discrimination. The BSA is welcome to use city property (like any other private group) provided they pay fair rent.
The BSA wants to use the property for free and that is why they are making the stink. The city isn't kicking them out because of their policy. They are kicking them out for non-payment.

When a non-profit group to which I belong wanted to use a city field, we had to pay a $150 permit fee. The city is only asking the Boy Scouts to act like any other group and to expect "special rights". You think the AFA would get this because they so opposed to special rights. :-)

Posted by: Ed | May 29, 2008 12:23:52 PM

At 13 I joined a BSA troop in our town. My best friend was already a member. After joining, I realized that the troop was all Mormon (as was my best friend). I spent a year as a member getting badges and being involved with camping, hiking, community service, etc. I was never pressured to be involved in the religious side of the church. One day the carpool picked up my best friend down the street and sped past me, leaving me there on the curb. I later found out from my friend that I wasn't allowed to come to BSA any longer since I was not a member of the Mormon church.

I was devastated. Oh, yeah - what a "wonderful organization for boys".

Posted by: Mikey | May 29, 2008 1:57:56 PM

I now looks like BSA stands for the Bigoted Scouts of America.

Posted by: Richard Rush | May 29, 2008 2:11:38 PM


I hope you are well. Let me say that the Boy Scouts of America sees something wrong with men having sex with men & women having sex with women. The main reason I'm writing here is because I wanted to concede what you have written about Peter LaBarbera & this is the chance to do it as it's about him. Admittedly, you're right about calling him porno Pete. I got tuned out by the AFT website mainly because Peter LaBarbera posts graphic pictures such as of 2 men kissing & even naked men! Recently, I asked Mr. LaBarbera to stop posting such graphic pictures, but he never replied. He also wrote that he would publish my email to him on his website stating that there are atheists & non-religious people who see something wrong with sex change maimings & same sex behaviors, but Mr. LaBarbera never published it as he said he would.

I don't care if homo&lesbian websites incl. yours publish photos of 2 men or 2 women kissing. I do care about Peter LaBarbera doing it because there is no reason why such graphic pictures have to be posted on a site which is against same sex behaviors. In 2007, Bill O'Reilly similarly contradicted himself when he said that he opposed what the sisters of Perpetual Indulgence did in a San Francisco Catholic Church & then repeatedly showed what they did over & over, that I changed the channel. Peter LaBarbera has not helped the cause by posting nude pictures. Your thoughts on this are welcome, esp.my point about Peter LaBarbera's refusal to remove the graphic pictures.

Posted by: missionaryway | May 29, 2008 2:52:27 PM

Missionarway, just one point of fact: this site has never referred to Peter as "prno Pete."

Posted by: | May 29, 2008 2:57:14 PM

First time posting on GAY even though I lurk all the time.

1st: Missionaryway, what is graphic about two men or two women kissing? Do you find a heterosexual couple kissing graphic as well?

2nd: I agree that Peter LaBrbera has an unusual and (in my opinion) unhealthy obsession with the things he says he abhores so much.

3rd: What does the content of Peter Labarbara's website and your objection to it have to do with the BSA? While the quotation is from Peter, the content of his website (particularly referring to his coverage of ILM, Steamworks, and Fulsom Street Fair) has nothing to do with this thread. There is a thread that addresses this subject in depth. It might be better to post your thoughts about it there.

4th: Concerning the subject of the BSA, the issue that the BSA basically gets to occupy a city building for free is never addressed by the Right. It is an important point too, because gay and lesbian citizens tax dollars go towards support for city services and buildings. If they can't be included (or are specifically excluded from) the going-ons of this organization, then their tax dollars don't need to support this organization. Period. End of story.

Posted by: Popsiclestand | May 29, 2008 11:59:45 PM

Popsiclestand, as I've written before about why I see something wrong with same sex behaviors, I don't want to rerun it. As to your point regarding the Boy Scouts, no, they should not occupy buildings @ taxpayers expense. But for consistency, neither should groups such as PFLAG. Doesn't PFLAG also occupy city buildings @ taxpayers expense? I don't think any1, except for the cops, Fire Dept., courts, government businesse & politicians (though politicians are often corrupt) should be allowed to occupy buildings @ taxpayers expense. PFLAG also speaks @ public schools @ taxpayers expense, usu. w/o opposing views. If PFLAG wants to talk in public schools, then @least allow opposing views. As this is about the Boy Scouts, I have no problems with your argument of not using tax $s to support them, if the same rules apply to the opponents such as PFLAG, because tax $s should not support any PAC whether it's NRA or it's opponents Hand Gun Control Inc.

Posted by: missionaryway | Jun 5, 2008 10:53:12 AM

On a final note regarding Peter LaBarbera, no, you didn't call him Porno Pete, but other websites have & with justification. Peter LaBarbera harms the cause when he posts nudity & goes to homosexual porn fests, that 1 has to ask is Peter LaBarbera a closet homo, because there is no need to repeatedly show such graphic pictures. The graphic pictures ruin what Peter LaBarbera has to say &
AFT does raise topics the mainstream press usu. doesn't.

This will be going into irrelevant topics but I want to comment on the 1998 Matthew Wayne Shepard's murder @ the hands of Russell Henderson & AJ McKinney & my final thoughts on the OJ Simpson case. I don't think the 2 men intended to kill Matthew Shepard, though both are guilty of felony murder. I believe the 2 men beat & robbed Matthew Shepard to get drug money from him-it was a case of drug dealers robbing & beating a buyer for money & they left him out, where he died a few days later. They are guilty of murder because if some1 dies during a felony-robbery&battery, it's murder. It's common for drug dealers to rob their buyers & vice versa for money.

But if this case had not gotten publicity, I'm sure that the 2 men would have had their felony murder case plea bargained to 2d Degree Murder where they would have gotten 20 years in prison, rather than life. I say this because ironically several months later, Russell Henderson's mom was robbed, beaten & died in a crime similar to Matthew Shepard's & in the same city-Laramie Wyoming. The man who killed Russell Henderson's mom had his case pleabargained to manslaughter where he got 9 years in prison & has since been released.

It's not my intent to plead their cases as what happened is serious, but what will be said is that if Matthew Shepard had been straight, this case would most likely have been pleabargained down to a lesser charge. It wasn't because it was publicized as a man who was killed because of his homosexuality, though the cops & prosecutors have said that robbery was the motive.

Finally, on the OJ Simpson case, what may have happened & why ? I don't think it was because of the theory if he couldn't have her anymore, nobody else could. I don't think so, because 2 years earlier OJ Simpson caught Nicole having sex with a man on the couch but he didn't lose it. I also don't think Ron Lyle Goldman was there just to drop off the glasses. Ron Lyle Goldman was either a drug dealer or courier & it's a fact that Ron Lyle Goldman's friends were drug dealers. The restaurant Ron Goldman worked @ was financed by drug money & he may have supplied or even sold drugs to Nicole Brown Simpson. OJ Simpson had reportedly complained about Nicole consorting with drug dealers, because it was endangering the lives of his 2 kids who were living with her. What may have happened that night, is that Ron Lyle Goldman was there to take Nicole Brown Simpson to a drug party, when OJ Simpson saw this & told Ron to stop supplying drugs to Nicole. From this point the quarrel escalated where he lost it.

If he did it under these circumstances, then it's 2d degree Murder as a result of provocation by the victims. It doesn't excuse it, but it puts comprehension. Yes, it's speculation & OJ Simpson may be innocent, though there is circumstantial proof such as the DNA. Whether or not he did it, what will be said is that Ron Lyle Goldman was not the Golden Boy, as he has been depeicted. Ron Goldman was fired after he was caught allegedly selling drugs while he was a tennis coach. Ron Lyle Goldman had had financial problems & filed for bankruptcy, so it would explain why he would get involved with drug sellers.

Posted by: missionaryway | Jun 5, 2008 5:46:31 PM

I hope all of you are well & I hope that you've missed my long rantings. The main reason that I'm posting today is because among other things, I now believe that OJ Simpson is INNOCENT. I will explain why & who may have done it.

Detective William Dear has asked that the LAPD reopen the investigation. He says that the double murder may have been done by Jason Lamar Simpson, OJ Simpson's son. You can visit www.theoverlookedsuspect.com Whether or not Jason Lamar Simpson did it, he doesn't have an alibi during the double murder timeline & Det. William Dear asked the LAPD in 2007 to ? Jason Lamar Simpson. Is OJ Simpson taking the blame for what his son may have done? I think that the book If I did it was to shift the focus to him, rather than his son, who if convicted would either go to prison or spend the rest of his life in a mental asylum?

Jason Lamar Simpson has in the past been confined to a mental asylum for Intermittent Rage Syndrome, has had drug problems & past convictions for battery. In the past, OJ Simpson reportedly said that he was disappointed that he couldn't help his son. No, it doesn't prove Jason Lamar Simpson did it, but whether or not he did it, here are 2 possibilities that I now believe happened. Whoever did it, the fact remains that OJ Simpson is innocent.

1. On that night, Jason Lamar Simpson who was a chef @ the restaurant Jacson's was supposed to cook a special meal for his stepmom Nicole & his dad. OJ Simpson had to go to a business meeting & called his son to inform him that he wouldn't be able to go there. Nicole Brown Simpson on the other hand was rude & didn't call him. Instead Nicole Brown Simpson went to the Mezalluna & afterwards was going to go with Ron Lyle Goldman (who I have said was either a drug dealer or courier) to a drug party. Jason Lamar Simpson being insulted by the fact that Nicole didn't come left work to see what happened. Seeing Ron Lyle Goldman & knowing for reasons already stated that Ron Lyle Goldman was either a drug dealer or courier, had a heated quarrel with him where he lost it & a double murder happened. Nicole Brown Simpson was killed trying to stop it. After this happened, Jason Lamar Simpson calls OJ Simpson to tell him that he is in trouble. OJ Simpson comes there & seeing what has happened, asks his son to give him the bloody clothes & incriminating proof. OJ Simpson puts it in a duffel bag & disposes it. If this happened, then OJ Simpson did commit obstruction of justice, however, OJ Simpson is innocent of the murder.

2. Nicole Brown Simpson & Ron Lyle Goldman are killed by rival drug sellers. Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran did NOT say that OJ Simpson did it. He initially said that the murder could have happened in a matter of few minutes & that 1 weapon could've been used. But Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran also said that the murder could have been done by more than 1 killer & that more than 1 weapon could've been used. He also initially said that the initial coroner Dr. Irwin Golden made over 30 mistakes but that they were of minor detail, however later he said that the coroner did not do a good job. He said that Dr. Irwin Golden didn't test the food contents which would have established the time that Nicole Brown Simpson was killed. Dr. Henry Lee testified that there was something wrong with the proof. If this murder was committed by rival drug sellers, then Jason Lamar Simpson arrived after the double murder was committed. Panicked & seeing the horror of this, Jason Lamar Simpson called OJ Simpson. He comes & thinking that the cops will blame his son because of his son's past, OJ Simpson asks Jason Lamar Simpson for the bloody clothes, which he puts in a duffel bag & disposes.

OJ Simpson did cooperate with the police. He voluntarily submitted his hair & blood sample. He initially retained a lawyer to represent his son Jason Lamar Simpson. OJ Simpson must have thought that the cops would blame his son. It can be speculated that OJ Simpson may have told his mother & father in law, Juditha & Louis Brown what happened that night perhaps in a family conversation, because OJ Simpson continued to see both of them many years after the double murder. Perhaps Juditha & Louis Brown comprehend that Nicole Brown Simpson would not have wanted her stepson to go to prison & since they regard Jason Lamar Simpson as their grandson, they don't want him to go to prison, if indeed he did it. OJ Simpson lost a daughter in 1979 who drowned in a pool & he's not going to lose a son. Denise Brown won't comprehend. Fred & Kim Goldman won't comprehend. Yes, it's horrible for Ron Lyle Goldman to have been killed, but Ron Lyle Goldman took the risks when he got involved with drug sellers. If you're a drug seller or a courier, there's a risk that you're going to be killed by either rival drug sellers or people who aren't happy that you're consorting with their family.

This gets to 2 other points I had raised. With Matthew Shepard's killers, if Matthew Shepard had been straight, his death wouldn't have gotten the attention that it did. What if years from now, Matthew Shepard's killers come up for parole, should it be granted? That would depend. I do believe that Matthew Shepard's killers are sorry for what they did & I believe that they should have been offered plea bargains for 2d Degree Murder.

There was a somewhat similar case when I lived in Arizona from 1989-99. In 1993, there was a case of a convicted murderer named James Hamm who was accepted into ASU Law School In 1974, James Hamm killed a man during a drug related robbery. He was robbing a drug buyer for the money, instead of selling the drugs, James Hamm was going to rob the buyer of $2,000. After the robbery went bad, bullets were fired & the man was killed by James Hamm. James Hamm spent 18 years in prison. After he was released James Hamm was accepted into ASU Law School the following year & graduated in 1997. Now OK, perhaps James Hamm should have spent more time in prison. Yes, law abiding citizens must get priority over criminals when it comes to law school admissions. But the fact remains that James Hamm paid his debt to society & he has the talent to be a good lawyer. James Hamm should be allowed to become @least a criminal defense lawyer or a public defender. To be a criminal defense lawyer, shouldn't you have a criminal mind? Criminal defense lawyers are paid to help people accused of crimes whether they're innocent or guilty. I support the right of James Hamm to practice law, depending on what type of law he is practicing & if James Hamm wanted to be a public defender, then that is a perfect job for convicted criminals.

Posted by: missionaryway | Sep 23, 2008 11:16:02 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails