RECENT  POSTS:  » Jonah Goldberg can't see the hornets' nest for its hornets » Video: Male on mail » Jodie Foster in 2013: 'I am'; Jodie Foster in 2014: 'I do' » AFA promotes its new app in only way it knows how » Robert Oscar Lopez says I perform 'psychological operations routine' on him when I quote his own words from his own web site » Matt Barber's ever-classy site suggests gay people are literally crushing fellow humans » Bryan Fischer is on to our comic book villain–in-chief » Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Al Mohler 'can't give' us acceptance; good thing we're not asking » NOM fails to trip up Oregon marriage case » Audio: Tony Perkins equates opposing equality with opposing Nazis  

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

05/15/2008

Geez, do you want a play-by-play Peter? Or maybe we should make you a tape?

by Jeremy Hooper

In a email message to supporters, Peter LaBarbera is using a fear of the homo-sex to scare folks about today's amazing, fantastic, historic, world-changing California marriage ruling. He poses the following question:

Picture 6-131

Our direct answer: Anally and orally, with some hands likely involved as well. Oh, and it'll surely be done frequently, Literally, like every chance we get. Breakfast -- sex. Lunch -- sex. Walk on the beach -- sex (perhaps on the beach). Dinner -- sex. Can't sleep at night -- sex. Wake up -- sex (but only after requisite teeth brushing. On top, on bottom, on side. On pieces of furniture that had previously seemed like impossible places to make love. SEX. Hot, steamy, sweaty, bangfest. Just like most hetero couples on their own honeymoons.

Now Pete, if you will please cut out this smutty talk about people's marriage beds, that would be great. Sheesh, dude -- there might be children reading!

*NOTE: Pete has now turned the email into a post (complete with sexy man-man kiss): How Will California Homosexual Couples Consummate their Counterfeit ‘Marriages’? [AFT]

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


Your thoughts

I wonder if Peter is aware of how using words like "newfangled" paint a mental picture that is not very flattering.

I mean, that is....does anyone else picture a hillbilly sitting on his porch with a shotgun, a jug of moonshine, complaining about all those "newfangled "sell-u-larr phones?"

Far be it from me to stereotype of course....shuck-a-muck!

Posted by: zortnac | May 15, 2008 4:37:12 PM

How? The same way heterosexual couples. Jeez.

Posted by: IanC | May 15, 2008 4:43:10 PM

OMG, OMG, OMG (I had to use your great opening to the report on the decision, Jeremy) - I love you guy - that response to Peter was inspired - I laughed out loud AND it made my day!

Posted by: Tom | May 15, 2008 4:44:03 PM

Well, I guess Peter has to get people back to seeing gay men and women as perverts which he attempts by making his readers think about gay sex which to them is "icky" Whatever, I try not to think about straight couples having sex which I consider "icky". Whatever, I am too happy as a resident of California to dwell on what Peter is doing...

Posted by: Todd | May 15, 2008 4:46:29 PM

Thanks, Tom. My momma always told me that when you're asked a straightforward question, you should give a straightforward answer.

Posted by: G-A-Y | May 15, 2008 4:46:43 PM

Oh, come on Pete! You could probably give classes on how it's done!

Posted by: Dick Mills | May 15, 2008 4:47:44 PM

You know what's funny? The pic of Noah and Luke that he uses on his post is from this site. I know because of the film strip bars on the side -- I put them on. It's from this post:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/05/why-must-don-wi.html

Posted by: Good As You | May 15, 2008 4:51:29 PM

You want to feel proud to live in our wonderful country? Read the ruling. I'm getting the chills.

Posted by: Andrew Williams | May 15, 2008 5:07:16 PM

That he is using images from your site is probably sufficiently compelling to get him a “creative class fags” nod from Phelps!

Posted by: Dick Mills | May 15, 2008 5:15:34 PM

Tonite I'll be a HAPPY drunk.

Posted by: Franc | May 15, 2008 5:45:12 PM

Does it even matter how they consummate their marriages? What about someone who's paralyzed... how do they consummate their marriage? It isn't even an issue for him, I'm sure. All I can think to say in a reply is 'grow up'. If only it were that simple.

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 5:50:43 PM

Consummation is not the point of civil marriage, and if it were, there would be some legal requirement of proof that the couple 'did it'. And what if one of the couple has non-functioning genitals? Would there be alternative ways of consummating? Could you a tongue waiver? As usual, Peter leads his readers on a tour of Inane Blvd.

Posted by: larry | May 15, 2008 6:32:38 PM

It's becoming an almost daily routine where we are subjected to a fart from Peter the Great Asshole, and then we have to deal with the stench.

Posted by: Richard Rush | May 15, 2008 7:52:15 PM

All of the above...were good. Then I got to Richard!... OMG JH you ought to use that as your header line for The Peter from now on!

Congrats to all (of us) in California!

PS. I know you really want to believe in how cerebral it is, but male sexual function is a lower level reflex, eg men who have spinal cord damage above about L3 I think can respond fully to physical stimulation. It is onlly stimulation by the other 4 senses and imagery that is blocked. (Wonder if Peter wonders about that too.)

Posted by: LOrion | May 15, 2008 8:15:31 PM

Contrary to larry's comment, consumation is a standard requirement for a civil marriage if it is to be one that cannot be annuled by either party at any time.

You are all missing an important point here. Jeremy wants "marriage equality." By this he means no distinction is to be drawn between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

But a heterosexual couple cannot consumate their marriage through oral or anal sex. It can only be consumated by engaging in the reproductive act. Should this standard by changed, thereby changing heterosexual marriage? Or should a differrence between the two types of "marriage" be permitted? If the latter route is chosen, why do both institutions have to be considered "marriages" and treated identically in all other respects?

Posted by: David | May 15, 2008 10:52:54 PM

I upset a 'phobe today who asked a similar question, only saying "two men or two women."

My response: "In my experience, daily/nightly/oh-so-rightly!"

She thought that was crude and disgusting. Boo-hoo. The losers' walk continues!

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | May 16, 2008 10:11:32 AM

David, The CA Supreme Court doesn't seem to have a problem with determining that same-sex marriages can be consummated by some definition other that a procreative sexual act (for that matter the US Supreme Court doesn't even require that for opposite-sex marriages). So, I will defer to their judgement on the subject.

Posted by: Dick Mills | May 16, 2008 3:07:40 PM

I enjoy the parenthetical "say, two men" comment within LaBabera's question.

It's almost an outright admission that thinking about two women will only succeed in ... dare I say it? ... dare I think it? ... arousing (eesh!) his followers.

Shudder.

Posted by: That's Crude, Peter | May 17, 2008 5:17:58 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails