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


Pete said/ We said

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images 200807171705-1-1Speaking to One News Now about the mainstream media's coverage of adoption by gay and lesbian couples, Peter LaBarbera says the following:

"What is incorrigible about this coverage from Associated Press is that it is totally absent of any critical coverage; I mean serious coverage examining the effects of homosexual 'parenting,' bringing in public policy data, even bringing in pro-family critics," argues LaBarbera.
"What I'm so tired of, and I'm sure many Americans are, as well, is this game of 'let's pretend.' Let's pretend that homosexual 'families' are like other families. Let's pretend that having a 'dad' and another 'dad' – and one is more effeminate, one's more like the mom – is something like a mother and a father," he chides. "And so, you have this ridiculous situation in which these professional adoption organizations are talking about crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Meanwhile, they're intentionally placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design," LaBarbera points out.

Picture 31-12This writer replies:

"You're tired? Then stop pretending and start accepting the reality: Same-gender couples can and do successfully raise children. This is a demonstrable fact, not a bit of conjectural pretense. If you are viewing the successful rearing of children by gay and lesbian people as a bit of make-believe, then your journey from reality to imagination is completely self-inflicted!

Those professionals who care about doing their jobs in the most logical and responsible way won't present gay-headed homes as intentionally motherless and fatherless, and will instead judge the qualifications and merits of the loving duo that
is in place. They also won't resort to crude stereotypes about the effeminacy or masculinity of the potential partners. And most importantly? They won't "cross their t's and dot their i's" by automatically crossing L's G's B's & T's off of the acceptability list!
What is incorrigible about most every bit of pushback on this matter is that it (a) works from the foregone conclusion that gay adoption is wrong, (b) is supported primarily by only the "pro-family" community's reliable stable of researchers, and (c) it is closed off to any growth potential. So it is not really that the mainstream media is "liberal" or "biased" that leads them to sometimes eschew the "pro-family" viewpoint -- it is that the "pro-family" viewpoint collapses under the way of actual reporting."

Homosexual adoption increases in California [ONN]

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

Your thoughts

Of course he's tired. Spreading the word of god's hate take a lot out of you.

Posted by: johnozed | Aug 19, 2008 1:43:20 PM

Did "Mr." LaBarbera actually use quotes around "parenting"? As if it is only theoretical when gay people raise children? So-called parents? He better be careful; he's sounding more and more like the AFA's gay-bot that substituted the word "homosexual" for the word "gay" wherever it appeared in the news. It seems that "his" quote usage propaganda campaign is "seriously," and I might add hilariously "out of control." He could save lots of keystrokes and just put the fear quotes around all of his comments; it's probably more accurate anyway.

Posted by: | Aug 19, 2008 2:37:36 PM

"Meanwhile, they're intentionally placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design"

How is that worse than leaving children in an environment where they are both motherless AND fatherless?

They behave as though straight people have this adoption thing all taken care of and gays came in to mess things up. That these poor kids are going to end up with a gay family instead of a straight family.

The sad fact is that NOT ENOUGH STRAIGHT PEOPLE ADOPT. Most everyone would rather give birth than adopt. While people may agree that it's better to take care of the kids we have before bringing new ones into the world -- most people don't want to raise someone else's kid. The adoption and fostercare system relies on folks who can't reproduce or folks with enough time, money, and resources to adopt kids on top of their natural offspring. The supply of kids is way higher than the demand.

So for many of these kids, it's a gay family or NO FAMILY AT ALL. The sad stats are that kids who start off in one institution (orphanage) end up in another institution (prison).
This is not about what's best for kids. Remaining in an orphanage is NOT best for kids. Leaving those kids who are adopted by gay couples in legal limbo due to organized bigotry is also NOT best for kids. Telling kids that despite how much they are loved, fed, taken care of, and supported their family is not a "r e a l" family is NOT best for kids either.
I think gay parents are probably, on the average, better parents than straight parents. We can't get liquored up one night and adopt. The hurdles involved tend to weed out people with mild interest, or superficial reasons for becoming parents.

Posted by: Jason D | Aug 19, 2008 3:41:52 PM

I wonder what it must be like to be Mr. LaBarbera's child (assuming he has one/some). You know, knowing your dad is out chasing the most titillating and perverted of gay sexual activities. Yes, the psychological study of the children of that household has got to be an interesting read.

Posted by: Jonathan | Aug 19, 2008 3:50:48 PM

Sometimes I read the garbage posted by the anti-gay proponents and wonder if they are just speaking to drum up more funds for their coffers.
There is NO scientific debate on the issue. The "against gay adoption" crowd has nothing to substantiate their angst.
Just because the anti-gay crowd "disagrees" doesn't mean it warrants coverage, especially when they have NOTHING but bad stereo-types to back up their prejudiced rhetoric.
(Did he really just say "one is more effeminate, one's more like the mom" ???)
Pete's words do more to reveal his true nature and the real source of his objection than they do portray any argument which could sway any outside neutral party.
It's singing to the choir, probably with the intent of demanding more money to fight against their favorite object of discrimination.
Nothing more...

Posted by: foundit66 | Aug 19, 2008 4:11:29 PM

Peter thinks he actually has something credible to offer. But people who value authentic knowledge just see him as a lunatic. He's just another nut who thinks he has the backing of a god to provide certainty to the rightness of his opinions and actions.

Judging by his recent writing, I think he senses that he is becoming increasingly isolated, even within some evangelical circles. It was easy for him to dismiss mainstream Christian denominations as they became more accepting of gays, but now that acceptance is starting to filter up among some evangelicals, it must be frightening for him.

He will either change, or perhaps end up as a sick wrinkly old fat bald guy drooling in a nursing home still mumbling about the homo threat, while some gay staff members are assigned to care for him. That would be justice.

Posted by: Richard Rush | Aug 19, 2008 4:27:14 PM

Jonathan, I understand he has five children. I just said to my partner last night that I wish I could spend some time observing the LaBarbera household. That whole family has to be twisted.

Posted by: Richard Rush | Aug 19, 2008 4:34:41 PM

jeremy that is a hot picture of you, i know you are taken lol.

Posted by: queerunity | Aug 19, 2008 7:08:00 PM

"Jonathan, I understand he has five children."

The next time Babs announces that he's going out of town to another leather-fest, we should all call CPS and tell them that their daddy is out-of-state, giggling and chasing after nude men with a camera.

Posted by: Scott | Aug 20, 2008 1:30:59 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails