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


Desperate conservative times call for...fetish porn ads?!

by Jeremy Hooper

So what graphic is Peter LaBarbera using to highlight a new post wherein he expresses his resistance towards a gay-inclusive military? A fetish porn ad, natch:

Picture 1-185

Oh Pete. That's all we can even say on this one. Oh Pete.

So where does one even find this ad elsewhere on the Internet? Well after digging for about half an hour, the only place this writer could track it down is on a site called "Gay Pervs." Baically that site is nothing more than a links list to all kinds of porn sites:

Picture 2-166

And I wasn't able to pull it up through a Google Image search or something like that. One has to actually go to the link and "investigate" in order to bring up the banner graphic.

Anti-gay research. It sure takes one to interesting places!

Catholic Priest Describes Crisis Caused by ‘Same-Sex Celibacy’ [AFT]
**NSFW Link to the ad source: Gay Pervs

**UPDATE, 7.23: And now in a followup post, this is the image Pete has chosen to run:

Picture 3-132

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

Your thoughts

I have written Peter for over a year and half and I stop doing so about 3 months or so because I finally decided he's a lost cause and to be honest I'm slightly concern that he suffers from some form of mental illness.

Nonetheless I still go to his site every now and again mostly to affirm my choice to never ever become a Christian. I read his recent post with that banner and basically he saying (not that big of a surprise) homosexuals can't serve in the military because they'll want to have sex all the time.

This is funny since 36,000+ G&L military personal seem to have it under control.

Folks like Peter want to say they don't hate us just our sin - however I don't see any of them requesting military personal that’ve divorced or have had Heterosexual sex outside of a “one man and one woman” marriage to be banned from serving in the Armed Forced.

Even their idea of morally is one-sided.

Posted by: Alonzo | Jul 23, 2008 6:06:58 PM

Pete probably has that set as the home page in his browser!

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 23, 2008 6:27:21 PM

Of course you had to search Jeremy, Peter, on the other hand, just has to go to his favorites and link from there...

or his history folder.

Posted by: Loki | Jul 23, 2008 6:37:32 PM

I'd like to submit my resume for the G-A-Y photo hunting position.

Imagine all of the porn sites Pete had to go through in the name of Jesus. He could have just called me. Geez.

Posted by: Jake | Jul 23, 2008 7:05:26 PM


It's bad enough the pornographer distributes the shit which he himself films - now he's directing "christian" adults and children to gay porn websites, from his very own "family" website.

Is there a way to report AFTAH, and have them placed in the XXX domain?

Posted by: Scott | Jul 23, 2008 7:25:48 PM

Still cracking up @ "Gay Pervs" LMAO!!!

That, Peter LaBarbera IS. It's just that HE'S the only person on the planet who doesn't know it.

Posted by: Scott | Jul 23, 2008 7:35:25 PM

Lawd hammercy!

That is the only thing I can say about what Peter did.

Posted by: a. mcewen | Jul 23, 2008 7:48:05 PM

If you look, you can see where the "Click Here Now" was cloned out of Peter's banner.

Posted by: BentonQuest | Jul 23, 2008 7:50:07 PM

"Good Ass Gay Military Base"

"Horny uniformed policemen doing the dirty with one another caught on video"

"Hot ebony police officer gets sucked off by an oversexed black stud in these videos"

"Horny sailor boys kiss, undress each other and engage in slippery cock sucking and anal sex"

.....I can see why Peter frequents this website!!

BTW, what in the hell does "Pashful military men" mean?

Posted by: Scott | Jul 23, 2008 8:34:46 PM

Alonzo, regarding your emails to Peter for over a year and a half, did he reply?

My partner and I independently had email dialogs with Robert Knight for several months a few years ago. Like Peter, he was a lost cause. Their brains are petrified.

I would suspect, as well, that Peter suffers from some form of mental illness, although I certainly have no professional qualifications in that area. For one thing he is clearly delusional. He's obsessed with all things homo, and has an overwhelming compulsion to promote the persecution of gays on a daily basis. So, just putting it together, we have delusional/obsessive/compulsive. Seems like mental illness to me.

I can't imagine a mentally healthy person choosing a career that is exclusively devoted to persecuting gay people every day. Even most of the other renowned professional gay-bashers seem to think about other things now and then. Peter must have some deep internal issues that he needs to deal with.

And as an aside, I can't imagine how he supports his wife and five kids as a free-lance gay-basher.

Posted by: Richard Rush | Jul 23, 2008 10:15:46 PM

Lightbulb moment:

By running an anti-gay nonprofit, Teh Peter's porn site memberships are a tax write-off.

Posted by: Evan | Jul 23, 2008 10:47:44 PM

"Nonetheless I still go to his site every now and again mostly to affirm my choice to never ever become a Christian."

Yeah, I know idiots like Peter LaBarbera make Christianity a turn-off, but just take a look at Christians like myself, and you might reconsider. I don't believe in any of the crapola that LaBarbera, Matt Barber, or any of these Christ killing fascists do. Jesus didn't say a single word about homosexuality, so Christianity is an option for GLBT folks.

Posted by: Luke | Jul 23, 2008 11:35:49 PM

My family is no longer Catholic due to all the nun porn. Nuns cannot be trusted. They're also home schooled because it seems that a classroom sex scenario is inevitable, judging by its popularity in porn.

Posted by: | Jul 23, 2008 11:49:34 PM

BWAHAHAHA, Evan, I think you broke the code!!!!

Years ago, a friend of mine said he'd be happier and the world would be better off if he wrote gay porno. But he can't get tax-free income from it!

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Jul 24, 2008 12:20:14 AM

Luke - I don't know how you and others like you do it - but I would never be able to reconcile my sexuality with any of the abrahamic religions.

Posted by: Alonzo | Jul 24, 2008 12:20:51 PM

Richard - He pretty much always responded to me every time I've contact him and the funny thing is I've even got him to look at things from a different point of view however he would always say "it's off the record" which I believe he's done to Jeremy as well.

Posted by: Alonzo | Jul 24, 2008 12:28:42 PM

It's really easy to write off people as insane, but look a little closer and it's more worrying that they are sane, and they can still persecute people like this.

Look at Stacy Harp, she is well qualified, intelligent and very eloquent, but she, too, is stuck in the same mindset, having convinced herself that she is doing the right thing.

We cannot box people as having psychiatric problems in order to feel better, we have to attack the problem: the belief that being LBG (and T, but not what we're discussing here) is innately sinful and changeable, only then do we have a chance of fixing the hurt these people attempt to perpetuate.

Posted by: Corvidae | Jul 24, 2008 2:53:15 PM

"Look at Stacy Harp, she is well qualified, intelligent and very eloquent"

Are you sure you're talking about the SAME Stacy Harp?

The Stacy Harp I know is NOT well qualified (was found to NOT be a licensed therapist, as she claimed she was), intelligent OR eloquent.

The Stacy Harp I know is nastier than how she makes herself look on her own website for her "christian" audience, is conniving, is a pathological liar, plagiarizes Nazi propaganda, and a 5 year old could make better arguments than she does.

Forget whether or not she has mental issues which must be dealt with - this is all gathered from my own personal observations, from her "christian" online activities.

And please don't instruct anyone to "LOOK" at Stacy Harp. I'd much rather look at Medusa.

Posted by: Scott | Jul 24, 2008 4:10:43 PM

I may be wrong, I obviously haven't spent enough time...."enjoying" her doings.
Also she's not a real therapist? does she really have a degree in psychology?

Posted by: Corvidae | Jul 24, 2008 4:30:55 PM

Also Eloquence means good at speaking, ie. her way with words is okay, but just as poison is best served with sugar, that doesn't make her a good person. Intelligent - has a degree, (or not?)

But there's no denying her attacks on LBGT people.

Anyway my point was discrediting someones mental or any other capacity doesn't solve the problem, I've seen people with extreme views and wondered how they resolve them with their other views. (such as creationists who've studied science, preachers of love who hate gay people, pacifists who supported the war in Iraq)

Reread my post and replace it with someone you attribute a single attribute to.

Did I just defend SH? *Must clean oneself*

Posted by: Corvidae | Jul 24, 2008 4:38:02 PM

Corvidae, it's no biggie. Trust - there's still some fundies (including a couple lesser-known "ex-gays") of which I have yet to read about and catch up on. It's kinda hard to keep up with them all! LOL

A good example to catch up on Miss Harp is located right here at G-A-Y:


And here's where that story pretty much originated (from Kevin Kaatz, audio from Joe Brummer):


Posted by: Scott | Jul 24, 2008 8:27:32 PM

"Richard - He pretty much always responded to me every time I've contact him and the funny thing is I've even got him to look at things from a different point of view however he would always say "it's off the record" which I believe he's done to Jeremy as well."

Alonzo, thanks for your reply.

Your comment makes me think of one aspect concerning people such as Peter: They become so highly invested in their ideas that they may not be able to escape even if they want to. The investment involves their entire network of friends and "professional" associates - really their entire social support system, including their means of earning a living. If Peter had an epiphany and wanted to turn away from the gay persecution business, where would he go. He would be shunned by fellow right-wingers and would probably have difficulty finding a job. Outside of right-wing circles, who would hire him after perusing his legacy of gay-bashing diatribes. It's no surprise then that he would need to insist that a non-right-wing viewpoint be "off the record."

Posted by: Richard Rush | Jul 25, 2008 9:16:37 AM

Richard I think you have an excellent point but I'm not sure it's entirely true that he MUST remain at the extreme right of the spectrum.

He could decide to "see the light", repudiate his more ridiculous beliefs, and become a mainstream conservative of the "gays are fine, discrimination laws are fine and civil unions are fine, but I believe marriage shhould retain its traditional definition" ilk.

I'm sure he could get work in a more legitimate conservative arena, like NRO, since, from a purely professional standpoint, he has a lot of media experiance.

But like you and others have pointed out, he appears to mentally ill, which is probably a greater hurdle for him then career inertia.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Phil | Jul 25, 2008 1:47:30 PM

Good points, Phil.

Recently I think he has reached a fork in the road. He could either begin to soften his position or become even more strident. He seems to be currently showing more signs of the latter. There have been some Evangelicals recently (Rick Warren and Warren Throckmorton come to mind) who seem to have softened slightly on the gay issue, but Peter has written to express his dismay and say how misguided they are. And given the cracks that are showing among some evangelicals on the gay issue, it seems like Peter's response is to try harder, thus sounding more shrill and hysterical.

Posted by: Richard Rush | Jul 25, 2008 3:34:07 PM

The reason why others have softened on the gay issue is gays only make one claim endlessly-genetic inheritance. You try and have a civil and meaningful conversation with a gay and it's like talking to puppet. Gays do not want to admit the source of the unhappiness in their lives isn't because of "social intolerance" but rather poor choices and low self-esteem. Since that's to realistic and hard for gays they take the easy road instead. The world is tiring quickly of this issue as it affects less than 10% of all people yet it takes up millions of tax payer dollars for all the legal BS that keeps getting pushed through courts. Since the un-American ACLU got involved it has decided to waste even more tax payer dollars on amendments and public school programs that do not make a difference since intolerance is taught at home more than public school and forcing it on people is going to create a bigger backlash of hate since it has been forced in everyone's face. Gays need to shut the F**K up and go away and let other minorities have some of the resources that are being wasted on this cause. But since most Americans are fat and stupid and think Obama is a effective leader then of coarse all of this sounds illogical since making sense in America these days means making no logical sense at all. Gays get offended when you point out the obvious fact that unprotected sex leads to early death from STDs by 8 to 20 years. Pride celebrates with bareback porn company floats gliding down the street celebrating their disease spreading ways and yet you can't tell a gay person that because they will just say "How dare you accuse gays of that statistic!" Oh i forgot-barebacking is 100% safe now because internet sites tell you they are and bareback social sites are harmless and no one has ever gotten an STD from online partners so says the gay agenda circa 2008.

Posted by: rick young | Aug 5, 2008 2:52:49 AM

Geez, I see that Rick touched all of the anti-gay talking points and even worked in a little anti-Obama bit.

One News Now should be proud.

Posted by: a. mcewen | Aug 5, 2008 11:56:27 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails