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


'Protect children'...by publicly mocking and denouncing their families

by Jeremy Hooper

How do you react to a sweet picture of two mothers celebrating a long overdue victory with their six-year-old daughter? Well if you're Peter LaBarbera, you post something like this:

Picture 25-26
The young girl in this photo needs a father, and will be scarred by “gay marriage” [AFT]

And if these brute judgements against someone else's family were not enough, check out the title Pete gives to his clipping of the Des Moines Register photo:

Picture 26-19
Bre-Needs-A-Dad.jpg [AFT]

No Pete, what Bre needs is for you to butt out of her life. Let her at least turn 18 before you exploit her existence for your own political gain!

Or wait, Pete: Maybe we should go ahead and bring your wife and children into this here "culture war" mix. After all, it seems your newly enacted rules do not require one to have actually signed up for this gay rights fight in order to become fair game!

*Note: Interestingly Unscrupulously enough, this is the very same family whose happiness was called into question by Focus on the Family back in February of this year.

*Note2: We of course would never bring Pete's family into any of this. In fact, even though we may despise their gay rights views, we never call any of our opposition's home and family lives into question. And that, my friends, is but one of many differences between our two movements.

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

Your thoughts

And then LaBarbera references a column by Robert Knight which looks at a book which has a problem with credibility - "No Basis: What the studies Don’t tell us about same-sex parenting"

What Knight doesn't tell us is that this book was not peer reviewed, the authors Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai does paid work by conservative groups to debunk things like gay parenting, affirmative action, etc., and the authors say nothing about gay parenting because they only attack studies that look positively about gay parenting.

Posted by: a. mcewen | Apr 7, 2009 8:23:05 PM

How insulting. I cannot imagine a situation in which any family wouldn't be extremely pissed off at Peter for doing that. But then, I guess gays aren't human, so their dignity doesn't matter.

I'm a non-violent person, but if I ever meet Peter LaBarbera in person, I want to punch him right in his hateful, fascistic face.

Posted by: Baldran | Apr 7, 2009 9:19:35 PM

Hey now, violence is never the answer, no matter how deserving it may seem/be. We all know that.

At this point, Pete's not even fazing me anymore... And I've only known about his existence for about a year now. It's like there's no low too low enough for this guy.

Posted by: Clicky the Fox | Apr 7, 2009 9:47:09 PM

I guess according to Pete, even though my Aunt and Uncle have all of the right equipment to produce children and they did not, their marriage is also not "equal" to the real thing.

I am always disturbed that Pete and all the rest of his kind just assume there will be a disaster in this child or any other child's life. Having an abusive father could also produce a disaster in a child's life.

Posted by: Bob Miller | Apr 7, 2009 10:31:27 PM

I've added the peter to my list of graves to dance on. If I ever meet that closet leather queen, he will get a swift kick to the balls.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Apr 7, 2009 10:37:30 PM

I read a lot of different viewpoints on gay issues, including those of many anti-gay activists. But honestly there are very few that match the vindictiveness, the malice, and the sadism of LaBarbera. I think it is good that GAY focuses on him regularly.

This post is a new low, even for him. Absolutely lacking in humility or thoughtful reflection. Completely focused on degrading and insulting his targets. Even assuming for argument's sake that he is right that it is not a good thing for this girl to be raised by 2 women, how could anyone but a sadistic thug think that it is helpful to repost this young girl's photograph in connection with an absolute prediction of psychological and spiritual "scarring"? How could that post do anything other than harm her?

Indeed, when you read his posts, you wonder what he is accomplishing. The posts are so laden with polemics and name-calling that it can't possibly persuade any gay to reconsider his "lifestyle". Similarly, it won't reach anyone on the fence. A pointless exercise in bashing, very comparable to the WBC's picketing, which also accomplishes nothing.

Posted by: Michael | Apr 8, 2009 2:25:06 AM

umm. . . question how can lies be true

Posted by: Rio | Apr 8, 2009 2:32:31 AM

"Two woman cannot produce a child--disproving the nonsensical claim that homosexual 'marriage' is 'equal' to the real thing."

...My heterosexual parents could not produce a child; my mother is an extraordinarily brave cancer survivor: radiation therapy killed all my mom's eggs when she was sixteen. Maybe their marriage isn't equal to the 'real thing' either?

By his definition, only couples physiologically capable of reproduction are worthy of marriage. What happened to that Washington state amendment to annul the marriages of all non-procreative couples within a certain amount of time? He might want to endorse that, too. I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd rather have loving parents, of any sexual orientation, who adopted me than to have been raised by my teenage biological mother who would have been on welfare for the majority of my formative years if she had kept me, not to mention mentally/emotionally unprepared to raise a child. My adoptive parents are Mom and Dad. My birth mother is a stranger. I'm in a prestigious PhD program, with hopes of getting a position leading to tenure track within the next few years: would I be where I am today if my parents were denied parental rights because they couldn't reproduce "naturally"? No. Obviously, LaBarbera knows nothing about real families in the real world.

Posted by: RaeAn | Apr 8, 2009 3:32:48 AM

Also, for his information, two women can produce a girl, science has a method, it's just not been tried on higher mammals yet, it works for mice though.

Secondly, the little girl, if anything, seems happy - she probably enjoying being around happy people, and doesn't truly understand the fight.

Also Jesus was a deviant, he moved away from social norms, by accepting prostitutes and other people not accepted at the time. Learn from your saviour.

Posted by: corvidae | Apr 8, 2009 3:52:35 AM

Yeah, violence is never the answer; and though unfortunately we take the high road on this one, it would FEEL extremely good.

If Peter is lurking and reading this:


Yes, Dad's are great. Cool boots. Father's aren't always so hot though. The former is a good guy who teaches you cool stuff, takes you fishing, to a ball game, or even swallows his angst and supports a son who'd rather be a cheerleader than a linebacker. That's a dad.

The latter paternal figure is just a dude who humped your mom 9 months before your first breath. There aren't many "World's Coolest Dad" tee-shirts in his future.

I was raised by a single mom and rarely saw my 'father'. His being married at the time made spending time with his other kid a little problematic. All my friends were in single female households as well. I don't know how that worked out to be so, Peter, but it did. Funny thing about that though, I'm the only only who turned out gay -- just in case your were gonna bring up the absentee father excuse for gayness (which ranks 2nd on my annoyance meter, after molestation).

What a child needs most is love, whether its from a mom & dad, 2 moms or 2 dads or a single dad or like in my case a single mom -- if LOVE if foremost, that's all that really matters.

Posted by: Taylor Siluwé | Apr 8, 2009 8:14:47 AM

Also one last thing, in this article it appears you can buy the photo - they're even profiting!

Posted by: corvidae | Apr 8, 2009 12:22:08 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails