« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
10/07/2009
'Gays are loud,' says man who appears in every conservative outlet being loud about his anti-gayness
Peter LaBarbera has made a number of claims about us over his many years of professional homo-hostility. It seems that turning us into a petulant child-like monolith is his latest tactic:
"The problem with having the homosexual lobby as an ally is that they're very loud and obnoxious -- and if they don't get their way immediately, they start carping and complaining," says LaBarbera.
"That's what they've been doing -- they're saying Obama is not moving fast enough," he continues. "But the further and faster Obama moves on the gay agenda, the more he will alienate mainstream and middle-of-the-road Americans."
Obama's HRC appearance will 'alienate' Americans [ONN]
Okay, so let's think about this for a second. Peter's sole job -- HIS SOLE JOB! -- is to spend his days denying the gay community of rights, benefits, protections, civil liberties, and peaceful existences in general, making our community's every push for basic civil fairness seem like an unsavory bullet point on some sort of "homosexual agenda™." Yet we're the ones who are supposedly obnoxious for standing up for our lives and loves?! Uhm, based on what book of decorum, The Emily Post Guide to Redressing The Stakes So That You Can Mask Your Own Unpleasant Career Behind A Veil Of False Values?
No, No, P-Dog: You have this all wrong. The truth is that the more President Obama moves away from the anti-gay agenda, the more he will alienate the out-of-step, far-right "culture war" mentality that has kept America from achieving its greatness for far too long already. We get why that would bother you, as such is your bread and butter. But don't act like you're the quiet little dormouse in this story, whose sitting around watching the big, bad, unruly gays take away your freedoms. As your buddies at the Christian Civic League of Maine recently said, if America were to follow your teachings, "not only would same sex marriage come to a quick end, sodomy would again be a crime throughout the U.S." When faced with a threat like that, Mr. LaBabs, we who'd rather spend a life in a loving relationship rather than a jail cell have no choice but to raise our voice!
Your thoughts
So, one has to wonder what LaBarBear's motivation is (aside from the obvious paycheck) for writing a something like this. If he is trying to "help" Obama and his electoral college math (which seems unnecessary), then does that mean that Peter might vote for him in 2012? Is he offering him a suggestion for getting more evangelicals to vote for him in 2012? I really doubt it.
Then there's the 2010 mid-term, where Porny Pete might be suggesting that Obama should throw the LGBTs under the bus, in hopes of getting 6.5 million more "middle of the road??" voters to replace us pesky antagonizers. To replace us so that the Dems can keep control of the congress. Even Pete's delusional (syphilis riddled?? you might want to get that checked Pete) mind can't possibly believe that anyone with any intelligence would ever buy that load of crap.
Maybe Peter is hoping to instill some buyer's remorse in the POTUS by saying, "Well, those 6.5 million votes did get you into some plush new digs, but now that they are demanding that you do what you promised, they're really are starting to clash with the carpet." But, I just can't see LaBarb actually caring about Obama's "new car smell" aesthetic.
But, when you take his comments in context, and factor in to the equation the venue, it becomes pretty clear that what LaBarbarian is doing is trying to convince a group of hardened (petrified??), unyielding, partisan, polarized, hardline, radically right-bent social-cons that they (THEY) are "middle of the road" voters. Or, at least, that middle-of-the-road voters identify with them.
But.. Why? Why would it matter if a hatemonger considered herself to be an extremist? Why would it matter if the son of a hatemonger considered his parent to be a radical Christianista? Why would the social-con's self-identification as a fanatical jihadist be detrimental to the jihad? Maybe things like the Tiller murder, and the assault rifle bearing extremists showing up to Obama venues, and the incendiary over-the-top rantings of Faux News personalities has some of the jihadis second guessing their affiliations/allegiances. They may simply be attempting to raise the bar high enough so that anything "radical" is accepted as "middle of the road." Is this a "feel good" piece, meant to assuage the doubts popping into the minds of those in the hatemongering hordes that maybe they have become too militant??
Or, maybe I am clueless, and am giving them more credit than they deserve, and they are, in fact, just the buffoons that they appear to be??
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 7, 2009 3:19:24 PM
"...if they don't get their way immediately, they start carping and complaining."
Right. 'Cause, you know, those uppity gay folk who stand against injustice that's been going on for centuries are just so darn impatient!
Posted by: Rachel Snyder | Oct 7, 2009 7:53:31 PM
comments powered by Disqus
