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


Well since you did ask, Pete...

by Jeremy Hooper

Peter-yes-on-1In a new, rambly attack in which he chastises New York Times columnist David Brooks for committing the GOP "sin" of not being conservative enough for the religious right's liking (as they have defined conservativism in America), Peter LaBarbera has raised the same, odd question that we've seen him bring up from time to time:

Besides, even in their gut most people recognize that there’s something deeply wrong with homosexual acts: why else would we cringe at the thought inspired by this question: How do two men consummate their “same-sex marriage”?

Palin Basher and Pro-Homosexual-’Marriage’ New York Times Columnist David Brooks Is a ‘Joke’ as a Conservative[AFTAH]

Whenever Pete asks this bizarre question, which seems like the last thing an anti-gay, heterosexual, evangelical would ever raise, we genuinely never know if he's being rhetorical or if he actually wants an answer. So that being the case, we will repeat our stock response:

Anally and orally, with some hands likely involved as well. Oh, and it'll 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!

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

Your thoughts

Notice he doesn't ask how two WOMEN would.
Because even HE knows that straight men don't go "yuck" at the thought of that.

Posted by: Bill S | Nov 20, 2009 8:16:51 AM

Good point, Bill.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 20, 2009 8:19:56 AM

The obsession that the far right has with sex acts is truly weird. Where else do you hear people talk do freely about incest, bestiality, polygamy, necrophilia? The only time I read about these things is when the right when is homosexuality to these things.

Posted by: Ken Harvey | Nov 20, 2009 8:35:20 AM

LaBarbera has earned another heartfelt tribute:

Porno Pete flogs the gays with Godly hate,
To assure he’ll pass through heaven’s gate.
But there’s all that gay porn,
And I’m sure God will scorn,
If he’s using it just to masturbate.

Posted by: Richard Rush | Nov 20, 2009 8:45:16 AM

Broccoli makes me say "yuck!", but I don't call for it to be outlawed.

Posted by: Dan T. | Nov 20, 2009 8:53:04 AM

I fuck other men.
But who's the obsessed one here?
Peter Labarbera.

Posted by: HaikuMonster | Nov 20, 2009 11:59:18 AM

But then we have Antonin Scalia... who states the rights of the Fourteenth Amendment apply only to 'freed slaves.' ....

and his evaluation of the Ninth which states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

S: T]he Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them...


.S:..and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be

and Pam add's her favorite Scalism
(My favorite quote from Scalia: "Did any provision in the Constitution guarantee a right to homosexual sodomy?" Gee, Tony, was there a provision for heterosexual sodomy? Want a cookie for that? - promoted by Pam Spaulding)

Posted by: LOrion | Nov 20, 2009 12:17:18 PM

Great point, Bill! Didn't even think of that.

I don't understand though, does Petey honestly, truly believe that I'd say 99.9 percent of all heteros don't engage in "sinful" acts like anal and oral?

Give, me, a, break.

Posted by: Stef | Nov 20, 2009 1:02:53 PM

Jeremy, your wedding video, and your tears because of the fullness of your heart is how you consummated your marriage.
That's all anyone has to know.

But since you and Andrew are two healthy, red blooded, fine young thangs...

You. Better. Work.

:0 P

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Nov 20, 2009 1:13:14 PM

I second what Regan DuCasse posted.

As for Petey-poo, I'm certain he is having the time of his life. ANALyzing the ins and outs of gay sex, brushing up on the terminology and slang, getting the best angle for photos of gay, sexual events... ...he can't get enough of it. He says homosexual acts are unhealthy. They don't even compare to the unhealthiness of his obsession.

Posted by: KZ | Nov 20, 2009 10:06:10 PM

Porny Pete's past includes being beaten out of a job as a gay porn videographer by someone who actually has a talent for it. That could explain a lot!

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 22, 2009 4:36:02 PM

"Porny Pete's past PROBABLY includes.."

Is what I was trying to say. Unlike the lying liars, I don't want to insinuate that I "know" something to be "true", when I only "hope/want" it to be...

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 22, 2009 4:38:30 PM

And, one more thing... I know that I've said it before, but it may be good to repeat it: the concept of "consummation" of a marriage is only applicable to annulment of the marriage. In other words, the only legal rational for even having the concept of "consummation" is as a justification for annulment.

For an annulment, one can allege that the marriage was not "consummated" and is therefore null (meaning that it "technically" never happened). But for an annulment to be valid, there must be an "innocent" (and therefore also a "guilty") party responsible for that lack of consummation. And, only the "innocent" party can petition for the annulment. Because a "procreative consummation" cannot occur in a same-sex relationship, there can never be either "innocent" or "guilty" parties with regard to consummation. So, legally, "consummation" cannot be used as grounds for annulling a same-sex marriage. There are a lot of other grounds that could be used for annulling a same-sex marriage, just not consummation.

So, a very good response to the lying liar, porno videographer wannabes who throw out this red herring is to say, "Since neither party to our marriages could petition for annulment based on lack of consummation, should we ever desire to dissolve the marriage, we can always do like Matt Barber did, and just divorce the bitch!"

Additionally, there are millions of marriages today that were entered into even though procreation was never an option... so technically, even though they may be fucking like rabbits, technically, they are not procreative, and therefore are not "consummated". If consummation of the marriage were a "legal" requirement, as the uninformed lying liar seems to be suggesting, that would mean none of those "sterile unions" are valid marriages! So, not only is PP ignorant of the law, but he also completely obliterates whatever point he was attempting to make, by simply attempting to make it. Inherent in his "theory" is the complete and utter refutation of the "theory".

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 22, 2009 5:26:17 PM

Peter LaBarbera is 47 and he is waisting his life in the calcher war

and Jeremy no worries 30 that is like 20 in gay years

Posted by: Roxes /rio | Nov 26, 2009 12:29:07 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails