The Depths of One Man's Homophobia
Before I start, I would just like to say that the anti-gay industry's nastiness to Mary Cheney and her partner Heather Poe over the birth their son just goes to prove that these groups are solely interested in forcing us to acknowledge the lie that the only family unit that counts is the one they advocate. No one is immune to their mania.
Peter LaBarbera has made a name for himself by attending gay subcultural events and reporting on the alleged sexual activities he sees there.
Today he and his group, Americans for Truth (in name only) posted pictures from the International Mr. Leather convention.
The pictures are very interesting to say the least. But something else Peter said when he was describing the events caught my eye:
International Mr. Leather (IML) serves as an annual excuse for “leathermen” — mostly homosexual men but some “straight” SM couples — to engage in vile orgies that would make Sodom blush.
So where are the pictures of these "straight" couples? They aren't anywhere to be seen.
Peter tries to link International Mr. Leather to other gay events such as the Gay Games in an attempt to cast an image the "depraved homosexual" attempting to destroy American society but he seems to have listed the fact that heterosexual couples are as "depraved" as a mere afterthought.
And that is the best way to describe LaBarbera's prejudice.
He and others like him are always whining that they don't hate gay people and they are unfairly called homophobic for allegedly speaking the truth.
But what do you call denigrating gays for an interest in a sexual behavior (SM/bondage) while making light of the fact that heterosexuals are interested in the same sexual behavior.
Just where is the truth in that?
And for that matter, where are Peter's exposes on heterosexual events such as swinging conventions? Or how about SM and bondage clubs and conventions attended by heterosexuals.
Peter won't take up this challenge. No one in his group will.
And why?
Because they are homophobes. Pure and simple.
Misrepresentation: It's not just Janet Folgers' job
I joyfully give Janet Folger hell for misrepresenting current events in order to demonize the lgbt community.
But I am wrong if I inferred in any way that she is the only one in the anti-gay industry who engages in this type of behavior.
Case in point is a column today by Ed Vitagliano of the American Family Assocation.
It is the same nonsensical mantra about how the lgbt community is trying to keep Christians from speaking out against homosexuality.
Vitagliano engages in the standard anti-gay industry tactic in his column: distorting examples of incidents that allegedly prove his point. Many of his examples happen in foreign countries and therefore have nothing to do with the laws of this country. In one American example, he infers that the Repent America situation in Philadelphia was a case of Christians arrested merely for handing out pamphlets which call homosexuality a sin?
This is a lie that has been refuted time and time again. I cannot believe that it is accidental that Vitagliano, who has access to much information on the matter, continues to lie about this matter.
Another example he lists from this country is the following:
Regina Rederford and fellow city employee Robin Christy posted the announcement after a general e-mail to city employees publicizing the formation of a pro-homosexual employee association. But in a world where one view is promoted and another condemned, Rederford and Christy were told by city officials that the flyer announcing the forum was "homophobic speech" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment," even though homosexuality was never specifically mentioned.
As to be expected, Vitagliano omits several details. Here is the true story. You can link to the other site and read the entire article. I bolded points that I felt were important:
Promoting their Good News Employee Association, the flier urged people to "preserve our workplace with integrity" and said their association "is a forum for people of faith to express their views on contemporary issues of the day with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values."
Another CEDA worker who is a lesbian complained to supervisors that the flier made her feel targeted and excluded; supervisors reviewed the flier and removed it, encouraging Rederford and Christy to revise and repost it.
Rederford and Christy sued, claiming their rights were violated by an Oakland anti discrimination policy that promotes homosexuality and denounces Christian values. A federal judge dismissed the city as a defendant in March 2004, and in February 2005 granted summary judgment in favor of then-City Manager Robert Bobb and CEDA Deputy Executive Director Joyce Hicks. Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher on Thursday asked Lively whether his clients realize they have "a rather low level of protection" on potentially incendiary or discriminatory language in the workplace, and should "keep away from words that'll rile people up."
"But shouldn't that go both ways?" Lively replied, noting his clients hadn't complained about the National Coming Out Day e-mail.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta noted that e-mail had invited readers to "a rally against hatred and bigotry -- is that disparaging to your clients?"
Circuit Judge Richard Clifton said he believes "there are eggshells on both sides" of this argument, yet he doesn't see what the e-mail had done to vilify Rederford and Christy while it's not hard to see how their flier vilified gays and lesbians. "It's hard to avoid the inference, 'We lack ethics, we lack integrity because these people are here.'"
So was this a case of women getting into trouble for speaking out against homosexuality?
No. It was not the words but the context of the words that got these two women into trouble.
They had a right to form their group and put a flyer out. But in their choice of words, they attacked the company's gay and lesbian employees. They were told that they could revise the flyer but apparently chose not to.
These women should not be able to encourage a hostile work environment simply because of their Christian beliefs. Sorry, it's not fair.
But even more to the point, how Vitagliano listed this example proves yet again that members of the anti-gay industry will lie and misrepresent to get their agenda served.
I was wondering if Peter LaBarbera would make his annual trek to the International Leatherfest in Chicago. It sounds like he was having a good time taking pictures. I wonder what else he got up to?
ReplyDeleteGood evening Mr. McEwan!
ReplyDeleteI’ll keep this comment (really questions) short, which will hopefully lead you to allow them – as opposed to my previous three comments you strangely refused to post (btw, perhaps sir you could reveal to your readership why you have comment moderation on your blog and on what clear and precise basis do you determine which comments you choose to allow and which ones you choose to disallow).
Question One: How do you define “family,” and on what basis do you reach this definition (i.e., how do you justify it) within your worldview?
Question Two: How do you define “anti-gay,” and on what basis do you reach this definition (i.e., how do you justify it) within your worldview?
Thank you sir!
AJ
One correction AJ -
ReplyDeleteYou had two comments I refused to publish. And I made it fully known after the first refusal why I did not post your comment. But I will reiterate.
You went on a tangent that was a: too long and b: not dealing with the subject of this blog. This blog is not about religious discussions but rather the tactics of the anti-gay industry.
I will refuse comments that are either too long, deviates from the subject of this blog, or are what I see to be rude and nasty.
That is my basis for posting here, pure and simple.
Now to answer your questions:
1. family to me can be defined my blood or emotional support. My worldview comes from my life. I will not go into detail but I will say that I have received good support from my family. However, there are many whom I am not related to but consider to be family due to how they have loved and supported me through the years. Without them, I would not be here and to call them my family is the highest honor I can give them.
2. To me, being anti-gay is not necessarily having the belief that homosexuality is a sin. To me, being anti-gay having a mindset in which you are willing to lie, distort and misrepresent the lives of lgbts.
When someone calls lgbts raising children an "untested social experiment" despite the fact that many same sex families in the U.S. include children, that is being anti-gay.
When someone freely cites the work of Paul Cameron to demonize the lgbt community even though they know of his dubious history, that is being anti-gay.
And when someone, like Peter LaBarbera did today, try to demonize the lgbt community by focusing on one segment that is into bondage while ignoring the heterosexuals who are also into the same thing, that is being anti-gay.
Ed Vitagliano is a typical flaming hypocrite. Christian in name only and an unrepentant idolater. Types like him worship their own “ability” to define truth itself, and thus define and 'worship' themselves as gods.
ReplyDeleteI just ran across an article he wrote in ‘03:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/32003b.asp
"For example, in Matthew 19:1-12, when asked to address the subject of marriage and divorce, Jesus referred back to both Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, whereupon the Lord concluded, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate" (vs. 6)."
Essentially he's using the Biblical condemnations against divorce to argue against same-sex marriage, but NOT the legalized institution of adultery (remarriage), as he neglects to mention verse 9 of Matthew 19, which states:
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
I mention this because the usual argument to the adultery of remarriage passages are countered with the notion that one can be forgiven for having divorced and remarried, thereby dismissing the Matthew 19:6 passage above (in bold).
It would appear that Mr. Vitagliano is more interested in spreading hatred for homosexuals than he is in saving the eternal souls of heterosexual remarried adulterers.
Intentionally lying in order to do so just adds another dimension of moral depravity to the practice of his religion which he calls “Christianity.” People like him are a disgrace to Christianity and make Jesus look like a big steaming pile of excrement.
___
Jesus on Divorce:
http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jlc/stuff2.html
From the AFA Ed Vitagliano “One Flesh” article, continued from above (my link cut out but you can Google it)
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry, I had to come back. This is actually a good article. A thorough attempt at least:
____
-Love Is Not God
-Still, proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to give up...
-[Wolfhart] Pannenberg asked the question in a different way, "Can love ever be sinful?," and then answered with an unequivocal yes."
-“Love is understood not by our definition but by God's," said [Edward T.] Welch. "We do not autonomously decide what form love takes. God tells us how to love."
And finally:
-“Don Wildmon: "We must always remember that the Bible says that God is love. We must never replace that truth with the principle that 'love' is God."
_____
(Generalizing here)
That last line sounds insane. They contend that God is Love, but Love is not God, ensuring that Love is NOT the “God” of their lives. This is what I mean by idolatry.
Love’s only desire is unity - oneness. If God is Love then all love must come from God, in that it is SHARED with us. By defining Love/God as separate from themselves, they define the idea of sharing itself and all the practical implications of it as separate from themselves.
True Love, unconditional love, can ONLY be SHARED. The recognition of this is totally lost on Ed and the others in that article.
One has to believe in the principle of sharing itself before one can truly believe in (a God of) Love.
______
Anyway, this is what inspired me to come back and say all that.
U2 & Mary J. Blige - One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHnHY_xQVg
(it's worth the copy and paste ;)
And this is the thanks you get. (From Wayne's blog 6-4-07 Burroway rebuttal):
ReplyDelete"I would love to comment on this post and others...but unfortunately I have had awful experiences as of late. For instance, on the blog Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, operator Alvin McEwan has in my view used the comment moderation tool in an unreasonable, biased, seemingly arbitrary, contradictory, intellectually dishonest, and (I would argue) overall cowardly way.
Thanks!
posted by AJ"
____
Care to qualify that statement AJ? Because "in my view," that's slander (not to mention pure projection).
don't worry about it, emproph.
ReplyDeleteaj is someone whose comments I won't post because they are long winded and have nothing to do with the subject of this blog.