On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.
Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:
The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community.
By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.
Don't be fooled.
You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.
Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:
From: Peter L.
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am
Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.
but you miss the point, peter.
Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.
The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.
Look around you. It's crumbling now.
In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.
You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.
Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.
You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.
And the list of deceptions goes on and on.
Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.
I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.
Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?
In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.
From: Peter L.
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am
This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?
Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:08 AM
But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.
How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.
And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.
I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.
What are you trusting in?
I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you
It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.
And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?
Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?
You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.
This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"
You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?
Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.
Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.
In other words, he fits in perfectly with the anti-gay industry.