Peter LaBarbera is mad at me

I think our friend Peter LaBarbera is mad at me.

From time to time, I email Peter when I feel that his anti-gay postings are stepping a little too over the line of truth.

Today, I simply had to email him about something he put on his Americans for Truth webpage:

American Psychological Association Backtracks on ‘Gay Gene’ Claim

Peter is referring to a ridiculous article published by that lovely to-the-right of Atilla the Hun publication World Net Daily. The article claimed that the APA is now saying that there is no "gay gene."

Jeremy from Goodasyou destroyed this nonsensical piece of work before it even got off the ground:

. . . essentially WND is enabling NARTH and other "ex-gays," suggesting that a non-new, non-change from an organization that still very much stands against their work is somehow a "sudden" shift in policy. Once again, their side is using complexity to their advantage, simplistically and duplicitously presenting the scientific community's inability thus far to find one certain gene as "proof" that their own scientifically-shunned work has merit.

It's a good smackdown which I suggest you read (after you finish reading this post, naturally).

Jeremy's piece came out before Peter's post so rather than go into a long expository as to why he was misreprenting the APA's work, I sent LaBarbera this email:

Peter,

the more you misrepresent, the more you shame the body of Christ.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/05/but-what-about-grasping-at-straws-wnd----is-that-genetic-or-a-choice.html#more

And you wonder why Bill O'Reilly won't have you on his show any longer.

Imagine my surprise when I received a reply in less than five minutes:

You think you were born homosexual, Alvin? What about developmental factors in your life? Did you have a healthy relationship with your father? Would you say you had a “normal” or stable upbringing? I’m curious. As for the Body of Christ, it’s odd to get lectured in such a way (“you shame the Body of Christ”) from someone who is not a part of it. I know that’s God’s ultimate call to make, but if you claim to be a faithful Christian AND a pro-homosexuality activist, that makes about as much sense as being a “faithful Christian and a swinger activist,” or a … pro-adultery Christian. In other words, it’s a lie and your fooling yourself if you claim to be a follower of Christ. However, you can become a Christian, but you would need to humble yourself and repent of your homosexual behavior and advocacy. I hope and will pray that you do that. Your feelings don’t decide Truth; God does.

PS. Get your facts straight: I was never on O’Reilly’s TV show. --pl

Now long time readers of this blog know that my father was a prison guard who was murdered in 2000 during an inmate escape attempt. Subsequently, the prison was named after him - the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center.

I am not saying that Peter knew this when he asked the question about my father - although I know for a fact that he has, from time to time, read my blog.

Nonetheless, I found it surprising as well as funny as to how vicious he tried to be in his email.

I think it was the O'Reilly thing.

Peter has a problem with the O'Reilly Factor inviting gay activist Wayne Besen on the show on several occasions while he hasn't been invited even once.

LaBarbera has taken out his anger against Besen with several "hit pieces" on his webpage like the pieces here and here.

So maybe my mentioning of the O'Reilly Factor was the equivalent of the magic mirror reminding the Wicked Queen that Snow White was much better looking than she.

Who knows.

Anyway, I did answer his silly email:

I seem to have struck a nerve.

Kinda rude don't you think to inquire about my family life in such an ugly way.

By the way, I am a person of faith. And it isn't really up to you to decide whether or not I am of the Body of Christ. That is unless you can point out a verse which says that you sit on the right hand of God.

Let me guess - you do have a Bible which says those words. And it's next to the verse which says it's okay to lie in God's name.

That would explain why you do it often.

But seriously, before you can even talk to me about repenting, maybe you need to acknowledge all of the lies you have told against the lgbt community, all of the times you have referred to bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron), and all of the times you have misrepresented credible work - such as the American Psychological Association's pamphlet which seems to have started this brouhaha.

Thou shalt not bear false witness, Peter.

God made me gay and I am blessed for it. But I have never had to lie to defend this notion. You believe that homosexuality is a sin and you have lied as well as distorted to prove this notion.

How about you gain some integrity before you feel the need to lecture me.

But I guess I do stand corrected about the O'Reilly thing. Not that it matters any.

I really didn't see the need to get angry at LaBarbera. After all, I had fun messing with his head.

Sometimes it's so easy that I'm almost ashamed of myself.

Wednesday midday newsbriefs

N.Y. Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill - They can have Prejean. We'll take New York.

But what about grasping at straws, WND - Speaking of chicanery, the Family Research Council has nothing on World Net Daily.

The 'best of' batsh*t anti-marriage equality talking heads - Look at this one if and only if you have a strong stomach.

IFI Corrects Paraphilias Claim - Box Turtle Bulletin gets the Illinois Family Institute to admit its error. One down and a %!(load of religious right groups to go.

City council OKs domestic partner certificates - Moving right along.

Family Research Council = oblivious

In a recent post of the Family Research Council's blog is the following:

Two Parents = Happy Children

The headline is extremely deceptive. This is what the post says:

In the latest Mapping America, the General Social Survey shows that adults who lived with both biological parents as adolescents are more likely to be very happy than those who did not.

So the truth is that the study says children living with their biological parents are most likely to be happy, not necessarily two parents in general.

This is important because when organizations like FRC speak against gay adoption they use talking points like "studies show that children do better in a home with a mother and father."

How much do you want a bet that this "study" will be used against gay adoption even though it has absolutely nothing to do with children in foster care?

And it gets better. The Mapping America study was done by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. & Althea Nagai, Ph.D.

I've talked about Althea Nagai before and how she and her husband "conducts" studies for right wing groups, including an interesting one on race. The Mapping America webpage says that she is a visiting fellow at the Family Research Council

Fagan, according to the Mapping America webpage is senior fellow and director of the Center for Family and Religion at Family Research Council.

Both facts are conveniently absent from the FRC blog posting.

My guess is that when and if FRC tries to manipulate this study, that lovely fact about the authors' lack of objectivity will continue to be conveniently not mentioned.