'Porno' Peter LaBarbera called ME an 'extremist'

 Earlier this month, noted homophobe Peter LaBarbera had some awful things to say about me.

He was talking to Linda Harvey (another homophobic individual who just recently blamed the lgbt community for the mortgage crisis) about his recent pathetic attempt to smear GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) days before its annual Day of Silence event via a fake controversy involving pictures on a facebook page not even associated with GLSEN:

. . . homosexual bloggers led by Alvin McEwen – an AFTAH-hating extremist with a penchant for twisting facts – began speculating that Americans For Truth might have placed the photos on GLSEN’s Facebook page as a “homophobic smear” to “frame” this homosexual activist organization! Just one more lie from a movement built upon lies…

While Peter's attack on my character is amusing, I believe in never letting an opportunity to rag on the religious right go by without taking full advantage.

To whit, it is true that I do not like AFTAH (Americans for Truth About Homosexuality). And that's because it is a hate group.

AFTAH is not a pro-family group. It is not a morality group. It certainly is not a Christian group.

AFTAH is an officially declared hate group.

AFTAH disseminates propaganda and vicious lies about the lgbt community. It is a hate group forged from  the mind of a man (LaBarbera) whose body may be in the present, but mind is stuck in some lurid fantasy world where gay men are leather encased sexual boogeymen, lesbians are baba yaga-type monsters, transgenders are "confused" self mutilators, and same-sex families are entities with lobotomized children trained to believe that they are not being harmed.

And all of these groups assemble together at least once a day in a secret underground chamber where their leader - a bald white man with a scar wearing a neat white Nehri jacket- barks out orders of world domination while lovingly stroking his pet Persian cat.

Any person with a shred of decent common sense would despise AFTAH.


Now as to my "penchant for stretching the truth," I stand by everything I have said about the religious right and especially LaBarbera. And since he called me out, I am going to take the opportunity to repeat my 10 reasons why AFTAH is a hate group. Feel free to refute if you can, Peter:

1. Smearing gays via a CDC report on an increase on HIV while intentionally downplaying the part of the report which clearly places the blame on this increase on homophobia (while at the same time implying that the report "dispels the homophobia causes AIDS propaganda")

2.  Defending a bill which would lead to the imprisonment and possible genocide of Ugandans simply for being gay or lesbian.

.3. Going to subcultural leather events and using the "racy" behavior of gays attending to stigmatizing the entire lgbt community while ignoring the behavior of heterosexuals at the same events.

4. Making ugly comments about a "transgender quota" in the Obama Administration simply because the president appoints a (very, very qualified) transgendered woman to an office in his administration.

5. Instigating a  highly inappropriate comment about gays, lesbians, and sexual intercourse; a comment so ugly that it led to a feud between three religious right groups. And by the way, Barber was heavily involved in this one too.

6. Continuously citing the work of the discredited researcher Paul Cameron, even when made aware of his dubious history of getting kicked out of medical groups, censures and rebukes.

7. Aiding and abetting Conservapedia spread lies about gay health using the fictional term "gay bowel syndrome."

8. Freely admitting to errors when it comes to claims against the gay and lesbian community but not taking responsibility for them.

9. Falsely accusing the Democratic National Convention and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force of putting on a sadomasochistic event.

10. Attempting to imply that a staph infection was the new HIV and then lying about his implications when caught.

And speaking of Paul Cameron - the discredited researcher who has been censured by groups like the American Psychological Association, The Nebraska Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the Canadian Psychological Association for his shoddy work which says (amongst other awful things) that gay men stuff gerbils up their rectums - here is what LaBarbera and Martha Kleder of the Concerned Women for America has to say about him:




Transcript:

Kleder: One of the things I've also noticed is that the SPLC seems to be riled by the fact . . . uh . . . if they don't particularly like your source that you document then you must be a hate group.

LaBarbera: Paul Cameron.

Kleder:  Yeah.

LaBarbera: They say if you cite Paul Cameron, then you are a hater. I mean that's ridiculous. You know there is a researcher who just came out and found that Paul Cameron's work on the greater likelihood of homosexual adoptive parents to have . . . for the child to emerge as a homosexual. He confirmed Cameron's thesis. You don't have to agree with everything Paul Cameron ever did but how proposterous to say that citing a researcher . . Paul Cameron's work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. What they've done, Martha is set up these criteria and then you violate them,  they call you a hate group, and then they have their little echo chamber on the left which reports their charge. And of course the media, which really doesn't like us anyway. The media is very pro-gay, they cite us and so it begins to take a life of its own.

You can read a semi-complete history of Cameron's lies here and here. And by the way, LaBarbera's claim that another researcher proved Cameron's thesis about children in same-sex households is also incorrect. LaBarbera failed to mention that the researcher, Walter Schumm, used the same bad methodology Cameron used to come to his original thesis:

Schumm’s “meta-analysis” (and Cameron’s before him) doesn’t even have the benefit of being built off of random convenience samples. There were no convenience samples in any of the ten prior works that Schumm used for his meta-analysis. In fact, they weren’t even professional studies. They were popular books! That’s right, each of the ten sources that Schumm used to construct his “meta-analysis” were from general-audience books about LGBT parenting and families, most of which are available on Amazon.com. Schumm read the books, took notes on each parent and child described in the book, examined their histories, and counted up who was gay and who was straight among the kids.

So to back to the original argument, quite simply I don't think Peter knows the meaning of the word "extremist" if it took life and bit him on his chunky pasty white ass.

But here is a tip, Peter. Try looking in the mirror.

That was fun.