All eyes on Denver
This week will be a drag regarding news about the anti-gay industry.
You all know why. This is the week of the Democratic National Convention so all eyes are on Denver as the media will pontificate, guesstimate, and, in the case of Fox News and others like them, try to throw a monkeywrench in on the proceedings.
And the majority of the heavy hitting progressive bloggers are there also.
Oh well, there is always 2012 for me.
Seriously though, my guess is that the anti-gay industry will have their forces all keyed to making Obama look like a sepia Damien Thorne.
One good thing about him getting the nomination is how it threw everything into chaos. I think the anti-gay industry, et. al. were expecting Clinton to get the nomination and they were counting on her to galvanize supporters who are not necessarily sold on McCain.
How the pedulum turns.
Other than watching the convention, I think that I am going to take time out this week to work on several projects, including my other blog.
This is not to say that I am taking a break. We all know how the anti-gay industry is.
No rest for the wicked.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Hallmark joins the 'overthrow of America'
In my best faux European accent - Our operatives tells me that we were able to elicit Hallmark Greeting Cards in our plans to overturn Christian values in America. With them selling cards congratulating gay couples on their marriages, nothing can stop us now.
Okay that was corny but I only did it to give a gist of the mindset of the anti-gay industry. Apparently they are all up in arms with Hallmark's decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards.
In fact, the American Family Association will be launching a boycott:
Today, the right-wing American Family Association (AFA) announced a protest of Hallmark for its decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards. AFA wants Hallmark to “stop promoting a lifestyle that is not only unhealthy, but is also illegal in 48 states.” From the protest site:
We’ve all given or received Hallmark Cards – remember their slogan – “when you care enough to send the very best.” But promoting same-sex marriage for profit is not the very best for families or our nation.
Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states. American Greeting Cards, Hallmark’s competitor, does not offer same-sex marriage cards.
Enough of the semantics already! Hallmark is selling these greeting cards because of the old reliable concept of supply and demand.
God bless capitalism. If you don't agree with the concept of gay marriage greeting cards, then don't buy any.
But don't waste your time telling that to the AFA. The group continues to push the lie that anything recognizing the fact that lgbts are normal people and should be catered to and treated as such is really part of a nefarious plan to destroy Christianity.
Somehow I just know Janet Folger is going to connect Hallmark with putting Christians in jail. Or Peter will connect the company with Folsom Street Fair.
What kills me about the AFA is their intentional deception regarding the legality of gay marriage - Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states.
That passage is not accidental nor is it a product of an overeager publicity writer. It's an intentional distortion.
Same-sex marriage is not illegal per se. True, it is not legally recognized but it is not against the law. The illegality of an act entails penalities such as arrests and jail terms.
I personally think that the AFA has stock in Hallmark, especially when one considers how successful their boycott against McDonalds is going.
I'm expecting Hallmark's sales to go through the roof.
In my best faux European accent - Our operatives tells me that we were able to elicit Hallmark Greeting Cards in our plans to overturn Christian values in America. With them selling cards congratulating gay couples on their marriages, nothing can stop us now.
Okay that was corny but I only did it to give a gist of the mindset of the anti-gay industry. Apparently they are all up in arms with Hallmark's decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards.
In fact, the American Family Association will be launching a boycott:
Today, the right-wing American Family Association (AFA) announced a protest of Hallmark for its decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards. AFA wants Hallmark to “stop promoting a lifestyle that is not only unhealthy, but is also illegal in 48 states.” From the protest site:
We’ve all given or received Hallmark Cards – remember their slogan – “when you care enough to send the very best.” But promoting same-sex marriage for profit is not the very best for families or our nation.
Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states. American Greeting Cards, Hallmark’s competitor, does not offer same-sex marriage cards.
Enough of the semantics already! Hallmark is selling these greeting cards because of the old reliable concept of supply and demand.
God bless capitalism. If you don't agree with the concept of gay marriage greeting cards, then don't buy any.
But don't waste your time telling that to the AFA. The group continues to push the lie that anything recognizing the fact that lgbts are normal people and should be catered to and treated as such is really part of a nefarious plan to destroy Christianity.
Somehow I just know Janet Folger is going to connect Hallmark with putting Christians in jail. Or Peter will connect the company with Folsom Street Fair.
What kills me about the AFA is their intentional deception regarding the legality of gay marriage - Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states.
That passage is not accidental nor is it a product of an overeager publicity writer. It's an intentional distortion.
Same-sex marriage is not illegal per se. True, it is not legally recognized but it is not against the law. The illegality of an act entails penalities such as arrests and jail terms.
I personally think that the AFA has stock in Hallmark, especially when one considers how successful their boycott against McDonalds is going.
I'm expecting Hallmark's sales to go through the roof.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Is the Family Research Council distorting another study?
From the Family Research Council's 25 Pro-Family Goals For The Nation:
In addition to deliberately creating and affirming motherless or fatherless families, other harms would result from same-sex “marriage.” Homosexuals are less likely to enter long-term partnerships, less likely to be sexually faithful, and less likely to remain committed for a lifetime. Commitment, sexual fidelity, and lifelong marriage would all decline if the behavior of homosexuals is incorporated into society’s concept of marriage. Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow. Religious liberty and freedom of speech would also suffer, since opposition to same-sex “marriage” would be treated as the equivalent of racial bigotry."
I have just emailed the Family Research Council asking where did they receive this information regarding gay marriage. I have an idea as to what study they got this information from. And if it's what I think, then the Family Research Council will have a lot of explaining to do.
My guess is that they used a study completed in the Netherlands by one Dr. Maria Xiridou. If this is the case, they took the study out of context big time.
You see, the 2003 published study's objective was “to access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).”
The study only looked at casual relationships amongst gay men and was completed before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands.
There are other facts about Dr. Xiridou's study that speaks to how it cannot be used to gauge monogamy amongst lgbts in general. But I won't bring that up until I get an answer from the Family Research Council
If I don't get an answer back via email, then I will be calling their 1-800 number.
I will keep you all posted.
From the Family Research Council's 25 Pro-Family Goals For The Nation:
In addition to deliberately creating and affirming motherless or fatherless families, other harms would result from same-sex “marriage.” Homosexuals are less likely to enter long-term partnerships, less likely to be sexually faithful, and less likely to remain committed for a lifetime. Commitment, sexual fidelity, and lifelong marriage would all decline if the behavior of homosexuals is incorporated into society’s concept of marriage. Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow. Religious liberty and freedom of speech would also suffer, since opposition to same-sex “marriage” would be treated as the equivalent of racial bigotry."
I have just emailed the Family Research Council asking where did they receive this information regarding gay marriage. I have an idea as to what study they got this information from. And if it's what I think, then the Family Research Council will have a lot of explaining to do.
My guess is that they used a study completed in the Netherlands by one Dr. Maria Xiridou. If this is the case, they took the study out of context big time.
You see, the 2003 published study's objective was “to access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).”
The study only looked at casual relationships amongst gay men and was completed before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands.
There are other facts about Dr. Xiridou's study that speaks to how it cannot be used to gauge monogamy amongst lgbts in general. But I won't bring that up until I get an answer from the Family Research Council
If I don't get an answer back via email, then I will be calling their 1-800 number.
I will keep you all posted.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Jerome Corsi and his fancy toilet paper
I am sure many of you know about the Jerome Corsi book that tries to skewer Barack Obama.
Corsi, who wrote a book about Sen. John Kerry four years ago during time in which Kerry was running against Bush for president, claims that this book will show the real Obama.
Please.
This book is a piece of crap and everyone knows it. It recycles some of the worst lies about Obama and creates a few more. Corsi is so scandalous that he even talks about Obama's mother.
But it is the number one book on the New York Times best seller list thanks to a skilled campaign of bullshit emanating from the right.
Corsi gets featured on Fox News unopposed in his lies on several occasions, conservative columnists (such as those on Town Hall and One News Now) give Corsi attention, conservative groups buy Corsi's book in bulk . . .
and lo and behold, we have to divert time away from real issues to talk about a smear job.
Whatever happened to true journalists like Edward R. Murrow, who would have devoted a significant bit of time to call out this bullshit, just like he did to Senator Joseph McCarthy.
With the crop of "journalists" we have now, McCarthy would probably be canonized.
LGBT For Obama - an excellent site.
I am sure many of you know about the Jerome Corsi book that tries to skewer Barack Obama.
Corsi, who wrote a book about Sen. John Kerry four years ago during time in which Kerry was running against Bush for president, claims that this book will show the real Obama.
Please.
This book is a piece of crap and everyone knows it. It recycles some of the worst lies about Obama and creates a few more. Corsi is so scandalous that he even talks about Obama's mother.
But it is the number one book on the New York Times best seller list thanks to a skilled campaign of bullshit emanating from the right.
Corsi gets featured on Fox News unopposed in his lies on several occasions, conservative columnists (such as those on Town Hall and One News Now) give Corsi attention, conservative groups buy Corsi's book in bulk . . .
and lo and behold, we have to divert time away from real issues to talk about a smear job.
Whatever happened to true journalists like Edward R. Murrow, who would have devoted a significant bit of time to call out this bullshit, just like he did to Senator Joseph McCarthy.
With the crop of "journalists" we have now, McCarthy would probably be canonized.
LGBT For Obama - an excellent site.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
More good news from California
It's slowly shaping up to be a very good week thanks to the lovely folks in California:
Court decisions forcing same-sex "marriage" on California and Massachusetts have had a predictable side effect -- an increase in adoption by homosexual couples.
The Associated Press recently produced a feature article titled, "More gay men embrace marriage, fatherhood." The report was all but an endorsement of homosexual adoption, according to Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. - Homosexual adoption increases in California, One News Now
Naturally the One News Now article only features the comments of our dear pet homophobe Peter LaBarbera. But his comments are hilarious:
"What is incorrigible about this coverage from Associated Press is that it is totally absent of any critical coverage; I mean serious coverage examining the effects of homosexual 'parenting,' bringing in public policy data, even bringing in pro-family critics," argues LaBarbera.
By critical coverage from "pro-family" critics, Peter means that the Associated Press should ask the opinion of so-called experts that the anti-gay industry prop up. You know who I am talking about - folks with absolutely no experience in the field they claim to be experts in but who can be counted on to give a good soundbite.
And by all means, let them be the head of a phony group with a credible sounding name, like the Center for Parental Readiness or the American Christian Adoption Association, or The Center Dedicated to Keep Children Away from Those Nasty Homosexuals.
And I love this part of the article:
LaBarbera says that, as with any media discussion of homosexual involvement with children, there was no mention in the AP story of the harm to the children.
I know why there was no mention of it. Because there is NONE. There has never been a legitimate study that has said that children in same-sex homes are harmed because of the orientation of their parents. Of course there are some studies, like those by Paul Cameron. And other claims, like those of Linda Harvey.
But they are as credible as a Klansman advocating racial harmony.
And then there is the piece de resistance:
" . . . you have this ridiculous situation in which these professional adoption organizations are talking about crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Meanwhile, they're intentionally placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design," LaBarbera points out.
I don't care what anyone says, I am convinced that these anti-gay groups have weekly meetings where they bounce phraseologies off of each other. These phraseologies cover up the fact that their positions have nothing behind them that resemble facts.
" . . . Intentionally placing children in homes that motherless and fatherless by design?"
What the hell does that mean anyway? Is there some conspiracy between professional adoption organizations and the lgbt community? Peter seems to be inferring to the old Anita Bryant nonsense of "gay recruitment."
For the last time, let me say something about that. If lgbts were recruiting, we wouldn't be going after children. We would be going after celebrities.
I personally would chair the committees to turn the following celebrities gay:
Philip Seymour Hoffman,
Patton Oswald,
Jonah Hill,
Jon Heder
Beck,
David Spade (sue me, I'm kinky),
and that Cute Bald Wrestler with the Hairy Back Gay.
But in Peter's defense, he does bring up a good idea. I am all for giving one of those phony "pro-family" studies or spokespeople room to hang themselves with their distorted positions.
After all, giving Elaine Donnelly a forum did wonders for gays in the military.
It's slowly shaping up to be a very good week thanks to the lovely folks in California:
Court decisions forcing same-sex "marriage" on California and Massachusetts have had a predictable side effect -- an increase in adoption by homosexual couples.
The Associated Press recently produced a feature article titled, "More gay men embrace marriage, fatherhood." The report was all but an endorsement of homosexual adoption, according to Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. - Homosexual adoption increases in California, One News Now
Naturally the One News Now article only features the comments of our dear pet homophobe Peter LaBarbera. But his comments are hilarious:
"What is incorrigible about this coverage from Associated Press is that it is totally absent of any critical coverage; I mean serious coverage examining the effects of homosexual 'parenting,' bringing in public policy data, even bringing in pro-family critics," argues LaBarbera.
By critical coverage from "pro-family" critics, Peter means that the Associated Press should ask the opinion of so-called experts that the anti-gay industry prop up. You know who I am talking about - folks with absolutely no experience in the field they claim to be experts in but who can be counted on to give a good soundbite.
And by all means, let them be the head of a phony group with a credible sounding name, like the Center for Parental Readiness or the American Christian Adoption Association, or The Center Dedicated to Keep Children Away from Those Nasty Homosexuals.
And I love this part of the article:
LaBarbera says that, as with any media discussion of homosexual involvement with children, there was no mention in the AP story of the harm to the children.
I know why there was no mention of it. Because there is NONE. There has never been a legitimate study that has said that children in same-sex homes are harmed because of the orientation of their parents. Of course there are some studies, like those by Paul Cameron. And other claims, like those of Linda Harvey.
But they are as credible as a Klansman advocating racial harmony.
And then there is the piece de resistance:
" . . . you have this ridiculous situation in which these professional adoption organizations are talking about crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Meanwhile, they're intentionally placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design," LaBarbera points out.
I don't care what anyone says, I am convinced that these anti-gay groups have weekly meetings where they bounce phraseologies off of each other. These phraseologies cover up the fact that their positions have nothing behind them that resemble facts.
" . . . Intentionally placing children in homes that motherless and fatherless by design?"
What the hell does that mean anyway? Is there some conspiracy between professional adoption organizations and the lgbt community? Peter seems to be inferring to the old Anita Bryant nonsense of "gay recruitment."
For the last time, let me say something about that. If lgbts were recruiting, we wouldn't be going after children. We would be going after celebrities.
I personally would chair the committees to turn the following celebrities gay:
Philip Seymour Hoffman,
Patton Oswald,
Jonah Hill,
Jon Heder
Beck,
David Spade (sue me, I'm kinky),
and that Cute Bald Wrestler with the Hairy Back Gay.
But in Peter's defense, he does bring up a good idea. I am all for giving one of those phony "pro-family" studies or spokespeople room to hang themselves with their distorted positions.
After all, giving Elaine Donnelly a forum did wonders for gays in the military.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Two pieces of good news for the Monday blaahs
Everyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I hate Mondays.
And this Monday was no different.
But on the positive side, I thought I would spotlight two pieces of good news that should bring a smile to everyone's face;
Good news item #1
S.C. ‘queen’ reigns over ‘America’s Got Talent’
Dorae Saunders, a former Miss Pride Charlotte and star in the movie “Trantasia,” has been chosen among the top 40 contenders in NBC’s “America’s Got Talent.”
The third season of the show will return with live episodes to whittle down the crowd of contestants after NBC’s broadcasts of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
Saunders, a Columbia native, was recognized for accomplishments this past winter by the Carolinas Black Pride Movement and is most widely known for her performance of Tina Turner. The gig has managed to land her a slot on the upcoming “AGT” finals.
Dorae Saunders is a friend of mine. As the video clip shows (click on the link), she is daring, outspoken, and highly talented.
I know I am showing bias by saying this, but I hope she wins.
Good news item #2
Anything that infuriates the anti-gay industry is always a good news item in my book. This particular situation goes farther than that, however. The California Supreme Court stood up for the rights of lgbt parents and averted a potential crisis that could arise via physicians hiding behind their religious beliefs as an excuse not to give lgbts proper medical care:
Doctors Can't Deny Lesbians Care on Religious Grounds
Ruling Was Unamimous, Unlike Legalization of Gay Marriage Case
The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.
Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.
The ruling extends a state law barring sexual orientation-based discrimination to the medical profession.
The case, which drew 40 "friends of the court" briefs, pitted gay advocacy groups against religious and medical organizations.
Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, had maintained that the California medical clinic that was treating her polycystic ovary syndrome had "dumped" her when she asked for artificial insemination.
In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments all covered by insurance Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for "religious" reasons.
Benitez is a lesbian and sued her doctors under California's civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.
"For me this is a case about doing the right thing and being fair," Benitez told ABCNEWS.com. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role of God, saying because you are gay, you are not worthy of having a child or a family.
"I did it not only for me, my partner and my children but for other people coming after me, so they don't have to go through the humiliation and frustration and abandonment as a patient," she said.
More here
Ms. Benitez's victory is one for us all. How sweet it is.
Everyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I hate Mondays.
And this Monday was no different.
But on the positive side, I thought I would spotlight two pieces of good news that should bring a smile to everyone's face;
Good news item #1
S.C. ‘queen’ reigns over ‘America’s Got Talent’
Dorae Saunders, a former Miss Pride Charlotte and star in the movie “Trantasia,” has been chosen among the top 40 contenders in NBC’s “America’s Got Talent.”
The third season of the show will return with live episodes to whittle down the crowd of contestants after NBC’s broadcasts of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
Saunders, a Columbia native, was recognized for accomplishments this past winter by the Carolinas Black Pride Movement and is most widely known for her performance of Tina Turner. The gig has managed to land her a slot on the upcoming “AGT” finals.
Dorae Saunders is a friend of mine. As the video clip shows (click on the link), she is daring, outspoken, and highly talented.
I know I am showing bias by saying this, but I hope she wins.
Good news item #2
Anything that infuriates the anti-gay industry is always a good news item in my book. This particular situation goes farther than that, however. The California Supreme Court stood up for the rights of lgbt parents and averted a potential crisis that could arise via physicians hiding behind their religious beliefs as an excuse not to give lgbts proper medical care:
Doctors Can't Deny Lesbians Care on Religious Grounds
Ruling Was Unamimous, Unlike Legalization of Gay Marriage Case
The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.
Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.
The ruling extends a state law barring sexual orientation-based discrimination to the medical profession.
The case, which drew 40 "friends of the court" briefs, pitted gay advocacy groups against religious and medical organizations.
Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, had maintained that the California medical clinic that was treating her polycystic ovary syndrome had "dumped" her when she asked for artificial insemination.
In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments all covered by insurance Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for "religious" reasons.
Benitez is a lesbian and sued her doctors under California's civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.
"For me this is a case about doing the right thing and being fair," Benitez told ABCNEWS.com. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role of God, saying because you are gay, you are not worthy of having a child or a family.
"I did it not only for me, my partner and my children but for other people coming after me, so they don't have to go through the humiliation and frustration and abandonment as a patient," she said.
More here
Ms. Benitez's victory is one for us all. How sweet it is.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero
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.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
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
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
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,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
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
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
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.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
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
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
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,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
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
have.
It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
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,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
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.
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.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
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
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
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,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
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
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
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.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
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
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
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,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
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
have.
It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
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,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)