Connect With Us


Peter LaBarbera Makes It Clear That Anti-Gays Are Really Homophobic

Peter LaBarbera via Firedoglake

Peter LaBarbera via Firedoglake

The shift to the Right in the Republican Party is part of a bigger and more difficult to see picture. The problem is that, as the nation lurches slowly Left, the Right is having to ratchet up the rhetoric more and more in an attempt to garner more and more support from an increasingly dwindling base. This is part of why Peter LaBaerbera has gone a little nuts with his rhetoric of late.

Jeremy Hooper over at Good As You noted that the anti-gay movement “long ago realized that admitting a desire to discriminate was a surefire way to lose. This is why, for the past decade or so, we’ve been subjected to so much ‘protect marriage’ chatter. The whole charade has been about pretending the anti-gay/pro-discrimination cause is really a ‘pro-family’ one.”

Pro-Homophobia Sticker

Pro-Homophobia Sticker

LaBarbara has, though, emerged from the quagmire of anti-gay sentiment like the smell of used refried beans. He is chaffing at the whole idea of having to keep up the pro-family, not-anti-gay facade of the anti-gay movement and has pretty much made it clear that the whole anti-gay movement is, well, anti-gay. It isn’t about being pro-family, but rather about being pro-discrimination.

LaBarbera recently wrote that “Rarely have I read something as ridiculous as William May’s comment that the national debate over same-sex “marriage” is “not about homosexuality at all.” The ONLY reason we are radically redefining marriage is the aggressive (and successful) advocacy of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) movement — aided increasingly by sympathetic liberals and libertarians (and activist judges). It is not only disingenuous to assert otherwise — it is simply untrue. Do you want to know why we are losing this debate? Because people like May, perhaps well-meaning, are riddled with guilt for doing the right thing. Homosexual activists (uh-oh, I uttered the “H-word”) selfishly aim to redefine “marriage” for their MAIN purpose: winning (even forcing via the State) approval of their aberrant lifestyle.”

weddingThe problem for the less aggressively homophobic wing of the anti-gay movement is that their logic often easily gets shot to shreds. For instance, they load the whole “children” issue into their cannons claiming that they are pro-children while the pro-LGBT side points out that LGBT people have children too, and what about them, than you very much.

The problem for the more aggressively homophobic wing of the anti-gay movement as embodied by LaBarbera is the fact that they really turn people off with their naked hatred.

LaBarbera goes on to say that “I can think of no other cultural debate in which such obvious truths are so often denied out of a politically correct fear of being labeled a bigot. (And we all know the most virulent bigots are anti-Christian homosexual activists.) Get over it. We don’t hate people but we oppose homosexual conduct as immoral, unhealthy, unnatural and –the best news of all, as proved by the existence of many ex-‘gays’ — changeable. (I know dozens of former homosexuals.) Funny how those who are on the side of attaching the noble institution of marriage to a sin — see the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality — do not shy away from asserting that this is all about GAY rights.”

St.-Matthew-in-the-City Anglican Church's pro-LGBT marriage billboard

St.-Matthew-in-the-City Anglican Church’s pro-LGBT marriage billboard

The problem for LaBarbera is the fact that, first of all, as far as we can tell there’s about a hundred ex-gays in the country, and those are all people trying to push this failed therapy. To date, noone connected to the ex-gay movement has been able to provide any kind of solid proof that this kind of therapy actually works. What is more, the arguments that homosexuality is unhealthy or unnatural are often easily countered with facts, but for LaBarbera, facts are just something you stick your fingers in your ears and yell very loudly to try and ignore.

Secondly, many gays identify as Christian, and attend Christian churches. What is more, the subject of morality is a difficult one in that what defines morality is often dependant upon the views of the religion in question, and are actually far more mutable than homosexuality.

LaBarbera wraps up with “PS. Faithful and compassionate Christians must NEVER encourage or sanction homosexual relationships, which are — another hard truth here — essentially the domestication of disordered and sinful behavior, hence destructive to the souls of those involved.”

At that point, LaBarbera finishes with his final shot across the bow of the anti-gay movement. IF you don’t believe like I do, you aren’t true Christians, is his message.



Share This Post

5 Responses to Peter LaBarbera Makes It Clear That Anti-Gays Are Really Homophobic

  1. David in the O.C.

    September 10, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    This moron sounds like a broken record. Aberrant lifestyle? Who the hell even talks like that. So basically we’ve understood (for half a century) that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, and is simply another sexual orientation. The APA and AMA have both come to this conclusion over decades of research. Apparently, Mr. LaBarbera didn’t get the memo. Why Peter expects the rest of society to tolerate his ignorance remains a mystery. That’s not going to happen. …and why he expects the rest of society to enforce his CHOSEN religious ideology is another mystery that only self-deluded sociopaths like Peter can explain.

  2. Josh

    September 10, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    1. “This is part of why Peter LaBaerbera has gone” — *LaBarbera*
    2. “LaBarbara has, though, emerged” — *LaBarbera*
    3. “He is chaffing at the whole” — This could be correct, but it seemed in context that you intended to use *chafing*
    4. “what about them, than you very much.” — *thank*
    5. “To date, noone connected” — *no one* (might be a preference)

    Also, the opening statement is a little awkwardly worded:
    “The shift to the Right in the Republican Party is part of a bigger and more difficult to see picture.” The easy fix would be to add hyphens to “difficult-to-see”, but I’m not 100% sure that’s exactly correct. Perhaps just rearranging it to say, “The shift to the Right in the Republican Party is part of bigger picture that is more difficult to see.” I don’t want to put words in your mouth, especially when I liked the article overall.

    And I don’t mean to sound like a spelling and grammar Nazi. It’s just that if I start seeing rather large spelling errors I naturally start scrutinizing what follows them and every word and idea and intended meaning comes under that higher level of scrutiny because I feel I may not be in the most solid of hands. If I didn’t think the majority of the content was worthwhile (not to mention that I have a vested interest in your side of this argument), I wouldn’t have commented.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      September 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm

      Thank you for being more specific. As I said, my grammar can be a tad antiquated so sometimes it comes across as a bit awkward, comparatively speaking.

  3. Josh

    September 10, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    Please PLEASE proofread your articles before posting them. It makes it very difficult to say, “Well said!” as I share it somewhere.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      September 10, 2013 at 5:25 pm

      Would you please give constructive criticism. Exactly what do you find incorrect? What do you think should have been better written? I usually find people who kvetch about my grammar or writing to just be doing so because they cannot come up with something to counter the article with.

      I am well aware that my grammar is often antiquated and formal compared to most people.