Well, if the angry left and the zany right are attacking you all at once, you must be doing something right.
As I learned from our incoming traffic and from conservative bloggers, some gay lefties got their panties all in a bundle all about Ann Coulter’s coming appearance at Homocon 2010. Well, turns out at least one of their counterparts on the right is up in arms.
According to GOProud, “Peter LaBarbera of Americans for the Truth about Homosexuality issued a press release urging Ann Coulter to reconsider headlining GOProud’s Homocon 2010 in New York City.”
Christopher Barron, Chairman of GOProud’s Board responded by encouraging “LaBarbera to head out to his local bookstore, buy an Ann Coulter book and actually read it. For a guy who claims to be a ‘fan,” he seems completely clueless about what Ann has actually written and said about gay people and gay conservatives.”
This LaBarbera fellow has probably attended more gay confabs in a single year than I’ve attended in my life. He does seem peculiarly obsessed with gay sex. Look, if it really bothers him where Ann Coulter speaks, maybe he should just stop reading her columns. And if it bothers him what gay people do and say, why does he spend so much time participating in gay gatherings and writing about us?
hmm. I’m not familiar with Labarbera. What did he say? And what has he done in the past that makes him obsessed with gay sex?
Is this the same guy that made a scene at CPAC? Now HE was definitely a closet case!
Porno Pete’s Truth Academy curriculum
http://americansfortruth.com/health-science/aftah-truth-academy-presentation-schedule.html
Truth Academy Instructors:
* Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel ; Board Member, AFTAH
* Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media
* Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author, The Bible and Homosexual Practice
* Arthur Goldberg, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change
* Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute
* Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism, keynote presenter
* Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
* Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law
* Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network
* Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California
AE Ryan Sorba is the yout’ from CPAC
I don’t think Peter LaBarbera, and people like him, represent the Republican Party or Christianity — and they should not. People like Mr. LaBarbera are politically Socialistic in nature as they want more Government and less Freedoms for certain segments of our American population. Which are against traditional Conservative and Libertarian values.
“People like Mr. LaBarbera are politically Socialistic in nature as they want more Government and less Freedoms for certain segments of our American population.”
Totakikay, you have that exactly right. And, like all socialists Right and Left, when they are called what they really are, they snivel, “But-but-but we want to do GOOD THINGS!”
Yes, indeed. They want to keep the poor from starving, protect the children, save marriage, keep the ozone layer from burning away, or whatever else. The only things that differ, from one team in this game to the other, is which wondrous, utopian fantasies they hold about what Almighty-God Government should do.
“Which are against traditional Conservative and Libertarian values.”
Again, you are right on. Real conservatives know better than to believe in such fantasies, just as real libertarians do. This is childish, magical thinking. It’s the notion that if we only elect the super-est superheroes, with the most powerful magic wands, they can simply wave them and make all these wonderful unicorns sprout wings and fly. Money will sprout from the trees, and all the stars will sparkle.
It’s good to know so many people know better than that.
I know Peter. One of his top priorities is to stigmatize homosexual behavior. He and I have argued about that approach several times over the years (erupted publicly a couple of times).
I don’t know that I actually have a fully formed opinion of GOProud. Don’t know that I really need one. That said, I have had private conversations with “gay conservatives” and walked away from those conversations hopeful.
I have had good meetings with both liberal and conservative gay people but it was with the conservatives that went well beyond my expectations. My “hope” is found in that we were able to stay away from the fake “agree to disagree” schtick but to talk about issues honestly and in depth. I genuinely felt like we both understood the other person and simply, sometimes strongly, disagreed. And of course there was *plenty* to agree upon.
Humanizing the people behind gay public policy undermines the stigmatizing efforts of people on the far far right. GOProud, Tammy Bruce and blogs like this one are more effective at humanizing gay people to conservative groups than the liberal or leftist activist groups. That humanizing effect is a direct threat to stigmatizing efforts so of course they (again the far right) will come after “gay conservatives.”
As a Christian on a post-gay journey ( I hate the term “ex-gay” 🙂 )… I don’t find “gay conservatives” threatening. I don’t find liberal gay people threatening either :). I honestly don’t see individual people through the filter of any social/political label. I actually welcome taking the 30 year old culture war to a new level of discussion.
Totakikay,
Again, I preface this with the fact that I dont know who Labarbera is, or what he has said other than saying Coulter should not hang with GOProud — but I have to point out that the ONLY people asking for MORE government here are you, Lori, and the people who insist the government step in and FORCE people to recognize and subsidize your relationships and treat gay relationships as equal to relationships they clearly arent equal to. (hello, when gay relationships populate the earth with 6.5 billion lives, then they can claim to be equal — until they can produce ONE life, there is clearly something profoundly different about them).
You want to use the force of government to make people acknowledge this demonstrable falsehood and punish them if they do not. Supporters of gay marriage — NOT opponents — are the ones demanding more government intrusion into peoples lives. Demanding government not only come into their bedrooms, but demanding government put their seal of approval on their bedrooms, demanding that government lie that it is equal to something it is not.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones demanding that government NOT usurp these rights, that it NOT get into gays bedrooms, and NOT force people to recognize the lie that homosexuality is just as valuable to society as heterosexuality is.
YOU are the ONLY one advocating for “more Government and less Freedoms”.
And Lori sounds like one of the far left whack jobs who thinks the mainstream media is CONSERVATIVE simply because they are less radically left than they would like. Allow me to educate you. Conservatives do not believe in NO government. They believe in constitutionally limited government, local control, and the consent of the governed — all of which you and Lori — not social conservatives — are trying to take away here.
Projection! It’s what’s for dinner.
@6: American Elephant,
I sincerely believe that Government should just stay out of the “Marriage Department” altogether. Civil unions will have the legal benefits that come with it and the word itself is Government created.
This isn’t about homosexuality or religion. I thought it was about the word “Marriage” and its cultural definition. I’m not asking for homosexuals to be imprisoned or put on death penalty row like in the “Republics of Islam.”
AE’s quote: “Conservatives do not believe in NO government. They believe in constitutionally limited government, local control, and the consent of the governed.”
I believe that as well. I want my votes to count, I believe in my freedoms, and don’t want Government intrusions.
That’s very odd, Totokikay, because you say you believe in your freedoms and dont want government intrusions at the same time that you are blasting as “socialistic” the very people who are saying that you HAVE freedom now, and that government should not intrude and force others to approve of your relationships.
Seems you’re trying to have it both ways.
By the way, how does government stay out of the marriage business when marriage is a legal contract and contractual law is arbitrated by government?
You see, the reason government ever got involved in marriage to begin with was to settle disputes. End divorce and I suppose you can remove government from the equation.
But this whole proposition thats been going around of geting government out of marriage (aside from being nonsensical and extremely ill advised) is nothing but liberal moral relativism meets Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. In other words, if marriage is going to be about valuing heterosexuality more than homosexuality, then nobody should have it! …which is just another way of making government treat homosexuality as though it is equivalent to heterosexuality.
I know this deeply offends some people (people who find logic and biology offensive) but homosexuality is NOT equivalent to heterosexuality. I am proof of that, you are proof of that, everyone who vists gaypatriot is proof of that, indeed, every human being on the face of the earth is proof of that. NONE of them came from homosexuality.
I wish wish wish people could put their emotions, hormones and delusions away long enough to simply recognize that yes, procreation is pretty damn unique to heterosexuality, and more than just a wee bit more consequential to society than gay’s hurt feelings.
Again, the persistent liar “American” Elephant is the one doing the projecting. No one said a word about trying to take away “constitutionally limited government, local control, and the consent of the governed.”
What a we have here, Totakikay, is a certified whackaloon. He’s got a huge daddy complex and he’s bitter because not a living soul — male or female — would ever want to marry him. As there’s a less than zero chance anyone would ever approve enough of marriage to him to find it more palatable than being staked to an anthill, he assumes — pathetically — that anyone else gives a fat damn about his approval of their unions.
Projection is indeed, for “American” Elephant, “what’s for dinner.” It’s his lonely little meal every night.
Lori, I know thought and logic are not your strong suit, and that your forte is more vomiting green bile whilst your head spins atop your neck, but yes, you did indeed complain that the people trying to save marriage were “socialists” and agreed with Totokikay that they “want more Government and less Freedoms for certain segments of our American population”. In fact you said he was exactly right.
The direct implication of which is that you oppose what they are trying to do.
And what are they trying to do? Redressing government because it does NOT have their consent. Trying to PREVENT the federal government from usurping powers that the Constitution reserves for local control, and trying to protect their Constitutionally protected rights to define their own institutions.
All of which you just bitched about.
But thank you for once again demonstrating that you have all the charm of Linda Blair at that time of the month combined with the intellect of Alvin Green after a head injury.
What “they” are trying to do, “American” Elephant, is continue their ride on the gravy-train of tax goodies at the expense of single taxpayers, gay and straight.
You haven’t even gotten to first base in explaining why the government needs to “protect” marriage by defining the covenants supposedly free people may enter into as consenting adults, much less why it claims the “right” to steal their money for the privilege.
The Linda Blair references are absolutel enchanting, I suppose, to anyone as unhinged as you. To everyone else, they simply make you look weak. You have no forthright or plausible answer to my argument, so you must vent and flail.
The people you are bowing and scraping to impress don’t give a damn about you. Nor do they care about your overwrought and hypocritical opinions. Of course they’ll never need to get within smelling distance of you, since you’re such a coward you’ll never dare to speak to anyone in person as you do in cyberspace.
Time now to snivel that I “threatened” you. You willfilly choose to misunderstand everything the rational people on this board say to you, so sob away.
You really are one of the most pathetic cases I’ve ever seen in Internet conversation. You are such a liar you must twist everything people say to mean what it does not. Why are you so afraid of libertarians?
Because you lack the wit, the courage or the honesty to engage them, obviously. Like most of the dishonest statists who pollute dialogue from what now pathetically passes for “the social Right,” you insist on calling us leftists and liberals. You’re too stupid to do otherwise.
This country is going to be taken back by people who know what liberty means. And you and the rest of your lying little friends will be left in the dirt from whence you came.