Pillars of Faith: Peter LaBarbera, Anti-Gay Creep

by Lorette C. Luzajic

peter-labarberaYou might call this man a sex addict — he sneaks into men’s saunas, S&M dungeons, and orgies. He’s got more gay skin mags and DVDs than a supply warehouse.

His name is Peter LaBarbera, head of Americans for Truth, a Bible believing Christian organization whose only intent is to expose the gay agenda. And for this reason, he must stay on top — pardon the pun — of the action, to make sure no kink goes uncovered.

A Man With Issues

Pullquote: He’s a creep with a traveling peep show.

Theoretically, Peter could work to expose the truth about the triple ex parties, man-girl rape, or the proliferation of butt-buster pornography for straight men. But it seems he’s more interested in exposing what rippling hunks do to each other in the privacy of their own closets.

Human rights activist with ex-ex-gay group Truth Wins Out recently said online that LaBarbera is a man with “‘issues’ who under the pretense of activism shows hardcore gay porn to church folk. He’s a creep with a traveling peep show.”

Though LaBarbera must know firsthand you can’t “catch gay” or he’d have caught it by now, he’s convinced the gay agenda is out to convert your children. The ex-Washington Times reporter was involved in ex-gay conversion ministries, but found he could better get the message across as president of Americans for Truth. He frequents every gay S&M event in the U.S., and takes pin-up photos for his site.

“Porno Pete”

Pullquote: With clear and detailed prose, he gives full attention to the “satanic, depraved sodomitic orgies involving feces and urine” we otherwise may have missed.

He also reports on the scene, missing no minutiae of possibilities in queer couplings. With clear and detailed prose, he gives full attention to the “satanic, depraved sodomitic orgies involving feces and urine” we otherwise may have missed. The site is a wonderful channel for repressed homosexuals or curious old ladies to read porn and stay holy.

“Porno Pete,” introduced the public to films featuring heinous homosexual sodomy and bestiality with goats and dogs, films he had to hunt long and hard for, as further “proof” of gay deviance. But according to a few brave men who decided to see for themselves, there was nothing gay in this particular batch of debauchery.

Fear Mongering for Money

Pullquote: Expressing his anti-gay obsession is how he makes his living.

Expressing his anti-gay obsession is how he makes his living. He’s given hundreds of interviews proclaiming the hidden threat that lurks behind a “civil rights” face. As policy analyst at Concerned Women for America he commented “on the homosexual issue from a Christian and conservative perspective.” He’s also worked as a “homosexuality critic” for the Illinois Family Institute. He still has time in his critical critic schedule to speak out against the “born gay” or “orientation” theory, “leftist” Latino Christians, communism, and support the contra terrorist attacks against liberal civilians in Nicaragua.

Queer Political Agenda

LaBarbera also supports the Constitution Party, comprised of members active in white supremacy organizations — like David Duke’s European American Unity and Rights Organization. Peter has promoted and supported the apparently pro-family, pro-faith group and downplayed their blatant racism and anti-Semitism.

The Constitution Party has a very queer agenda indeed: to rescind women’s vote, stop all immigration, and establish Old Testament law, which includes the stoning of homosexuals. They are adamant about gun ownership and seek to outlaw gambling.

A Family Man

As a Christian family man, as ordained by God, perhaps Pete would really like to spend more time at home with his wife and kids. But he’s got all those movies and magazines to slog through.

And though he’s surely seen all there is to see by now, he can’t miss a parade or orgy. While his helpmate sits at home alone, he just can’t tear himself away from his work.

Lorette C. Luzajic is a full-time freelance writer in Toronto. She blogs at Facinating People.

  • http://strawdog.wordpress.com/ Grommel

    Wow, what a creep.

    And he should finally come out of the closet and live out his homosexuality normally …

  • http://www.sindri79.blog.is Sindri Guðjónsson

    Wow!

  • trj

    Poor guy. Obviously a closet case who is caught by his own conflicting fundamentalism. I bet he has to compensate for being called “Barbara” or “LaBarbie” in school. Or maybe being an idiot just comes naturally to him.

  • Roger

    Well, he’s certainly a pillar of something.

  • Ty

    I think alcohol is the devil’s brew, and leads god fearing folk to Satan when they drink it.

    Which is why I buy as much of it as possible, to protect people from buying it. The more of it I have, the less of it is available to infect good Christians.

    Or something.

  • The Medium Lebowski

    This creep and the reverend Ted Haggard should team up and make gay christian porno.

  • The Medium Lebowski

    From his Store page:

    The Gay Agenda in the Public Schools

    Watch the video that exposed how homosexuality is being taught to our youth as “normal and moral.”

    Item #TGA-IPS

    “We shall sodomize your sons, We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your youth groups, Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will come to crave and adore us. All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable…. We shall raise vast, private armies…to defeat you. The family unit….will be abolished. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory….All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”

    I’ll bet you that he was very excited while wordsmithing this.

  • The Medium Lebowski

    Re the product description above, the subtext is that all males are secretly gay and that it doesn’t take much to get them to come out of the closet.

    Don’t think sooooo.

    I’m straight and no guy is ever going to seduce me.

    Methinks Peter LaBarbera is projecting his inner homosexuality on straight males.

  • brgulker

    Weird, and if it’s all true, disturbing. I can’t help but wonder if this is non-biased.

    (honest) Question:

    Do you think it’s possible to think that homo-sex (the behavior, not the predisposition) is morally wrong without being a bigot?

  • The Medium Lebowski

    Do you think it’s possible to think that homo-sex (the behavior, not the predisposition) is morally wrong without being a bigot?

    Yes. I mean let’s not go overboard here in an attempt to be ultra politically correct.

  • Shelly

    “Homo-sex”? Seriously? You asked a question as offensively as possible.
    The spectrum of human sexuality is just that, a spectrum.
    You want support for being bigoted and I don’t think anyone but a certain type of christian will do that for you.

  • http://WhoHasTimeForThis.com David Cowan

    of course homo sex is morally wrong when you define morality using ancient, superstititious, neo-Caveman texts. Perhaps one day, though, we will all agree that morality is simply a social contract that we won’t hurt each other. When that day comes, we will agree that the answer is No. Your question, on the other hand, will be morally questionable for the hateful discrimination it proposes.

  • DarkMatter

    Now, faith comes by peeping, and peeping at gay S&M venues.

  • http://WhoHasTimeForThis.com David Cowan

    OK, let me be more clear: Yes, it is inherently bigoted to ask the question.

    Non-consensual sex are obviously immoral, so I think it’s safe to presume you’re asking the question about consensual sex acts. Consensual and informed sex acts among people who understand the consequences and risks do not hurt anyone. Therefore the question only makes sense if you’re evoking some religious morality that ascribes sinfulness to people who engage in natural, unharmful fun. Such arbitrary and unjustified judgment of innocent people is BIGOTRY.

  • The Medium Lebowski

    I have no presuppositions and no bad intentions. Just a question.

    People can be quick to condemn from both ends of the political spectrum. Sometimes people try to make up for past wrongs by moving from one extreme position to the exact opposite.

    I personally didn’t see any hate in your question.

    An interesting question that this brings up is why is there such a universal vilification of homosexuality. It’s not just the product of the three insanely screwed-up Abrahamic religions. You can find this abhorrence in every culture across the planet with only rare exceptions.

    I consider myself a moderate liberal. All of my friends are liberal atheists. While we support gay rights and even gay marriage, none of us wants to know the details of what goes on behind closed bed room doors. Most of us recoil at the mere thought of two men having sex while supporting the rights of consenting adults to do what they wish in private.

    So, why is that? Why do smart, college educated people who think the buybull is a load Bronze Age nonsense, feel this way despite supporting gay rights?

    Please spare us the moral outrage over my not being very PC here. I assure you that it’s pointless. However, I am genuinely interested in hearing possible explanations for this almost universal feeling.

    • Siberia

      Probably for the same reason homosexual people do not like to think of heterosexual sex?

      Personally, I have the same reaction to lesbianism. It does nothing to me. It evokes the ‘ick’ factor in me much the same way I do not like to see my sister kiss her husband or imagine them having sex.

      Is that because I think it’s morally wrong? No. Morals have nothing to do with it, sexuality does. I don’t want to see or think about it any more than I want to see or think about the disgusting (to me) kinds of foods some Asians consume. Does that make eating those foods morally wrong? No, but it’s my visceral reaction to dislike it. Will I go trying to outlaw it? No. Will I stop anyone from eating it? No.

      The big difference is not trying to push your visceral reactions and make them law over everyone.

  • The Medium Lebowski

    I have always held the religious and the right wing in contempt because of their smug righteousness. No one is as quick to judge and condemn others as they are. Except for extremists on the left. You see this symmetry everywhere. Just go read the articles and comments on Huffpo. A news article may cover the widespread problem of honor killings and honor rapes across Islam from the western Sahara to Iran and some extremist liberal busybody will weigh in with absurd claims that Islam is not misogynistic and demands that we should open our minds and try to understand it.

    Yeah, right.

    Rather than jumping to condemn someone for asking a question like a rabid fundie, how about we all take a moment to first consider the question and then try to come up with a reply that warrants the bandwidth needed to post it?

    • rdiac

      So, are you saying it has not come to your notice that the most liberal countries in Europe are rolling back some religious accommodations granted to immigrants re finding them incompatible with liberal guarantees of freedom?

  • DarkMatter

    The idiom of ‘One man’s meat is another man’s poison’ is reasonable personally for me at least.

    BTW I find I have to wait for some time for the post to load. Is it because there are more hits compared to a week before?

  • Jon

    I think brgulker asked a legitimate question. Perhaps the wording could have been better! I immediately bristle at the mention of the word ‘morality’ simply because of the context in which we normally find it. Sex is a pleasurable expression of love (or maybe just attraction) between two people and there is nothing immoral about that. Some heterosexuals might find gay/lesbian repulsive but that does not make it immoral. As previously stated, what makes a sex act immoral is when it is used to harm someone (eg rape, pedophilia). It is important to make the distinction between morality and personal taste, a concept Mr. LaBarbera has yet to understand. He is the queen of bigotry, linking gays with s&m, scat, pedophilia, etc., as if heterosexuals are not also into that! Talk about hypocrisy! Heterosexuals invented s&m!

  • http://sourapplesblog.com Elliott

    I echo the sentiments many people have already expressed, that gay sex can ‘not be your bag,’ but you can respect other’s right to do it. But I think an important distinction needs to be educed here, between it ‘not being your bag’ and ‘being repellent.’

    I obviously have personal tastes when it comes to sex. I am more attracted to white women, but not as a rule. I am dating a blonde, but I prefer brunettes. I have certain proclivities regarding how my mate should maintain their bodily hair (or not). But I don’t find any of the alternatives to my preferences ‘repellent,’ or ‘repulsive,’ or ‘distasteful,’ or any of the other things people have said of gay sex above.

    People should be free to explore their preferences, but it worries me that so many people want to do find gay sex gross. Maybe it is a simple matter of personal preference as they claim, but I’m inclined to believe there’s more to it than that.

  • Alex Guggenheim

    So Daniel, when is your “coming out” party? Really, your obsession with homosexuality seems strangely the same as those you obsess over.

  • The Medium Lebowski

    Here’s an unbelievable story. Four students have committed suicide in Thomas M. Horvath’s math classes since 2007.

    http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7228335

    Dollars to donuts, this guy is a big time Xian.

  • bdemong
  • http://owen59.wordpress.com/ owen59

    As usual an interesting, albeit strangely biased, report followed by a series of arguments straight out of the propoganda book, with little objectivity. Which makes me wonder how to have a discussion between a view that liberal relativism is moral and the idea of moral as taught by religions. No dialogue among humans usually ends up in a even more hurtful situation, sometimes war. And discussion that goes round and round the mulberry bush might not be an adequate dialogue to prevent that. Whichever side of that fence you sit or stand, we are all responsible for improving that dialogue if we want an improved society. of course, if we really don’t care, we won’t take up that responsibility.

  • James

    Sorry – my comment was general in nature; not a direct reply to any posting…

    You know… what is it about two men that’s so threatening? Everytime I hear from the anti-gay lobby, it’s always about gay men who recruit, gay men who molest, gay men who do this and that. And yet, in our culture – for the most part – the idea of two women is super hot. That is, as long as they fit into men’s idea of beauty and still get it on with guys. Oh yeah, and as long as they don’t have any opinions, political or otherwise.

    I wish God would just put down her purse, speak up and let us know how she feels.

  • Stuart

    It basiclly comes down to the individual and what they find is attractive. They enjoy cause they can imagine themselves being present or find something that satisfies an urge within them.

    I find lesbian sex abhorrent, its gross and it creeps me out. Heterosexual sex is slightly better because than I can at least see the gender I am attracted to in a sexual way. Than there is gay sex, which to me is hot. It varies for different people.

    James is right though, how come the fight is alway against gay men, why not the lesbians and the bisexuals.

    I also think that daniel includes posts like this solely because it is a hot button issue amongst the christian conservatives, they claim their moral superiority based upon issues like this. It is one of the reasons why I left the church and started thinking critically about why I do and act and think the way I do. Against critical thought there is no argument that the bible is right.

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    Severe closet case. I’d feel sorry for him if he wasn’t such a cowardly, vicious, morally devoid scumbag. But he is. So I don’t.

  • jittahbug

    It seems this is the only way he can interact with his true self without being criticized and condemed by his religion, under the cover he is exposing it for the “great benefit” of the human race lol.

    When are people going to realise that hating, two men that like eachother, is the EXACT SAME AS RACISM.

    Some people just cant get on with their own lives without being ignorant twisted pricks who think they have the right to choose for others.

    Just a view from Jittahbug! x

  • Pingback: Pillars of Faith Series « Unreasonable Faith

  • Pingback: Peter LaBarbera – Ultimate Victim of Douchebaggery « Because It Matters

  • Pingback: Martin Ssempa: Ugandan Activists Want Him Arrested For Pornography « Reality Bong

  • Pingback: Peter LaBarbera Supports Violent Christians, Denounces “Soft Christians” « Reality Bong

  • Louis E.

    I’m a largely liberal Democrat offended by the undeserved acceptance of same-sex sex,and just as I wonder if Fred Phelps is secretly in the pay of the homosexual lobby to make them look good,I wonder if LaBarbera has been put up in order to embarass those of us who are against the alleged “equality” of right and wrong gender-composition of sexual relationships.He claims is organization is “devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda” but you’ll find him attacking abortion rights,BDSM,national health insurance,and just about anything his “Christian conservative” bedfellows also oppose.There are plenty of us who think same-sex sex is a bad idea but don’t bible-thump or oppose opposite-sex blowjobs.(And the whole nonsense that anyone who takes the time to denounce homosexual activity must be a secret homosexual is really tired!)

    • Michael

      LaBarbera has been put up in order to embarass those of us who are against the alleged “equality” of right and wrong gender-composition of sexual relationships.

      1. There is nothing “alleged” about the desire for equality. The whole movement is about equality. Care to elaborate on your objection here?

      2. This theory is totally ridiculous, because most opponents of gay marriage are more similar in their views to LaBarbera than to you.

      There are plenty of us who think same-sex sex is a bad idea but don’t bible-thump or oppose opposite-sex blowjobs.

      What could possibly be the justification for this view? It’s like opposing (heterosexual) anal sex but supporting oral sex. It’s totally arbitrary.

      And the claim that this opposition is not a denial of equality is blatantly false.

  • Pingback: The Friendly Atheist Under Attack « Thoughts from a Godless Heathen

  • Pingback: The AFTAH Anti-Gay-Rights Academy: A Protester’s Perspective | Friendly Atheist

  • Natalie

    I was friends with his daughter.

    The girl was gay as fuck for me.

  • Natalie

    And she goes for married men. So much for family values….

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Sorry, but this played in my head as I read that comment:

    “We shall ₤µ©λ on the beaches, we shall ₤µ©λ on the landing grounds, we shall ₤µ©λ in the fields and in the streets, we shall ₤µ©λ in the hills; we shall never surrender …”

    I know, I’m a bad person.

  • brgulker

    I don’t think you understood me.

    I was asking everyone if it would be possible to believe that sex acts between people of the same sex is morally wrong without being a bigot.

    In other words, could I think that two men having sex is wrong without automatically being a bigot?

    The reason I differentiated was intentional. I did not use “homosexual” because I wasn’t talking about a genetic predispostion. I used “homo-sex” as shorthand to talk about the sex act itself.

    And I’m sure as hell not looking for support — I was simply asking a question, because I am interested in the response.

  • brgulker

    I’m not proposing hateful discrimination, I don’t think. I just asked an honest question.

    Is it inherently bigoted to think that some sex acts are “wrong” and others are “right”? That’s my question.

    I have no presuppositions and no bad intentions. Just a question.

    And mind you, I didn’t say it was wrong, and I certainly didn’t cite any “ancient, superstitious, neo-Caveman texts.” You simply assumed that the only reason I would ask the question is because I’m being motivated by such texts. Well, you’re wrong.

    And you know what they say about assumptions, right?

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    I’d give you a “yes” on that.

    It’s one thing to say “That doesn’t turn me on,” or even “Ugh–that’s disgusting.”

    But to say “That’s morally wrong” about a sex act in the absence of harm done to an unwilling partner?

    That strikes me as bigotry.

    Now the question is: What form does your distaste take? For example, if you find man-sex hateful or distasteful, aren’t you likely to back up the rhetorical act (holding a thought or opinion) with action (voting against marriage rights for gays, for example, or joining the Phelps Church)? Because surely that would be morally wrong.

    It’s utterly legit not to like something. But in the absence of harm caused you’d have a hard time convincing me it was “morally” wrong.

  • vorjack

    “Is it inherently bigoted to think that some sex acts are “wrong” and others are “right”? That’s my question.”

    On one hand, it is possible to create and frame a moral argument that leaves certain consensual sexual behavior “immoral” and other behaviors acceptable. Most of us would find that argument convincing is another matter, but you could make it.

    On the other hand, you’d have to be very, very convincing to make me think that you actually believe your own argument, rather than using it as a prop for your distaste. Most of the arguments I hear, such as the Aristotelian argument that our organs have certain purposes that should not be diverged from, are things that the believer accepts only when talking about homosexuality.

  • Sunny Day

    “Is it inherently bigoted to think that some sex acts are “wrong” and others are “right”? That’s my question.”

    The only actions that are wrong, are actions that hurt people.

  • Sunny Day

    “Is it inherently bigoted to think that some sex acts are “wrong” and others are “right”? That’s my question.”

    If you cannot show how those actions are wrong then yes its inherently bigoted.

    The only actions that are wrong, are actions that hurt people.

  • professoryackle

    Is it inherently bigoted to think that some sex acts are “wrong” and others are “right”? That’s my question.

    Is anal sex between two consenting heterosexual adults “wrong”? That’s my question, brgulker.

  • Tim Anderson

    brgulker asked Do you think it’s possible to think that homo-sex (the behavior, not the predisposition) is morally wrong without being a bigot?

    Ask the Creator who has created over 50 different animal species that practice homosexual behavior. Is your Creator wrong?

  • http://sourapplesblog.com Elliott

    I’m assuming that you are talking about male homosexual sex. Is there anything repellant to you about lesbian sex?

    For most people, I think the answer is no. In general, both women and men are more uncomfortable with the idea of gay male sex than they are with gay female sex.

    I personally think it’s a social thing, and that it’s not universal. There is something unsettling about emasculating a man, that is not true of masculating a woman, because we have a really rigid framework for ‘manhood’, and just like any other social construct, deviating from it is really stigmatized.

    I tend to avoid blaming ‘the patriarchy,’ but I think here it may be warranted. In a society based around male identity, it becomes the greatest social taboo to deconstruct that identity.

    For the record, I don’t think it has anything to do with poo.

  • vorjack

    “An interesting question that this brings up is why is there such a universal vilification of homosexuality.”

    Well, for starters, it’s not universal. Different cultures at different times have deal with homosexuality in different ways. The classic example is the tradition of the “beardless youth” in classical Greek culture.

    But beyond that, I agree with Elliot: this is a result of socialization. We’re social creatures who absorb the social codes of our societies, and these stick with us even as we age and become more reasoned.

    Most of us in the west have grown up with fairly rigid gender roles. We’ve all watched thousands of romance plots play out, we’ve accepted the basic structure of the modern marriage, we’ve picked up definite ideas about masculinity and what is proper for a man to do. These become our programming, sort of.

    Most people in this culture seem to have an aversion to men acting in a feminine way, or women acting in a “butch” way. A man kissing another man creates an unpleasant reaction in some people, since it skews the categories and roles they’ve been socialized into accepting.

    FWIW, I don’t seem to be one of those people, though why that is I can’t say.

  • Roger

    Didn’t we cover this in another thread? Didn’t we come to the conclusion that people are conditioned from a very young age to find certain sexual acts as “normal” and others as “not”? And that conditioning is virtually always oriented towards viewing heterosexual sex as “normal” and homosexual sex as “not”?

    The question you ask seems to be approaching two arenas: 1) an aesthetic of sex and 2) sexual morality. Look at the way that Americans for decades simply didn’t talk about sex–at least, not in public arenas. The aesthetic of sex was completely hidden (think about the “two beds” syndrome of early American television sitcoms) and how that reflected American sexual morality.

    I think that people who are “repulsed” by two men having sex are informed by a sexual aesthetic that juxtaposes male and female bodies; that aesthetic is itself influenced by a sexual morality that characterizes female bodies as passive and beautiful and male bodies as active not as “beautiful.” Look at porn–hetero porn is centered around the female body (and the ways in which hetero men can gaze at the body). Women are, in our society, supposed to be beautiful, supposed to be the object of male sexual desire. Men are supposed to be active, supposed to be the actors who act upon women’s bodies. Even looking at women acting sexually upon other women is not meant for other women–indeed, it’s meant for other men to gaze upon these two women and become aroused.

    The rigid framework Elliott speaks of is based on this idea that a man who “allows himself” to be penetrated or to express any sexual passion with another man is to somehow be “less than” a man.

    “I consider myself a moderate liberal. All of my friends are liberal atheists. While we support gay rights and even gay marriage, none of us wants to know the details of what goes on behind closed bed room doors. Most of us recoil at the mere thought of two men having sex while supporting the rights of consenting adults to do what they wish in private.”

    A couple of questions–do you want to know what goes on behind anybody’s bedroom doors? How do you know that you and your friends “recoil at the mere thought of two men having sex”? Why do you think you have this…”reaction”? Instead of villifying the so-called left, let’s hear your reasons why you think you react in such a way and where you think you get these reactions from.

  • http://sourapplesblog.com Elliott

    I don’t think it’s always “utterly legit” to not like something. The oft overused analogy to interracial marriage applies here. Could you honestly rationalize a distaste for interracial sex? If someone said “I think interracial marriage should be legal, but I personally find it disgusting,” I think a serious argument could be made that that person was underlyingly prejudiced. Somehow.

  • Tom Anderson

    Show me proof of the Creator, and then I’ll ask him.

    WE are all the creator.

    I think. Although no one can be really sure until we die. Either nothing happens or all will be revealed. Remember – the bible was written by men, not God.

  • Roger

    If you base opposing the rights of gays and lesbians based upon your “revulsion” to two men having sex, then yes, you’re a bigot.

  • Audrey

    Absolutely, provided you don’t try to force your morality on others who disagree and don’t take actions that would disenfranchise those who don’t share your opinion.

  • professoryackle

    I agree with Audrey, insofar as I think it’s possible to think thoughts inside your own head without speaking out. But I also believe that the opinion “acts of sex between two males or two females is wrong” is incorrect. If you kept that opinion to yourself and no one knew about it, and especially if you took no action, then perhaps no harm done.

    A secret bigot is still a bigot though, don’t you think?

  • http://sourapplesblog.com Elliott

    please excuse the extra ‘want to,’ and the misplaced apostrophe

  • The Medium Lebowski

    People should be free to explore their preferences, but it worries me that so many people want to do find gay sex gross. Maybe it is a simple matter of personal preference as they claim, but I’m inclined to believe there’s more to it than that.

    Why does it worry you? Why on earth should it?

    As I stated before, my friends and I support gay rights including marriage. Heck, I liked the movie “Milk” and think the man worthy of our admiration.

    But why does it “worry” you if I find the thought of two men going at it “unpleasant”?

    It’s this type of need to make everyone agree with you that I object to from both sides. The religious right has the ones who want to covert you to their Jebus. The left has the incipient PC commissars who want you to openly embrace every possible permutation of human behavior.

    Let me ask you this. Of late I have been watching a lot of those travel adventure shows from Michael Palin to David Adams to Ewan McGregor & Charley Boorman. Invariably, they end up in some disgusting situation. Maybe they are expected to eat boiled goat’s testicles or bat. Or maybe they have to walk through a village where the inhabitants squat down and have their bowel movements within a foot of their huts (and then reproduce as much as possible because for some “mysterious reason” their village has a very high rate of infant death. D’oh!)

    Am I wrong for feeling disgust at exotic some cuisine or medieval sanitation practices?

    As I said, I can support people’s rights to find love and have relationships without necessarily wanting to dwell on the private aspects of it.

    One of these days I’m going to write a piece on the symmetry between left and right. There is indeed far more than we like to admit. (For example, the left typically doesn’t believe in Jebus but is very much into astrology and the end of the world arriving on 12/12/12.)

  • Mogg

    “People should be free to explore their preferences, but it worries me that so many people want to do find gay sex gross. Maybe it is a simple matter of personal preference as they claim, but I’m inclined to believe there’s more to it than that.”

    I wonder whether you would find an answer by asking whether people who find male homosexual sex in some way distasteful also find heterosexual anal sex distasteful. Anecdotally, it seems to be pretty popular. I think, dragging this back towards religion, that either the Koran itself or the surrounding Muslim tradition states that a man can “go into” his wife in any way he wants, and there’s no specific ban in the Bible that I know of either.

  • The Dude

    “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

  • The Medium Lebowski

    This aggression will not stand, man.

  • The Medium Lebowski

    A couple of questions–do you want to know what goes on behind anybody’s bedroom doors? How do you know that you and your friends “recoil at the mere thought of two men having sex”? Why do you think you have this…”reaction”? Instead of villifying the so-called left, let’s hear your reasons why you think you react in such a way and where you think you get these reactions from.

    How do I know what we recoil? Well, based on conversations over issues such as gay rights. As stated above, we support gay rights but don’t want to know anything about what they do behind closed doors. Moreover, anyone who has been online for a while has at least once found themselves on a gay porn site whether it was intentionally or the result of someone tricking them with a disguised link. I used to participate on a forum were many members tried to gross one another out in this manner.

    I am losing interest in this conversation as I see little difference between those who demand that I revile homosexuality and those who demand that I accept it as something normal and beautiful.

    Sorry, but your sermons are pointless.

    That’s why I said that both left and right have their extremists who try to control your thoughts and opinions. To hell with them both.

  • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

    Roger: “recoil at the mere thought of two men having sex”? Why do you think you have this…”reaction”? Instead of villifying the so-called left, let’s hear your reasons why you think you react in such a way and where you think you get these reactions from.

    I think a lot of this is part of our evolution. Why we humans find the smell of feces repellent? For a dung beetle it is perfectly normal. If we were all gay the human race would slowly die out and go extinct. We find certain things repellent because it is part of our DNA simply helps to ensure the species lives on.

  • The Dude

    Yeah, well. The Dude abides.

  • Roger

    Dude, I was responding to your support of the question about why (some) people find two men kissing/screwing/whatever “disgusting” or what have you. To discount sincere responses to the question as “sermons” makes me think that you came into this discussion with a closed mind–and frankly, with “support” like yours, I’d rather take my chances with Peter LaBarbera–at least I know his bigotry up front, instead of a fairweather “supporter.” Your last statement regarding people “demanding you accept homosexuality as something normal and beautiful” outs your bigotry–you claim to support gay rights; fine. Of course, I now ask, “How do you support gay rights?” Also, who on this site has made such a demand?

  • Roger

    /facepalm.

    Are you this obtuse in the real world?

  • claidheamh mor

    This idiot reminds me of my friend’s saying about true stupidity being too stupid to know you’re stupid.

  • Ty

    I am becoming increasingly convinced that Alex is 15, and has a very unpleasant home life.

    I like that visual picture because it allows me to pity him rather than be annoyed him him.

    Alex, I pity you. Poor thing.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Seeing that only 1/50 of my posts are about homosexuality, I don’t see how you can think I’m obsessed with it. But even if I was, why do you care? I desire to help those who are oppressed by others in our society, and my little way is to show the absurdity and stupidity of it.

    I don’t happen to have sexual feelings for men, so I won’t be having a coming out party. Sorry Alex.

    Speaking of obsessions, though, I wish you’d get over your obsession with making stupid comments on my blog. Maybe you could crap on someone else’s lawn?

  • dr.R.

    So Alex, when is your “coming out” party? Really, your obsession with this blog makes us think that maybe your faith is not as strong as you would want it to be.

  • LRA

    Nobody f*$ks with the Jesus.

  • The Medium Lebowski

    Let me explain something to you. Um, I am not “Mr. Lebowski”. You’re Mr. Lebowski. I’m the Dude. So that’s what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.

  • The Dude

    “Eight-year-olds, Dude.”

    ———————————————-

    And on that note, even The Jesus exposing himself to eight-year-olds doesn’t compare to the pervertedness of this Peter LaBarbera fellow.

  • vorjack

    “Am I wrong for feeling disgust at exotic some cuisine or medieval sanitation practices?”

    As a married man, let me assure you: despite menstrual blood, ovulation mucus, the occasional yeast infection, and the fact that the urethra is right there, the vagina isn’t that bad. You’ll get over the disgust.

  • The Medium Lebowski

    I’d rather take my chances with Peter LaBarbera

    You’re welcome to him.

    No worries.

  • The Medium Lebowski

    How did you jump to vaginas?

    Nevermind.

    I really don’t want to know.

    * shudder *

  • Ty

    2%?

    Hell, even Hulk Hogan is gayer than 2%.

  • vorjack

    I was making a point about the relativity of “grossness”. It’s basically the same point we’ve been trying to make throughout the whole thread. Please try to keep up.

    Oh yes, and queefing. Can’t forget that.

  • Ty

    Grossness as a measure of morality is a slippery slope. :)

  • The Dude

    “In a sense, yes. My art has been commended as being strongly vaginal which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina. ”

    – Maude Lebowski

  • LRA

    “Oh yes, and queefing. Can’t forget that.”

    You must have caught this week’s South Park episode…

    http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1304/?

  • Alex Guggenheim

    Imagine that, a pity benefactor. LOL

  • vorjack

    Particularly in the later years, after he borrowed the feather boa look from Jesse Ventura.

  • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

    lol great stuff! I always thought it odd how an omnipotent being would create humans with very strong sexual urges then watch these humans intently and get hurt or sad if they acted on these sexual urges and actually, god forbid, masturbated!!!!! OMG The horror!!!! :O

    On this same topic I think this is why many Priests preyed on young boys. When a human being denies one of their most natural and basic instincts, that instinct becomes corrupted and bastardized. This is why the whole idea of celibacy is kinda like telling a person they are not allowed to pee – something that is completely natural, normal and HUMAN.

  • James

    You know… what is it about two men that’s so threatening? Everytime I hear from the anti-gay lobby, it’s always about gay men who recruit, gay men who molest, gay men who do this and that. And yet, in our culture – for the most part – the idea of two women is super hot. That is, as long as they fit into men’s idea of beauty and still get it on with guys. Oh yeah, and as long as they don’t have any opinions, political or otherwise.

    I wish God would just put down her purse, speak up and let us know how she feels.

  • http://sourapplesblog.com Elliott

    @ Medium Lebowski

    It’s this type of need to make everyone agree with you that I object to from both sides.

    I totally agree. I don’t want it that way at all.

    I just think that some people may be couching underlying prejudice in terms of ‘personal preference.’ My suspicion is that many people, not necessarily yourself, try to distance themselves from an act that is still somewhat looked down upon by framing it with ‘personally, I think it’s gross, but…’ I don’t understand why some people have to temper their support for gay rights with even a slight value judgment about what they do in the bedroom. I think the propensity to add that little caveat may be a symptom of residual prejudice, that’s all.

    As I said, I can support people’s rights to find love and have relationships without necessarily wanting to dwell on the private aspects of it.

    Rock on.

    @ Mogg

    Exax.

    It’s for these reasons I think it’s still a prejudice and not a preference:

    1. Most people would find hetero anal (at least slightly) more acceptable.
    2. It’s not limited to anal, those same people also find frottage and gay 69 distasteful.
    3. They don’t dwell on lesbian sex.

    There is something going on here that’s worth talking about. That’s what I meant above when I said “it worries me.”

  • http://sourapplesblog.com Elliott

    It’s a good idea to think about this in evolutionary terms.

    For many of our ape relatives, sexual contact is used to alleviate social tension, in lieu of aggression, and for bonding. Among humans, there are few ‘exclusive gays’ and ‘exclusive straights,’ contrary to what we would like to convince ourselves, it’s just an arbitrary line we have drawn. Sexuality is a spectrum, which the Kinsey experiments demonstrated quite nicely.

  • professoryackle

    Or a gay christian promo.

    (Madonna has the straight xian promo covered with the vid for ‘like a prayer’.)

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Good point Elliott. But the problem is not the idea, but rather the phrasing. The phrasing should have included the idea that no-one can make anyone else like something, particularly something they consider threatening to their perceived identity.

    So “utterly legit” is the wrong terminology, but the point I was trying to make (that rhetorical action begets real-world action) still stands, I believe.

  • http://sourapplesblog.com Elliott

    I agree.

    In this case though, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question the reason for the dislike. We should at least examine it. In the end, it could turn out that it’s a simple preference, or it could be a symptom of a larger prejudice. It’s a hard question to ask, but I don’t think it’s unwarranted.

  • DorkMan

    Riiiiiiiiiight


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X