Which Side Are You On?

Jim Burroway

August 18th, 2010

Last week, I noted that Peter LaBarbera’s coming unglued over Ann Coulter’s scheduled appearance at GOProud might almost — almost — make me want to cheer for Coulter. Now LaBarbera’s going off on Glenn Beck for saying that same-sex marriage is not a threat to the country. LaBarbera counters that gay marriage will “destroy freedom.” Of course, the only freedom he’s really interested in is the freedom to force us to cower in the closet. That cause was lost 41 years ago.

Meanwhile, World Net Daily is also melting down over Coulter and GOProud. Coulter has been axed from WND’s “Taking America Back National Conference” to be held in Miami next month. Joseph Farah, WND’s editor, spoke to Coulter and said that she told him the only reason she’s speaking at GOProud is because she’s getting paid. Remember, this is coming from Farah so take it with a grain of salt, but he quotes Coulter as saying:

“I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. I’ve spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I’m sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I’m speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you’re nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)”

As I said last week, LaBarbera’s outrage over Coulter speaking at GOProud makes me almost want to cheer Coulter and GOProud, two entities that I have very little respect for otherwise. Same with Beck. So by the same token I have trouble knowing who to cheer for here as well. The whole “enemy of my enemy” thing can only carry you so far. Barely as far as it takes for me to write three paragraphs about it first thing in the morning and wonder if I’ve already spent too much time on this already.

Stephen

August 18th, 2010

I think the only puzzlement here is why any college would hire Coulter to speak. Unless by ‘college’ she means Liberty U.

TJMcFisty

August 18th, 2010

After spending so much time as of late with birferism (WND is king of the birftards), I cannot believe I’m actually a little thrilled–downright giggly–Coulter calls them out on their nuttery.

As for the rest, meh.

Peter LaBarbera

August 18th, 2010

Hey Jim, nice throwaway line on freedom, but even BTB has covered some of the zero-sum-game conflicts between homosexuality-based “rights” and religious freedom (inc. the New Mex. photog. case). Why don’t you get serious and address my points about the conflicts that would arise from legalizied SSM (and S.O. laws)? Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose homosexuality based on their moral/philosophical beliefs — or not, in your view?

John in the Bay Area

August 18th, 2010

The supposed quote from Coulter makes sense. I have seen her in action on TV a few times. She says whatever she needs to get a reaction and stir thing up. It has worked for her. I am sure that she has made a lot of money. I don’t for a moment believe that she honestly cares at all about the issues that she goes on rants about. It really is all about the money.

Stephen

August 18th, 2010

To Mr LaBarbera.

No.

Next question: should Americans be allowed to put up signs reading “No Dogs or Jews Allowed”?

And moving right along: “No Irish Need Apply.”

Or my own favorite: “No Theatricals.”

KZ

August 18th, 2010

I made the mistake of clicking on your ‘destroy freedom’ link. Mr Burroway could address LaBarbera’s points, but I think he already has from countless, previous posts.

Priya Lynn

August 18th, 2010

Peter said “Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose homosexuality based on their moral/philosophical beliefs”.

Yes, up until the point when that opposition involves denying gays equality under the law.

John in the Bay Area

August 18th, 2010

I am generally opposed to women marrying men who spend a great deal of time attending gay leather events, skulking about gay bathhouses and purchasing enormous amounts of gay porn.

However, just because I think that it is a terrible idea for a woman to marry or stay married to a man with these sorts of all consuming hobbies or obsessions, I don’t think that I have the right to deny this woman the freedom to make her own mistakes by marrying this man who is way too interested in things that heterosexual men don’t take an interest in.

So, Peter, someone can oppose something, yet at the same time recognize that they don’t have a right to interfere in someone else’s private life.

Soren456

August 18th, 2010

@LaBarbera:

How do you “oppose” homosexuality? That’s like “opposing” the weather.

Both are natural phenomena; how do you “oppose” them?

TampaZeke

August 18th, 2010

I think it’s very telling that GOProud loves Coulter so much but Coulter makes it clear that she doesn’t support them and is only attending their event for the money.

No matter how I feel about Coulter or how I feel about GOProud, there’s no denying that they are meant for each other and deserve each other.

Oh, and Hi Petey! How does it feel to realize that you’re on a rapidly sinking ship? 10 to 20 years from now the vast majority of people will remember you, and others like you, with the same fondness that is reserved for George Wallace, former Grand Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan and other bigots who lead campaigns against minority civil rights.

I know, I know, YOU aren’t a bigot and homa-sek-shul rights aren’t civil rights. Funny that. Growing up in Mississippi, my racist parents, who fought integration and voting rights for blacks claimed, and continue claim, that they weren’t bigots and that “negro” rights weren’t civil rights either. In fact, most people in the South and many people across the country agreed with them. But history hasn’t been kind to those people.

I suspect that this is one of your greatest fears. That gay people will achieve equality and their rights will be considered civil rights and that those who oppose their rights will be considered bigots.

Alas, I think you have good reason to fear.

Just so you know, I’m doing everything I can do to make your greatest fears come true.

TampaZeke

August 18th, 2010

Actually, I take that back.

I think your GREATEST fear is that people will come to a place where they not only don’t fear their gay neighbors but actually like them and support them. The reason this is your greatest fear is because you know that their lack of fear means you won’t be able to dupe them into sending you their hard earned cash, resulting in your being forced to get a REAL job!

THAT is your GREATEST fear!

sam

August 18th, 2010

Peter asks, “Why don’t you get serious and address my points about the conflicts that would arise from legalizied SSM (and S.O. laws)?”

What conflicts? Any conflicts I’ve seen are fictions contrived to scare people into thinking that we’re boogeymen/women (boogeypeople? boogeypersons?) So why don’t you come back and tell us here what it is that you’re so worried about?

Timothy Kincaid

August 18th, 2010

Peter,

Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose homosexuality based on their moral/philosophical beliefs — or not, in your view?

Of course they do.

Ideology – even that which is based in animus, fear, arrogance, superiority, or fanaticism – is a fundamental right that we support here at BTB. But, of course, we also reserve our fundamental right to oppose that ideology and expose it for what it is.

Aeval

August 18th, 2010

To Peter LaBarbera:

Time is on our side, and God is not on your side.

TampaZeke

August 18th, 2010

What’s the matter Pete? Don’t like to play outside your echo chamber sandbox?

Xaocoh

August 18th, 2010

Why worry about who you should be cheering for? Just grab some popcorn and enjoy the show!

Chris McCoy

August 18th, 2010

Peter LaBarbera said:

Why don’t you get serious and address my points about the conflicts that would arise from legalizied SSM (and S.O. laws)? Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose homosexuality based on their moral/philosophical beliefs — or not, in your view?

Please clarify what you mean when you say “oppose”.

Does “oppose” mean “Make a personal choice not to associate or do business with”; or does “oppose” mean “Deny equal rights to, by force of law”.

Jason D

August 18th, 2010

“Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose homosexuality based on their moral/philosophical beliefs — or not, in your view?”

They have the right to be opposed to whatever they wish to be opposed to, however if they wish to express that opposition by violating laws, the constitution or use the government to punish and oppress those they disagree with then they have crossed the line.

Let’s ask YOU a Question Pete.
Your religion opposes premarital sex, right? Yet it’s legal. At some point a Christian parent has to explain to their children that while this is legal, it’s not moral according to their family’s faith. In other words, they have to explain that there are Man’s Laws and God’s Laws and they don’t always overlap. Similarly a Kosher Jewish parent has to explain that a Ham & Cheese sandwich is against their faith, but perfectly legal. Now we don’t see Hebrews declaring that allowing people to make, sell, and eat ham and cheese violates their rights because they have to have conversations with their children…yet somehow, you think that homosexuality can’t just be part of the “it’s legal, but we’re against it” talk. Somehow that’s a violation, but explaining that things like gambling, drinking, and premarital sex are legal but against your faith isn’t a violation. How’s that work?

Richard Rush

August 18th, 2010

Oh, Peter, you really should seek professional help.
You clearly suffer from GOD (Gay Obsession Disorder). Symptoms include debilitating irrational fear and loathing of gayness, and paralyzing paranoia. Those symptoms are normally coupled with delusions of superiority that include the assumption of entitlement to have absolute authority over the lives of others in every detail, and a compulsion to persecute those who dare to resist.

Anyone should recognize that they are in dire need of professional help when Glenn Beck is not paranoid enough for them.

Audrey the Liberal

August 19th, 2010

Hey, look everybody, it’s ‘Porno Pete’. “Hi ‘Porno Pete'”.

Tommy

August 19th, 2010

And crazy rears it’s head…

(inc. the New Mex. photog. case)

You do realize there is a difference between a person and a business?

Tommy

August 19th, 2010

Now my question (or rather questions) for Mr. LaBarbera is this:

Did you know that Liberty University was started to be a whites only school? Did you know the moral majority was founded because Jimmy Carter stripped segregationist “Christian” schools like Liberty University of their tax exempt status? Would you be intellectually honest and describe this as a “zero-sum-game conflict” between race-based “rights” and religious freedom? Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose black people based on their moral/philosophical beliefs — or not, in your view?

Timothy Kincaid

August 20th, 2010

Tommy,

You’re making some interesting claims about Liberty University but I don’t think they are accurate. Please provide a source.

werdna

August 20th, 2010

Timothy-Perhaps Tommy was thinking of Bob Jones University, rather than Liberty, at least as far as having a history of racial discrimination.

Tommy

August 20th, 2010

Liberty University was founded in 1971 as Lynchburg Baptist College and was an adjunct to Lynchburg Christian Academy which was built in 1967. The News reported in 1967, “a non-profit, non-stock Lynchburg organization has announced plans to build a private school for white students on land in the Evergreen Farms area.”

Timothy Kincaid

August 20th, 2010

Tommy, thanks for the source.

Chris McCoy

August 20th, 2010

Thy Kingdom Come‘ by Randall Balmer (2006) was written to forward the premise that the Moral Majority began due to opposition to the “forced” desegregation of Bob Jones University, and not due to Roe v Wade.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today in History, 1610: Virginia Colony Enacts North America's First Sodomy Statute

Today In History, 1983: Pat Buchanan Says AIDS Is Nature's "Awful Retribution"

Today In History, 1988: Britain Enacts Section 28

Padres Finally Respond to Gay Men's Chorus Debacle

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1920: Harvard Establishes Secret Court To Investigate "This Pernicious Scourge"

Today In History, 1975: LAPD Chief Declines Gay Pride Invite, Proposes "Gay Conversion Week" Instead

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.