This is rich.  Peter LaBarbera, who has been integral in the placement of two organizations on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate-group list, and who openly associates with and defends the most obviously hateful anti-gay figures (Scott Lively, the buffoons at MassResistance, Linda Harvey, Laurie Higgins, etc.), seems to be taken aback by the fact that Kyle at Right Wing Watch labeled Peter’s “homosexual troof kamp” a “hatefest.”  Really, Kyle, why are you so mean?

Oftentimes when activists on the Left have no evidence that something they disagree with is actually ”hateful,” they just label as such anyway, and then repeat themselves ad nauseam so that we’ll all get the message that said conservative activity is, well, “hateful.”

No, Peter, actually it’s your words and deeds that get you labeled as hateful.  The evidence has already been compiled, so just click here for the Porno Pete archives at Truth Wins Out, here for the archives at Good-As-You, and here for the archives at Right Wing Watch.

Seriously, though, most people on the Left are not quite willing, yet, to define anyone who disagrees with homosexuality as “hateful” — although they might call them “homophobic” (an artificial construct whose elastic definition has evolved to meet the needs of pro-”gay” liberals).

There are only two choices:  knowingly hateful or woefully, fearfully misinformed on the subject.  This has nothing to do with “morality.”

I’m sure there are exceptions, but I suspect that most “gay”-affirming people would not automatically label anyone who believes that homosexuality is immoral — or that homosexual sex is unnatural – as “haters.”

Eh, we’re getting there, though.  Twenty years ago, it wasn’t the case, because people didn’t have as much access to correct information, so they could be granted a little more leeway/time to become more educated.  Nowadays, as the anti-gay segment of our society is dying off, those who cling to their discriminatory, bigoted views have a lot more to apologize for.  Hell, most Republicans I come across find anti-gay rhetoric to be distasteful and gross, because they know better.

However, if you reflect that moral opposition in the public square — if you defend the age-old position that homosexuality is wrong – then suddenly you become, yes, “hateful.”

Yes, because the fact that it’s “age-old” doesn’t make it right.  Slavery was “age-old,” and supported by the Bible.  It’s wrong, though, but you don’t arrive at the conclusion that slavery is wrong by reading an ancient religious book.  You have to look to a more reason-based system of morality and examine the harm done to sentient beings.  From there, it’s an easy jump to “owning people is not good.”  Likewise, you can excuse your bigotry in the pages of the Bible, especially if you don’t really understand words very well, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to reason that if two people love each other and are productive, contributing members of society, that they should not be discriminated against just because some loons with double-digit IQs can’t handle the genitals of the couple in question.  I know many of them secretly wish they could handle the genitals of the couple in question, but the sexual repression of the fundamentalist Christian church is not my problem.

Hard to win that argument: ME: pro-gay, loving and tolerant. YOU: anti-gay, hateful and intolerant.

To be fair, Peter, you’ve already lost that argument.

Give me the old-fashioned liberals who might disagree with AFTAH’s beliefs forcefully but who at least understand that name-calliing is no substitute for an argument.

Translation:  Give me the days when my worldview hadn’t been summarily disproven, the days when it wasn’t the laughingstock of educated people everywhere.

Morality is not “hate” and defending the historic Judeo-Christian sexual ethic is not “bigotry.”

He’s correct that morality is not hate.  His mistake is in continuing to believe that happy, healthy gays and lesbians falling in love is somehow a “moral” issue.  Defending patriarchal subjugation and sexual control is definitely bigotry, though.

Homosexuality is wrong, and a controversial moral and religious issue involving behavior.

You can keep saying that, Peter, but all credible scientists say otherwise.

…[T]here are thousands of former homosexuals — people like our Truth Academy instructor Greg Quinlan, who once considered himself “gay” before leaving the lifestyle.

Prove to me that Greg Quinlan doesn’t get a raging erection when he sees a naked man, and we’ll talk.

The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual practice — especially among men — is a big factor in the spread of diseases like HIV.

Wrong, dude!  Unsafe sex, poor education, and oftentimes, patriarchal sexual control, is what spreads HIV.  That’s why it’s growing among straight people, why it’s rampant in Africa, etc.  Meanwhile, lesbians have the lowest infection rates on the planet, so based on this twisted strain of LaBarberian logic, lesbians are the most moral of all!

Does PFAW hold that it is OK to crusade for acceptance of homosexuality, but “un-American” and ”hateful” to oppose it civilly?

Kyle can answer for himself, but I do, because real people are involved, real gay kids end up depressed, on the streets or dead because of the “loving opposition” (pure, unmitigated hatred) from people like Peter LaBarbera, who has spent his life working to make sure those kids’ pain is as intense as possible.

Is every American who opposes homosexuality hateful — or just those who defend that position in public?

I answered this above, but again, they are either:

A.  Actively hateful (Peter, etc.)
B. Woefully undereducated on the subject. (Peter also, and others)
C. Irrationally fearful of gays, especially gay men. (Peter, again, and others.)

When does moral disagreement become “hate”?

When your “moral disagreement” is predicated on denying an entire class of people their rights as Americans, against all facts and evidence, and hurting as many of those people as possible, and also when it leaves a body count.

Meanwhile, below are the Truth Academy curriculum and speakers, not one of whom has a hateful bone in his or her body.

I always suspected they weren’t made of human flesh and bone. Now we have confirmation.

UPDATE: Here’s Kyle’s response to Peter’s bullroar.

(The Awakening Conference was sponsored by the Freedom Federation and held April 15-16 at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, VA. Truth Wins Out’s founder Wayne Besen reports live from the event )

If the Religious Right fringe one day establishes a theocracy in America, no one will be able to credibly claim that they did not explicitly broadcast their dubious intentions. Having just spent two days at “The Awakening” conference at the late Rev. Jerry Falwell’ Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, one message was unmistakable: Many key Religious Right figures vehemently reject separation of church and state and believe America is a fundamentalist Christian nation.

“The Bible is the government of the people, by the people and for the people,” thundered Cindy Jacobs of General’ International from the stage. “I believe there is an awakening to do just that.”

What’ frightening is that many leaders on the Religious Right hold a basic belief system that is seemingly incompatible with democratic forms of government. Their central tautological argument is that liberty originated from God and so the only way to be truly free is through a theocratic system that honors the creator of freedom.

Huh? Exactly.

According to this mindset, God has ordained the faithful to be in positions of leadership, rendering any form of government that does not elevate these “chosen ones” or reflect their extreme views as illegitimate.

The Saturday night rally began with a surprising controversy. Lou Engle (pictured), the constantly rocking, intense, mustachioed cleric of The Call with the booming voice of a professional wrestler declared, “We are here to honor all denominations. There will be no tongues tonight.”

This left many in the audience offended, and well, tongue-tied. In a huff, several people stormed out of the main chapel. Sensing a gaffe, Engle soon reappeared on-stage and happily declared, “I apologize, we can speak in tongues!”

At this heavily advertised event, there was no shortage of the paranoid and prejudiced. But, one pleasant surprise was that attacks on LGBT people were on the decline. The crowd was more riled about President Barack Obama’ healthcare plan, which the Family Research Council’ Tony Perkins referred to onstage as “a socialistic time bomb.”

The big news at the conference came from Engle. While sitting in the audience during the “LGBT Agenda” breakout session, he spoke up and conceded that the next generation of evangelical Christians is largely supportive of LGBT rights (but not abortion). Engle said that when he preaches against gay people, the Christian youth often “rage against him.” Engle, a giant in right wing circles, said that the far right has lost on this issue barring a miracle, such as an intercession at a 500,000 strong youth rally. When he floated this idea to the activists on-stage, The Liberty Counsel’ Matt Barber said they should privately discuss such a rally after the forum.

Good luck with that idea, considering the breakout session at Falwell U. drew only 15 people. Virtually everyone in the small crowd was a hardcore anti-gay activist from groups such as Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX). Clearly, gay bashing was an issue that was not motivating many young people, as it has been in the past. (Although, it seems Engle’ group, The Call, may already be testing his intercession plan in Uganda) (Read More)