Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Wingnut extraordinaire Peter LaBarbera says that giving equal rights to gays only inflames the Muslim world against the United States.
"The Obama administration is making a huge mistake by promoting homosexuality in this in-your-face kind of manner, which is now igniting the ire of Muslims across the world," he warns. "It gives Muslims one more reason to oppose and hate the United States."
Funny, if anyone dares to suggest that perhaps American foreign policy has fueled the growth of Islamic radicalism around the world, the right screams "Appeaser! Anti-American Neville Chamberlain!" And LaBarbera is one of those wingnuts who claims that liberalism is in cahoots with Islamic terrorists to bring down America. And yet here he is arguing that we should become more like those terrorists -- more intolerant of gays, not less -- in order to appease them. How amusing.
But he still tries to distinguish between his views and that of the Islamic radicals:
And LaBarbera notes that true Christianity's treatment toward people who struggle with homosexuality is more compassionate than that of radical Islam."We don't believe in stoning; we don't believe in pushing them off of buildings. We believe in redemption -- that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle through Christ," the AFTAH founder concludes.
Actually, LaBarbera believes in putting them in jail. He railed against the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas and has repeatedly demanded that it be overturned. He compares it to Roe v Wade, the most hated Supreme Court ruling of all for the religious right. So does the AFA. And the FRC. And several Republican state platforms.
Politics
Comments
Wingnut extraordinaire Peter LaBarbera says that giving equal rights to gays only inflames the Muslim world against the United States.
How about parading all the prisoners around with bags over their heads as a "security precaution". Naw, that couldn't possibly inflame anybody.
Posted by: 386sx | July 19, 2011 9:48 AM
He also forgets it was the Christians in Uganda calling for the death penalty (the more easygoing just called for life imprisonment) and imprisonment for anyone supporting gays/lesbians (i.e., by not turning in any they know of).
Posted by: Erp | July 19, 2011 9:59 AM
I take it that Mr. LaBarbera prefers his homosexuality in the in-your-ass kind of matter? While he's certainly entitled to his preferences, he should really keep the government out of policing them.
Posted by: Phillip IV | July 19, 2011 10:02 AM
"The Obama administration is making a huge mistake by promoting homosexuality in this in-your-face kind of manner, which is now igniting the ire of Muslims across the world," he warns. "It gives Muslims one more reason to oppose and hate the United States."
Boy, that's creeping Sharia if I ever heard it!
What, too obvious?
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 19, 2011 10:07 AM
Doesn't pretty much anything not Muslim inflame the Muslim world? You know the whole infidel thing, or are there different grades of infidel, with gay people slightly lower on the ladder than Xians and Atheists, or are Atheists considered even lower?
Posted by: Doug Little | July 19, 2011 10:10 AM
I guess LaBarbera didn't get the memo from Pope Joseph "Big Hat" Ratzinger that Christians are a-ok with homosexuality now.
Posted by: John Hinkle | July 19, 2011 10:31 AM
"We don't believe in stoning"
Actually, yes, yes your religion does. Peter might not have picked that particular belief up in the cafeteria line, but his religion absolutely does say this.
Posted by: TomZ, a miasma of incandescent plasma | July 19, 2011 10:36 AM
Which is a lie: anti-gay biggots in western societies do not refrain from killing gays because they are more "compassionate" that the biggots living elsewhere, they refrain themselves because they live in countries where the state:
1. Is legitimate enough so that they cannot pass for rebellious idealists.
2. Has enough firepower to effortlessly overwelm them should they start killing gays left and right.
Posted by: Laurent Weppe | July 19, 2011 10:43 AM
This argument hit its most absurd point during the DADT debate, when it was suggested that openly gay servicemembers would inspire even more resistance among the Taliban. Y'know, as if a family whose home was leveled gives a shit whether or not there was a rainbow flag in the window of the bomber's cockpit.
Posted by: Freemage | July 19, 2011 11:19 AM
John:
IIRC, Labarbera is one of those "RTC"s who say that Catholics aren't "real" Christians. The memo would just be proof to his ilk that the Catholics are wrong headed (or sinful or even evil).
Posted by: Kelly | July 19, 2011 11:47 AM
Posted by: Dennis N | July 19, 2011 12:04 PM
Freemage "Y'know, as if a family whose home was leveled gives a shit whether or not there was a rainbow flag in the window of the bomber's cockpit."
But it does compromise our defense. Imagine how easy it will be for The Enemy to see our boys approach. If the rainbow behind the bomber doesn't give it away, surely the thumping dance music will.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 19, 2011 3:19 PM
Might I be forgiven for wanting to get LaBarbera and Pamela Geller in a room together, primed with this talking point. I could turn on the video recorders, leave, and lock the door behind me. It would be a shame to not record it, both are capitalists and would surely be okay with our making a little money off it.
Posted by: Art | July 19, 2011 3:28 PM
"But it does compromise our defense. Imagine how easy it will be for The Enemy to see our boys approach. If the rainbow behind the bomber doesn't give it away, surely the thumping dance music will.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 19, 2011 3:19 PM"
Nevermind that; wait until the GAYirborne goes in. It'll be "Pastel Dawn". I'm sure Petey will volunteer to monitor the situation in full battle dress, including the chaps.
Posted by: democommie | July 19, 2011 4:51 PM
Then he will be campaigning for the government to enact laws to make the wearing of beards compulsory?
Actually, I wouldn't mind that at all.
Posted by: Nick | July 19, 2011 9:29 PM
The social-conservative legal ramblers seem to be missing the point. Roe, Lawrence... they are just consequences. Their real target should be Griswold v Connecticut. Not only did it establish another right they loathe (Access to contraception, the key element of a culture of fornication), but it also lead directly to both Roe and Lawrence by establishing a right to privacy in matters of sex.
But they won't go after it, of course. They might like to, but they also know that banning contraception would be a very unpopular idea with everyone else in the US.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | July 20, 2011 3:33 AM