Timothy…You clearly know significantly more than I do about what Pete possesses, what Pete thinks constitutes typical homosexual activity, where he goes, and what his motives might be.

Yes. Clearly.

At any rate, rules are no name-calling. If I start a new post, we can take it over there.

I oppose same-sex marriage and adoption by homosexual couples, but my public discussions would remain in the abstract.

David Blankenhorn, a Democrat, with different views from mine on homosexuality has written an immensely important book, The Future of Marriage, in which he discusses and defends the fundamental structure of marriage as being connected essentially to sexual embodiment and procreation. So, the view that marriage should retain complementarity as essential no more represents an attack on particular LGBTQ people than does the view that marriage should retain its binary dimension represents an attack on particular people who identify as polyamorous.

Timothy, I have no knowledge of Pete’s “collection,” nor have I knowledge of how many times he’s gone where. You clearly know significantly more than I do about what Pete possesses, what Pete thinks constitutes typical homosexual activity, where he goes, and what his motives might be. It would be presumptuous and pointless for me to impute motives to him or anyone else.

Certainly, if someone were using opposition to homosexuality as a subterfuge for indulging in secret, undisclosed temptation or sin, there would be a problem. But, their hidden motives would no more legitimize homosexuality than would someone using opposition to porn as a subterfuge for indulging in porn legitimize porn. Moreover, a relentless commitment to exposing perversion does not always emerge from attraction but, rather, it often emerges from concern for our culture. The assumed, imputed, or real motives of those who oppose immorality are culturally irrelevant, though, on a personal level, of immeasurable import.

I was expressing my belief that there are people who are deeply invested in, or “excessively preoccupied” with exposing and ridding our culture of all sorts of destructive ideas and activities, which may involve documenting activities; that, in my view, seem a valid civic commitment.

I find the existence of bathhouses, men in diapers (I’m glad to see Boo finds that “unhealthy behavior”), and leather events enormously more problematic for society than someone’s documentation of them. I find it deeply troubling that gay pride parades, for example, are seemingly exempt from obscenity laws and that the Palmer House in Chicago would, for the almighty dollar, host an event that requires blackening its windows.

Regarding nicknames: I’ve learned that it takes very little to earn nasty names from some in the gay community. I have read some of the most obscene epithets imaginable leveled at virtually every conservative who publicly opposes the normalization of homosexuality – speech that by any standard constitutes hate speech.

It seems that an evaluation of someone’s obsession should take into account the object of their “excessive” preoccupation. An obsession with eliminating the destructive presence of slavery as William Wilberforce had, or eliminating racism as Martin Luther King Jr. had, or with making music as Mozart had, or decreasing the presence and public affirmation of deviant sexual practices signify, to me, healthy obsessions. I was wondering if you think that, for example, making porn for decades constitutes an obsession?

Criticisms leveled at LaBarbera sound distinctly similar to the ones made of Christ as he supped with whores and loathsome tax collectors. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Peter says he goes to these things “undercover.” Christ was ministering to those he dined with. Peter has no indication in his “reports” from these things that he talks to anyone in Christian love. It’s all “EWWW look at this!!!” and “EWWWWWWWWW!!! Look at THIS!!!” Do you really think Christ hung out with His disciples passing around all the r-rated pictures of prostitutes he took?

IML had the entire hotel booked and off limits to children, ensuring privacy. Peter puts pictures of men in diapers up on a publically accesible website where anyone can see them. Who is doing more to expose children to unhealthy behavior?

“There is the federal Defense of Marriage Act that passed in 1996 and, to date, it has not been successfully challenged in the court, and it may be sufficient to resolve the issue.”

So I concur that he is not a vigorous advocate of any extreme position but politically, it seems he has staked out ground that favors the status quo. Where he is now, I do not know.