Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Anti-gay campaigner says opponents are part of “Satan’s plan”

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Who is satan? And where can you read what his/her plan is?

    1. Surely they it must have been published online or something…. unless satan’s speaking directly to him?

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 3 Nov 2011, 5:05pm

      I think its at the local council planning office.

      1. i think it might be Peter LaBarbera. from everything i have heard about satan oppression and hate is right up his street.

      2. “…in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”.”

      3. I think he may have several offices including the local planning office, HMRC and the training school for GP surgery receptionists …

    3. Is this guy getting confused with Santa? I’ll get my coat….

  2. Sam Maloney 3 Nov 2011, 4:52pm

    I’m really pissed at the rest of you for not cc’ing me on the whole gay agenda thing! Here you have this elaborate plan to subvert society and deny free speech to the hate mongers and you couldn’t even take a moment to clue me in, even though you’ve GOT to know I’d be happy to help?
    That’s just rude…

    1. Nawal Husnoo 3 Nov 2011, 5:22pm

      Now you can’t say I didn’t send it to you.

      http://www.gayagendabook.com/gayagenda.html

    2. I agree… I can’t seem tow work out what the gay agenda is and I’m gay.

  3. Michael Barber 3 Nov 2011, 4:55pm

    If Porno Pete knows Satan’s plan, he’s a lot closer to evill than any LGBT person ever got.

    1. Logical to me ….

  4. The USA, home of religious crackpots!
    The fact of the matter is that people like La Barbera actually FEAR open debate because within five minutes, their entire arguements fall apart under rational, scientific examination.

    So complaining about gay people trying to shut down free speech and open dialogue is a ruse.

    He cannot defend his position with anything more than emotional soundbites and subjective skewed information anymore than a KKK member can and he KNOWS it.

    So he is reduced to whining about losing his former credibility in the media, just as no self-respecting media house would even bother to interview irrational hatemongerers, save to expose their ridiculousness.

    1. Seeing the devil everywhere is hardly conducive to promoting universal human rights.

      La Barbera is looking democracy, not Satan, in the face.

  5. This individual’s looking-glass world is so dizzyingly twisted I’m feeling queasy just thinking about it.

  6. Dr Robin Guthrie 3 Nov 2011, 5:07pm

    I’ve given up logging all of these religious nutters.

    There are just to many of them.

    Won’t be long before some apologist comes on defending this lunatics right to free speech, yada yada yada.

    1. Nawal Husnoo 3 Nov 2011, 5:24pm

      I log Mauritian ones here: http://www.gayagendabook.com/homophobes/obnoxious_homophobes.html

      There are also gayhomophobes logged here: http://gayhomophobe.com/ (this link doesn’t work right now…)

    2. @Dr Guthrie

      On this one I am with you 100%

      If he comes to the UK then then either he should be turned round back to where he came from due to being not conducive to the public good or he should be sectioned (long term)

  7. Apparently, he’s supposed to have one of the largest collections of gay porn on the planet. He trolls gay venues to take photos of men on men in various sexual situations and pretends he uses it for research that he then presents to his followers as evidence as to just how debauched we all are. I bet you anything he gets an erection watching so much gay porn. He needs to come out of the closet once and for all.

    1. Purely out of interest where did you hear that?

      1. Porno Pete is well know to the TLBG activists here in the US, Stu!

        He’s *always* seen at leathermen gatherings, and especially the famous Folosm Street Fair. He haunts virtually every pride parade he can get to, shrilly denouncing us as “degenerates”. But just remember the old line: “Methinks he doth protest too much.

        1. Sounds a reasonable conclusion to draw if he attends many of the pride/sleaze events

      2. Stu, via Wayne Besen’s website,Truth Wins Out, America’s foremost organisation to combat the ex-gay myth. He has the evidence to document Porno Pete’s presence at gay venues.

    2. ooh, is that dandruff I see on Pete’s head, or is it snow from being so deep in the closet he’s in Narnia!

  8. Nawal Husnoo 3 Nov 2011, 5:22pm

    Allow me to own up to the homosexual activist agenda:

    http://www.gayagendabook.com/

    No, I don’t want to remove his freedom of speech: [Gay Agenda, 4:36] (http://www.gayagendabook.com/gayagenda.html#4_36)

    No, I’m not trying to shut down debate. In the contrary, I want to encourage debate: http://www.gayagendabook.com/homophobes/obnoxious_homophobes.html

    Nobody is threatening your personal safety. Asking for the personal safety of gay people to be respected does not mean you lose yours. Idiot.

  9. Deeside Will 3 Nov 2011, 5:22pm

    Peter LaBarbera (aka Porno Pete) has a perfect right to free speech. What he DOESN’T have is the right NOT to have the trash that he talks criticized or derided.

    1. Nawal Husnoo 3 Nov 2011, 5:25pm

      Exactly!
      Many homophobic bigots have either claimed they are using their freedom of speech to sprout their homophobic arguments against equal civil rights for gay people, or have claimed that other homophobic bigots (not them — they are, afterall, perfectly rational, intelligent interlocutors) are entitled to their views and should be able to express it freely. This may be the single, unique, rare, exclusive, exceptional time that I agree with them. I agree completely that in a democratic society, every person is entitled to his views and he has the freedom to express these views. Similarly, I claim my own freedom of speech in writing this book and the accompanying website, as well as posting replies to homophobic drivel where I see it. In fact, freedom of speech is only that. There is absolutely no freedom from being challenged.

      [Gay Agenda, 4:36] (http://www.gayagendabook.com/gayagenda.html#4_36)

      1. Right on as usual, Nawal.

  10. What’s the bet he’ll be caught with a rent boy in a matter of weeks.

    1. jamestoronto 3 Nov 2011, 6:57pm

      He just claim it was part of his research.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 4 Nov 2011, 9:28am

        And tax deductible..

    2. I’ll bet the video or the recording was made long ago and somebody is sitting on it until an opportune moment…

  11. I wonder if these people get told what utter twerps they are after they have died. If there is such a thing – which I hope there is – mainly for reasons such as this.

  12. Two ideas immediately spring to mind after reading the discussion between Harvey and LaBarbera. One, what seems more like hate encouraging public speech? …. the careless repetition of familiar lies about any and all non-straight citizens? … you know, the familiar narratives which involve defamation of any and all LGBT folks as deeply unethical, dirty, damaged, and/or dangerous? … or, perhaps, the public remarks of listeners who hear these comments and then point out that their family, loved ones, parent(s), friends, coworkers are being falsely described?

    Two, we are still in the lively process of weighing when repeating lies based on unproven categorical assumptions of dirty, damage, and/or danger … are becoming too similar to the (religious or secular) freedom to yell Fire! in crowded theaters. Neither Harvey, nor La Barbera cares what happens when anybody takes extreme legal, public policy, or even private vigilante action to protect from the untrue dirt, damage, danger.

  13. When the equal rights of black people was being debated in the public forum in the early stages of the Civil Rights movement, certainly, the media used to allow Grand Wizards of the KKK and other open racists on air to express their views. But very soon, it became clear these people did not even merit an audience and civil rights WAS NOT A MATTER OF DEBATE, it was a matter of basic human rights and inalienable fact.
    The same thing has happened for gay people in the mainstream media. Religious hatemongerers previously entertained on air are no longer being asked for their “expert opinion” except on Fox News and Conservative radio stations. The vast majority of people KNOW being gay is not a choice. They find ex-gay programmes dubious, harmful and outright laughable. Not to mention the scandal after scandal after scandal of their proponents now makes people like La Barbera highly suspect in the public eye. They have associated overly pious, overly-gay obsessed heterosexuals with hidden dysfunction, hypocrisy and self-loathing. I mean how much wholesome, enjoyable, married, heterosexual sex could you really be having if you spend SO MUCH TIME obsessing over what gays are doing in their bedroom?

    1. lol :)

    2. I think someone should sponsor Jessie to come to the UK and take over leadership on Stonewall lol I likes her style

    3. Another excellent comment, Jessie! :D

  14. now i hate having to debunk any sort of religious veiws, its a cause for good in so many people’s lifes. whats more is i dont believe in an afterlife, so im not gonna waste time arguing with somebody whos beliefs are as strong as mine. i’ll entertain the ideas of others if it helps them get through life or be a better person. but if its going to be used to oppress the rights of millions of people we are going to need some hard evidence.

    what happened to the all loving christ? maybe this is his plan?

    1. And your point is? Apart from the appalling punctuation.

      1. but if its going to be used to oppress the rights of millions of people we are going to need some hard evidence.

        that bit. are you pulling me up on my casual approach to english because you cant find a valid argument?

      2. if you have to rely on picking someone up on something like punctuation to win an argument you might aswell not take part.

      3. @Angela_K

        Aside from the punctuation issues – which are a very weak point to choose to pick apart an argument – the comments chris54 has made are clear, and I’m surprised you can not understand them. Maybe you just don’t want to?

    2. last time i posted something like this i got flamed left right and centre, i dont think people got to the end of my post. pleaseeee this time read all of it.

      1. @chris54

        Your point seems perfectly sensible to me. I hope my sharing the humane approach you seem to take does not make some flame you!

  15. Just another christofascist cretin, fretting about his invisible friend.

  16. This nutter needs to learn that his right to religious freedom ends where my right to exist begins.

  17. jamestoronto 3 Nov 2011, 7:02pm

    So now he knows Satan’s plan. Who’s he been talking with now? Seems to me he way too cosy with a lot of imaginary types.Old Nick must be awfully envious of his “research” collection. This kook will be consigned to the Jimmy Bakker trash bin soon and he’ll do it to himself.

  18. I’ve had enough of these right wing religious nutjobs. I am reasonably religious, but even i know how wacko these people are. They do not represent the God i know, or alot of other peoples.

  19. God seems to be worshipped by people who must be a terrible embarrassment to Her.

    1. If God exists, and were choosing his/her followers, one would think that this creature would be significantly down the invite list, probably not even Z list

  20. I wonder if really bad comb overs are “part of Satan’s plan”?

  21. In an educated civilised world how can anyone who talks about “satan’s plan” be treated with any sort of credibility? How depressing.

    Is the post of “Witch finder general” about to be resurrected I wonder?

    1. jamestoronto 4 Nov 2011, 4:02am

      “Witch finder general” – a very interesting job description. In line for the position are the entire Republican presidential candidates slate. Love to watch them out hate one another and see who can publicly name the most witches and warlocks.

      1. The original WFG – Matthew Hopkins – apparently caused so much trouble in East Anglia that in one village all the locals duffed him up. One can but dream…

  22. It is easy to dismiss Peter LaBarbera as a homophobic neo-fascist nut (he is), along with Linda Harvey, (who also claims teaching evolution is satan’s plan, to give you an idea of her nuttiness).

    LaBarbera’s incoherent bile regularly appears on the news-site of American Family Association, which like him seeks re-criminalisation of homosexuality.

    The sole difference between him, and British organisations like Christian Concern, Anglican Mainstream and the Christian Institute, Family Youth Concern and CARE, all of whom get lots of media attention and have political influence here, is merely on their presentation. Check their website links, and their campaign methods: peas in a pod.

    1. @AdrianT

      I entirely agree with what you say in that post.

      There are some horrendous extremist Christian individuals and groups in the UK, but if we think the Chrsitian Institute is appalling (which I do) then they are mere kindergarten compared to some of the stateside organisations (such as the AFA).

      It is crucial that we condemn the actions of the individuals and groups who share these extremist and inhumane views and expose them. The nonsense that many of these organisations express is babble, but sometimes presented in such a way that either liberal Christians or secular people can be trapped by a lie that sounds legitimate, caring and full of integrity. It is sometimes only when you begin to scratch at the surface that the hatred and bigotry is clear. Sometimes it is crystal clear from the outset. We need a sophisticated concerted campaign to expose and condemn extremists.

      It is equally important that we do not brandish every Christian with the same brush.

      1. The simple solution is to call out, expose, ridicule, condemn, people for what they do and what they say.

        I hear so many Christians say ‘….that homophobia is nothing to do with my religion!’ ‘they don’t represent me!’ and so on. But in the media and in the dark corridors of Westminster, they act as if they do. And the leaders of Lambeth Palace prefers unity and does everything it can to placate them.

        It really is important for the majority of well meaning Christians to make more of a noise and get media-savvy. Unfortunately, the fundamentalist whackos like the groups I mentioned are better organised and funded and are hijacking the issues.They need to start picking up the phone and get talking to newspaper and programme editors, and finding their voice, if they want their faith to mean anything in the 21st century..

        1. @AdrianT

          Everything you say there is fairly reasonable, however, the problem comes when Christians who are pro-gay and accepting (not tolerating) do poke their head over the parapet, rather than be welcomed (despite the difference in belief systems) as being encouraging of gay people – they suffer vitriolic attack and condemnation because of other Christians actions- which they are condemning. This has happened so many times over the past month or two, here on PN. There have been solid stories of Christians who are fully supportive of gay people – who then are attacked (sometimes offensively) by gay people. Its not the right way to fight – partly because allies in our battle for equality are being attacked, but also because in undermines the legitimacy of our condemnation of vitriolic attacks and offensive behaviour towards us.

          Yes, we need to earnestly condemn those who are bigoted but we also need to encourage those who support us.

          1. Stu, I want to see Christian people defending their LGBT friends by taking on the fundementalists, getting into combat with them, challenging them in the media, in the courts and in the corridors of parliament.

            They are wasting their time if they think the extent of their solidarity goes no further than empty platitudes on a gay site or a quiet pat on the shoulder. We haven’t seen enough Christians standing up to the extremists, so the criticism they experience is understandable, given the stupid positions of the CofE and Roman Catholic hierarchies (which are similar to those of the BNP).

            Let’s see more mobilisation, more support of Ekklesia and more inspiring Christians, like Revd Jean Mayland, the Bishop of Leeds, the former Bishop of Leeds, and of course Desmond Tutu.

          2. @AdrianT

            You misunderstand me, clearly, from the reply you have given. I apologise, I must not have made myself clear.

            I did not mean comments on PN – I meant stories on PN where Christians have stood up and been counted and said that we must accept equality to include LGBT people.

            That said, I would like to see more large scale and small scale Christian people defending their LGBT friends as you rightly say. It is difficult with the media one – as the media rarely cover the Christians who support LGBT people and much prefer those who are anti or bigoted (its a better story). The fact there is a debate about gay ordination, equal marriage etc etc proves there are Christians who value us – they do need to be more vocal.

            Absolutely we do have a number of good Christian supporters such as Tutu, there are more than those you mention such as Bishop Charles Blake and the new Bishop of Reading

          3. Stu – I think the reason why the media don’t give fair coverage, is because there needs to be more co-ordination. They need to pick up the phone and get talking to the editors, write press releases and opinion pieces, get interviews organised, and be on the case, when a story breaks. The hate groups I listed above are very well organised. They churn out press releases, mis-information by the tonne. A veritable echo-chamber of nonsense.

          4. @AdrianT

            You may well be right …

      2. The CI is only a lite edition of the AFA because religion plays less of a role in society, and they don’t have as many funds. But CI / CCfoN etc all carry links to hate groups like the AFA, FRC and others on their website. Mike Judge is quoted on OneNewsNow, lamenting the decrimialisation of homosexuality in HM Armed Forces; it rails against funding of any LGBT support groups, and any recognition whatsoever of gay relationships. Its pdf pamphlets on Section 28, age of consent, etc, carry venomous bile that really should have lost its charitable status. We must conclude, its aims are the same as those of hardline interest groups on the other side of the Atlantic.

        I am disgusted that such a hateful organisation can carry the status of ‘Charity’ in this country.

        1. I believe the Charity Commissioners are reviewing their status (again!) at this moment in time

          1. ….Don’t hold your breath… Stu!!

          2. @AdrianT

            I’m not because this is the third look at them, that I am aware of, that the Commissioners have had

  23. paddyswurds 3 Nov 2011, 11:44pm

    @Stu…
    ….you are extremely naive if you think that the majority of world homophobia isn’t in someway connected to religion, usually of the Abrahamic cults kind, either directly as in this case or by influence during upbringing and schooling. Once again your defense of these Neanderthals belies your supposed agnosticism. Get real Stu.

    1. Practically every conflict in the world can be traced to religious differences.

      All Stu is saying is that believers have a right to express themselves, imo.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 4 Nov 2011, 9:29am

        Perhaps they should be protected from themselves….

        1. Stu is naive anyway, he’s weighing down his bandwagon with all his pro homo party activists.

        2. @Dr Guthrie

          Well certainly Linda Harvey and Peter LaBarbera seem like they need protection in one way or another …

      2. Jonpol

        Thank You.

        That is the main part of what I am saying.

        Alled to that is that I genuinely want LGBT equality as quickly and as seemlessly as possible. If some of us display offensive or arguably bigoted behaviour then we undermine our battle for true equality.

    2. paddyswurds –
      Stu has a point and your view is simplistic. I am an agnostic and believe that all supernatural belief is silly because belief without evidence is (generally) silly – but not all Christians or monotheists in general are bone-headed selective literalists and supernaturalists. It is also historically simplistic to suggest that all homophobia is connected to or generated by religion. It looks that way now because, ironically, surrounding society has become less homophobic while reactionary religious groups have now staked their identities on maintaining these attitudes. But the origins of homophobia are rather enigmatic (it is certainly not as old as antisemitism). Christianity had little interest in the issue until 12th/13th century and at some times and places in the early Middle Ages seems to have celebrated same-sex couples. Islam was positively homoerotic in its early days. Intolerance of different minorities skyrocketed in the 13th and 14th centuries in Christendom, and somehow gays got caught up in the process. There is even some evidence of the clergy of the time being mystified by the rising homophobia of the laity. Muslim homophobia seems to have arisen later, possibly under Western colonial influence.

      1. @Riondo

        Thank you for your sensible and measured commentary.

        I think some people try to manipulate the fact that some religious people are vocal in a homophobic manner means that it is easy to spin that all religious people are that way and that being religious means someone is homophobic and that homophobia has its roots in religion.

        That I have to say is simplistic and inaccurate, as you rightly point out.

        I think the reason they do this is often due to their perspective as a result of personal significantly negative experiences from people or organisations of a religious nature. Clearly, that perspective causes them to have a biased view and skews their perception of religion and homophobia – which somehow morph into one issue – religion is homophobia to them.

        Thankfully, not all religious people are like this.

        I too agree that the concepts and fundamentals of religion are crazy and bizarre in many cases. That does not mean that all people who are religious are anti gay.

        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 4 Nov 2011, 3:22pm

          It would be supremely useful if those of the pro-gay religious persuasion spoke out against those anti-gay members of their religion however we RARELY see evidence of this.

          Maybe, as you say I am just seeking out religious homophobia and therefore skewing my view point.

          Personally, I have severe difficulty comprehending the thought processes of “believers”, but coming from a logical scientific background since childhood is probably to blame for this.

          I loath religion of all flavours but I am fully aware that we have to share a planet with them so compromise must be tolerated.

          My main foible is when they attempt to interfere with the secular sphere.

          1. @Dr Guthrie

            I agree that both LGBT people and more thoughtful (ie pro gay) Christians would benefit significantly from more (significantly more!) speaking out and challenging those who are homophobic within the churches.

            I do appreciate that it is difficult for them to get publicity for this, as its not really a story for the media that a Christian is accepting of LGBT people, whereas they love two different groups in conflict eg Christians and LGBT people; that said – I am sure most of us would appreciate if they did try harder to challeneg the bigotry and get publicity in doing so.

            I think it is possible that we are all skewed in our viewpoints because of our experience. Maybe I am skewed more in favour of Christians who are either gay or supportive – because they have been predominantly my experience in terms of religious people.

            I can appreciate why you struggle with comprehending the process of belief in a faith – I find the concept interesting but bizarre, if that makes ..

          2. … some sort of sense.

            I do agree that there has to be some sort of compromise. I think there will be areas on both sides of the divide that either remain disagreements or where we agree to disagree. However, if we can find both more accepting Christians to build dialogue, support etc with and there are some of us prepared to engage in dialogue with some of the Christians then there may be possibilities of moving ahead. That said, the extremists who have rabid homophobic views either have to change their views (maybe due to the challenge by other Christians) or accept that we can engage with some Christians and not others.

            I think the religious should have no ability to dictate on anything. Sometimes they may have interesting comments to make of issues in society, some of which may be useful – but they certainly should not dictate.

            As direct as some of our comments have been to each other – I think we agree on more than we disagree.

    3. I agree. If we look at the history of the three major branches of religion, that is where much of the homophobia stems from. All three condemn homosexuality based on one scant arguable reference in Leviticus, the Jewish part of the bible. There is no mention of homosexuality in the new testament apparently or condemnation by Jesus Christ. None of these three have changed, in fact, the Roman and Islamic cults are more vociferous than ever and to some extent the C of E, unlike it’s sister the Episcopalians.

    4. @Paddyswurds

      I am not denying that homophobia comes from some religions and some religious people. If you think I do not accept that, then to be frank you are misreading my comments.

      I can not say whether the majority worldwide is or is not related to religion. I suspect no one is able to answer that question. We all may have perceptions but those perceptions will differ depending on our perspective. Our perspective will be informed by our own experiences. My experience is of very little religiousity linked to the difficulties with homophobia that I have encountered, although there has been some, I do concede. Most of the homophobia I have encountered is from secular people of no faith. Now, that may not be your experience, it may indeed not be the majorities experience (but I suspect it is impossible to evidence that either way) – but it is my experience.

      I believe that whoever we are and whatever views we have they should be able to be expressed, with responsibility. …

      1. … All of us, whether secular, religious, gay or straight have a responsibility when exercising rights to consider the impact that may have on others and to try and avoid negatively impacting on others rights.

        Now, true equality means equal marriage, equal freedom to speech, equal right to a family life, equal right to services, equal right to justice, equal right to vote, equal right to religion (or none) etc etc but it also means accepting the responsibilities that come with those rights.

        Try a personal attack on me as much as you like, Paddyswurds, with your comements “your supposed agnosticism” and “get real”. As I have said before, I am not here to win popularity contests. I am entitled to my ethical standards and stances and to comment on them as much as you are. I also have right of reply. If you don’t like it – tough, I shall continue to exercise it regardless of tactics you use to try to silence me or ridicule me. I believe in fairness – its clear you don’t.

  24. The Great Satin 3 Nov 2011, 11:52pm

    You can’t get more literal demonisation of gay people than that.

    It would be laughable if there weren’t Ameicans dumb enough to believe it.

  25. GingerlyColors 4 Nov 2011, 6:58am

    Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Jews v. Muslims in the Middle East, Shia Muslims v. Sunni Muslims in Iran, Iraq and Pakistan? Give me Satanism anytime. Satan is a fallen angel and if gays are part of his plan then surely a better world will emerge.

  26. Why do they always look so closeted. A comb over is the sign of a vain and not too bright man

    1. Isn’t vanity a sin :O he must be part of satan’s gang

  27. It needs to be remembered that Satan is essential to these peoples’ world view, more essential even than God. Anything confusing or threatening is made manageable and definible by saying it comes from the Devil. If an idea or way of doing something is a device of Satan you have a ready-made alibi for not engaging with it. Anyone who points out the incoherence and absurdity of your beliefs is of course simply doing the Devil’s work and need not claim your attention.

  28. This guy should be encouraged to continue spouting forth his bile. The more these tosspots rant their lunacy, the more ordinary, rational people will distance themselves from him and his ilk. His circular argument that gays who criticise him for his views are inciting the same hatred for which they condem him, is simply desperate. If he doesn’t want to be criticised for his views, he should shut his trap! Simples :) Also, what IS his issue? WHY is he so hot under the collar about gay people? Is there something in his OWN head which makes him uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality? That’s usually the case with militant homophobes.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 4 Nov 2011, 3:40pm

      Its usually a sign of a deep closet homosexual.

      1. Certainly can be – and often one who is very publically caught out at a later stage in their life

  29. I think you’ll find, if you care to do the research, that ‘Satan’ was an invention of the early Christian church when it found impossible to explain away the horrendous things in life permitted by an all-powerful god – natural disasters which wipe out thousands of innocent people, infant mortality, etc. What I’ve never grasped is why an all-powerful god doesn’t simply wipe out Satan?

    1. Satan certainly became a significant figure only after Apostolic times. In the Bible he is scarcely mentioned and in the Book of Job he is a heavenly retainer with whom God enters into a frivolous wager.
      In Europe he acquired significance in the Church’s battle with paganism – his importance was increased in order to identify pagan fertility gods with him.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 4 Nov 2011, 3:39pm

        In other words.

        Fictional.

        1. Of course. Useful personalities very often are.

        2. @Dr Guthrie

          You might laugh at this (be interested in your clinical opinion too) …

          I had been seeing a guy about 12 years ago, and woke up one morning after we had been seeing each other for 4 or 5 weeks with him, for him to tell me that he believed he was an angel cast out of heaven and that his punishment was to experience every form of human suffering but that he still possessed some of his angelic powers and could make things happen to people. He believed he was being made to suffer the rejection of being homosexual. Must admit it made me very uneasy and almost laugh. We had breakfast, I went home and never went back – I later found out he had said the same thing to some other guys in the area that he had met. Psychosis? Personality disorder?

          1. Dr. R Guthrie 4 Nov 2011, 11:30pm

            Unfortunately, I am no psychiatrist but I would say no doubt being indoctrinated as a child combined with feelings of self loathing.

            Usually schizophrenic disorders, manic depression and psychosis and he may be incorporating that upbringing into these conditions.

            A lot would depend on his “religous” upbringing, whether benign or viscous.

            You were well out of it.

          2. Quite scary, Stu. I had a similar but less dramatic experience about 25 yrs ago. A guy who came on to me (I didn’t fancy him and it went no further) told me he personally embroidered the Bishop of Durham’s surplices. I didn’t actually check with Dr Jenkins, but I didn’t believe it. I suppose this ranks as a rather unusual clothing fantasy(he was an ex-monk).
            I often think these phenomena are explained over-profoundly. Perhaps some people are wired not to distuinguish easily their day-dreams from their experience? And sometimes this stuff must make life more vivid.

  30. If I was a Christian, I’m positive that I’d think Peter LaBarbera was himself very, very much part of ‘Satan’s plan’.

    What better way to destroy the Christian church and turn everyone away from religion that the crap this man’s coming out with?

    Although Satan’s obviously a poor judge of character if he chose such a dullard to be part of his mega-plan! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at his tupidity.

    1. Oh no! Satan stole my ‘S’! Er…”stupidity” obviously :D

    2. Or he’s a comedian. He comes across that way in the Book of Job.

      1. Could very well be, Riondo! :D

  31. Staircase2 4 Nov 2011, 5:08pm

    What an idiot…

    Bless him – the only one who’s work is part of ‘Satan’s Plan’ here is Peter LaBarbera.

    He seems to be falling for the traditionally stupid reactionary Christian trap of thinking that anyone opposing his right to oppress people is somehow oppressing HIM!

    Small town small minded small world small thinking: fearful paranoid zealous & kneejerk

    Shame on you, Peter LaBarbera and all the Christians that sail on you….!

  32. I don’t see the religious activists getting bashed when they walk home from church, or bars. Or when they go to restaurants, or B&B’s, or studio recordings of X-Factor.

  33. Well I suppose criticising idiots for their stupid opinions could be considered “hate speech”, or it could just be considered a difference of opinion.

  34. What are these morons talking about for years these people shut down and persecuted LGBT people now they’re crying because human right’s are for everyone and not just the rich, extremist hate mongers. also love the fact she goes on to say i think they dont care about our personal safety when she has stated that LGBT people aren’t people and dont dont deserve basic human rights, these people are basically evil

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all