[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"This Is How We Win a New Cold War With China"

"How Europe Fell Behind"

"The Epstein Conspiracy in Plain Sight"

Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick

Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat?

A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land?

US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking

DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died

"‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much"

"Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use"

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet"

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Ann Coulter To Headline 'Homocon' Event For Gay Conservatives
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/ ... er-to-headline-a_n_673313.html
Published: Aug 6, 2010
Author: Nick Wing
Post Date: 2010-08-06 18:42:53 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 168710
Comments: 275

Ann Coulter To Headline 'Homocon' Event For Gay Conservatives

Conservative pundit and unlikely gay ally Ann Coulter is set to headline the first annual Homocon, "a party to celebrate gay conservatives" put on by GOProud, the "only national organization representing gay conservatives." The festivities are scheduled to take place in New York City on September 25.

"The gay left has done their best to take all the fun out of politics, with their endless list of boycotts and protests. Homocon is going to be our annual effort to counter the 'no fun police' on the left," said Christopher Barron, Chairman of the Board of GOProud, in a statement. "I can't think of any conservative more fun to headline our inaugural party then the self-professed 'right-wing Judy Garland' - Ann Coulter."

"I can promise you, Homocon 2010 will be a hell of a lot more fun than chaining yourself to the White House fence," Baron pledged, making light of an incident earlier this year where gay soldiers protesting the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy chained themselves to the gates of the White House.

In choosing Coulter, the organizers of GOProud appear willing to ignore her past transgressions against the gay community. The conservative pundit was condemned by gay-rights groups in 2007 when she notoriously called then-Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot."

And earlier this year, Coulter railed against "irritating lesbian" Constance McMillen for challenging the sanctimony of heterosexual-only proms.

But Coulter's selection probably won't be surprising to many gay rights groups who have pointed out that GOProud sometimes exhibits self-destructive behavior. Earlier this year, the gay conservative group planned a fundraiser with Doug Manchester, a California businessman and hotelier who donated $125,000 to anti-gay marriage Proposition 8.

That fundraiser was held earlier this month in an event that GOProud called an effort by Manchester to "make financial amends with the gay community," which had mounted a boycott of Manchester's hotels and accused him of treating his gay employees poorly.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 164.

#3. To: Skip Intro (#0)

No such thing as a conservative faggot. That is like having a pro choice pro lifer. An oxymoron.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-06   19:34:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: A K A Stone (#3)

No such thing as a conservative faggot. That is like having a pro choice pro lifer. An oxymoron.

WRONG! There is no such thing as a politically conservative bible thumper.

Being a conservative means that you are for individual freedoms and reducing government control over the private lives of individual citizens. That is 180 degrees off from what bible thumpers want.

sneakypete  posted on  2010-08-07   6:16:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#13)

No such thing as a conservative faggot. That is like having a pro choice pro lifer. An oxymoron.

There is no such thing as a politically conservative bible thumper.

Being a conservative means that you are for individual freedoms and reducing government control over the private lives of individual citizens. That is 180 degrees off from what bible thumpers want.

Wrong.

You've just described a libertarian.

There are social constraints that have always be "conservative" which is defined by the lack of change or a status quo within a social standing.

Stone happens to be right with respect to "oxymorons." A few of the primary tenets of political "conservatism" within the context of American politics are "pro-life, "pro-marriage" (between man & woman), and "pro-gun."

Individual queers may have conservative leanings, but as a demographic they are as liberal/fascist as any group in the US.

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-07   10:17:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Liberator (#21)

Being a conservative means that you are for individual freedoms and reducing government control over the private lives of individual citizens. That is 180 degrees off from what bible thumpers want.

Wrong.

You've just described a libertarian.

Which is what a conservative really is. The Founding Fathers were all libertarians,and being a conservative means holding to the traditional values and thoughts of the people who established our form of government.

Individual queers may have conservative leanings, but as a demographic they are as liberal/fascist as any group in the US.

Gee,I wonder why? It's not like anybody that CLAIMS to be a conservative is making them feel unwelcome by wanting government to treat them like second class citizens,or wishing they would die.

sneakypete  posted on  2010-08-07   10:32:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: sneakypete (#27) (Edited)

[A liberatarian] Which is what a conservative really is. The Founding Fathers were all libertarians,and being a conservative means holding to the traditional values and thoughts of the people who established our form of government.

And if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders. WHY NOT?

YES - being a conservative DOES mean "holding to the traditional values and thought of a people who established out gubmint" - THE FOUNDERS.

Minimal gubmint. Representative gubmint and consent by and for the People. But that's all now apparently a past "tradition."

Anybody that CLAIMS to be a conservative is making them [queers] feel unwelcome by wanting government to treat them like second class citizens,or wishing they would die.

Who are you kidding?

Queers now have "special rights." Affirmative action. Corrupt judges. Look at them wrong and you can be arrested for "Hate Crimes."

Man, you are waaay off base on this issue.

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-07   10:48:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Liberator (#29) (Edited)

if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders...

They just don't have the right (or social consensus) to redefine the language and the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat...

More importantly, there weren't any government marriage licenses at the time of the founders.

Of course the government has already changed the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat.

Historically, marriage was a contract between two families, usually under the auspices of a religious authority.

At the beginning of the progressive era in the late 19th century, state governments starting to nullify common law marriages and began to exert more control over marriage. By the 1920s, 38 states had laws prohibiting whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos.

In the 1960s, governments started using their power over marriage to force "no- fault" divorce laws on all of us.

As is the case with everything government touches, it has destroyed the institution of marriage. 50% of Americans between 25 to 29 are unmarried. Almost 40 percent of children are born to unmarried parents.

The government has no business regulating who can get married. They certainly have no business requiring a license to validate that a couple is married.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   11:43:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: jwpegler (#31)

if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders...

They just don't have the right (or social consensus) to redefine the language and the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat...

More importantly, there weren't any government marriage licenses at the time of the founders.

True dat. Gubmint seems to feel that have the right to intrusion by dictatorial fiat for any reason.

At the beginning of the progressive era in the late 19th century, state governments starting to nullify common law marriages and began to exert more control over marriage. By the 1920s, 38 states had laws prohibiting whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos.

Interesting....

In the 1960s, governments started using their power over marriage to force "no- fault" divorce laws on all of us.

That was an arrangement facilitated for business reasons (lawyers got rich), and social re-engineering reasons (NWO Commie/Blueblood Elites.) The end result has contributed to the destruction of the family.

The government has no business regulating who can get married. They certainly have no business requiring a license to validate that a couple is married.

*Just as long as the arrangement is between a man and woman*

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-08   16:40:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Liberator (#67)

Just as long as the arrangement is between a man and woman

That's up to the people who want to marry, their families, and their religious institutions, not the government.

Leftists have always sought to replace the authority of the family, church, business, and chartable institutions with the power of the state.

Real conservatives have historically viewed the family, church, business, and charitable institutions as bulwarks against the creeping authoritarianism of the state.

It's so funny to me to hear so-called "conservatives" argue that the state should be able to usurp the power of people, families, and churches. Quite frankly, the primary problem with this country is the almost none of the people who call themselves "conservative" are actually conservative.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-08   17:12:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: jwpegler (#72)

That's up to the people who want to marry, their families, and their religious institutions, not the government.

This is so simple: "Marriage" = Man + Woman.

Now if you don't the government deciding on its new definition, then WTH is the government involved NOW?? Same sex marruage has NEVER been recognized in this Republic for over 200 years.

Leftists have always sought to replace the authority of the family, church, business, and chartable institutions with the power of the state. Real conservatives have historically viewed the family, church, business, and charitable institutions as bulwarks against the creeping authoritarianism of the state.

Yes, I hear ya.

t's so funny to me to hear so-called "conservatives" argue that the state should be able to usurp the power of people, families, and churches. Quite frankly, the primary problem with this country is the almost none of the people who call themselves "conservative" are actually conservative.

Did it ever occur to you that you're missing something here?

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-08   17:23:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Liberator (#76)

ame sex marruage has NEVER been recognized in this Republic for over 200 years.

A.) The country largely never had marriage licenses until the 1920s so there was nothing "official" to recognize, and

B.) You're wrong:

A Boston marriage, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was an arrangement in which two women lived together, independent of any man's support.

Some women did not marry because men feared educated women during the 19th century and did not wish to have them as wives. Other women did not marry because they felt they had a better connection to women than to men. Some of these women ended up living together in a same-sex household, finding this arrangement both practical and preferable to a heterosexual marriage. Of necessity, such women were generally financially independent of men, due either to family inheritance or to their own career earnings. Women who decided to be in these relationships were usually feminists, and were often involved in social betterment and cultural causes. with shared values often forming a strong foundation for their lives together

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-08   17:39:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: jwpegler (#80)

The country largely never had marriage licenses until the 1920s so there was nothing "official" to recognize, and

People weren't that stupid back then. It was called common sense. They knew what the second amendment meant too.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-08   17:48:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: A K A Stone (#87)

They knew what the second amendment meant too.

That you could have all the guns the government says you could have?

sneakypete  posted on  2010-08-08   18:59:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: sneakypete (#116)

No so you can exercise your first amemdment right to kill faggots.

You want to play word games with the constitution. Then I can too.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-08   19:00:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: A K A Stone (#117)

No so you can exercise your first amemdment right to kill faggots.

You want to play word games with the constitution. Then I can too.

Fine. Just point out to me where it says you can legally murder someone.

People like you and Liberator are prime modern day examples of why the Founding Fathers insisted we have freedom of (and FROM) religion. Thank you for reminding people of the reasons.

sneakypete  posted on  2010-08-08   19:21:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: sneakypete (#130)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

There you go. An argument for legal killing of faggots.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-08   19:34:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: A K A Stone (#132)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

There you go. An argument for legal killing of faggots.

You think that is in the US Constitution?

Really?

Or is it that you think we live in a police state Christian theocracy?

Will you welcome living in a Muslim police state theocracy in 50 years or so when they are a majority?

sneakypete  posted on  2010-08-08   20:37:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#149. To: sneakypete (#140)

You think that is in the US Constitution?

Really?

First amendment. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

That would be practicing religion.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-09   7:17:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: A K A Stone (#149)

You think that is in the US Constitution?

Really?

First amendment. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

That would be practicing religion.

On what planet does that mean the Old Testament is a part of the US Constitution?

sneakypete  posted on  2010-08-09   7:42:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: sneakypete (#161)

That would be practicing religion.

On what planet does that mean the Old Testament is a part of the US Constitution?

The part where it says the govt can't prevent my free exercise of religion. Leviticus says kill the fags. So if you try to prohibit you are violating my first amendment right.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-09   7:44:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 164.

        There are no replies to Comment # 164.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 164.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com