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

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman


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: 159179
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

Comments (1-28) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Liberator (#23)

That's what makes them freaks.

lol, you'd still be there kissing ass and looking for friends if they didn't get tired of your bullshit and ever increasing kookiness.

Were you ever in the music or song writing business? ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol

Biff Tannen  posted on  2010-08-07   11:39:33 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: jwpegler (#31)

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.

As long as there are certain rights, benefits, and protections that go along with marriage, the government does have an interest in who is married.

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-07   12:33:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: A K A Stone (#11)

Oh and Megan McCain isn't a conservative.

How does she enter into this discussion?

"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath

Skip Intro  posted on  2010-08-07   12:34:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: A K A Stone (#18)

Marriage is a man and a woman.

That's your definition and you are welcome to it. The question is, do you have the right to impose your definition on the rest of humanity?

May all faggots that claim to be married get aids.

Stuff like that gives Christians a bad name.

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-07   12:41:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: lucysmom (#32) (Edited)

As long as there are certain rights, benefits, and protections that go along with marriage, the government does have an interest in who is married.

Absolute bullshit. You are displaying exactly the kind of warped logic that has allowed the government to grow into the Leviathan behemoth that it is today.

Legally, marriage is a contract. The government has one role in contracts -- that of the arbitrator of last resort in a contractual dispute. In many cases, the government doesn't even perform this role anymore. When I went through my divorce we used private arbitration. The government's only role was register the agreement about assets and children that came out of the private arbitration.

The government certainly has no legitimate power whatsoever to bestow any special "rights" or "benefits" to married people. The government's only legitimate role in society is to protect the natural rights that all humans have as a result of being human.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   12:46:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Liberator (#28)

Because a bunch of nuts loves their dogs doesn't mean the state must recognize "marriage" it their case, does it?

How would one prove that a dog has freely consented to marry?

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-07   12:47:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Liberator (#29)

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

Many Native American tribes accepted same sex marriage.

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-07   12:53:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: jwpegler (#35)

When I went through my divorce we used private arbitration. The government's only role was register the agreement about assets and children that came out of the private arbitration.

You made a new contract and it was blessed by the court. If a dispute arises, the court will enforce the contract, or bless its modification. If human beings were always rational and fair, there would be no need for the courts to get involved.

A benefit of marriage is the right to inherit. A friend recently discovered what a mess that can be when the union is not blessed by the state. Her partner's family did decide that she could keep the entire mortgage on the house since more was owed than it is now worth - everything else however, the family decided belonged to them.

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-07   13:10:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: lucysmom (#38)

You made a new contract and it was blessed by the court. If a dispute arises, the court will enforce the contract, or bless its modification.

Which is what I said -- their only role is the arbitrator of last resort.

A benefit of marriage is the right to inherit. A friend recently discovered what a mess that can be when the union is not blessed by the state.

ROTFLMAO. People inherited long before there was a central state "blessing" marriages. Of course, people can inherit from unmarried individuals too. Even within state's "blessing" (you crack me up), the government has screwed this up as well.

A Will is public instrument that is published when you die and can be challenged by any schmuck with a shyster lawyer. Did you know that? Most people don't understand this. The only way to make your death and inheritance a private affair is by creating a trust (I know this because I've done it at the advice of my attorney). The normal way that people handle their estate, with a Will, enables the government to leave them open for all kinds of trouble in the courts.

Nothing that you've said is a legitimate argument for government control and licensing of marriage. In fact, just the opposite is true.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   13:28:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Liberator (#28)

"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever.

Not entirely true. I have seen and heard references to a "marriage" of a engine and transmission in a car or truck that didn't come with that engine or transmission.

I have also never seen where the term is LEGALLY limited to a partnership between a man and woman ONLY. WHERE is it restricted to only male and female relationships,other than in the minds of fundies?

They and you apparently want the "freedom" to arbitrarily redefine both the language and humankind's traditions.

I have no interest in redefining anything. It is people like YOU that want to redefine it to meet your religious beliefs.

Because a bunch of nuts loves their dogs doesn't mean the state must recognize "marriage" it their case, does it?

Dogs get married. I read of one case where a man married his horse. In neither case does your religious cult have to recognize the marriages. Or monogamy?

What does monogamy have to do with it? The subject was marriage,and WELL over 50% of the marriages in this country are not monogamous. Some were never intended to be monogamous from the beginning,and in others at least one partner is stepping out on the other.

"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)

sneakypete  posted on  2010-08-07   13:29:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Liberator (#29)

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

Probably because nobody ever tried it. Mostly because the superstitious fundies that controlled local governments would have murdered them.

There were also laws against blacks and whites marrying. Do you think THOSE laws were based on Constitutional principles?

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

Yeah,all because people like you are singling them out for special treatment and denying them their rights as citizens.

Man, you are waaay off base on this issue.

No,I'm not. All I am doing is saying ALL citizens should be treated equally by the government,and their rights and freedoms as individuals need to be respected.

What's wrong with that?

"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)

sneakypete  posted on  2010-08-07   13:34:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Liberator (#28)

"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever

Of course, what you are saying is simply not true.

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

Gay marriages were recognized in ancient Rome until 342AD. At least two Roman Emperors were in gay marriages, including Nero.

Ancient Greece allowed day marriage too. Aristotle praised a same sex couple (Philolaus and Dioclese) who lived their whole lives together and maintained a household together until their deaths when they were buried side by side.

I don't give a hoot about your views on this, but let's be historically accurate, shall we?

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   13:42:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: lucysmom (#34)

Fuck you terriblemom.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-07   14:15:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: lucysmom (#37)

Many Native American tribes accepted same sex marriage.

If true it is good they were wiped out.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-07   14:17:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: A K A Stone (#43) (Edited)

Fuck you terriblemom.

And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up. It's apparent even it's most publically fervent adherents don't take it's teaching to heart, so why should others? You and that liberator as the prime examples.

"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)

mininggold  posted on  2010-08-07   14:18:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: mininggold (#45)

And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up.

Finally some good news on this site.

"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath

Skip Intro  posted on  2010-08-07   14:20:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: mininggold (#45)

People destroying our culture are the enemy. They will be made fun of, called names, ridiculed and put in their low place.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-07   14:22:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Skip Intro (#46)

Finally some good news on this site.

Heh..when the last king is strangled with the entrails from the last priest (or preacher) and all that. lol

"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)

mininggold  posted on  2010-08-07   14:23:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: A K A Stone (#47)

People destroying our culture are the enemy. They will be made fun of, called names, ridiculed and put in their low place.

Typical of your way of thinking that culture is also monolithic. So far it has evolved to the point where you can call people vile names and make false accusations without being shunned or lynched.

"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)

mininggold  posted on  2010-08-07   14:26:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: mininggold (#45)

And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up

Where is that happening? In your dreams?

Christianity is the largest religion in the world and it's once again growing faster than the second largest religion (Islam).

Conservatively, there are at least 2.5 billion Christians in the world. Islam has less than half that number.

There are about 38,000 different Christian sects in the world. The Catholic Church is the largest, with over 1.2 billion adherents. However, various Pentecostal denominations as a whole are by far the fastest growing and together account for at least 500 million people, with some estimates claiming upwards of 1 billion. Most Pentecostals are in the third world, where their brand of Christian beliefs mix easily with tribal religious practices. There are also about 400 million other protestants,285 million Orthodox (210 million Eastern Orthodox and and 75 million Oriental Orthodox), and other assorted sects.

Christianity is also the fastest growing religion in China, Vietnam and most other former communist countries.

So, where are these Christian churches going belly up?

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   14:38:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: jwpegler (#50)

There are about 38,000 different Christian sects in the world.

And most of them think every sect but theirs is wrong.

"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath

Skip Intro  posted on  2010-08-07   14:50:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Skip Intro (#51)

And most of them think every sect but theirs is wrong.

So what's your point?

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   14:56:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: jwpegler (#52)

So what's your point?

My point is that Christians agree on little except calling themselves Christians.

"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath

Skip Intro  posted on  2010-08-07   14:58:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Skip Intro (#53)

My point is that Christians agree on little except calling themselves Christians.

They all agree that Jesus was the son of god who died to pay for our sins.

After that, they agree on little else.

So what?

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   15:04:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: jwpegler (#39)

Nothing that you've said is a legitimate argument for government control and licensing of marriage. In fact, just the opposite is true.

Her partner of 16 years was young and dropped dead of a heart attack. Foolishly they had neither a will nor a trust.

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-07   15:18:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: A K A Stone (#43)

Fuck you terriblemom.

The body of evidence supporting your claim to be a Christian is shrinking by the minute.

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-07   15:21:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: lucysmom (#56)

FWIW, I never believed it.

war  posted on  2010-08-07   15:24:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: jwpegler (#50)

So, where are these Christian churches going belly up?

Just more estimates and statistics most supplied by the religious orgs themselves. Just go into any church on any given Sat or Sun and see for yourself. And I see you conveniently excluded Buddhists, since you only included the three Judaism branches, like no other religions exist on earth.

"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)

mininggold  posted on  2010-08-07   15:33:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: mininggold (#58)

A church I'd attended in the past sent me an email asking if I'd attend a series of meetings about how to "redirect" the church to encourage more traffic.

I should go and thank them, because when I first started going I was a full believer, but the more I listened and learned the more doubt I had that this was anything but a mass hallucination.

There's something about being surrounded by people, every single one claiming that they're "saved", that hits the pride button to much for me. Add in the criticizing of all other denominations as being "misled", and you're talking about a ship of fools here.

"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath

Skip Intro  posted on  2010-08-07   15:38:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: mininggold (#58)

Just go into any church on any given Sat or Sun and see for yourself.

I do wander into my wife's large Catholic Church on occasion and it's always packed. ditto for my sister's different Catholic Church in and my other sister's even larger non-denominational church.

There are Christian denominations that are losing members (the Methodists come to mind) but they are losing members to other Christians churches. Yes, there are Catholic churches that have closed, but this is largely due to a lack of priests. Catholics are actually growing in the U.S. due to immigration from Latin America.

Buddhists don't have anywhere near the membership of Christianity, Islam, or even Hinduism worldwide. Buddhists are growing quickly in the U.S., but still have only 1.5 million members or so. Not significant compared to the 225 million Christians in the U.S.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   15:46:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: jwpegler (#60)

Why do catholics pray to mary? Why did they change the 10 commandmanets?

Why to they call the pope "holy father".

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-07   15:48:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Skip Intro (#59)

when I first started going I was a full believer, but the more I listened and learned the more doubt I had that this was anything but a mass hallucination.

It's funny, because I didn't grow up with a religious background at all and I only attend church today on very rare occasions, but I'm probably more a "believer" than you are.

There is more scientific evidence for Christian beliefs all of the time.

The big bang, which is proven science, is 100% compatible with the Genesis account of the creation: "And god said let their be light".

There's also a lot of evidence coming from quantum physics (quantum entanglement) that the universe is a big hologram. Other evidence that's its a computer program, perhaps a computer program that uses holographic memory.

There was a great show on the Shroud of Turin on the History Channel last month that was conducted by computer scientists that was very compelling. I've been in computer field for 23 years and I don't fall for simple number games like the "Bible Code" crap from a few years ago. What they've discovered about how the Shroud could have been made (by a narrow beam of moving light, e.g. a copy machine) is very compelling given that there weren't any copy machines prior to a few decades ago.

Again, I don't care what people believe. But I do like to be historically and scientifically accurate, which is why I get pulled into these religious discussions on occasion.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   16:04:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: jwpegler (#62)

Again, I don't care what people believe. But I do like to be historically and scientifically accurate, which is why I get pulled into these religious discussions on occasion.

There are certainly enlightened Christian theologians, those who don't claim the bible is 100% error free and understand that the bible is not a literal history. Unfortunately, there are none anywhere near me.

If a church requires it's members to subscribe to an inerrant bible, as mine did, when the bible is riddled with errors and contradictions, it's bye-bye to that church.

"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath

Skip Intro  posted on  2010-08-07   16:11:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: A K A Stone (#61) (Edited)

Why did they change the 10 commandmanets?

Let's be very clear on history. The short answer is that the Catholics didn't "change" the 10 commandments.

The Commandments are not numbered in the Bible. If you were to number every "command" in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 we would have about 17 commandments or more. So different efforts have been made to number and group them over the centuries.

Two of the major players in the early Unified Church were Augustine and Origen.

Augustine is considered a Saint and a doctor of the Church. Origen is considered in high regard on many accounts, although several of his positions have been rejected, such as his idea that souls in hell could eventually get back to heaven (which is unscriptural).

Catholics and Lutherans generally prefer the commandments set out by Augustine (around 400AD) and the Eastern Churches and Protestants follow the Commandments set out by Origen (around 200AD).

There were many disagreements between the Eastern Church (Orthodox) and Western Church (Catholic) while the New Testament was being assembled in the 4th century. The Eastern and Western Churches split in 1054.

Protestantism didn't come along until for another 500 years. The first Protestant Church (the Lutherans) use the Augustine 10 commandments, just like the Catholics.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   16:20:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: jwpegler (#60)

I do wander into my wife's large Catholic Church on occasion and it's always packed. ditto for my sister's different Catholic Church in and my other sister's even larger non-denominational church.

The church's in my area are packed too. Especially since they are packing two or three different congregations from different denominations into the same building (at different times of course) now because the individual congregations aren't large enough to support their own separate churches. Some even have Mexican denominations using their facilities for services during the week. Yet you still can drive by on Sundays and see very few cars in the parking lot.

"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)

mininggold  posted on  2010-08-08   2:14:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Abu el Boner (#30)

*whistle*

Go get the bone, Boner!!

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-08   16:29:46 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: lucysmom (#36)

How would one prove that a dog has freely consented to marry?

Some people who owns pets can communicate with them. Don't you agree?

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-08   16:43:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: lucysmom (#37)

Many Native American tribes accepted same sex marriage.

So do many Native San Franciscan gay tribes.

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-08   16:44:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (70 - 275) not displayed.

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