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: 158774
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-47) not displayed.
.
.
.
#48. To: Skip Intro (#46)
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)
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)
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?
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
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
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?
Her partner of 16 years was young and dropped dead of a heart attack. Foolishly they had neither a will nor a trust.
The body of evidence supporting your claim to be a Christian is shrinking by the minute.
FWIW, I never believed it.
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)
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
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.
Why do catholics pray to mary? Why did they change the 10 commandmanets? Why to they call the pope "holy father".
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.
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
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.
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)
*whistle* Go get the bone, Boner!!
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*
Some people who owns pets can communicate with them. Don't you agree?
So do many Native San Franciscan gay tribes.
I'll post something about this someday.
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. Heh...A Ford 5.0 engine with the tranny of a '75 Chevy Nova. What were they thinkin'?? 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? It's always been so obvious that man + woman = legal, it's expressed. "Fundie" authorization has nothing to do with historical sanity in this case; It's natural. 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? One bizarro-world case here and there is irrelevant. Only in yours and Rosie O'Donnell's cartoon world is she and another dyke, and Dick and Big Richard actually considered "married." 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. That was my bad; I meant polygamy. What's to stop everyone from "marrying" everyone else - including their own two grandmothers?
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.
Sneaky may be a product of that coupling, a horse's ass!
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Govt doesn't have the authority to change that.
Probably because nobody ever tried it. Mostly because the superstitious fundies that controlled local governments would have murdered them. I think it's because they were too ugly and practiced bad hygiene back then. Washington had wooden teeth - giving a different meaning to "woodies" - NOT attractive to obvious deist (but not atheist) gays, Jefferson and Adams. Btw Pete - you DO know 98% of the Founders either believed in God or were Christians, right? There were also laws against blacks and whites marrying. Do you think THOSE laws were based on Constitutional principles? Obviously not. [White] people like you are singling them [blacks] out for special treatment and denying them their rights as citizens. *LMAO* Yeah, I've been the one forcing them to drink from the 'Colt 45 - BLACKS ONLY' fountain. 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. Gays already have the "rights" and "freedom" to be with whomever they want (providing they're not Priests) till the day they die and call it whatever they want. The rest of us oppose a law demanding that we consider it "marriage."
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?
He and Pete and libertarians want government to stay out of the lives of people, yet they support the government infringing on the legal definition of "marriage." A consensus opposes IT. The subversion of the English language and definitions is a real problem. We even have Mexican madres dropping bambinos out of their wombs in Arizona - and SUDDENLY the kid and Mommy and daddy are "Americans"?? Bullsh*t.
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? HUH?? As historical "evidence of gay marriage" you present the respective cases of WHOM?? A couple of Bostonian freaky lezbos from the 1800s, a few B.C. Gay Greek Philosophers (big surprise there), and faggy Roman Emperors? Gimme a frickin' break. Statistically speaking - in 99.99% of ALL cases - the history of mankind has defined "marriage" as between a MAN & WOMAN.
Awww....had somebody abused you with a hard-cover King James Bible when you were a little rug-rat? Put some ice on it.
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
That isn't true. It is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999percent
A. NATURE "recognizes" marriage between male and female. B. (not bragging, but) I'm Right. If women wound up together, it was NOT "marriage." Sheeesh....
LOL...But what about that .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001??
Funny that you of all people would mention "belly-up."
In the name of "freedom." (eyeball roll)
Then let nature deal with it, not the government. Nature has a great punishment for homosexuality -- your gene pool dies because you can't have kids. Why is this any of your business or the government's? It's not.
People weren't that stupid back then. It was called common sense. They knew what the second amendment meant too.
Leaving you with whom to guide your secular humanist atheistic Commie-Fascist society? Chyeah, you'll be a valued member of that society.
Comments (89 - 275) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestFinally some good news on this site.
#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.
#50. To: mininggold (#45)
And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up
#51. To: jwpegler (#50)
There are about 38,000 different Christian sects in the world.
#52. To: Skip Intro (#51)
And most of them think every sect but theirs is wrong.
#53. To: jwpegler (#52)
So what's your point?
#54. To: Skip Intro (#53)
My point is that Christians agree on little except calling themselves Christians.
#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.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#43)
Fuck you terriblemom.
#57. To: lucysmom (#56)
#58. To: jwpegler (#50)
So, where are these Christian churches going belly up?
#59. To: mininggold (#58)
#60. To: mininggold (#58)
Just go into any church on any given Sat or Sun and see for yourself.
#61. To: jwpegler (#60)
#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.
#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.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#61)
(Edited)
Why did they change the 10 commandmanets?
#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.
#66. To: Abu el Boner (#30)
#67. To: jwpegler (#31)
if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders...
#68. To: lucysmom (#36)
How would one prove that a dog has freely consented to marry?
#69. To: lucysmom (#37)
Many Native American tribes accepted same sex marriage.
#70. To: jwpegler (#64)
#71. To: sneakypete (#40)
"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever.
#72. To: Liberator (#67)
Just as long as the arrangement is between a man and woman
#73. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#71)
I read of one case where a man married his horse.
#74. To: jwpegler (#72)
That's up to the people who want to marry,
#75. To: sneakypete (#41)
And if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders. WHY NOT?
#76. To: jwpegler (#72)
That's up to the people who want to marry, their families, and their religious institutions, not the government.
#77. To: A K A Stone, jwpegler, sneakypete (#74)
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Govt doesn't have the authority to change that.
#78. To: jwpegler, sneakypete (#42)
"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever.
#79. To: Skip Intro (#46)
#80. To: Liberator (#76)
ame sex marruage has NEVER been recognized in this Republic for over 200 years.
#81. To: Liberator (#78)
Statistically speaking - in 99.99% o
#82. To: jwpegler (#80)
#83. To: A K A Stone (#81)
#84. To: mininggold (#45)
And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up.
#85. To: A K A Stone (#47)
People destroying our culture are the enemy.
#86. To: Liberator (#82)
(Edited)
NATURE "recognizes" marriage between male and female.
#87. To: jwpegler (#80)
The country largely never had marriage licenses until the 1920s so there was nothing "official" to recognize, and
#88. To: mininggold (#48)
Heh..when the last king is strangled with the entrails from the last priest (or preacher) and all that. lol
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]