Politics

Today, We Are All HomoCons.

|

World Net Daily jefe Joseph Farah kicked Ann Coulter off his event's speaker list

 after she agreed to speak at HomoCon, a gathering sponsored by the conservative-libertarian gay group GOProud. Now Farah explains "this group is a camel trying to get its nose under the tent of a movement it perceives as a threat to the radical homosexual agenda that includes same-sex marriage and open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military, among other things." Take it away, Joe:

Here is GOProud's 10-point "conservative agenda":

  1. TAX REFORM—Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.
  2. HEALTH-CARE REFORM – Free market health-care reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of health-care insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.
  3. SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM—Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.
  4. DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
  5. HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all taxpayers against wasteful and unneccessary (sic) spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.
  6. FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.
  7. DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.
  8. ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.
  9. REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban-related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice. 
  10. DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting Second Amendment rights.

Farah concludes with this chilling list of homosexualist dupes:

The organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference, the biggest annual gathering of conservatives, has fallen for it.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, who sits on GOProud's board, has fallen for it.

And now Ann Coulter, conservative icon, has fallen for it.

Who will be next?

Have conservatives learned nothing about insidious attempts to subvert movements for self-government, the rule of law and the will of the people from within?

Whole thing here.

Color me lavender, but wouldn't the country be like totally awesome if we did in fact adopt GOProud's agenda as outlined above? If that agenda doesn't fit into a conservative game plan, cons should give up and go back to the early 20th century.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

299 responses to “Today, We Are All HomoCons.

  1. Sounds like something I could get behind.

    1. Hee hee, I see what you did there.

    2. I feel what you’re doing there.

      1. Cigarette?

  2. Why does anyone think it’s his damned business what gays do?

    Absent abusive overreaching — e.g., demanding to forcibly indoctrinate other people’s children and sue/harass any dissenters — leave them in peace.

    1. Psst..indoctrinating children is an ugly, ugly myth.

      1. Nope: Denying it exists is.

      2. You obviously aren’t familiar with public school.

        1. I take the word “indoctrinating” to mean, turning them gay. I don’t consider teaching children that some kids have two momies to be indoctrination, but rather, a statement of fact. My 3-month-old neice has two mommies (legally) and I suspect that questions will come up in the minds of her little classmates when she starts school and both of her parents show up for the kindergarten play.

          1. In this context, “indoctrinating” probably does mean turning them gay. However, in the general, indoctrinating is what public school is all about – sometimes by design, others by accident..

          2. I doubt you can turn someone gay by trying to brainwash them, any more than conservative parents can turn their gay children straight by similar attempts at brainwashing.

            1. Not even a bunch of dudes blowing you can turn someone gay.

    2. Why?

      Most likely the most vehemently opposed to gays have unresolved homosexual feelings, therefore, they must oppose the ‘gay agenda’ at all costs. This is especially manifested in those who must continually use phrases like ‘no homo’ to prove their heterosexuality.

      No homo. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

  3. Tangentially related to this, I just learned of the term “no homo” this weekend. I think it’s made my entire week, I’m getting so much amusement out of it. No homo.

    1. No homo?

      Seriously dude, no homo.

      1. Hey man, do you like “Poker Face” as much as me? No homo.

        1. There’s nothing wrong with some Gaga. No homo.

    2. I think this “Liberaltarianism” thing has a lot going for it.

      No homo.

    3. Blocked at work. Please define.

    4. No homo is basically “that’s what she said,” except used for a gayish sounding double entendre.

  4. Um,

    Which parts does he specifically have a problem with again?

    1. The gay part. Maybe.

      1. Yeah, I think it’s the penises too.

        1. All them fucking queers have one. Bastards.

          1. Well, if they didn’t have one, they wouldn’t be fucking queers, now would they? They’d be fucked queers.

            1. Or John Wayne Bobbit.

  5. Can’t think of a single thing on that list I don’t support. Thanks Mr. Farah, you’ve made me a fan.

    1. Item 6?

      1. I could see why gay people would take the rise of a group that wants to stone them to death pretty seriously.

      2. I took #6 to mean politically, not militarily. So I’ve got no problem with that one.

      3. There is no… rule six.

          1. If it’s in the Sears catalog, there’s someone out there that wants to have sex with it.

            1. Erin E-surance porn, yummy.

            2. Wojo, is that you?

    2. So you’re down with the government using tax policy to promote choices it thinks are beneficial to society such as the historic preservation tax credit in #9? I assume you also support higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, soft drinks, high caloric food, etc.

      1. I also had a problem with this “encourage” deal.

      2. Okay, that’s one thing. I subconsciously skipped over that part of #9 and focused on the “school choice” part.

      3. I didn’t notice that. The historic tax preservation is a really funny one. Gays always do live in the best neighborhoods.

        1. But they aren’t always down with preservation. There was a lot of remodeling done in the Thornton Park neighborhood in Orlando, for example.

          1. But they tend to revitalize old neighborhoods. They are the first ones to move into the worst places. The neighborhood I lived in Atlanta, Virginia Highlands, was saved from being destroyed for a highway by a gay activist. I like old houses and buildings, so I tend to not mind living in their neighborhoods for that reason.

            1. Thornton Park / Amelia Ave. was kind of run down, right-next-to-downtown neighborhood when gay guys started fixing it up in the early 1990’s. They transformed it from a kind of scary neighborhood to fabulous! within a couple years.

            2. That is true and my little ghetto neck of the woods has seen a large infux of gays and artist. We’re very happy about that.

              http://www.lavendermagazine.co…..nneapolis/

              1. Yep. Double Income No Kids = massive discretionary income.

                1. Hey, now. I’m a DINK and my wife is all cis-gendered straight woman.

                  And we don’t have kids because I knew they would be pale, sickly creatures with stick-arms and bloated heads mewling and keening as the sunlight burned them.

                  Or fatties.

                  1. I have hetero DINK friends. I hate them too, with all their free time and new toys.

                    1. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

          2. A tax credit is a tax credit is a tax credit.

            Any kind of “refund” you can get for tax money that’s been stolen is OK with me. Is it a distortion of the market? Probably. But it sure isn’t as damaging as the mortgage interest deduction credit or the EITC.

            1. So you think Cash for Clunkers was a good idea?

              1. Of course not. If they were trading in adequate houses for new one and the old ones were being burned down, you might have a point, though.

                1. No, they are only encouraging people to buy old houses and fix them up, thereby driving up prices of what would normally be low income housing. Basically the same effect that Cash for Clunkers had on the used car market.

            2. You should really rethink that one in light of the expiration of the mortgage tax credit. Just look at the chart — before the end date, a rising bubble, after, K-THUNK!

              1. Look, all social engineering with the tax code is wrong. But that doesn’t mean that it’s all equally wrong. Should, ideally, the historic preservation tax credit exist? No. But then in an ideal world they wouldn’t be stealing money from you over and above what it would take to run a properly limited small government in the first place.

                Giving a tax credit to support restoring old houses is just not that big of a deal in the scheme of things and your average gay guy in a historic preservation house has most assuredly paid in more than his fair share of taxes.

                1. I understand what you are saying. But where is my tax credit for buying and restoring/remodeling an older home that is not considered “historic”. My point is we all choose to do what we want, the government has no business using your, mine or anyone else’s money to pay for what somebody whats to do regardless of the perceived benefit to the collective.

                  1. Yes, I did that and I couldn’t afford to keep it. I got no breaks. I was foolish to buy the place. I console myself with the thought that I remade an uninhabitable property into the adorable bungalow that it once was, and increased the housing stock in a region that really needs that kind of help.

          3. Vi-Mi is the gay hood in Orlando

  6. I find Ann Coulter addressing GOProud absolutely hilarious.

    1. I don’t know. It kind of makes sense to me.

      1. Oh, definitely, me too. I meant the unhinged response from the gay Left. It’s been worth it just for that.

        1. I still haven’t stopped snickering at Ann calling someone else an “attention whore”

    2. AC is a lipstick lesbian.

      1. She’s so skinny, I can see why gay guys would want to hear her speak.

        1. + fabulous

        2. I like the skinny ass bitches.

          No homo. Just a sadist.

        3. Also, I notice that accusation gets thrown out a lot from guys approaching middle age who can do nothing about their wives getting fat that would not cost them half their worth.

        4. Yeah, she could definitely poke an eye out about halfway through the Kama Sutra.

      2. She actually has the look of a trannie, IMO.

    3. Waking up next to that blond Praying Mantis would turn me gay.

      1. What makes you think you would wake up?

        1. If she was eating her lovers, she’d be a lot fatter. Go to conservative sites – there’s no shortage of volunteers.

          1. She could be eating them with her monstrous vagina, the low calorie method of consumptive murder. She just slowly shits them out of her cunt over a few days in hotel bathrooms while she tours.

            1. +1 lost lunch

            2. Ah, SugarFree. Once again, your bad-datura-trip-meets-Psychopathia-Sexualis prose takes a relatively tame horror movie meme and pushes it into Cthulhu-fucking territory.

              1. I wonder what a Cthulhu queef smells like.

                1. Probably like your breath. No homo.

                  1. I’ll accept that. I am dying inside, after all. And I had a Immortal Ageless Horror burrito for lunch.

                    1. That’s the one with the Old Ones guacamole, right?

                    2. Yes, it was the special today. Because the stars are right.

                    3. I missed that on the Chipotle menu.

                    4. It’s on the downlow menu, like In n’ Out Animal style.

                2. I don’t think It has one. I’ll check, next time the stars are right.

  7. historic tax preservation credits

    ???

    Does this mean lobbying for tax credits for those who live in and maintain historic houses in cities?

    How gay.

    1. I live in and maintain my historic house.

      No homo.

      1. Do you watch Glee? No homo.

        1. I loved that scene where Kurt dressed up the room he was sharing with Finn like a turkish harem, and then Finn got upset and started calling everything in the room faggy, and then Kurt’s dad overheard and told Finn off, and said he could not tolerate bigotry in his house, and then Kurt is crying, because he’s hurt by Finn’s language, and touched by his dad’s defense, but also knowing inside that he’s partly responsible for trying to make Finn into something he isn’t, and then… and… um…

          no homo?

          1. So homo.

            1. “Write some original songs!”

              1. See SugarFree, that’s a comment that needs a “no homo” behind it.

          2. Actually, my girlfriend makes me watch that show with her sometimes (no homo, lol) and that episode pissed me the fuck off.

            The gay kid was behaving in a way that was pretty clearly sexual harassment of a straight boy who wasn’t interested in him, and I’m supposed to feel sorry for the harasser because his victim used the word “faggy”? What the hell is wrong with people?

            There are gay people who get shot for doing less “faggy” shit than that… Not that I condone shooting gay people, I’m just pointing out that any gay kid pulling that shit who only gets called a bad word should thank his fucking lucky stars.

            /rant. No homo again, for good measure.

          3. Kurt embodies every social con’s belief that gay dudes want to convert straight guys.

            No homo.

  8. Today “conservative” means only a Spite Right contrarian who’s against anything ? same-sex marriage, foreign nonintervention, drug legalization ? that he thinks “the Left” is for.

    1. Does “the Left” even support those three items?

      1. Since they are in power and have continued and in many cases increased all of those policies, I would say the answer is not really.

      2. Is that even a meaningful question? There is no they.

    2. so that’s why the World Nut Daily is upset that all the other conservatives are “homosexualist dupes”?

      1. Sure looks like it. This is why I don’t like conservatives.

    3. Barry, you are so right about the “Spite Right” and your column at the link is good, but I want to clarify something.

      I was at the 1969 YAF National Convention – I edited the Libertarian Caucus Program and served on the Platform Committee.

      “Sock it to the Left” was the official slogan of the YAF Convention. We came up with “Sock it to the Left” as a reactionary response to the official slogan.

  9. One of the more stupid things the GOP does is attack the gays. They should just leave them alone and they would win more races. A lot of gay people I know tend to be fiscally conservative (they tend to be more affluent and educated than average) and would support Republicans if the latter did not pander to the religious right on this issue. I also know a lot of straight people who do not vote Republican because they are put off by the gay-bashing.

    1. They get a lot of the gay(male) vote regardless

      I’m not sure they do any worse with lesbian votes than with the rest of the single woman demographic

    2. Count the gays on one hand.

      Count the religious on your other 900 hands.

      Politics is pandering, which is a numbers game.

      1. Except the gay-friendly sector is growing, and up for grabs. The religious sector, otoh, is stable and even if they don’t vote Republican, most would never vote Democrat, so they are far safer a demographic to “sell”.

        1. They’re not worried about losing the religious. They’re worried they’ll stay home and pray instead of voting.

          I don’t know what the “gay-friendly” sector is, nor would I know how to judge whether it’s growing or not.

          1. Glenn Beck may not be gay but he is “gay-friendly”. In an interview with Bill O’Reiley he said the it is not the government’s business who gets married to whom.

          2. I would prefer it if they would stay home and pray. I’ve had it up to here with religion in politics.

        2. I think you people live in some sub-set of reality. Most Catholics I know are democrats, and even when the Catholic church essentially says if you vote for someone that supports abortion, you’ll go to hell, they still vote democrat.

          If you are referring solely to protestants, yeah most of us lean far-right. But most of those that are for increasing government in order to control sinners, are those in the media, not in the pews.

          As someone that considers myself a conservative, as well as a protestant style Christian, it is frustrating to see the way we are constantly portrayed in the media, and here. This is a place where I agree with something like 95% of what it seems most here believe. I differ on borders (a little), abortion, and somewhat on drugs that have been shown to be overtly destructive. I’m sure there are a few others, and some very small things.

          I don’t think I’m a stranger within the protestant/conservative world. There are certainly a lot more like me than are assumed.

    3. “LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU…” [sticks fingers in ears]

  10. Color me lavender, but wouldn’t the country be like totally awesome if we did in fact adopt GOProud’s agenda as outlined above?

    Nick, the word you’re looking for is “fabulous.” “Awesome,” is just so straight-sounding.

      1. Give Nick a break, he didn’t know about ‘no homo’ when he hit ‘publish’

  11. I’m not sure how anyone can take them seriously after they endorsed Fiorina over Campbell in CA.

    1. I don’t know. If they are into recruiting, a guy looking at Carly Fiorina is more likely to turn gay than someone who looks at Tom Campbell.

  12. Why are some bashing ‘republicans’ for this? Who’s a more mainstream republican? Farah or Coulter? And who’s attending the Gay Political Bash?

    1. Is that a trick question?

  13. Is it our Chad posting at the left-wing gay site towleroad.com?

    Gay conservatives and republicans are people devoid of any morality or humanity. They disgust me at all levels and their mental illness whose symptoms include trying to fit in with a group of homophobic trailer trash red state republicans, is only a reflection of their lack of self respect. The funny thing is that most liberal gay activists can buy and sell these mental midgets a thousand times over but have not sold their soul to the devil. They really are disgusting as is the whore Ann-orexic Coultergeist. May Karma reach them all.

    Posted by: Chad | Aug 18, 2010 3:23:00 PM

    1. Exactly what I found to side-splitting!

      1. oops…to be..

    2. *rolls eyes* Why should one’s identity determine one’s politics?

      1. Because Chad’s identity is his politics.

  14. they would win more races

    Ach!

  15. Have conservatives learned nothing about insidious attempts to subvert movements for self-government, the rule of law and the will of the people from within?

    In other words:

    End Democracy Now!

  16. I don’t think you can get much more Republican or movement conservative than Grover Norquist. If Joe Farah is really lining up against the likes of Norquist and Coulter, he’s gonna lose.

    1. Grover Norquist’s book makes a point of saying that you can’t get people to vote for you if you tell them you don’t like them.

      He’s pragmatic about building a limited government coalition.

  17. Coulter has, and has always had, total fag hag potential.

  18. Color me cynical, but “reforms” is almost never code word for repeal. It always means laws…just different ones to favor different favored groups. Especially telling is the wording “to encourage”, which almost explicitly requires laws. What entrepreneurs want is freedom. They don’t want “encouragement”.

    So I don’t think much of #8 or #9.

    And “Fighting Global Extremists” is right out. I don’t care how their extremism is defined.

    1. OK. It’s still a damn fine list, overall.

  19. I hope someone is selling t-shirts that say “Yes Homo” at HomoCon. I want one.

    1. Hmm, what about a really tight t-shirt for guys that says “no homo”? Or assless chaps that say “no homo” down the side?

      1. That idea is turning you on a little bit, isn’t it? Yes homo.

        1. YES HOMO!

          1. What about a shirt that says “GOProud… no homo” I’d buy that shirt.

    2. Go Homo” would scare the crap out of the conservatives. “OMG! teh Gay agenda!”

      1. Not to mention a “Gay Out the Vote” operation.

      2. “Got Homo?”

        1. “So homo”

          No homo.

          1. But think of the “mustaches” you could run in the “Got Homo?” campaign.

            1. Grow homo?

              1. That sounds like some kind of gay organic gardening coop.

                1. What about the NTTAWWT sub-committee?

      3. It’s part of their three fold attack: subliminal, liminal and superliminal messages.

        1. “You two men out there! Start kissing!”

  20. REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES ? A package of urban-related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits

    The decorator is strong in this one.

    1. When the Homocons take over the good news will be we will get most of our freedoms back. The bad news will be the forcible redecoration of our houses.

      1. HB 2064 ? – The Tasteless Wallpaper Act of 2017.

        On the plus side, forcing women to never wear jumpsuits again is the kind of coercion I can deal with.

        1. What will this all mean for Hillary?

          1. Hillary must choose a gender first. The tuck and tape thing is really tacky.

            1. If that’s true, how the hell did she have a snuke?

        2. Men can still wear speedsuits, right?

          1. Dr. Venture would be proud of you J “Dean” W.

          2. “A properly fitted speedsuit should crotch at least six inches below your natural inseam.”

          3. Only when doing super-science.

        3. THEY TOOK ARE WOMIN (clubbing and shopping)!

      2. The whole all gays have style thing is such a sterotype. My brother is gay and has the worst fashion sense of any human being on the planet. CONSTANTLY with the brown belt and black shoes ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!

        1. Pretty bad, that’s like the only fashion rule you really have to know as a guy (no homo).

  21. Joseph Farah is one of the biggest tools of the far right around. How this guy continues to maintain any credibility whatsoever if beyond me.

    On a side note, back in the day at my blog I wrote a post picking apart his poor attempt at debating evolution, and to this day it still remains the #2 post on google for “creationist stupidity”. Here’s the post if anyone is interested-
    tmancensored.blogspot.com/…/prime-grade-example-of-creationist.html

    1. Joseph Farah is one of the biggest tools of the far right around. no homo

      1. I heard he gets his fix from the alternative gay republican group, Tools of Liberty and their offshoot Loads of Freedom. All under the table, of course.

  22. Boy, the radical gay agenda sure has toned down lately. Wasn’t it only a few years ago that they were trying to make school children gay by forcing them to read books with gay characters in them? ANd don’t forget the Golden Girls.

    1. Are you implying that Meshach Taylor is gay? No homo.

  23. Gayness isn’t what it used to be. I like this platform

  24. I keep trying to care about gay causes.

    And I do–to the same extent I care about the rights of any minority that doesn’t have anything to do with me personally. It matters to some extent, but not to the extent that I wouldn’t back someone for being on the wrong side of that issue if they were right on a lot of other issues…

    So why bring it up?

    Because as little as I care about stuff that doesn’t really affect me directly, I care even less about Ann Coulter getting invited or dissed–either way. I have stronger feelings about roadkill.

  25. … radical homosexual agenda that includes same-sex marriage and open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military,…

    I just thought who you were poking really wasn’t the goddam government’s business. Now I find that I support the “radical homosexual agenda?”.

    Does this mean I want Teh Gayz to recruit children in public elementary schools as well?

    1. But weren’t you in the Navy? I thought being gay in the Navy was everyone’s business.

      1. ?In the navy
        Yes, you can sail the seven seas
        In the navy
        Yes, you can put your mind at ease
        In the navy
        Come on now, people, make a stand
        In the navy, in the navy
        Can’t you see we need a hand
        In the navy
        Come on, protect the motherland
        In the navy
        Come on and join your fellow man
        In the navy
        Come on people, and make a stand
        In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)

        They want you, they want you
        They want you as a new recruit ?

      2. A hundred men go to sea, and only fifty couples return.

    2. I think that’s a good idea. I wish they would have culled some of the sexual competition earlier. High school would have been so much better if half the guys had been recruited for conversion.

      “2 girls for every boy” man the beach boys had it right.

  26. All in all, I’ve seen worse agendas. This does have the stink of special pleading about it, though:

    other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians

    regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians

    support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.

    What, they couldn’t come out (er, sorry) in favor of a tax code that’s fairer for everyone, against repressive regimes generally, in favor of small business and entrepeneurship regardless of what the owners like to do in their spare time?

  27. The Republicans need the gays. The gays tend to be trendy and stylish, something Republicans never are. That is why recovering high school dorks like Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkerson spend their entire lives kissing liberal ass. It is because they are dorks and they want to be cool more than anything else. And liberals are good at being cool. If the Republicans had more gays on their side, they would dress better, be less square and be a little less un cool.

    1. I never understood the meme that gays are stylish.

      Republicans would look better in their Brooks Brothers if they didn’t install zippers in their trouser’s seat so they could more conveniently insert their head.

      1. You haven’t met/hung around with many gay people have you? Yeah, they aren’t all stylish, but it’s more than a stereotype. no homo

        1. In my experience they trend more or less like heteros, possibly a bit more on the Lady Gaga-side of the bell curve.

          But then I’d also argue that looking like a Victorian lampshade is not “stylish”.

      2. “I never understood the meme that gays are stylish.”

        Because gay men at least generally are. There is sort of the Andrew Sullivan Matt Yglesias kind of goofy fat gay man. But that is the minority. Most gay men are very stylish when compared to straight men.

        1. As mentioned above – all sterotype. My gay brother has the worst fashion sense of any human on the planet.

          1. One anecdotal incident doesn’t negate a trend.

      3. Young gays: Usually ripped and stylish
        40+ gays: They dress *well*, mostly
        Old queens: fugedaboudit

      4. Straight men pick up with their pockets, their cars. A few times even with their brains. When they pick up with their appearance, it’s about height and muscles, not garments.

        Gay men pick up with their appearance – and for them, unlike straights, it includes their garments.

        Naturally, on average gay men will be more stylish than straight men.

        1. Gay men pick up with their appearance – and for them, unlike straights, it includes their garments.

          Bullshit, try getting pussy anywhere but college while wearing cargo shorts.

          1. I’ve gotten pussy wearing cargo shorts, long after college.

            1. I probably should have specified that I meant this millennium.

    2. It always comes across as a little weird whenever anybody cares that much about certain things…

      Gay marriage is one of them… Either way! When a straight person’s willing to go to the wall for Gay Marriage? That’s kind of a head-scratcher for me. Likewise, when I see straight people willing to go apeshit over stopping gay marriage?

      It makes me think there’s something wrong with them too.

      I have to confess that when I see a militant atheist anymore, I also tend to assume they must be gay. ’cause although I’d like to see embryonic stem cell research, I guess, I don’t really care about anybody’s religious beliefs if they don’t affect me directly. And I don’t see how other people’s religious beliefs affect other people in a direct way…

      Unless you’re gay and you want to get married. Then I guess you really care about other people’s religious beliefs. …and I guess that’s why I tend to assume the militant atheists I come across are probably gay. …not that there’s anything wrong with that.

      1. I don’t think they are gay. I think they either had a really bad experience as a child or maybe secretly are believers and hate themselves for not living up to some ideal. Kind of like the overly macho homophobe who secretly jerks off to beefcake magazines.

        Anyone who is militantly anything is usually being militant as a way of dealing with their own issues.

        1. “Anyone who is militantly anything is usually being militant as a way of dealing with their own issues.”

          Dude. It’s their gay issues.

          When I was growing up in the ’80s, living in a boarding school dorm, people were still largely in the closet…I thought gay people were about as common as four leaf clovers, but if you’re talking to a group of ten or more people, you’re probably talking with at least one or maybe two gay people.

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/696…..n-gay.aspx

          I think a lot of the militant atheists you talk to around here are probably gay…

          Back in the 80s, the goth scene kinda got big for a while, and early, it wasn’t about that kind of thing much, but after a while, it became pretty noticeable. When looking like that was new, I think it was just a way to deal with it differently–I mean, what do you think’s easier, telling your parents you’re gay or telling them you’re goth?

          Well atheism’s a lot like that too. If you had to tell your Dad and the people you work with that you were gay or that you were an atheist, which do you think would be the path of least resistance?

          1. A lot of gay people feel secretly guilty about their desires. Why, I don’t know. But they do. So I think your justification kind of goes hand in hand with mine. It is just one big ball of neurosis.

            1. A lot of gay people feel secretly guilty about their desires. Why, I don’t know.

              You can’t imagine why? Really?

          2. I think a lot of the militant atheists you talk to around here are probably gay…

            Here’s an idea. Stop being a fucking dumbshit cunt.

            Accusation of bigotry are pretty rich from an asshole that atheist-baits at every opportunity. Atheism has nothing to do with this thread, but your whiny monomania made you bring it up.

            1. should have finished that rant with No Homo.

      2. I’m a militant atheist because theism in general is moronic, and it pisses me off that all you morons won’t fucking just admit you’re wrong and let it go.

        Instead you have to fight this four-century rearguard action defending every last foot of ground covered by your bullshit. And you have periodic revivals that create whole new legions of dumbasses who have to be argued with.

        The Judeo-Christian tradition made a series of teleological, historical, and philosophical claims, nearly all of which were exploded one at a time, but assholes keep going to church. This offends me. The people who had a religion that included the Old Testament should have had the good grace to close their religion down when it became clear to everyone that the Old Testament was full of shit.

        Consider the Seventh Day Adventist church, for example. William Miller insisted that Christ would come again in 1844. When he didn’t, that should have been the end of his nonsense. But it wasn’t. Whatever it is in people that can make them continue to follow some dumbass who makes very specific pronouncements that end up being exposed as total bunk is the thing that animates my hostility to theism. Because to me, you’re all Seventh Day Adventists in one way or another.

        1. It is okay Fluffy. It really is. No one cares that you are gay. It really is okay.

        2. No theist.

        3. The Judeo-Christian tradition made a series of teleological, historical, and philosophical claims, nearly all of which were exploded one at a time, but assholes keep going to church.

          As if the atheist tradition has not suffered under the same problems.

          Mao, Hitler, Stalin, eugenics, and Phrenology, is not exactly a great tradition of success.

          1. Is there an atheist ‘tradition’?

            And, anyone who thinks homo sapiens sapiens cannot be bred for specific characteristics like any other life form on this planet is nuts. Eugenics might be scary, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.

          2. Hitler was not an athiest, first. Second, phrenology was not an atheist movement. Third, neither was eugenics. Finally, because you can arrive at 2 examples of atheists (or anti-theists) who ordered and committed global atrocities does not mean- in any possible way- that these traits are to be found in other atheists/anti-theists. That is like saying that since some Catholics are pedophiles, they are examples of what happens when you give Catholics power.

            What a bad argument.

            1. Hitler’s national socialism has more to do with Friedrich Nietzsche and atheism then Christianity has to do with Aristotle’s world view.

              eugenics has more to do with Darwin then Christianity has to do with Aristotle’s world view. Same with phrenology.

              1. Joshua,

                You are obviously lacking education in both world and religious history.

                Someone who has shown such ignorance cannot be convinced of the truth, no matter how hard it falls on him.

                1. You are obviously lacking education in both world and religious history.

                  Someone who has shown such ignorance cannot be convinced of the truth, no matter how hard it falls on him.

                  I am looking for an argument there…I don’t see one.

          3. The atheist tradition makes two basic claims:

            1. There is no evidence that there is a deity of any kind watching over mankind and intervening in history.

            2. The particular historical and teleological claims made by the Judeo-Christian tradition have all been shown to be either false or highly doubtful.

            It’s not necessary for anyone to have a positive opinion of any of those people to embrace these two claims.

            Judeo-Christianity, however, is a complicated precision mechanism, requiring the acceptance of large numbers of assertions of metaphysical and historical facts, the disproof of any one of which disproves the whole.

            1. “1. There is no evidence that there is a deity of any kind watching over mankind and intervening in history.”

              There is lots of evidence. You just chose not to believe it. We have letters and accounts nearly contemporaneous with Christ that say just the opposite. We have a two thousand year history of miracles being performed. Is this evidence definitive? Of course not. But it is evidence. And you can’t disprove any of it. All you can say is that you don’t believe it. How do you know Christ didn’t rise from the dead? Because no one else has? Because you don’t understand it? You can’t say in any definitive way that it didn’t happen. You can only say that you find it unlikely.

              “2. The particular historical and teleological claims made by the Judeo-Christian tradition have all been shown to be either false or highly doubtful.”

              Highly doubtful or false? There is a big difference. And you are still left with the problem that you can’t disprove any of these claims. You can only assume they are untrue because it makes you feel better.

              2. The particular historical and teleological claims made by the Judeo-Christian tradition have all been shown to be either false or highly doubtful.

              1. The problem, John, is that if the authors of the Old Testament and the evangelists of the New were actually inspired by God or possessed by the Holy Spirit, no detail should be anything but golden.

                You don’t get to fall back on “Wah! You can’t prove it didn’t happen!” after divine inspiration is claimed. Once that claim is made, then every last detail has to be both verifiable true and internally consistent. If it’s not, the entire structure collapses as one.

                Your other problem is that the people who claimed that the Bible was definitive were simultaneously making all sorts of other claims about the nature of the universe that turned out to be false. The Christian churches that preserved the Bible for a thousand years also claimed that the sun revolved around the earth. If they had divine inspiration and guidance, they should have been incapable of those kinds of errors. And if they didn’t have divine guidance and inspiration, why should we accept any of the claims to that effect in their texts?

                1. “The problem, John, is that if the authors of the Old Testament and the evangelists of the New were actually inspired by God or possessed by the Holy Spirit, no detail should be anything but golden.”

                  That is just complete nonsense. First, the writers of these documents were mortal witnesses to these events. They were just writing what happened. Christ didn’t write the Gospels his followers did. And further, there is nothing in the Gospels that has ever to my knowledge affirmatively disproved. As far as the Old Testiment, it is a mortal document describing the history of the Jews. It doesn’t have to be in every detail correct anymore than Tacitus had to get every detail correct in order for me to believe there was once a Roman Empire with an emperor named Augustus.

                  1. “First, the writers of these documents were mortal witnesses to these events. They were just writing what happened. ”

                    ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.

            2. Judeo-Christianity, however, is a complicated precision mechanism, requiring the acceptance of large numbers of assertions of metaphysical and historical facts, the disproof of any one of which disproves the whole.

              Last I checked Thomas Jefferson took all that shit out of the bible and was left with a fairly profound moral philosophy.

              1. Take the “Golden Rule” and throw the rest into the shit-pile.

        4. “Because to me, you’re all Seventh Day Adventists in one way or another.”

          It’s interesting that you find their beliefs offensive–you pick what is probably the most libertarian group of Christians anywhere–people who are so paranoid of government interference that they’re as likely as not to be Pro-Choice… People who will typically only be conscripted as noncombatants…

          You pick the one group that has virtually no affect on you personally or anyone else–at all!

          No Adventist has ever or will ever do anything to you because of their Adventism–you just hate them strictly on the basis of their beliefs…?

          That makes you a bigot by anyone’s definition, and if you’re proud of bigotry–well good for you! But that doesn’t make you a militant atheist–that just makes you a proud bigot.

          1. that just makes you a proud bigot.

            +10

          2. If there was a group of people who insisted that 2 + 2 = 3, it would not be “bigoted” to think they were dumbasses.

            You don’t get to think stupid things but then exempt yourself from scorn because you label it your “religion”.

            In any event, the really contemptible thing about most religious people is their simple lack of regard or concern for whether or not their beliefs stand up to basic scrutiny.

            To me, Judeo-Christianity has to be evaluated based on the factual claims it has made and the philosophical arguments it has advanced, and if those are found wanting, you have to walk away from the tradition. The average religious person looks at all of that stuff and just shrugs their shoulders and keeps going to church. I find that despicable.

            It’s not bigotry to evaluate individuals based on their thoughts and actions. What are we supposed to evaluate people on, if not their individual thoughts and actions? “Hey, maybe I should get up and go to church now,” is a thought. Actually driving to church is an action. That means I get to evaluate both of those. If you don’t like it, tough shit.

            If you think it’s unfair for me to think your ideas are false, convince me they’re true. But this “Wah! Wah! You don’t respect people who hold the Bible in high regard, just because the Bible is a load of nonsense! You’re a bigot!” stuff is really weak.

            And the Seventh Day Adventists you know may be very nice people, but I just don’t care. If you stay up all night in 1844 because the guy who founded your religion has stated categorically that Christ is coming to Earth that night, and Christ doesn’t come, you should stop following that particular preacher. If you don’t, it pretty much establishes that you don’t give a shit about what’s true. What am I supposed to think about that?

            1. +100000000000000000000000000000

              1. -1000000000000000000000000000000

            2. “To me, Judeo-Christianity has to be evaluated based on the factual claims it has made and the philosophical arguments it has advanced, and if those are found wanting, you have to walk away from the tradition.”

              Maybe you missed this fact but no one has ever come up with a single epistemological or metaphysical system everyone can agree upon.

              All philosophical arguments have been in the ultimate sense left wanting. No one has come up with any ultimate answers and no one has been able to disprove anything as an ultimate answer. And David Hume pretty much ended any idea that anyone would.

              You are just crazy fluffy. I don’t know what has happened to you or what your inner demons are. But I hope you find a better way to work through them than ranting about 7th Day Adventists.

              1. All philosophical arguments have been in the ultimate sense left wanting. No one has come up with any ultimate answers and no one has been able to disprove anything as an ultimate answer. And David Hume pretty much ended any idea that anyone would.

                John, stop being a dick.

                By this standard, nothing Krugman says can be disproven either.

                Therefore you are a bigot consumed by inner demons because you judge Paul Krugman negatively based on the content of his thoughts and statements. I hope you can find a way to find some emotional peace one day, and stop being angry at Paul Krugman.

                Does that make any fucking sense at all?

                We’re either all trying to figure out what’s true and what’s not, or we aren’t.

                1. “By this standard, nothing Krugman says can be disproven either.”

                  We are not talking about economics. We are talking about metaphysics and epistemology. You are just painfully ignorant on this subject. You don’t even know what you hate.

                  1. If you’re applying a Humean level of skepticism, there is no statement of any kind that is subject to evaluation.

                    Since I know you don’t actually apply that level of skepticism on any other occasion, deploying it to protect the Old Testament is really weak.

                    1. Apply all the skepticism you want. At you best you can say is you don’t know or that you find it unlikely, which is a long way from the rant you gave above.

            3. “If you stay up all night in 1844 because the guy who founded your religion has stated categorically that Christ is coming to Earth that night, and Christ doesn’t come, you should stop following that particular preacher. If you don’t, it pretty much establishes that you don’t give a shit about what’s true. What am I supposed to think about that?

              Just for the record, ’cause really, I have nothing to learn from the rationalization for your bigotry… You’ve got your facts wrong there.

              William Miller was never a member of any Adventist church. Adventists believed–quite correctly–that William Miller was wrong about the End of the World coming in 1844…and he was never among the founders or members of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

              Maybe the Adventists are wrong. Maybe they’re delusional! …but they don’t believe what you seem to be saying they believe. It’s actually a kind of baseline belief for them about Miller was wrong–that no one knows…

              You seem to want to believe certain things about them, and that’s your right. But I’d concentrate on nailing them on some of the things you really can nail them on…

              Listening to you on this is bit like listening to Fundamentalists playing Black Metal records backwards–I always want to ask them, “What, isn’t what they say forwards evil enough?”

              There are lots of real things to skewer Adventists for–why not shoot for one of real ones? Skewering Adventists for believing in Miller isn’t one of them. They’ll be happy to tell you all about how Miller was wrong–that’s why they’re not “Millerites”.

              1. The original Millerites became the Seventh Day Adventists.

                Basically, even though the central claim of their sect and its raison d’etre was proven false, they decided to sweep it under the rug and keep on trucking after a re-branding.

                That precisely is what I find outrageous.

                1. The only thing they really kept from Miller was the idea of the Second Coming.

                  If you want to knock people for believing in the Second Coming, go right ahead. But that’s hardly unique to Adventists; that’s a belief shared by all other protestant denominations, Catholics and Muslims too.

                  Certainly it’s silly to mock Adventists today for how Millerites conducted themselves when they were Millerites in the 1840s. The Great Disappointment, The Second Great Awakening and its aftermath are artifacts of Antebellum American history…I think you’d find they probably have little to do with the beliefs of Adventists today.

                  I should say too, it’s not surprising talking about social adaptations like religion and culture in the context of this thread–but it does seem to be a fairly common feature of the atheists I run into around here, that their understanding of evolution is pretty limited, mostly to physical anthropology. But the fact is that religion is a social adaptation, just like language, and arguing against evolutionary adaptations like that really is a lot like trying to reason away gay people’s sexuality. It all comes from the same place, you know?

                  I don’t know if you’re gay or why you find other people’s religious beliefs so intolerable–especially if their beliefs have no direct impact on you. But we all have urges, preferences, taboos and cultural biases we’ve inherited from our less evolved ancestors–and, really, whatever yours are, they aren’t any better than theirs. They inherited a cultural adaptation that helps them cope with things like death…

                  I’d guess you’ll probably need to cope with your own mortality too someday, but I wouldn’t want you to think I was accusing you of being just like the Millerites.

            4. You are judgng people based on their thoughts and actions. First of all are you in favor of thought crimes? Second why care about peoples actions that don’t effect you? I agree with any intervetnion when religions try to change laws to suit their religious views, but a man driving to church and prayin to go has nothing to do with me and therefore is outside my influence, as it should be. Religion is Janus faced, just as we all are, while they have wrought a lot of harm they have equally, and sometimes to a greater extent, been the agent of charity and human advancement.

              1. “First of all are you in favor of thought crimes?”

                I have to question whether you’ve read “1984” or not. Thought crimes were crimes because it was illegal to think them; I don’t see Fluffly advocating the criminalization of theism.

                Evaluating someone’s intelligence based on their ideas and beliefs is perfectly fine; as Fluffy said, how else do you measure intelligence? For example, I think that socialists and communists are economic creationists whose respective ideologies can be debunked by reading the Wikipedia article on the socialist economic calculation problem. Now, do I want being a socialist or communist to be made illegal? Of course not.

                (And can someone link me to a page explaining how you can italicize and bold words? Thanks.)

                1. I wish I knew how to italicize as well.

                  My problem with Fluffy’s post is that he is villifying people for thoughts and actions that have little to nothing to do with him. Just because someone believes that 9/11 was an inside job or that the Easter Bunny is delivering chocolate eggs does not make them stupid or some how inferior to others. Those who have placed their faith in religion are not lesser people than others. I am also sick of “militant athiests”. It is incredibly cliche and they tend to present a dead horse argument as independent thought. What is more common than an Athiest who hates religion and thinks anyone who believes in religion is a moron. How bout lay off theists who are not bothering anyone.

          3. Why would it be a bad thing for a militant atheist to be a bigot regarding theists? It’s only how you act that matters.

            I have absolutely no interest in developing inter-personal relationships with theists. But I don’t plan on shooting them.

            So yeah, I’m a proud bigot too. So what?

            1. I don’t plan on deveolping any inter-personal relationships with “fill in blank here”.

              Essentially you are saying you have nothing to gain by interacting with 80% of the human race. That may or may not make you a bigot. But it certainly makes you a close minded dogmatic moron.

              1. You realize how big a number 20% of the population is, don’t you? So yeah, fuck the other 80%. Why should my short list of close compadres include fools who buy into the micro-managing God? Sure, I’ll engage socially with those 80%. But be on the short list? I don’t think so.

                And yes, my mind is totally closed to the possibility that the irrational beliefs of those who buy into the micro-managing God(s) are possibly rational. There is a key to unlocking the closed door though. It’s called evidence.

                1. You also realize I gave you a big benefit of the doubt. I doubt even 1% of the world’s population are true atheists. And you are just an idiot. Name any number of wonderful and interesting people throughout history who were believers and you think you have nothing to gain from knowing them?

                  That is metaphysical level retardation. There needs to be a new word to describe the kind of stupid you are putting out.

                  1. Wait a second.

                    This discussion started because Ken said that all atheists are gay.

                    You then said that all atheists suffered childhood trauma.

                    I responded that I was an atheist because the lack of interest religious people showed in the truth value of their own claims annoyed me.

                    How do we jump from that to atheist / theist segregation?

                    The overwhelming majority of theists are inertia theists who belong to churches for cultural reasons or family reasons. Most if not all of these people really don’t accept the claims put forth under the rubric of their nominal religion. While I’m a little disappointed that these people can’t be bothered to be critical enough of their own beliefs to either believe them or reject them, it’s not much of an obstacle to interacting with them.

                    I just like to argue about it.

                    1. They don’t buy into their church. But they still believe in God. And like everyone they fail to live to their ideals. In the end they don’t know and their faith waxes and wains. But at least they are serious people.

                      You in contrast are not a serious person. Anyone who claims to know the ultimate truth about the universe to such a certainty they can completely dismiss anything but a crude materialist interpretation is just laughable. You don’t make me angry Fluffy. You make me laugh.

                    2. John,

                      I say the same of religious people. They have no claim upon ultimate truth either. So they should shut the heck up.

                      Besides, I think it is the individuals right to be bigoted. Just not their right to hurt people.

                      -Tristan

                    3. John you don’t know what an atheist is. The very word implies a lack of a belief in something, not a positive assertion. You pony up a single shred evidence for God or anything else supernatural and we’ll talk. Until then it’s you imposing certainty and asking for deference to your unsupported faith, not atheists, who simply disbelieve in things for which there is no evidence.

                    4. I just like to argue about it.

                      Fixed your statement to a more evidence-based one, Fluffster.

                    5. “This discussion started because Ken said that all atheists are gay.”

                      I didn’t say all atheists were gay, did I?

                      If I did, that wasn’t what I was trying to say…

                      “But the fact is that religion is a social adaptation, just like language, and arguing against evolutionary adaptations like that really is a lot like trying to reason away gay people’s sexuality. It all comes from the same place, you know?”

                      I do think it’s true that there’s a certain amount of blowback happening in both directions… I see the urge to be Catholic like ones parents are as being something like the urge for gay sex–especially in terms of the appropriateness of trying to reason someone’s urge away…

                      AND, I think that a lot of the hostility we see directed at Christians and Christianity is a function of the discrimination our society has perpetrated against gay people over the years…with prohibitions against Gay Marriage being an excellent example.

                      I mentioned that anybody you see lashing out at Christians, whose beliefs don’t really affect anyone else, are maybe likely to be gay. Being gay and a victim of bans on gay marriage is one of the few reasonable explanations for why I think people would become a militant atheist…

                      Being discriminated against can and does breed that kind of resentment–otherwise, I feel about most people’s Christianity like I feel about gay sex…

                      What do I care? So long as it doesn’t have anything to do with me! Other than that? Well, you showed us what kind of reasoning you use to justify your…um…bigotry. And it isn’t pretty. It’s pretty much the same arguments bigots use to justify bigotry against gay people…

                      I should drop in something here about the flip side of the golden rule being that people will often react to you in the way you’ve treated them, but by your logic, that would make me one of the Millerites, wouldn’t it.

                  2. OK, I re-read my original post. It should have said close inter-personal relationships, to make it clear I’m not talking about saying hello to your church-going neighbor. You can’t go through life without making acquaintances with people who don’t share your core belief set. But you can choose your friends quite selectively.

                    1. Yeah. MP you can go through life stupid. People do it all the time. Good luck with that.

                    2. you can go through life stupid. People do it all the time.

                      No kidding. They’re called theists.

                      Nah nah nah nah nah

    3. You and I apparently hold completely polarized definitions of cool.

      1. I am not really speaking for myself. I am thinking more of how the Republicans can attract the urban doucheousie. I don’t find gay men particularly cool. But someone like Wilkinson or Weigel would. It is more that demographic I am thinking of.

        1. I swear to god I thought Weigel had come out of the closet years ago. What’s he doing back in there?

          1. It’s the sheep. They call to him.

    4. The Republicans need the gays. The gays tend to be trendy and stylish, something Republicans never are.

      From reading the above it seems the republicans need the gays because without them they would no longer be economic conservatives.

      Also being trendy has nothing to do with style.

    5. Yep. It’s a myth. I know as many straight men who care about their appearance as I do gay men. I guess the myth comes from the small ‘fabulous’ segment who dress with a little flash.

    1. Oh, I thought you said “We’re all homunculus now.”

  28. Because gay men at least generally are.

    You don’t know enough gay guys. The average homo is the same fat fuck in a PartyPoker.com t-shirt the average no-homo is. It’s only guys whose primary social identity is The Gay Guy who dress for women.

  29. Because gay men at least generally are.

    You don’t know enough gay guys. The average homo is the same fat fuck in an online poker t-shirt the average no-homo is. It’s only guys whose primary social identity is The Gay Guy who dress for women.

    1. Maybe sample size is more than one but not large. So I defer to you.

      1. I was the president of Homeywell International’s Gay Pride Employee Resource group bak in the 90’s. Nost of the gay guys didn’t fit the stereotype. And that group included everyone from Asian IT geeks to Jewish Lawyers.

        1. Honeyweel not Homeywell.

          1. ARGH! Honeywell.

            *puts gun in mouth**

            1. No Homowell.

        2. A lot of ugly gays kill themselves in high school. Those of us who make it out do tend to focus more on grooming and fitness than your average straight joe, and I presume that has something to do with men being more visual sexual creatures. Straight guy fantasies notwithstanding, lesbians tend to go in the opposite direction with regard to grooming and fitness, so maybe there’s something to my theory.

          1. Depends on the person. Some people are gay because they just happen to be attracted to the same sex or happen to fall in love with someone of the same sex. Others become gay to deal with some inner demon. They are gay usually because they dislike the other sex.

            You, if I had to guess, are gay for political reasons. You are so militantly liberal, I suspect being gay is a good way to get your liberal creed. You wouldn’t be rich or Jewish or some other suspect liberal class would you? If so, that probably goes some way to explaining why you are gay.

            1. John just because you are a walking psych grad thesis doesn’t mean everyone else shares your deep, dark pathologies.

              1. I figured I would hit a nerve with that one. I don’t have any pathologies. But you apparently do.

                1. I’m not so sure, John. Someone who believes that one’s sexual attraction is a mere matter of taste, or one’s political beliefs (except your own) a function solely of identity, could be suspected of having worked mightily to expel one’s own “demons.”

                  1. “attracted to the same sex or happen to fall in love”

                    I think John kind of hit the whole gambit of possiblities. It doen’t appear to me that he is saying that it is some sort of defect I think he is just pointing out there are a myriad of reasons. I feel his mentioning “falling love” shows a bit of understanding and acceptance.

            2. John the problem with your theory is there are definite genetic links to male homosexuality.

              There are no genetic links to not liking the opposite sex, and political views. You happening to fall in love with the a person of the same sex seems idiotic. Men form platonic deep relationships with each other all the time…so they go hunting, fishing, drinking together and split the cost of a hooker.

              Also I love my brother and my father and i am sure fathers world wide love their sons….they somehow don’t fuck them. All of this points to biological underpinnings for the human mind to have two kinds of love. One type platonic and one type sexual. I am not saying they have to be exclusive…i am saying it is easy and natural for the mind to make them exclusive.

            3. “Others become gay to deal with some inner demon. They are gay usually because they dislike the other sex.”

              Are you insisting that lesbians are rape victims or victims of child abuse? Are you saying gay men were the victims of overbearing mothers?

              I give you gold, and you turn it into lead?

              You discover that when you’re arguing with militant atheists about religion, it might really be about resenting mistreatment for being gay–but that isn’t enough…

              You gotta turn teh gay into something pathological?!

              You can diffuse their attacks on your religious beliefs by talking about gay marriage–but instead you’re going with teh gay is pathological? Teh pool has AIDS?!

              I give you kryptonite to use on your atheist adversaries, and you throw it in the trash with yesterday’s newspaper?

              I give you gold… Fucking Kryptonite!

          2. You’re like the retarded Charles Darwin Tony.

            1. I think a retarded Darwin still beats an average dumbass.

              1. And an Average Dumbass still beats Tony.

          3. I presume that has something to do with men being more visual sexual creatures.

            Then why do gay guys always fantasize about having sex with us straight slobs?

            Don’t deny it, you know it is true.

            1. You’re still men aren’t you. Some of you can even make two eyebrows out of one.

          4. I see what you did there.

            “Those of us who make it out do tend to focus more on grooming and fitness than your average straight joe…”

            If you’re going to masturbate your ego, at least clean up when you’re done.

            1. It’s not my ego that turns me on, it’s my reflection in a mirror.

              1. I love you Tony

  30. Ann Coulter–is he the headliner for the drag show?

    1. zing!

  31. What part of the tax code is unfair to domestic partners? The part where married people pay way more in tax than 2 single people? The part where single people get tax credits that married people do not? They have my blessing.

    1. The part where you can transfer your estate to your spouse without paying taxes (at least until they die too).

  32. Naturally, as a gay-focused group, they will emphasize their focus on gay issues. But overall, I see no major problems with GOProud’s agenda, they seem mostly aligned with libertarian goals.

  33. The sad thing is the gay GOP has a more conservative economic agenda then the regular GOP.

  34. Ecce Homocon

  35. It’s about time that conservatives detached their regressive social policies from appreciation of common-sense economics. Democrats have been winning a lot by default, just because their social policies didn’t offend (as much) for people who appreciate personal freedom.

    1. If they did that how would they get anyone to vote for them? Without the minority scapegoating and religious pandering they’d be as influential as, say, the libertarian party.

      1. the tea party do not talk about social issues.

        Yet they have higher approval ratings then the democrats, the republicans, the president, congress, and the supreme court.

        libertarians are unpopular because we are stupid and unbending politically.

        We say we would oppose the civil rights act because of article 2….most poeple only hear “oppose civil rights” and write us off as loons or worse.

        1. Opposing something almost universally regarded as a major increase in human equality and freedom on the pedantic grounds that it violates the constitution even though case law completely disagrees with you is not a good defense against the “loon” accusation.

          1. Which is why I don’t make a fuss about it. Small potatoes, unimportant. Opposing war and fighting against the PATRIOT Act seems a bigger deal.

            I also roll my eyes at constitutional arguments. Simply put, that piece of paper was unable to restrain government. It is effectively a dead letter, not worth using in discussion.

            1. Which is why I don’t make a fuss about it. Small potatoes, unimportant. Opposing war and fighting against the PATRIOT Act seems a bigger deal.

              Agreed. If I could go back in time i would kick Berry Goldwater in the nuts.

              Civil rights had been the policy choice of Classical liberals for close to a hundred years. And right when it actually meant something he pissed that effort away and handed progressives a political win on an issue to the very poeple and ideology who opposed civil rights. He made heroes out of the inventors of Jim Crow.

          2. Classic liberals opposed article 2 not civil rights.

            Progressives opposed civil rights because it gave blacks equal rights and repealed Jim Crow.

            Why even go through the motions here Tony? It is not as if your propaganda will work here.

            The facts are the facts. libertarians are unpopular because we suck at dressing it up. Republican’s “libertarian light’ is very popular and they do not need the social conservatives to be popular. The Tea Party has proven that as did Reagen.

            1. Progressives opposed civil rights… blahblahblah

              Stop smoking Glenn Beck’s cock and get back with me. Jesus Christ. Liberals have done everything that’s good about this country, and conservatives have just stood in the way and made fools of themselves, and those are the two basic tracks here.

          3. So, it’s not being right that matters, it’s having the most people agree with you.

          4. One thing that is interesting is over the next 20 years gay marriage will be legal, pot will be legal, and global warming will be disproved.

            I suspect the left will slowly degrade into a small group of government employees and the environmental liberation front.

            This is barring they don’t invent another bullshit story like global warming.

            The future is libertarians vs conservative. $10 says 20 years from now Tony will be a tax and spend conservative.

            1. Why would you go and undermine all your credibility as a person who thinks about things by strutting around this anti-science bullshit? Seriously, libertarians have to come to terms with scientific fact. You are embarrassing yourself.

  36. Why do the “gays” have to be so deceitful and use trickery for their radicalism? Two adults wanting to get married – that’s crazy radical. Seving in the military AND disclosing your sexualility to ???? – that’s beyond radical. Damn those radical gays.

  37. Item #6 seems to translate to “Bomb the Muslims”, IMHO.

  38. Remember, WND/Farah also excommunicated Beck for being too “materialistic” and not enough anti-gay: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f…..eId=191997

  39. Hmm. With that awesomely awesome mustache, Farah looks like some sort of Village People alumnus. Perhaps he doth protest too much.

  40. I’m not reading through all of the comments, but did anyone mention Farah’s killer ‘stache?

    1. The last one before you posted. Apparently, I’m not reading all of the comments means I’m not reading any of the comments.

  41. You just know Farah is going for glory hole to glory hole around the truck stop bathrooms where he lives. Its the mustauche.

  42. That’s not the camel’s nose, Mr. Farah.

  43. I am suspicious that their manifesto contains multiple uses of the word “package.”

  44. MP|8.25.10 @ 4:56PM|#

    OK, I re-read my original post. It should have said close inter-personal relationships, to make it clear I’m not talking about saying hello to your church-going neighbor. You can’t go through life without making acquaintances with people who don’t share your core belief set. But you can choose your friends quite selectively.

    MP, as one of your best friends, I have to tell you, I’m a theist. We never speak of religious matters, I frankly avoid it. I just assumed that given your permasneer that you are antagonistic to all religions. You may be wondering, ‘well, he is religious, and sins of admission is the same as lying, so how can he be faithful.’ Well, I didn’t mention wich religion. Truth is, I’m a Satanist. Everybody lies, every body lies a lot, we are just more honest about it. You have more friends that are theist but you just don’t know it. In fact,
    most of your friend belong to a Coven. The Coven of the Cloven Hoof.

    Cheers!

  45. Acting as if nothing borne in mind is the best revenge.It’s all for myself to live better.

  46. If that agenda doesn’t fit into a conservative game plan, cons should give up and go back to the early 20th century.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.