Ann Coulter to gay conservatives: "Gay marriage is not a right. You're not black."
By Kelly BourdetSeptember 27th, 2010, 12:00 pmComments (18)
Ann Coulter, voice of reason for our generation, spoke this weekend at Homocon, a summit held by the gay conservative group (no, really) GOProud. After being invited to speak at the convention, Coulter told event organizers that, while she would accept their speaking fee, she probably wouldn’t tell them what they wanted to hear. It seems she delivered on her promise.
Her advice to gay conservatives? Well, for one, that they should ally themselves with the anti-choice movement because, “As soon as they find the gay gene, you know who’s getting aborted.” A biting comment made especially interesting by the concession, rarely found among moral conservatives, that homosexuality may be partly genetically predetermined and not a “lifestyle choice.” An observation that, of course, she then topped off with a creepy eugenics prophesy.
The real question is why Homocon would invite and insist upon Ann Coulter as their event headliner. Are all gays, even the conservative ones, secretly masochists, as some Christians portray them to be? Or is it just that Ann Coulter is, incomprehensibly, the self-professed “right-wing Judy Garland?"
Commentarium (18 Comments)
I roll my eyes at gay conservatives. It's like they think if they are conservative and "straight" enough, they will finally be accepted.
I roll my eyes at straight liberals. Perhaps some people (conservatives who happen to be gay) have healthier morals than you do. Just because a gay man—or woman, but usually man—is conservative does not mean they are trying to be or act "straight."
No, it just means you care more about keeping more of your paycheck than you do about marriage. That seems decidedly immoral.
MC for the win.
Mc for the win +1
I think they wanted her as a headliner because she looks like a tranny, and I would guess they like her brand of outspokenness, not necessarily the message of course, so it could almost be a subtle dig at her, unbeknownst to her, while keeping your enemy close.
There are two wings of the "conservative" movement. There are the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives. GOProud is fiscally conservative (they want to either GET rich or STAY rich, and as rich as possible as fast as possible, which means keeping government from taxing or regulating how they manage their money)
But why they would get Coulter? Beats me.
What possible good could become of something called HOMOCON?
HOMOPRO
For starters, Judy Garland had talent.
The only possible good that could become of HOMOCON is getting the chance to slag on Ann Coulter again.
She's a man, baby!
Sadly, I think she's probably right that there are a number of people who would abort their child if a genetic test said the child would grow up to be gay.
So, if social conservatives are the group most likely to discriminate against fully-grown gay people for being gay, who do you think would be most likely to abort a fetus due to a perceived future life of gaydom?
"We might not accept you, gay people, but help us ban abortion and we'll at least let you make it out of the womb alive."
i've been able to find some research about the "gay gene". from what i understand, scientists have come to the conclusion that "gayness" is a by product from lack of testosterone produced by the mother during the first few months of pregnancy. since female is the default characteristic, these men have a more female brain pattern. but this theory could all change in the next few years with developments in science!
i hope though, we aren't able to figure out a way to measure the amount of testosterone the fetus is receiving... that's just not fair to the baby. it literally isn't his fault!
I read that too but was sort of pissed, it said "low feelings of male gender identity and participation in gender-typed activities." I feel like it focuses on how everyone has to be either THIS or THIS. Male or Female. We try so hard to force people into moulds! Not saying you do allisonwonderland, I mean Medicine and Health organizations. I just looked this up in my Perspectives on Personality text, 6th edition, Carver and Scheier if anyone is interested. I do not put too much weight on their work however. It was not very detailed, perhaps designed merely as an overview for students new to psychology:
"Evidence of a possible genetic role in sexual orientation goes back over 40 years, with the report of a higher incidence of homosexuality among men whose MZ twin was gay than men whose DZ twin was gay (Eysenck, 1964). [In cases of both gay men and women] a co-twin was more than twice as likely to be homosexual if the twins were MZ than if they were DZ.
A study of families of gay men found there were more gay male relatives on the mother's side (maternal uncles and sons of maternal aunts) than on the father's side. This suggests that a gene related to homosexuality might be on the X chromosome (because a son always receives it from his mother). Examination of genetic material revealed a region of the X chromosome that was similar among most of the gay participants. This suggests a genetic basis for at least some instances of homosexuality. [However the region] was not similar for all gay men. "
So - if the gene is on the X chromosome it is carried by both men and women, and therefore it wouldn't "die off" because although gay people do not produce as quickly as heterosexuals, errbody can have it. As I mentioned, I did not entirely trust the paragraphs in here, not all of which I typed out. Also - they are entirely focused on "gay men" - mentioning women only once and I do not even think it registered. Ah, the lesbian's curse and blessing: we do not exist to scientists or the church or the every-day citizen. A mythical being!
Is there anything/anyone more self-hating than a Gay Conservative?
oh Ann how did you get so fucked up?
Help, I've been informed and I can't beomce ignorant.
Now you say something