CDZ Gay Republicans -- What are these folks going to do this election cycle

[LoneLaugher]

I got him on the "I Side With" test. I didn't even know who he was.

He's a good egg. Naturally that means he entirely unelectable by either of the major parties.

He's not the worst possible choice. He denies the climate change science, though. Must be some reason for that.

Could be that he sees the political bs behind most of it, and I mean both sides of the issue. This is one of many "issues" that is not political, but has been turned into a political football. Maybe, and I cannot speak for the man, he has seen through the bs and realises that the "science" is in no way "settled".

It is settled.

It was once "settled" "science" that the earth was flat too. Does that mean it's fact? The "science" is far from settled. If it was, there would be no need to continue studies to "prove" that climate change has anything to do with human activity.

It is settled.

 

[oldsoul]

He's a good egg. Naturally that means he entirely unelectable by either of the major parties.

He's not the worst possible choice. He denies the climate change science, though. Must be some reason for that.

Could be that he sees the political bs behind most of it, and I mean both sides of the issue. This is one of many "issues" that is not political, but has been turned into a political football. Maybe, and I cannot speak for the man, he has seen through the bs and realises that the "science" is in no way "settled".

It is settled.

It was once "settled" "science" that the earth was flat too. Does that mean it's fact? The "science" is far from settled. If it was, there would be no need to continue studies to "prove" that climate change has anything to do with human activity.

It is settled.

Repetition does not a fact make.
Things that where once "settled" science:

• The earth is flat
• The sun revolves around the earth
• All of creation was the work of "God" (not entirely convinced this is inaccurate)
• The universe is static and eternal
• Eating fat makes you fat
• Man-made global cooling

"Media outlets and politicians like Barack Obama and John Kerry like to point to a “scientific consensus” (98 percent!) that the climate is changing, fossil fuels are to blame, and that we need strict regulations on oil and coal in order to stave off a global apocalypse. As Forbes’ Larry Bell points out, however, a large number of scientists rejects this alarmism.
In fact, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, opposing the “consensus” on climate change. The petition opposes restrictions on fossil fuels and flatly denies the global warming alarmism.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”"'Settled Science' Is a Myth

So no, the science is not settled. Get over it, and face the reality.
A 2010 George Mason University survey of 571 media broadcast meteorologists found that 63 percent believe global warming is caused by natural, not human causes." pjmedia.com
'Settled Science' Is a Myth

 

[oldsoul]

Republicans wish they would all just die.

Go back to the flame zone.

It's only flaming if it's not true.

Are you seriously suggesting that all republicans want homosexuals to die? Are you really that ignorant? Are you really that boorish? A leftist that is intolerant and uninformed? I didn't know such a creature existed. Thank you for enlightening me. Now I know.

 

[Stephanie]

Anyone get the feeling that homosexual are just such poor pathetic people ?

that's all I see reading all these stupid articles. good gawd embarrassing

 

[oldsoul]

Anyone get the feeling that homosexual are just such poor pathetic people ?

that's all I see reading all these stupid articles. good gawd embarrassing

I wish you where alone in that sentiment. Unfortunately, you are not. Sad ignorant people...

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Anyone get the feeling that homosexual are just such poor pathetic people ?

that's all I see reading all these stupid articles. good gawd embarrassing

Some sad pathetic people are in fact homosexual . That isn't the same as saying all homosexuals are sad pathetic people.

 

[OldLady]

It has puzzled me for a long time that Republicans are openly waving a flag of religion and that religious values have become part of their "official" stance. "Family Values" is a euphemism for fundamental Christian values; no one questions that. I'm probably being too simple minded here, but I thought one of the founding principles in this country was the separation of church and state. To me, that means government keeps its nose out of religion and religion stays out of making government decisions. I realize the political parties are not part of the government, per se, but the people they are putting forth for election ARE going to be part of the government, so should religious beliefs be part of this selection process in such a central way?

I say all this realizing that many of the people on the anti-LGBT train are not basing their beliefs on "religion" in the least. I also realize that it is impossible to have a perfect vacuum where religion and political beliefs never interact at all. Religion is, however, something that used to be a fairly private affair, even among our politicians. In my mind, it should NOT be a stance of a major political party.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It has puzzled me for a long time that Republicans are openly waving a flag of religion and that religious values have become part of their "official" stance. "Family Values" is a euphemism for fundamental Christian values; no one questions that. I'm probably being too simple minded here, but I thought one of the founding principles in this country was the separation of church and state. To me, that means government keeps its nose out of religion and religion stays out of making government decisions. I realize the political parties are not part of the government, per se, but the people they are putting forth for election ARE going to be part of the government, so should religious beliefs be part of this selection process in such a central way?

I say all this realizing that many of the people on the anti-LGBT train are not basing their beliefs on "religion" in the least. I also realize that it is impossible to have a perfect vacuum where religion and political beliefs never interact at all. Religion is, however, something that used to be a fairly private affair, even among our politicians. In my mind, it should NOT be a stance of a major political party.

We were NOT founded on a principle of separation of church and state, that is a simple minded argument put forth by simple minded folks.

Instead, we were founded as a nation that didn't have an official religion, which was of course, quite radical for it's time.

This latest trend of acting like anyone who wants to use religion to guide their thoughts about our government or to help them shape or laws is un American is just stupid. It's COMPLETELY American to use your religious views to shape your political views. Whether you believe in God, Allah, Buddha, or no deity at all. The first amendment in fact SPECIFICALLY ensures that regardless of your religion or lack thereof you will not be excluded from representation, and THAT was what was so radical about our First Amendment. It wasn't that NO religion was included, it was that ALL religions were.

 

[OldLady]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to appreciate them doing so. You do however have to respect their right to do so. And at no point did the so called Establishment clause ever suggest that religion shouldn't be in government. That is a complete false interpretation . In fact do you know that the very first person hired by the Congress was a Congressional Chaplain? Pretty strange move if they intended there to be no religion in government.

 

[320 Years of History]

It was once "settled" "science" that the earth was flat too. Does that mean it's fact?

Things that where once "settled" science:

• The earth is flat
• The sun revolves around the earth
• All of creation was the work of "God" (not entirely convinced this is inaccurate)
• The universe is static and eternal

There's no question that the scientists of yore got some of those things wrong (I can't say precisely when men figured out Earth is not flat, but it was sometime prior to Jesus' birth), but in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, science and its conduct was not at all the same thing as it is today. As late as the Renaissance, the scientific method was subordinated to the Roman Catholic Church's priorities; science does not today begin with premises that haven't been proven and it does not make predictions/claims that are not falsifiable. (Some examples of what the Theory of Evolution's, for instance, falsifiable predictions are discussed here, in both the post's text and in the content at the links in the post.) The consequence of the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment ages' increased rigor infused into the approach to scientific inquiry created a sea change in the quality of scientific conclusions, making them very much settled things, except to the extent the scientific community asserts it is unable to arrive at a conclusion.

That's not to say one cannot raise the point that many former theories were found to be incorrect. The thing is that in doing so, one can only rationally assail the approach to conducting the "science" that arrived at those ideas, the thought processes that drove and foundational premises on which rested those ideas.

 

[OldLady]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to appreciate them doing so. You do however have to respect their right to do so. And at no point did the so called Establishment clause ever suggest that religion shouldn't be in government. That is a complete false interpretation . In fact do you know that the very first person hired by the Congress was a Congressional Chaplain? Pretty strange move if they intended there to be no religion in government.

I don't believe I need to respect the right to interfere with others' rights. Nope. Not in this country.

 

[oldsoul]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to appreciate them doing so. You do however have to respect their right to do so. And at no point did the so called Establishment clause ever suggest that religion shouldn't be in government. That is a complete false interpretation . In fact do you know that the very first person hired by the Congress was a Congressional Chaplain? Pretty strange move if they intended there to be no religion in government.

I don't believe I need to respect the right to interfere with others' rights. Nope. Not in this country.

To what do you refer exactly?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to appreciate them doing so. You do however have to respect their right to do so. And at no point did the so called Establishment clause ever suggest that religion shouldn't be in government. That is a complete false interpretation . In fact do you know that the very first person hired by the Congress was a Congressional Chaplain? Pretty strange move if they intended there to be no religion in government.

I don't believe I need to respect the right to interfere with others' rights. Nope. Not in this country.

So, you're against militants forcing others to do business with them, or provide alternative bathrooms for them, that sort of thing? Me too.

 

[OldLady]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to appreciate them doing so. You do however have to respect their right to do so. And at no point did the so called Establishment clause ever suggest that religion shouldn't be in government. That is a complete false interpretation . In fact do you know that the very first person hired by the Congress was a Congressional Chaplain? Pretty strange move if they intended there to be no religion in government.

I don't believe I need to respect the right to interfere with others' rights. Nope. Not in this country.

To what do you refer exactly?

This thread was begun discussing gay rights. LGBT rights are what I was thinking about.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to appreciate them doing so. You do however have to respect their right to do so. And at no point did the so called Establishment clause ever suggest that religion shouldn't be in government. That is a complete false interpretation . In fact do you know that the very first person hired by the Congress was a Congressional Chaplain? Pretty strange move if they intended there to be no religion in government.

I don't believe I need to respect the right to interfere with others' rights. Nope. Not in this country.

To what do you refer exactly?

This thread was begun discussing gay rights. LGBT rights are what I was thinking about.

So you only object to gay rights being trampled?

 

[OldLady]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to appreciate them doing so. You do however have to respect their right to do so. And at no point did the so called Establishment clause ever suggest that religion shouldn't be in government. That is a complete false interpretation . In fact do you know that the very first person hired by the Congress was a Congressional Chaplain? Pretty strange move if they intended there to be no religion in government.

I don't believe I need to respect the right to interfere with others' rights. Nope. Not in this country.

So, you're against militants forcing others to do business with them, or provide alternative bathrooms for them, that sort of thing? Me too.

If you are too tender and fragile a flower to do business with someone based on who he/she loves, you shouldn't be in business. The transgenders didn't ask for alternative bathrooms. The people who are scared to death of them did.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to appreciate them doing so. You do however have to respect their right to do so. And at no point did the so called Establishment clause ever suggest that religion shouldn't be in government. That is a complete false interpretation . In fact do you know that the very first person hired by the Congress was a Congressional Chaplain? Pretty strange move if they intended there to be no religion in government.

I don't believe I need to respect the right to interfere with others' rights. Nope. Not in this country.

So, you're against militants forcing others to do business with them, or provide alternative bathrooms for them, that sort of thing? Me too.

If you are too tender and fragile a flower to do business with someone based on who he/she loves, you shouldn't be in business. The transgenders didn't ask for alternative bathrooms. The people who are scared to death of them did.

That makes no sense. Either you are FOR protecting rights, are you aren't . How you feel about the person, or even the right they are exercising, should be irrelevant.

With your reasoning, the majority could at any time say " If you don't believe in God, shut your mouth" or any other justification for taking rights away from others.

Either we all have rights, or none of us do. I don't approve of gays, at all. They don't need my approval, they only need my recognition of their rights.

THAT is exactly what I'm talking about. Each side stubbornly defends only the rights of certain groups. Pathetic

 

[OldLady]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to appreciate them doing so. You do however have to respect their right to do so. And at no point did the so called Establishment clause ever suggest that religion shouldn't be in government. That is a complete false interpretation . In fact do you know that the very first person hired by the Congress was a Congressional Chaplain? Pretty strange move if they intended there to be no religion in government.

I don't believe I need to respect the right to interfere with others' rights. Nope. Not in this country.

So, you're against militants forcing others to do business with them, or provide alternative bathrooms for them, that sort of thing? Me too.

If you are too tender and fragile a flower to do business with someone based on who he/she loves, you shouldn't be in business. The transgenders didn't ask for alternative bathrooms. The people who are scared to death of them did.

That makes no sense. Either you are FOR protecting rights, are you aren't . How you feel about the person, or even the right they are exercising, should be irrelevant.

With your reasoning, the majority could at any time say " If you don't believe in God, shut your mouth" or any other justification for taking rights away from others.

Either we all have rights, or none of us do. I don't approve of gays, at all. They don't need my approval, they only need my recognition of their rights.

THAT is exactly what I'm talking about. Each side stubbornly defends only the rights of certain groups. Pathetic

If you approve of gays' rights, why did you say you don't want to be forced to do business with them?

 

[320 Years of History]

Alright. Of course we all use our underlying beliefs to make choices in our political views. However, I do not appreciate people of one faith passing laws that interfere with the rights of others. Or having a faith openly used as a 'selling point' by candidates like Cruz/Republicans in general.
I'm not pretending to be a constitutional expert, but the separation of church and state has been seriously discussed by people who aren't totally simple minded. Like Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court, etc.
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to appreciate them doing so. You do however have to respect their right to do so. And at no point did the so called Establishment clause ever suggest that religion shouldn't be in government. That is a complete false interpretation . In fact do you know that the very first person hired by the Congress was a Congressional Chaplain? Pretty strange move if they intended there to be no religion in government.

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Methinks you really need to research your ideas and beliefs more rigorously and, when there are multiple sides to the story, present them with equal dialecticism.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson​

In "Memorial and Remonstrance," James Madison argued that to promote any religion was outside the proper scope of limited government. Even for Virginia’s government to sponsor all Christian religions, as Henry proposed, would establish a dangerous precedent, for “Who does not see that the same authority, which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?”​

I'm aware that modern science in 1998 in FBI laboratories identified the text of Jefferson's first draft of the "Danbury" letter quoted above. Based on what the FBI found, religious organizations have levied claims that the separation of church and state was not something the man intended to assert. I find that to be preposterous. Why? Because like Jefferson and many other folks, I've written all manners of first drafts that differ greatly from what I produced as my final document. Without exception I can say that the content of my final draft is what I meant and intended and what was in earlier drafts of the same document was not, which is why some of what was in the first drafts doesn't make it to the final draft.

I find it absurd to think the writing process is or was any different for any skilled writer/thinker who bothers to compose initial and subsequent written drafts of their ideas. That is the whole point of the editing process: to hone one's final publication to the point that it says, literally and tacitly, exactly what one means and nothing that one does not mean.

Blue:
The first person we hired when my ex and I bought the house I live in now was a gardener. The cook and housekeeper came next. The nanny was the last person we engaged. It'd be downright imbecilic to infer from our observed hiring sequence that we saw grounds maintenance as being more important than the care of our child or eating. Yet that's the very line of rationale you've applied, and asked your readers to accept, in noting that the first person Congress hired was a chaplain. Has it really not occurred to you that the chaplain might have been hired before some others because that position was easier to fill, the person desired appeared to accept the offer sooner than did others, or a host of other reasons?

Most importantly, and to the point of my opening statement ("red" section), the chaplain was not the first person hired.

• First Clerk of the House: John Beckley (April 1, 1789)
• First House Chaplain: William Linn (May 1, 1789)
• First House Sergeant at Arms: Joseph Wheaton (May 12, 1789)
• First Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper: James Mather (April 7, 1789)
• First Secretary of the Senate: Samuel Allyne Otis (April 8, 1789)
• First Senate Chaplain: Samuel Provoost (April 25, 1789)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "Congressional Chaplain." Perhaps you have in mind the Continental Congress, which did also have a chaplain? However, the Continental Congress and what we today call "Congress" are not the same things. The Continental Congress was dissolved, along with the Articles of Confederation, upon the implementation of the Constitution. I don't know in what sequence the factotums and employees of the Continental Congress were hired.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​