- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Texas GOP rejects Log Cabin Republicans
Posted on 2/6/20 at 3:51 pm to LSUFanHouston
Posted on 2/6/20 at 3:51 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:No one is absolutely free; that would be pure anarchy. There will always be limits on freedom so the ongoing argument will be which freedoms do we protect and which do we limit.
My issues with the religious right aren't so much because of religious motive. It's because those issues tend to supress individual freedoms.
If you can't choose between banging a dude and banging a woman, are you truly free?
This wasn't even an issue for the vast, vast majority of people (especially conservatives) for centuries in western society until a few decades ago when the sexual revolution changed how people looked at sexual liberties and de-emphasized the fight against certain activities and lifestyles as being non-conservative.
1
Posted on 2/6/20 at 4:00 pm to Ag Zwin
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/7/20 at 9:53 pm
Posted on 2/6/20 at 4:09 pm to Flats
quote:
Yes, they addressed that on their website, using it as a lead-in to bemoaning the lack of federal protected status that they want. Look for yourself.
I applaud you for at least looking for more information; you seem to be the only one who's done so besides me and a couple of others. It sounds like they have 10 essential planks, and you have to agree with all of them to have a table. I suspect it's always been that way, and I suspect that's pretty standard fair for political conventions, and I've never seen any crying about it before. Some things are negotiable, some aren't. They picked one that wasn't for the Texas GOP but apparently expected special treatment.
Now if there are other groups that disagree on one of those 10 and still get a table then they've got a consistency problem.
Yeah I read somewhere that the LCR have been getting denied a place at the convention for a long time, so this isn't anything new. I just don't remember ever hearing about it before.
I'm all for the Texas GOP having their own criteria on what is and isn't allowed at their convention. I just don't think it's a smart political move and personally, I'd like to see those members of the LCR be included.
As far as the other groups attending the conference, I went to their website and its a lot of merchandise type vendors, local individual campaigns, and issue-based groups focusing on abortion, cannabis, etc. I even saw a texas bail bondsmen group lol.
It seems a little silly to me to welcome merchandise vendors and bail bondsmen, but deny a group GOP political group at a, but I understand the thinking behind it. They'd rather a neutral group over a group that disagrees with one of their planks.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 4:34 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
They'd rather a neutral group over a group that disagrees with one of their planks.
Mickey you seem like a logical person and I'm sorry I was an a-hole last night.
You have to realize that allowing this would alienate over 75% of the gop base.
This post was edited on 2/6/20 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 2/6/20 at 4:47 pm to rooster108bm
quote:
Mickey you seem like a logical person and I'm sorry I was an a-hole last night.
You have to realize that allowing this would alienate over 75% of the gop base.
All good, bud. I really appreciate that.
And yeah I do realize that so it's understandable why they did what they did.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 5:16 pm to TigerChief10
quote:
But all you "Christians" need to get off your damn soap box and realize that all sins are equal. Some queer taking one up the arse is no worse in the eyes of God than you getting drunk.
Point 1. is well taken and one that I've tried to make before. Homosexual practices are no more or no less sinful than other actions proscribed by scripture. Any interested person can find them. They're clear and unambiguous and encompassing enough to swamp every poster's boat on this board.
All have sinned and missed God's plumb line.
All.
The Republican political religious right often acts like these scriptures don't apply to them. They do.
quote:
We will need these people to win elections in the future. You don't have to hangout with them or pander to them but republicans should absolutely accept them if they're going to vote with us.
Point 2 is partially true in that one does not necessarily have to hangout with them but is wrong in that you will have to pander to them. In some measure this thread is doing just that. That's what is at the heart of this brouhaha.
As far as needing them to win elections, possibly true-we need individual conservative voters though, probably not LGBTQ/Transgender advocacy organizations elevating their peculiar issue above conservative principles such as limited Constitutional government, sound fiscal policy, and restoring individual liberties.
If they are truly conservatives and Republicans they will support their party, its policies and principles, and its candidates.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 5:22 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:
But all you "Christians" need to get off your damn soap box and realize that all sins are equal.
So getting drunk is just like molesting a child? Got it.
*weird*
quote:
Some queer taking one up the arse is no worse in the eyes of God than you getting drunk.
How do you know this?
Posted on 2/6/20 at 5:30 pm to Dale51
While all sin is equal in terms of guilt and condemnation apart from Christ, not all sin is equal in terms of its offensiveness. There is the unpardonable sin, for example, and then there is sexual immorality where God actually gives people over to their lusts. Not all sin is spoken of in such a way.
To say we all sin as an excuse for acceptance of sin is contrary to what the Bible teaches. We do all sin, and we all should be seeking forgiveness through God's only begotten son Jesus, and repenting of our sins and instead seeking to honor God through obedience to His holy moral law.
I agree that we should speak out against all continual sins in this nation. That's why I support the banning of no-fault divorce.
To say we all sin as an excuse for acceptance of sin is contrary to what the Bible teaches. We do all sin, and we all should be seeking forgiveness through God's only begotten son Jesus, and repenting of our sins and instead seeking to honor God through obedience to His holy moral law.
I agree that we should speak out against all continual sins in this nation. That's why I support the banning of no-fault divorce.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 5:39 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I agree that we should speak out against all continual sins in this nation. That's why I support the banning of no-fault divorce.
Speaking out is not the same as banning. Speak out for people to remain married and to resist divorce, but don't legally restrict their ability to get said divorce simply because it doesn't follow your personal religious beliefs.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 5:39 pm to Ag Zwin
While I think it's a bigger problem on the left than the right this really goes to the core of a problem in our country on the whole
We've become incapable of having discussions with people we disagree with to the point that we can't even discuss with people we agree with on the majority of stuff.
This is actually why I enjoy talking about issues in real life. Because in real life if you are talking about issues it's generally with people that you at least somewhat like.
Unfortunately even that has basically dried up. People can't even talk with their parents or their adult children anymore if there's a disagreement
We've become incapable of having discussions with people we disagree with to the point that we can't even discuss with people we agree with on the majority of stuff.
This is actually why I enjoy talking about issues in real life. Because in real life if you are talking about issues it's generally with people that you at least somewhat like.
Unfortunately even that has basically dried up. People can't even talk with their parents or their adult children anymore if there's a disagreement
Posted on 2/6/20 at 5:47 pm to Flats
quote:
You’re banging a straw man and nobody’s stopping you.
Considering "who sleeps with whom" is the literal issue in the OP, is it really a straw man?
Posted on 2/6/20 at 5:48 pm to Flats
quote:
A smaller government doesn’t try to define a “legal adult”. Why do you want to give the government so much power?
If the courts will be asked to adjudicate contracts, there must be a legal threshhold to measure the contracts.
That's why it's necessary.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 5:51 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
his wasn't even an issue for the vast, vast majority of people (especially conservatives) for centuries in western society until a few decades ago when the sexual revolution changed how people looked at sexual liberties and de-emphasized the fight against certain activities and lifestyles as being non-conservative.
We also had centuries of slavery, no rights for women, and no internet. Should we go back to those days as well?
Societies evolve, our bedrock principals should not. The argument is, what are our bedrock principals, and more specifically, what are not?
I would argue who screws who isn't a bedrock principal on which our nation was founded.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 5:53 pm to rooster108bm
quote:
You have to realize that allowing this would alienate over 75% of the gop base.
I don't think that is true, today.
Maybe 20 years ago.
Most conservatives DGAF about who sleeps with who. I mean, most of the base isn't homo, that is true, but very few cares these days if someone else is.
We have bigger things to worry about, like activist judges and our out of control spending and our expansion of government into healthcare and other areas of our lives.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 5:55 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:
If they are truly conservatives and Republicans they will support their party, its policies and principles, and its candidates.
Democrats pissed, moaned, and whined that John Bel Edwards is pro-life. And on election day, they got their butts to the polls and voted for him.
Meanwhile, Republican leaders try to disassociate themselves with anyone that doesn't agree 100 percent with them.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 6:04 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:Our nation is suffering because of this practice. There's plenty of evidence to support the notion that divorce is detrimental to children and that it should be curbed as best as possible. Outlawing no-fault divorce isn't the same as outlawing divorce entirely, and you're welcome to your opinions as I am to mine. If I have the opportunity to support such a plan (I doubt I will), I will support it.
Speaking out is not the same as banning. Speak out for people to remain married and to resist divorce, but don't legally restrict their ability to get said divorce simply because it doesn't follow your personal religious beliefs.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 6:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Our nation is suffering because of this practice. There's plenty of evidence to support the notion that divorce is detrimental to children and that it should be curbed as best as possible. Outlawing no-fault divorce isn't the same as outlawing divorce entirely, and you're welcome to your opinions as I am to mine. If I have the opportunity to support such a plan (I doubt I will), I will support it.
Having freedom and individual liberties means that people will make mistakes and society will suffer from it. That's the cost of having that freedom. I'd rather that then someone forcing restrictions like this on people in an attempt to make a perfect utopian society.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 6:10 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Meanwhile, Republican leaders try to disassociate themselves with anyone that doesn't agree 100 percent with them.
I would say exactly the opposite.
Gay marriage is legal.
Republicans believe marrage should only be between a man and woman.
Seems to me some people don't agree in the way republican's think and are bound and determined to change that.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 6:11 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
The Texas GOP is well within its rights to maintain socially conservative stances on issues such as same-sex marriage, and individual members have every right to their religious views on homosexuality as well. But to bar gay Republicans from the party despite them agreeing on almost all core principles and having worked hard to elect Republicans screams of bigotry and discrimination.
These sentences contradict each other.
Posted on 2/6/20 at 6:11 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Our nation is suffering because of this practice.
I will say that our country suffers when two people enter into a marriage without the committment to see it through, AND there are kids borne into that marriage.
I fully believe it is best when a child has a mother and father at home, in a loving, caring environment.
But, what if that environment isn't loving and caring? There are many times when if the choice is between divorce or a wrecked household, divorce is probably best for both spouses AND the child.
Outlawing / banning things doesn't allow for the gray world that we all live in.
Page 13 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News