First, you missed (skipped over?) the part about him being pro-life.
He's Pro-life. That's not a criticism. Even if you want to say a pregnancy is not another human life up until 20 weeks when it can think and feel pain, I think we can agree after that point it's a person. Descartes stated "I think therefore I am" and I personally feel that is a good criteria for whether a person exists or not. Now Rand is no zealot on this issue either but yes, he does hold his principles. His father was an OBGYN so I have to think he has some inside knowledge on the issue as well. For instance, a guy breaks up with his girlfriend and finds out that she's 3 months pregnant with his child and hits her in the belly and she loses the baby, you can bet that at least manslaughter charges will follow. You cannot have it both ways and say that a person is a person if you want it but not so if you don't. That's inconsistent and fucked up.
Second, I may have overstated it, so let's just list out his position on homosexuals. He opposes gay marriage.
He opposes it personally but believes the states should be able to make their own laws regarding the issue.
He opposes gays in the military.
I was unable to confirm this. can you source it?
He supports "separate but equal" legislation regarding gay marriage.
That's a stretch. Saying you believe that people should be able to have all the benefits of marriage without it being called marriage ( which he personally believes is between a man and a woman) is not the same as saying black kids should have their own separate schools, which is what your framing implies. I think we both know that's disingenuous, especially considering his overarching philosophy that the states should write their own laws regarding the subject. There is no such thing as a federal marriage license.
He refers to the debate about same-sex marriage as a "moral crisis"
Okay,again, that's his personal belief. Supposedly Barrack Obama is a christian and you don't see him trying to pass legislation with those personal beliefs as a guide. Look to what he's said about the role of the government.
Third, your bit about AGW is about as wrong as wrong, myopic, and anti-science... I'm not going to touch this with a 10-foot pole except to encourage you to read up more on this, because... damn...
"Because...damn" Wow...good point. How about you tell me what I got wrong? Believe it or not there really is no such thing as "climate stability" Here is an image of temperature swings in just the last 5 million years (remember the earth is 5 billion years old). Climate change scientists do not employ the scientific method which requires experimentation (for obvious reasons) and the confirmation bias which has been discovered by many prominent dissenting climate researchers is alarming to say the least.
