Opinion of Wulfric

[SWE]

Very moderate, very reasonable.

[Flake]

But civil unions aren't even a Moderate Hero position here anymore. Hell they were pushed by far right Republican Mary Franson in 2013.

I am curious what his reading is though I'm sure it's hifly esque semantically nonsense.

LOL, civil unions are such a pathetic cop out. Bush said he supported civil unions in 2004.

Uh, not really...from wiki...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's more of a "I don't like Civil Unions, but I'm not going to force NY/RI/etc. to keep them outlawed" sort of position rather than full on support.

Wulfric?  I'd really like to discuss this.  I PMed you, and I know you've been browsing/posting, so I'm hoping for a response.

All right.

First off, to clarify, my position is that federally, there should be a law allowing civil unions with most but not all marriage rights (what I personally support; so it isn't a 'marriage in all but name'; not a lawyer so don't really know specifics about which rights I wouldn't include), and then individual states should be allowed to expand that all the way up to full gay marriage if they so choose, but they cannot do less than the federal law does.

Now, let's move on to the reasons I wouldn't vote for a federal law mandating gay marriage.

First, and foremost, there are two ways to view marriage. One is to view it almost exclusively as a simple relationship between two people. It's not immoral to hold that view, but I instead take the second viewpoint which is seeing marriage as a relationship with the main purpose of two people procreating, and raising children to be good members of society. The best environment to do that is a marriage between a man and a woman, and that's the only type of marriage that should be sponsored federally. I'm not saying that it's impossible for gay couples to give birth through unconventional means (surrogate mothers, invitro, etc.), or that we should outlaw gay adoptions, or that it's impossible for gay people to raise children well. However, the easiest and the best environment for children to be raised in is one where they have a mother and a father, and that man-woman marriage is the type that the federal government should be giving full sponsorship to.

At the same time, I realize that gay people can't just wake up one morning and decide that they are straight, and therefore we should give some recognition to the relationship of a gay couple through civil unions, so that they can benefit from things like spousal hospital visitation rights, spousal testimonial rights, adoption tax credits, etc. But because it is not the relationship that is the ideal child-rearing environment, the state does not need to and should not be compelled to give full sponsorship to a gay couple like they should to a man-woman couple.

Secondly, the man-woman relationship is deeply rooted in tradition. Not only does every major religion say that man-woman marriage should be the only marriage, but is deeply inserted into society, including today in states where SSM is still illegal, and states willing to keep it illegal should be allowed to do so and preserve the deeply rooted tradition of man-woman marriage.
Each state should be allowed as much time it wants to take a look at the states that allow full gay marriage before deciding it wants to break with tradition and support it. One day, states like Missississippi may allow SSM - however, if they choose to do it, the ones leading the movement should be state legislators and/or state voters, not the federal government or a group of activist judges who have no concern for what the people really want.

Finally, The liberals' strategy on this issue is and has been quite simple:

1. Get a few states to legalize SSM on their own (this step is now complete)
2. Get some judges, including from places that oppose SSM, to legalize it by force (this step is now complete)
3. Scream "precedent! precedent!" at the SCOTUS until they force the entire nation to do things the same way.

The democrats did the same thing when they rammed through the awful mandate of roe vs. wade through, and if we let them do it with this issue, it'll be polygamy a few decades down the road, then incest a few decades after that, and who knows what beyond that. The Supreme Court made the right decision in 1972, as did the 8th circuit in 2006 and the 6th circuit in 2014, and I hope the supreme court still has the courage to stand up to liberals, and not force SSM on  the entire nation, and stop us from hitting the polygamy and incest parts of this terrible slippery slope.

Awful.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

I feel very moderate about him, in an almost heroic sense.

[King]

He is equally FF and HP.  He respects both sides of the argument.

[SWE]

He is equally FF and HP. 

Eh it's more like a 55/45 ratio for me

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Is there a middle ground option between FF and HP? It seems like we shouldn't have to choose merely between the far-freedom and the far-horrible sides of this issue.

[Hatman 🍁]

horribly moderate

[Vega]

About 90% sure he's Ed Case.

[Maxwell]

He's an HP, here's nine reasons why -

1-8. Moderate hero
9. Benghazi

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

About 90% sure he's Ed Case.

I'm not.

[Sopranos Republican]

He is equally FF and HP.  

Eh it's more like a 55/45 ratio for me

If the goddamn libs would just stop with this "equal protection under the law" crap, and took a more moderate stance, then he'd most certainly reach that 55/45 ratio. However since the Democrats and their far-left friends are unwilling to come to the bargaining table and work out an approach to marriage that works for everyone, it'll be more like a 45/55 ratio.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I'm confused as to why all the HP votes. Yes, surprising views on marriage and horrible support for Cuomo, but at least he outlines why. It's not a horrible argument despite my disagreement.

Undoubtedly a FF.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

FF.

At least he does explain his views, even if I vehemently disagree with some of them (i.e. gay marriage, free trade, abortion) and slightly disagree with others (Affirmative action, campaign finance reform, illegal immigration ).


No problems other than that; pretty chill guy, I s'pose.

[windjammer]

A nice guy

[BaconBacon96]

Nice guy but a serious Moderate Hero. Didn't vote.

[morgieb]

Comedy third option.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Terrible like all Moderate Heroes.

[Mr. Smith]

Comedy third option.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

One of the better moderate heroes, in his defense.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

FF.

At least he does explain his views, even if vehemenently(SP?) disagree with some of them (i.e. gay marriage, free trade, abortion) and slightly disagree with others (Affirmative action, campaign finance reform, illegal immigration ).


No problems other than that; pretty chill guy, I s'pose.

Just vehemently .

[TJ in Oregon]

FF.

Oh good grief people. He might be moderate but he does seem to actually have views, not just take half of literally everything or post whatever will make him most popular.

[Niemeyerite]

HP. Only Moderate Heroes are voting FF, BTW.

[Miles]

Would have voted FF until a few days ago.

I found out that I'm terrible at subjectively determining which pols I like. Apparently, I'm only allowed to like/support pols who are popular.

[Enderman]

Would have voted FF until a few days ago.

I found out that I'm terrible at subjectively determining which pols I like. Apparently, I'm only allowed to like/support pols who are popular.

I feel ya bro

[Flake]

Would have voted FF until a few days ago.

I found out that I'm terrible at subjectively determining which pols I like. Apparently, I'm only allowed to like/support pols who are popular.

Yes, and apparently opposing interracial marriage in 1995 wouldn't be crazy.