Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[publicunofficial]

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.

Well, considering this forum's political spectrum has Hillary Clinton as an arch-right winger, and I'm obviously to her right on (almost) everything, I never applied that title much to myself anyways.

No one except maybe Smoltchanov calls themselves a moderate hero.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.

Well, considering this forum's political spectrum has Hillary Clinton as an arch-right winger, and I'm obviously to her right on (almost) everything, I never applied that title much to myself anyways.

That is true, your divisive and dangerous views are all your own.

[Foucaulf]

I really did not expect you to be so authoritarian and radical on this issue.  You are one of the very few people I've ever met who apparently thinks it's just fine to superimpose any and all personal beliefs on public policymaking, and that personal religious beliefs trump a secular harm test in all instances of policymaking.  That just seems so damn perilous to me, but not to you?

Yikes.  That's internally consistent, but it might be the most extreme position I've ever seen on this forum.

Drive-by post here, but I think this result was perfectly expected. The problem at its core, I'll wildly postulate, is that Wulfric simply do not know many people who really veer from his beliefs. Why that's the case should be a personal matter.

All I can say is that, if he's still enrolled in college, trying to play the victim on Atlas Forum instead of meeting others with different narratives on his campus is his loss.

[Maxwell]

When it comes to compromise, Wulfric splits the baby for the fun of killing babies.

[Mechaman]

Sorry dude but this is all just ridiculous.  You are aware that the bible also justifies pedophilia a few times, right?

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

Okay that is in war time, but surely there isn't a passage about selling your teenage daughter to another dude is there, oh wait:

if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant ... If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed ... If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. Exodus 21:7-10

I guess that means lolfric would have to vote in favor of abolishing the age of consent.

[7,052,770]

Wulfric,

Are you really going to deny that these are Christian ceremonies?

Are you really going to "go there" and say that these churches do not perform valid marriages in the eyes of God? As someone who was married (to an opposite-sex partner) in the Episcopal Church, I am personally offended if believe that marriages performed by my church aren't "real."

You can't have it both ways. Either the above couples aren't married, and neither am I, or we are all. Surely you wouldn't be so presumptive to think you can pick and choose which Episcopal marriages are real and which aren't. Surely...

You can call them whatever you like, but they're not valid marriages in the eyes of god.

And, you'd actually rather have no marriage at all rather than traditional marriage only? Seriously?

I don't know what this "rather" is. Either Episcopal Church performs valid marriages or it does not. Same goes for the Lutherans, Presbyterians, UCC, etc. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose to personally recognize some of these churches' holy marriages and not others.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.

Why has everyone thought Wulfric was a moderate? On his post in the "Political Views Explained" megathread months ago, he was consistently conservative on almost everything with the exception of a few random liberal positions, mostly on economics.

He's straight up conservative almost across the board.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.

Why has everyone thought Wulfric was a moderate? On his post in the "Political Views Explained" megathread months ago, he was consistently conservative on almost everything with the exception of a few random liberal positions, mostly on economics.

He's straight up conservative almost across the board.

There's a difference between straight up conservative and straight up theocrat.

[publicunofficial]

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Because he has generally had the image of a moderate. He endorses both Democrats and Republicans.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.

Why has everyone thought Wulfric was a moderate? On his post in the "Political Views Explained" megathread months ago, he was consistently conservative on almost everything with the exception of a few random liberal positions, mostly on economics.

He's straight up conservative almost across the board.

He wasn't really trying so much as to be moderate, he was trying to be impartial.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wulfric, do you support repeal of the 1st Amendment?

[King]

Wulfric, do you support repeal of the 1st Amendment?

"While I do not support the repeal of the 1st Amendment, I would not be opposed to it being repealed by 2/3rds majority of Congress and ratification of the states."

[All Along The Watchtower]

Meanwhile, in Texas.....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/texas-senate-testimony-its-a-hate-crime-to-make-people-not-discriminate-against-gays/

Just a reminder that Wulfric's views aren't that far out of the mainstream of public opinion on this issue - especially in certain regions of these United States, where his views are if anything, relatively tame compared to a lot of the population.

[SWE]

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.

Why has everyone thought Wulfric was a moderate? On his post in the "Political Views Explained" megathread months ago, he was consistently conservative on almost everything with the exception of a few random liberal positions, mostly on economics.

He's straight up conservative almost across the board.

Because he goes out of his way to appear moderate even when his actual positions are extreme

[Torie]

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.

Why has everyone thought Wulfric was a moderate? On his post in the "Political Views Explained" megathread months ago, he was consistently conservative on almost everything with the exception of a few random liberal positions, mostly on economics.

He's straight up conservative almost across the board.

Because he goes out of his way to appear moderate even when his actual positions are extreme

Being against SSM for religious reasons is an "extreme" position?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Being in favor of banning the construction of mosques.

[Torie]

Being in favor of banning the construction of mosques.

Yes, that qualifies, particularly if it is because of the particular religion involved.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes Wulfric is going way beyond opposing SSM now.

[MalaspinaGold]

Does all this apply to synagogues also?

[DC Al Fine]

Sorry dude but this is all just ridiculous.  You are aware that the bible also justifies pedophilia a few times, right?

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

Okay that is in war time, but surely there isn't a passage about selling your teenage daughter to another dude is there, oh wait:

if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant ... If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed ... If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. Exodus 21:7-10

I guess that means lolfric would have to vote in favor of abolishing the age of consent.

"Rise Peter, kill and eat."

[TDAS04]

Opposing interracial marriage for religious reasons may not have seemed that extreme in the 1960s. 

[TDAS04]

Wulfric, would you vote in favor of the government smashing Buddha statues?  Or imprisoning people for making fun of Jesus?  Or prohibiting them from playing dreidel?  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK now that I have a bit more time:

Wulfric your position becomes even more untenable when you consider the state now has to define "Christian", which opens up some issues with what to restrict. Even ignoring denominations that perform same sex weddings, what about Mormons? Should their temples be banned? What about Seventh-day Adventists? They may fit the definition of Christian by most people and other denominations, but their views toward anyone who doesn't worship on Saturday would exclude many other denominations. What about Oneness Pentecostals who don't believe in the Trinity? Their baptisms aren't considered valid by most Christian denominations, so should they be restricted? You basically will need some agency to determine what is or isn't Christian and effectively have the state regulating Christianity.

And actually, your position SSM and civil unions isn't even consistent with this. If homosexuality is a sin, and goes against the will of God, and this can't ever be supported even on a secular scale, then why are civil unions OK? That too is promoting sin by your standard. In fact if you want to restrict/ban other religions, the only consistent position would be to criminalize homosexuality as well. Supporting not just the legality of homosexuality but also civil unions on top of this makes NO sense compared to the rest of this.

[Alcon]

^ BRTD's questions are pretty close to the ones I intended to ask, so I'll defer to them, Wulfric.

[Maxwell]

Wulfric, would you vote in favor of the government smashing Buddha statues?  Or imprisoning people for making fun of Jesus?  Or prohibiting them from playing dreidel?  

He would only favor smashing Buddha statutes. He does not getting the government involved in play of dreidel. #compromise #moderate

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Wulfric, would you vote in favor of the government smashing Buddha statues?  Or imprisoning people for making fun of Jesus?  Or prohibiting them from playing dreidel? 

He would only favor smashing 55% of all Buddha statutes. He does not getting the government involved in play of dreidel. #compromise #moderate

ftfy