Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[publicunofficial]

Like I said earlier in the thread, there is no strategy - because marriage will be radically redefined for us by black robed judges  - us peons have no recourse other than a Federal Marriage Amendment, which the Republicans have given up on

If it's that big of a deal to you, you can always move to Russia, which is a Republican's wet dream nowadays.

Israel is a much nicer option.

[publicunofficial]

Wulfric's question dodging is something to be admired. He gets his awful argument destroyed by multiple posters, and all he does is complain about misleading avatars.

[publicunofficial]

I'm not saying that all of god's commandments are things I would be willing to publicly campaign on/advocate for if one asked me to do so. I don't feel god expects me to do so. But if they were to come up at the ballot box as refrendums, then I believe god expects me to vote for them out of faith. Sure, god is the eventual final arbiter on whether someone has been truly repentant and deserves forgiveness. But that doesn't mean he expects man to show a nonchalant attitude towards others' sin.

Ok, well let's cut right to the chase here. Would you vote in favor of the following referendums if they were on the ballot in your state?
1. A ban on all non-Christian marriages (i.e. no state recognition of marriages between Jewish or Muslim couples, etc.)?
2. The establishment of Christianity as the official state religion?
3. A ban on the construction of mosques within the state?
4. A flat-out ban on the practice of Islam?

1. Contrary to what you may believe, god does not declare that a marriage between two unbelievers is a sin (However, a christian who knowingly marries an unbeliever is sinning: https://bible.org/seriespage/17-marriage-matters-1-corinthians-76-24). So, it falls to personal opinion, and I would vote No in this case.

2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not sure. While this is something god would likely expect me to support, I'm not sure if I could bring myself to actually support it.

--------------

When and if I knowingly go against a commandment of god when taking a position on an issue, there is always a reason for doing it. Maybe I feel it's unenforceable, too intruding, or ridiculously expensive. I do not want to give into those temptations, but the devil finds ways of convincing me that it's what's best for society as a whole.

But when it comes to SSM, my devoted opposition comes with no hesitation whatsoever. Excluding gay couples from marriage is not something that I feel uneasy about doing at all. Some of the people in this world are asking god to change the union of marriage from what it has been for essentially all of time. They are telling god, not even out of temptation, but out of pure wanting to do it without any provoking from the devil at all, that the unions he created aren't good enough for us even though they were good enough for centuries upon centuries. And they should be ashamed of themselves.

Why is banning mosques okay with you but not a flat-out ban on Islam? It's like you are trying to be a moderate for the sake of being a moderate, even though your beliefs are inherently radical.

Seriously, I've been following this thread just because I find the way your mind seems to work, and the way you explain it, actually fascinating.

[publicunofficial]

Got a real Moderate Hero on our hands.

Possibly the very first "Moderate Villain"

[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.

That's so not what he was asking.

[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.

[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.