A good question about liberal and conservative politics re: Constitutional rights

[n2sooners]

Maybe a better form for the question is "Why does the conservative side think banning gay marriage is going to stop homosexuality." As others have stated, abortion is making the choice of life or death for someone else.

I don't want people telling others how to live or if they should live so long as they aren't hurting anyone else, period, end of story.

A better question is why do both sides want the government to regulate marriage just to slightly different degree?

 

[vvvvvvv]

A better question is why do both sides want the government to regulate marriage just to slightly different degree?

This.

One problem I've had with many of the LGBT "equality" groups is many of them simultaneously call for additional hate crime laws creating a special class of citizens while also calling for equality. A true call for equality would acknowledge that such concepts are mutually exclusive.

 

[sanjuro893]

It's because both camps are composed of anti-liberty statists who believe that government should control any aspect of your life that they do not personally agree with. Both are unwilling to apply logic and reason while falsely claiming that they are applying logic and reason. In reality, the only time they come close to applying logic and reason is if it deals with an issue that they agree that you should be "free" to do.

A shining example of the gross ignorance could be Conservatives' worshiping of Ronald Reagan even though many of his positions were contrary to what current Conservatives claim that he stood for. For example, a popular meme that I've seen on Facebook passed around by Conservative groups shows a photo of Reagan and says something the lines of "was a victim of assassination attempts. never came for your guns", when in reality he supported quite a bit of anti-gun legislation both while in and out of office. Then there's the issue of the size of government under each administration...

On the other side, you have the shining example of Liberals' worshiping of Barack Obama even though he has gone against nearly every promise he has made on the campaign trail, both from 2008 and 2012. Take, for example, the pseudo-War on Terror - he's simply continued in the footsteps of Bush II, and in many cases has amplified Bush II's policies. Yet liberals who were anti war and pro civil rights before 2008 not take pro war and anti civil rights positions in support of their fearless leader. It doesn't matter that it's Bush III.

There is the sheep mentality in both camps, too. You're either Republican or Democrat. You either support the entire platform, or you're a [RD]INO. If you're not with us, you're against us. If you're an American citizen who thinks you have rights that our party doesn't think you should have, you're an enemy of the state and should promptly be destroyed. If a member of the "other party" is President, we'd better change our so-called principles and values because we cannot be seen agreeing with them. Every politician is corrupt, except mine.

Neither of those camps contain an ounce of principles or moral values in politics. It's about self-righteous benefit over freedom. It's about taking or renouncing claim of policies depending based on who will get the credit for implementation. Neither sees you as a citizen, they see you as a subject that must be controlled by the state. The only thing they disagree on is what must be controlled, and even then they trade on some areas depending on who it benefits most politically.

Beautifully said.

 

[farmerbyron]

A better question is why do both sides want the government to regulate marriage just to slightly different degree?

I'm with ya.

 

[Cinaet]

Abortion and gun rights. Liberals and conservatives. You're mixing religion with 2A. No offense, but you're using the media's characterizations of liberals and conservatives as your examples. There are really no hard answers to your questions.

 

[Dale00]

Conservatives and libertarians should be building bridges, not arguing. Stereotyping and name calling make it difficult or impossible carry on a discussion of the issues. I suggest exploring points of agreement and then extending that good will into a single area upon which the two sides disagree. Abortion is a poor choice of topic unless the aim is to divide.

 

[WTJ]

Since when did gay marriage or abortion get documented into the Constitution? Fact is, both main parties ignore the Constitution UNTIL it serves their nefarious purposes.

 

[stromtomb]

Why should government have any say at all in marriage? Why would that be any of their business? Wouldn't it be better if he government concerned itself with constitutionally mandated duties?

 

[n2sooners]

Why should government have any say at all in marriage? Why would that be any of their business? Wouldn't it be better if he government concerned itself with constitutionally mandated duties?

I'm not positive, but it seems to me government really started taking over marriage some time after they instituted an income tax. I think they need to let go of marriage and just base taxes on households. If two people live together why can't they do their taxes together as a household if they wish? What difference does it make what they call their relationship or whether or not they are having sex? No matter what type of marriage you support this should be something everyone can get behind. We need less government in our personal affairs. And along the same lines, why should anyone need the government's permission to decide to sever a relationship that isn't working? If there is a fight over property or children then the courts can still be involved and sometimes are even when there is no official marriage. But if two people can split up amicably even when children are involved, why should money be wasted on courts and lawyers?

 

[CoachR64]

Since when did gay marriage or abortion get documented into the Constitution? Fact is, Many politicians ignore the Constitution UNTIL it serves their nefarious purposes.

fixed it for you. When you use a term as Broad as parties, you are painting every member with a broad bush and unnecessarily so