Why do conservatives support small government but continue to regulate people's lives? ?

I mean, conservatives don't wan the government to interfere with THEIR life, but they have no problem banning gay marriage and trying to make abortion illegal. My philosophy is that it is not my place to decide how other people should live their life, even if it goes against my beliefs (as long as they don't infringe on my rights, of course).

Can anyone give me a good answer, or are social conservatives just hypocrites?

21 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I am not a republican, but I am a conservative. I think that you are right people should be allowed to do what they want in private, as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

    The problem I have with the federal government running everything and making all the decisions is that the country was not founded on that platform. We were founded with the idea of a strong confederation of separate states.

    I say we let states decide their own issues that way if one state wants abortion and another one does not, or is one state wants gay unions and one does not, we can all chose to live were we want.

    Think of it as one great big experiment, if certain states allow gay marriage and prosper than the other states will take up their lead. On the other hand if things do not go well other states will learn from that to.

  • 1 decade ago

    First of all, your philosophy is not necessarily everyone else's.

    Religious people see abortion as infanticide; they see the overall devaluation of human life not given a chance, and feel it is their obligation (and it is constitutionally their right) to voice opposition to such policies.

    Gay marriage, on the other hand, could start a slow slide into religious persecution. To have the government write a law that goes against a basic tenant of every major religion can be argued as a first amendment violation against laws prohibiting the free expression of faith and religion.

    Even if it's allowed and attempts are made to keep it separate, sometime in the future someone will feel that their rights are being infringed by religions refusal to sanctify that which they find immoral, and they will sue on discrimination laws. Should this happen, it will then be open season to persecute religion in this country, and eventually, outlaw it.

  • How is protecting the life of a person not conservative? Once again, you, as a liberal, are talking out of your hat.

    * Conservatives are concerned with the protection of the constitution and the equal protection of all people by it.

    * Many conservatives consider conception the start of human life and person-hood.

    * As an unborn child is still considered a human being and granted person-hood, they also get these pesky "inalienable rights" you might have heard about (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

    * You might have noticed that the liberty and pursuit of happiness bits are sort of impossible if you do not have "life".

    Liberals deny person-hood to the fetus until they are born, because modern science doesn't get in the way of a woman's right to "choose" (which is nowhere at all in the constitution where applicable to the killing of someone else).

    As far as "gay marriage"? I think that the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether, since "marriage" is a religious institution, and should never have been meddled with by government in the first place.

    The government should only offer "civil unions", but this would have to be passed via an Amendment to the Constitution, since marriage, as it stands is a state level issue. Read, not federal. Read, not a conservative nor liberal issue, since conservatism and liberalism relate strictly to how the Constitution is interpreted (either conservatively or liberally).

    Peace and prosperity.

  • Stu
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Here's the answer. If government begins sanctioning abnormal things like gay marriage, pretty soon we are paying social security, food stamps and other welfare benefits using public funds to same sex partners. That's where conservatives have a problem with it, and where is may infringe upon YOUR rights at some point. Someone's got to be paying in in order for those benefits to be paid out.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • grob
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    The republican party is a coalition of various groups.

    The base is wants to regulate the teaching of Christianity and abortion and fiscal conservatives want smaller government and believe in the primacy of the market place. In some people they all meet. The base has been the louder of the coalition members over the years. Rove woke them up and can't put them back to sleep now.

  • 1 decade ago

    The government isn't supposed to interfere in marriage unless it has a compelling state need. The whim of homosexuals to replicate marriage does not qualify.

    You might think abortion is fine, but you might have a problem with government sponsored infanticide (I hope). We happen to think the baby is a baby earlier than you do, so from our vantage point, it's barbaric.

    Feel free to have your philosophy, but it does not take precedent over our rights to free speech.

    Source(s): And Hiya, I definitely live by this
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Conservatives used to support small government and state's rights. Now they support large government and total control. Legalizing abortion should be a state decision. And religion should be kept out of government.

  • 1 decade ago

    I'm a conservative and I don't give a crap about either gay marriage or abortion. If two guys are in love, let 'em get married for all I care. It won't affect my life one way or the other. And if some pregnant woman wants to kill her baby, she's the one who has to deal with the guilt afterward. Not me.

  • celexa
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Well I don't believe in gay marriages myself. Not because I'm a conservatist but because god didn't want man and man to marry nor women and women. I'm not for banning gay's at all, to each his own but not to be married in a church. May'be instead of marriage then it should be called something else, since it would be out of a non-catholic church.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Gays can already get married in whatever church will marry them, so nothing is banned. I'm for letting people vote on the issue, and if they vote to preserve the definition of marriage, they're keeping government out it, not involving them.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.