2007-02-05 06:56:02 · 16 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Marriage involves state funds? Really? I don't know of anyone who gets governmental assistance for their marriage. Could you elaborate?
2007-02-05 06:59:51 · update #1
Conservatives appear to have no concept of privacy--when it comes to someone else. The government sanction of marriage is similar to its sanction of a contract, which is what marriage is. But other than having a governmental representative (a minister or judge, for example)preside over the ceremony, the government doesn't regulate marriage. So basically, marriage licenses are a source of revenue for the government.
The only people who are against abortion that I respect are those who walk their talk and either adopt children instead of having their own or who give regular financial support to an orphanage.
2007-02-05 07:05:45 · answer #1 · answered by KCBA 5 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Wow, nice job stereotyping all conservatives.
Not all conservatives are anti same-sex marriage, or anti-abortion.
I am conservative, and yet:
I don't believe abortion should be illegalized completely. I think it's wrong, yes, but it's already been legal for almost thirty-five years. I simply believe it should be restricted. At the same time, I ALSO believe that birth control and condoms should be readily available. Every woman should know at least one place where she can examine her options as far as contraceptives. In addition to that, I'm a strong advocate of adoption. I would like to adopt a couple of children myself, but it costs upwards of $20,000 to do so. My husband and I aren't rich, but I know we could provide a good home for unwanted children. They would have clothes on their back, food in their stomach, a roof over their head, AND medical care. It's too bad those things aren't enough to be able to adopt a child. It should be easier to adopt a child, at least financially.
As far as same-sex marriage goes, I leave my religious beliefs out of it. I simply think that it wouldn't work to legalize it on a federal level, because 1. Marriage is mostly a religious institution, and 2. Because I don't think the federal government should have that much power. It should be left up to each individual state. The problem with THAT is it wouldn't be fair to a homosexual couple to be able to marry in one state, while in another, their marriage would be invalid. So, whether it's legalized federally or locally, it wouldn't work. That leaves two solutions: 1. Take away ALL benefits of marriage (which wouldn't be fair, as it would be discouraging people from making a lifetime commitment to each other), OR 2. Civil unions (which ALSO wouldn't be fair, because it would be withholding equal rights from homosexuals.).
So there is no solution to the same-sex marriage issue. The only thing that even comes CLOSE is civil unions. But would it be accepted by both groups? I don't know.
So what's my point? My point is, conservatives have good reasons for believing what we believe. You make too many assumptions.
2007-02-05 15:30:29 · answer #2 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You say NO to the killings of innocents and our soldiers in Iraq because you think the war is faulty and all the deaths are useless. Conservatives and some Liberals say the same thing about abortion. Fortunately, advocates have the advantage of changing definitions to make what they are doing more pleasing to the ear, if not their consciences. I believe there is a time for abortion, but unfortunately, its use is primarily birth control. Liberals don't flinch when thousands protest the war, but condemn when the march or the efforts are against what they believe. Socialist society indeed.
And for all of you with the NSA/privacy concerns. Your arguments would be heard better if you would delete your myspace accounts.
2007-02-05 15:07:49 · answer #3 · answered by bopoppa 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I see both sides of the gay marriage issue -hate to pop your bubble on generalzing, but there it is. I certainly think committed gay couples deserve legal protections and wtf kind of person thinks a life in foster care is better than gay parents? That's just stupid.
BUT - I also see the other side of things. Next, the polygamists will demand *their* rights. Then the freaks who want to marry their dogs. Don't think it'll get that far? Too late - some idioit "married" a dolphin awhile back. Just do a search - you'll find it.
Childbearing choices - We just want you to be responsible. Is that really too much to ask? I'm pro-choice, but only to a point - it's NOT birth control and anyone using it as such should be spayed like a dog. Of course, I also feel that deadbeat dads should have it tattooed on their foreheads, so that every woman who comes into contact with him *knows* what a loser he is.
Partial birth abortion? NO WAY.
2007-02-05 15:19:34 · answer #4 · answered by Jadis 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It's not just conservatives.
The people clamoring for gay marriage rights have their hands in your pocket book. They are asking _your_ insurance company to cover their gay spouse. This is an increased drain on insurance money. Guess who pays? You and I.
The people shouting about state-funded abortion don't want their tax money to go toward something that means murder to them. The single moms on welfare get more payout if she bears more children. Do you imagine the majority of single moms became single moms by being responsible? given prior history, it's rational to conclude the additional kids don't get to enjoy the welfare checks as planned.
Guess who pays? You and I.
social services for a crack baby? You and I pay.
prison building and guards? You and I pay.
A judge puts away a pot smoker? You and I pay.
A gay couple in San francisco gets insurance money to pay for a sex change? You and I pay through our insurance and through our medical benefit plan.
You seem to assume Conservatives (whoever that group is) are control freaks. Let me share with you my distaste of some Liberals (I mean people who self-identify in this case). I don't like that they act all generous, caring, and handing out _my_ money. I earned my money. I get a say in how it's spent.
2007-02-05 15:17:10 · answer #5 · answered by Dr. Lee 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Liberals feel and act the same way as conservatives on this point its just about the money. The only diff is conservatives will tell you straight up how they feel. The liberals will do a study of what effect it will have on them getting elected/re-elected and go with what ever spin works best.
2007-02-05 15:10:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because our tax dollars have to support these kids via welfare and other social programs. When people who stay on welfare because its convenient and pop out kids like there's no tomorrow are a financial drain on thinly stretched state budgets.
As for marriage, perhaps your right. I'm consrvative and I couldn't care less about who marry's who. However, when welfare moms and crack-whores want to have kids, then I have a problem with it.
2007-02-05 15:04:12 · answer #7 · answered by evil_paul 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Marriage involves state funds, among other things. Look at the benefits spouses receive. If you are against polygamy, then answer your own question.
Also, is killing a viable fetus for reasons of convenience just a "childbearing choice?" If so, what about a newborn? One week old?
The question is semantics over substance.
PS Insurance, Social Security survivor benefits.
What about my question?
2007-02-05 14:59:05 · answer #8 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 7⤊ 4⤋
Childbearing decisions are the persons until they talk about abusing or ki!!ng a child.
2007-02-05 14:59:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Some people think it is perfectly OK to butt into your business. They think they are the only ones that are RIGHT. The religious nuts among them hand Jesus and God and the Bible out to dangle in your face. Most are HUGE hypocrits.
Just ignore them.
2007-02-05 19:12:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋