Conservative double standards

I just thought of something that I would like to point out.

Many of the conservatives on this site seem to want a small government. They want limited regulations and they want their privacy.

But then that doesn't seem to translate to other people who don't share their views.

With the recent spate of same-sex marriage bans being struck down, we've seen almost a direct contravention of the above stance. There are some who seem to be advocating that marriage should be the only way the human race should procreate. That brings up a pretty interesting point: how are those proponents going to enforce such a regulation? Such regulations would require oversight of everyone in the United States to ensure that only married individuals are procreating with their pair-bonded spouse. Would it be a civil tort or would it be a criminal offense?

So what is the position of this subset of conservatives? Do they want more government or not? Or do they only want larger government if it's something they agree with?

You see, I am very confused by this blatant dichotomy and would like to address this hole in the thinking of these conservatives. Is it, as I suspect, their putting themselves on a pedestal above their fellow citizens.

 

Conservative, hypocrisy, and double standards are all interchangeable, I think you've seen. They only want less government when it comes to them....not 'everybody else'. You know 'those people'.

 

I suppose it would be a criminal offense and it would at least give the cops something to do other than stop and frisk blacks, so you should support it if you are, you know, a true progressive who wants to help the black man other than get to the polls every 4 years.

 

..or..just buy your way in and hand out cash..(Seems to work great in GOP circles anyway). That or just have "dad" install you as President, and never mind the vote count.

 

i really don't care about the whole gay marriage thing, but i do get tired of idjits just making this stuff up as they go along. though i expect this nonsense from the both of you, i guess it's just my turn to try and drill basic facts into your thick skulls. since government has already co-opted the marriage business, it takes an action of government to either allow OR disallow gay marriage. it isn't a matter of additional governmental intrusion, but of clarifying the intrusion that already exists. so why don't you close up this pitiful excuse for a thread before the fireworks start.

 

And most conservatives lie through their teeth when they say it as well. THey, just like liberals, want small government in some areas, and large government in other areas.


The difference is where those areas are.

 

Okay, but then again, with how common adultery is in the United States, you'd have cops chasing down adulterers instead of, oh, let's say, doing something to prevent the 40-year-old drunk from going back home and beating on his wife and elderly grandmother.

Making it a criminal offense also ties up the criminal justice system and costs the taxpayers more money than the fine would likely cost. Chances are if it's an offense that would result in a fine, the fine isn't going to pay for the cost of enforcing the law and prosecuting the person. If it's an offense that warrants jail time, it'd definitely cost more for the taxpayers to house the adulterer in jail.

- - - Updated - - -

I want the Conservatives to address this. This topic is a challenge to them. Justify their duplicitous stance or abandon it.

 

They won't. They're too busy instituting things like 'forced vaginal ultrasounds' mandated by government to respond.

 

That is a pretty simple solution--add the costs into the fine. As for adulterers, sure, why not. We can add in people who covet and rid the world of window shoppers clogging up the aisles.

 

Who buys their way into prison?

 

While I am a conservative overall, I have no problem with gay marriage, and in fact, I am rather liberal on most social issues. With that being said, I felt I would be remiss if I did not jump into this leftist circle **** for just a moment.

Who is this that "seems" to be advocating for regulations requiring that marriage is the only way that the human race can procreate? That implication couldnt possibly be more preposterous, and in fact is a mere figment of your imagination. There has never been a politician( or even a political message board yahoo for that matter) that has EVER proposed or suggested such a regulation. You may see people stating that procreation should be done only in the sanctity of marriage, but NEVER have you seen anyone proposing regulation to make that a law.

Of course it would require oversight of everyone in the United States. Since this is a figment of your imagination, you tell us, would it be a civil or criminal offense?

Indeed you are.

 

I think the OP meant heterosexual marriage, there fixed it for you.

 

What did you fix?

 

While I agree with you, I must point out that the right has no monopoly on hypocrisy.

 

One of the few times we will agree...

 

That pretty much sums it up. Look, as a species we lack objectivity. And I think it goes back to our tribal beginnings when "different" meant a genuine threat to survival. We are naturally suspicious of those with whom we lack common ground, and loathe to admit to our own inadequacies.

 

Liberal double standards outnumber conservative double standards approximately 50 to 1. I'm not saying conservative double standards aren't there. They are. But the primary difference between the two is that the average conservative at least tries to live by his beliefs. Even if he trips and falls on his face from time to time. Liberals couldn't care less. They make no effort at all to even pretend to be consistent between what they say and what they do. I mean, hell, just look at the term, itself. "Liberal." There's nothing liberal about anything they stand for. They're always demanding higher taxes, more laws, less freedom, and all from the position of, "We know what's best for you. So do as you're told." Where the hell is the liberty in that? These people are horribly guilty of pissing on your leg and telling you it's raining. The idea is that if they call themselves the opposite of what they are doing, over time, it will reprogram you to interpret things upside down and backwards. If someone punches you everyday and tells you this is what love feels like, eventually your brain is going to associate being hit with being loved. This is how abusive relationships occur. That's why the woman who gets the crap beaten out of her always says, "But I love him." Because that's how her brain has been rewired to interpret love. Welcome to liberalism. A mass cultural abusive relationship that conditions you to believe that prosperity is oppression, hate is love, self-esteem is bigotry, hard work is "cheating," murderers are victims, innocent people are guilty, suffering is noble, and happiness and fulfillment are wrong.

 

conservatives dont want more government they just want it to do its job protecting its citizens.
im pretty sure a lot of the opposition to gay marriage has to do with adoption rights
and when it comes to abortion they are mostly concerned with the rights of the growing soon to be citizen inside the womb. it doesnt take more government to protect these people it just takes the government doing what its put there to do.

 

Read the last few posts and stuff. And the OP, youll figure it out. Dont worry.

 

Seeing that I used the OP's wording precisely, I am left to wonder why you are able to discern his meaning and not mine? Strikes me as being just a tad bit disingenuous.

 

Yeah I know what youre saying but you really didnt read the thing correctly in full, as other posters have demonstrated. Get back to me when youve also read the last few posts on this matter also - particularly the one I was originally responding to.

 

Oh do you mean for the ones that took the strawman bait?.....ok

While there are examples of hypocrisy on both sides and I certainly would not deny that, keeping the definition of marriage to only include heterosexual marriage is not an example of bigger government in any form or fashion. Whether marriage includes just heterosexuals, or both homosexuals and heterosexuals, is not an example of government either expanding or contracting. If anything, one could argue that expanding the definition to include homosexual marriage is an expansion of government, but that would be a stretch to say the least. The figment of the OP's imagination that would enact legislation making it illegal to procreate outside the bonds of marriage, would in fact be an expansion of government, thus backing up his assertion of hypocrisy, but since no one is proposing such legislation, that is NOT an example of hypocrisy. It is an example of someone desperately overreaching to try to show hypocrisy from the other side of the aisle.

 

Indeed, and thats why I fixed the OP to make it more sensible.

 

Its the same with the military. They say the government can't do anything, but then support the government military like its GOD. They say the government can't create jobs, but yet support those military jobs it does create. They say they want smaller government, but most of their proposals would only transfer federal regulations to state regulations; therefore not diminishing government at all.

I could go on an on!