How is it that for people who want less Government intrusion wants the Govt to intervene?

on a woman's right to choose and if 2 consenting adults can get married?



I think that the people want the government to intervene when it is convenient for them. No one wants "big brother" poking his nose into every aspect of their life. They want to be free to do what they want, and run their business as they please...but yet, for example, when gas prices got to $4 a gallon, the public was suddenly screaming that the government needed to intervene to regulate these prices because we are so dependent on gas for our everyday living .





I think it all falls under a "big brother" kind of category...without the metaphore, you don't want your big brother being there every waking moment with his nose in your business, yet when the bully at school starts picking on you you want him to come to your rescue and look after your best interests so that you aren't hurt.




As a conservative, I find abortion the conservative choice BECAUSE it gets the government the hell out of private decision-making. Having said that, I don't want to see abortion used as a means of birth control, but I don't see why it should be outlawed again either.





As far as gay marriage, it won't affect my life one way or the other. I can go perfectly on about my day whether or not some hairy dude is rolling around with some other hairy dude across town. I just have better things to care about.




All non-libertarians want the same thing - - - - freedom to do what THEY want to do, but govt control over what they don't want other people to do.





The differences among non-libertarians reflect only the differences in what people want to do and the differences in what people don't want other people to do.





The only party that consistently applies the same principle across the board to all freedoms is the Libertarian Party.





Keep participating - the substantive political questions (i.e., the ones that aren't just rants about how Obama sux or Bush sucked) generally involve (a) both "sides" misunderstanding economic issues (because so few people actually take a course in economics) or (b) one side quoting John Stuart Mill and claiming to be for personal freedom on one "issue" while ignoring all the other "issues" on which he or she opposes personal freedom.





If it involves sex but no money, Dems want you to be free to do it but Reps don't.





If it involves money but no sex, Reps want you to be free to do it but Dems don't.





If it involves both money and sex, both Dems and Reps want it shut down.





And nobody does much to challenge them or to challenge the whole "left / right" paradigm.





Yet this is supposed to be the "land of the free, home of the brave."




Gay marriage is an attempt to infringe on the Church. To me, if two people want to get married via a cvil union as long as the state recognizes the union and allows the partners to get benefits I'm all for it. Just don't try to get into the Church. Roe v Wade was inteded to allow a rape victim to get an abortion but has been used as an excuse for women to not have to live with their "mistakes". I don't see the problem with overturning the abortion law if they allow women better access to controceptives.




The government can and does limit one's rights if it has a compelling interest in furthering a competing goal. For example, you do not have the right to "choose" whether or not you should rob a bank.





I want governmental protection for innocent human life from the instant of conception.




I want the government to defend the borders, deliver the mail, prevent crimes (such as murder - which addresses abortion) and not let judges demand that I spend my tax money on men marrying men and women marrying women.





If these are now fringe views then our country is far more damaged than even I am starting to believe.





I'm glad I'm not a younger man.




How is it that the same group of people that were worried about intrusion into their lives by "The Man" back in the sixties and seventies are now all consumed by creating more of the intrusion they were so opposed to?




Because the choice she is choosing in this case is death of a human being. This is not an idle choice like shaken or stirred, a life is terminated. Who intervenes for that life? No one should?




handouts are beneficial and, people who don't want their food stamps evoked because of committing crimes.




Not me I want the Government to shrink up like men do when they get in icy water.




You seems to tink that all conservatives are Christians








FAIL




Because they are hypocrites.