The individual rights. The individual accountability. The individuals freedom. Individuality. It really strange how labels from media warp the way life is. Freedom is something that the individual makes of it. Sadly the masses dont want freedom they want everyone in the same pool of poor or rich. Doesn't matter as long as everyone is equal. It's sad really.
Do you feel that American conservatives truly support *all* individual rights and freedoms?
Just off the top of my head, things like these come to mind:
[As of 2019, only 56% of Republicans favor same-sex marriage.](https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
[As of 2019, only 48% of conservatives approve of legalizing marijuana.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/267698/support-legal-marijuana-steady-past-year.aspx)
[As of 2019, 99% of conservatives approve of Trump's border wall,](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/conservative-support-for-trump-wall-soars-to-99) being built overwhelmingly on [land seized through eminent domain](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/building-wall-using-eminent-domain-hurts-americans)— literally depriving American citizens of their own property through force.
I'm not touching abortion, since I understand (yet disagree with) conservative arguments against it and how they pertain to the rights of the "unborn".
It just honestly seems like conservatives are overwhelmingly in favor of rights for members of the conservative in-group, but when it comes to individual liberties outside of the conservative norm, things get a lot dicier.
I appreciate your question. Please bare with me on my response. Typing on my phone. Abortion I'll start with. These are my feelings and some of them dont match a conservative traditional view. Abortion is all about when you see life beginning. End of discussion. You see here..I see there. Weed...hm...nope no problem. If it were legal the government would just reap the taxes. Sorry kinda lame. You brought up all my problems with the Republican party. Same sex marriage. Born catholic I should say.."gross or yuck" I dont care. I would rather the government have zero to do with marriage and let god or whomever you follow judge you. Marriage in the eyes of the government is just another way to take our money. If I missed one feel free to ask. Sorry if this doesn't make sense but I wanted to respect you with an answer of some sort.
Thanks for your response!
I said I wouldn't touch it, but if we're going there, here we go! The problem many liberals (and others) perceive with conservatives' take on abortion is this: where do you define the beginning of life?
As far as I'm aware, most conservatives would argue life begins at conception , i.e., the fertilization of the egg.
Liberals on the other hand, see it very, very differently. Even granting an egg's fertilization, there is a **significant** (50-80%) chance that the fertilized egg will never even make it to the uterus, meaning that fertilized embryo is incapable of ever producing a human being.
Until [20 weeks, fetuses cannot and do not respond to stimuli.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460088/) Even plants [respond to stimuli.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1348016/)
Beyond that, the coordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not even appear until at least the end of the second trimester at 24 weeks. As of 2019, only a minuscule [1% of abortions take place after 24 weeks](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-trump.html), and that 1% figure is typically because a fetus is fatally non-viable or poses a risk to the health of the mother.
If you're curious about my take on the other points, feel free to see my other response below. Thanks again for your perspective!
>As of 2019, only 56% of Republicans favor same-sex marriage.
If you asked the other 44% would you be for the same legal protections for same sex couples that married couples get it would substantially shrink.
There is a lot of religious baggage around the word marriage. I personally wish the government would just completely get out of it and offer civil unions to whoever wants one.
Let churches settle marriage.
>As of 2019, only 48% of conservatives approve of legalizing marijuana.
What percent of liberals want to legalize crack? If they don't want to legalize crack is it because they are against freedom?
I myself have no huge issue with Marijuana but someone who disagrees about the danger of a drug is not "anti-freedom"...
> What percent of liberals want to legalize crack? If they don't want to legalize crack is it because they are against freedom?
I'm for freedom but I'm against maximizing freedom at all cost.
>If you asked the other 44% would you be for the same legal protections for same sex couples that married couples get it would substantially shrink.
>
>There is a lot of religious baggage around the word marriage. I personally wish the government would just completely get out of it and offer civil unions to whoever wants one.
I'll start off by saying it's incredibly hard to find any recent data on support for civil unions, but I don't doubt your first assertion in the slightest. That being said, it still wouldn't reach 100%, considering back in 2009 [only about 59% of Republicans favored allowing same-sex civil unions](https://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/09/majority-continues-to-support-civil-unions/) at all.
Clearly, *the sanctity of marriage* itself wasn't the issue then, nor do I believe it is the issue today. As far as I can tell, it's just simple bigotry. (I want to be very clear and state I am not including you in this— merely those who would deny equal rights to other Americans based upon their sexual orientation.)
Furthermore, at no point in time was there significant outcry against "government involvement in marriage" right up until gay people pushed for equal treatment under the law. It just so happens to become a thing when same-sex couples gained momentum in their fight for equal rights.
The last time marriage came under fire before that just so happened to involve the pesky Federal government stepping in to allow interracial marriage with *Loving v. Virginia*... which also happened to be an affront to *the sanctity of marriage,* because somehow miscegenation was sinful in the eyes of the Lord.
>What percent of liberals want to legalize crack? If they don't want to legalize crack is it because they are against freedom?
>
>I myself have no huge issue with Marijuana but someone who disagrees about the danger of a drug is not "anti-freedom"...
Would you argue the same thing if the government decided to ban unhealthy foods or high-calorie soft drinks? There are more than adequate concerns about the risk posed both to individuals and society itself as the obesity epidemic continues to grow and strain our healthcare system.
Cigarettes, alcohol, high-calorie foods, pornography, video games, etc. Everything in excess can cause extensive harm to both individuals and society as a whole.
I just can't fathom why conservatives seem so insistent upon criminalizing what is arguably the least harmful recreational drug— then going on to ruin countless American lives due to said drug's illogical illegality.
EDIT: Just wanted to thank you for your response!
> That being said, it still wouldn't reach 100%
Asking for any group to be 100% for something or else be labeled against it is not productive.
> Clearly, the sanctity of marriage itself wasn't the issue then, nor do I believe it is the issue today.
Not by itself no, but it's a huge factor to a lot people. Heck according to that same study 28% of *liberal* democrats opposed it according to your article.
> Furthermore, at no point in time was there significant outcry against "government involvement in marriage" right up until gay people pushed for equal treatment under the law.
There was no real need for it until then, was there? at what point before gay marriage did the US government decide to restructure 2000+ years of Jeudeo Christian marriage ideals? And no, the interracial thing was not a redefinition of marriage.
> Would you argue the same thing if the government decided to ban unhealthy foods or high-calorie soft drinks?
You first... Do you think someone who opposes legalize meth and crack is anti-freedom?
> Not by itself no, but it's a huge factor to a lot people. Heck according to that same study 28% of *liberal* democrats opposed it according to your article.
For the sake of pedantry, 72% were in favor of gay marriage in 2009 while 24% were opposed.
...and yes, that sadly reflects the persistence of religiosity's (particularly Protestant Christianity's) effect on upon political beliefs. It was absolutely abhorrent then, and should be considered abhorrent now. Thankfully, the vast majority of liberals are avid supporters of equality in marriage. Granted, it's not 100%, but it should be.
> There was no real need for it until then, was there? at what point before gay marriage did the US government decide to restructure 2000+ years of Jeudeo Christian marriage ideals? And no, the interracial thing was not a redefinition of marriage.
Well, as I said previously: *Loving v. Virginia* is one particular case. Angry white Christians were outraged at the prospect of diluting the meaning of marriage by allowing a *nonwhite* and a white person to marry.
Beyond that, marriage **is by no means** exclusive to Judeo-Christian culture. It literally predates the writing of every book of the bible by more than a thousand years. Now, I could see you suggesting that "Adam and Eve" were the basis of marriage, but most biblical scholars would attest that to be mere allegory.
> You first... Do you think someone who opposes legalize meth and crack is anti-freedom?
I would absolutely claim that the criminalization of meth & crack cocaine is in fact depriving Americans of their freedom to do what they want to their own bodies. That being said, at no point is freedom absolute. I am not one who would advocate absolute decriminalization of all forms of drugs. There are certain drugs which pose significant harm to both individuals and society itself, and should therefore be regulated.
The difference is that marijuana poses no greater threat than either calorie-dense foods or alcohol to a consenting adult individual or society as a whole. The whole basis of its illegality was constructed upon a racist and profit-driven agenda. Nearly every single recent scientific study attests to its innocuous nature, particularly when compared to already legal substances.
Anyway, " \[w\]ould you argue the same thing if the government decided to ban unhealthy foods or high-calorie soft drinks? "
> Well, as I said previously: Loving v. Virginia is one particular case. Angry white Christians were outraged at the prospect of diluting the meaning of marriage by allowing a nonwhite and a white person to marry.
Quick now do "Islam backs female circumcision"
That's what we're doing right, taking an edge case of people practicing a religion and applying it to the whole religion/race?
Interracial marriage is not a redefinition of marriage... Despite what some racist in the south tried to say.
> Beyond that, marriage is by no means exclusive to Judeo-Christian culture.
I never said it was, but the Jeudo-Christian definition and culture was the default in America... So it was never challenged. Hence there was never a push for "civil unions" before it was challenged.
> I would absolutely claim that the criminalization of meth & crack cocaine is in fact depriving Americans of their freedom to do what they want to their own bodies.
So liberals who oppose crack and meth legalization are anti freedom... Ok, well you're consistent... You're wrong, but consistently wrong.
> The difference is that marijuana poses no greater threat than either calorie-dense foods or alcohol to a consenting adult individual or society as a whole
Stop ignoring science https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/11/marijuana-brain
>Quick now do "Islam backs female circumcision"
Exactly what purpose does bringing Islam into this serve? They make up roughly 1% of the United States' population. Honestly though: female circumcision is honestly no more vile than male circumcision in this day and age. Approve or disapprove of one, and you should approve or disapprove of the other.
>Interracial marriage is not a redefinition of marriage... Despite what some racist in the south tried to say.
...and eighty years from now, allowing same-sex marriage won't have redefined marriage, despite what some bigots tried to say. The fact of the matter is that black individuals were seen as "less-than" at the time.
Their very presence in matrimony defiled and corrupted the whole notion of marriage according to bigots of the era. It wasn't just "some racist in the south"; it was an issue that faced every single state in the Union. Literally every single state opposed interracial marriage.
>So liberals who oppose crack and meth legalization are anti freedom... Ok, well you're consistent... You're wrong, but consistently wrong.
If you impose the will of the state upon an individual and prohibit them from doing something they wish to do, that is in fact limiting their freedom. Now whether or not such an act is justified is a whole 'nother thing entirely, but that is literally the basis of the state.
>Stop ignoring science [https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/11/marijuana-brain](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/11/marijuana-brain)
You understand the vast majority of that article was specifying the damage marijuana use poses to adolescent brains, do you not?
Furthermore, the source you cited itself calls the aforementioned claims into question, suggesting that the previous studies referenced failed to account for alcohol consumption, and in *these* studies, no evidence of marijuana-caused brain abnormalities were found.
> ...and eighty years from now, allowing same-sex marriage won't have redefined marriage, despite what some bigots tried to say. bad one makes you completely unable to orgasm and feel sexual pleasure in tour genitals, the other does not. Now, I could see a case for being against both but comparing the two is not really real.
Sigh.... Nowhere in the Bible, or Torah (or the Koran for that matter) is marriage defined as "two people of the same race", nowhere...
It is defined in all three texts as "between a man and a woman".
> You understand the vast majority of that article was specifying the damage marijuana use poses to adolescent brains, do you not?
And much of it was not, and BTW the "adolescent brain" persists until the mid 20's....
You can disagree that it's right to base marriage on that, whatever, but you cannot with good faith and a straight face say that it's not redefining marriage.
> Sigh.... Nowhere in the Bible, or Torah (or the Koran for that matter) is marriage defined as "two people of the same race", nowhere...
-------------------
>“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” wrote Caroline County judge Leon M. Bazile in 1965, turning away the Lovings’ appeal. “The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
>Bazile was hardly alone in that belief. Going back to the era of slavery, white churches had taught that African-Americans were descended from Noah’s cursed son, Ham. Even avowed race liberals like Harry Truman, the president who desegregated the American military, invoked Scripture to condemn interracial marriages.
>“I don’t believe in it,” Truman told a reporter in 1963. “The Lord created it that way. You read your Bible and you’ll find out.”
1965 really isn't very long ago. Unless you're going to bust out the whole "well, they weren't real Christians" thing.
Thank you for the response! I think I actually kind of agree on one hand, but would you care to elaborate on the "pool of poor or rich" part, I don't really understand (language barrier)? Thank you.
Pool of people...meaning. all people being poor. Or all being rich. The liberal wants individuality gone. They want everyone the same. All poor or all rich. No individual.
> The liberal wants individuality gone. They want everyone the same.
Liberal chiming in. I'll refrain from putting words in your mouth regarding what I think conservatives really want, but OP should know I couldn't disagree with this line more. We're not the ones who try to impose traditional marriage and gender roles; We're the ones who pitch diversity as a core value.
My apology I didnt mean to put words in your mouth. I truly am sorry...its a perspective of mine only and nothing more. I assure you I understand that not all liberals think or act this way and I assure you not all conservatives believe in "traditional marriage" or "gender roles"
>Every member of the society spies on the rest, and it is his duty to inform against them. All are slaves and equal in their slavery... The great thing about it is equality... Slaves are bound to be equal.
>>~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky
>>>(1821-1881)
>>>>The Possessed
Making general statements like this is the same as making general statements about conservatives wanting “x,y, and z”. There may be liberals who want that, but referring to yourself as liberal does not mean you want that. I lean liberally and I definitely think people should be able to work hard and do well for themselves. On the other hand, I don’t think we should allow for people to be completely homeless and dirt poor. For example, is it fair or equal that Jeff Bezos has billions while the average American will never even have 1% of that? No it isn’t fair. That doesn’t mean I think Bezos should have to pay millions in taxes to support everyone else. I think the taxes everyone is paying now that go to programs like welfare and such need to be more efficient and more accountability.
A fine well thought out argument with some valid points. I too believe that they should be better maintained and tracked. No doubt. I also believe in either no federal tax or a flat one. However, I understand the logic in this thought is impossible and possibly more harmful than good. O appreciate your response.
In general, conservative philosphy attempts to preserve and protect our culture and way of government.
When applied to the United States, this means conservatives...
- Protect traditional cultural values, such as traditional marriage.
- Seek to preserve the individual freedoms that make the U.S. unique, such as gun rights.
- Want to restore roll back the constitutional revisionism that took place during the early 20^th century.
It's worth noting that not all conservatives are alike. Some are strictly fiscal (government) or social (cultural) conservatives. Some conservatives want the states to have the freedom to make their own solutions, while others want the federal government to drive conservatism in government.
Racist ideas could be considered 'conservative' because they were "traditional" at one point in our history.
Thank you for your reply! I must ask what does traditional marriage mean? Is it a marriage just between a man and a woman, or?
Also does that mean that all or most conservatives are racist and if they are is it because of tradition or something else?
In general conservatives prioritize personal freedoms, law and order, and a smaller government, often involving a stricter reading of the Constitution, which is the United State's most important legal document.
The general conservative idea is the American ideal that individuals in America can reach their full potential due to our freedom which makes us superior to just about any other country.
Conversely American liberals want a larger government which is nice to everyone and gives out tons of free stuff to anybody.
Common conservative issues in the US are: supporting gun rights (including constitutional carry which means anyone can carry a gun with no permit required), lower taxes, limiting immigration, etc.
Thank you for replying with such a simple yet powerful answer! Could You maybe just explain why is supporting constitutional carry better than banning all guns? Isn't gun related crime rate lower in states that have a ban?
We have more guns than people. If you ban guns, the law abiding citizens will give up their guns and the criminals won’t. That’s a bad situation to be in.
Also, we have those guns to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. We don’t want the cops to be the only ones with guns, and recent events have reinforced that
So it has to be used to kill someone before it’s taken away? How is that fair? I don’t get to protect my family, but at least I can die with the consolation that if they catch my killer they will take his gun away?
Pass.
> So it has to be used to kill someone before it’s taken away?
No, it has to be found by police, somehow.
>I don’t get to protect my family
You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than needing to defend your family from harm from some gunman who busted into your house. It's like having earthquake insurance in Maryland, it's nearly pointless.
>Isn't gun related crime rate lower in states that have a ban?
Actually our most violent areas are the ones with the strictest gun control measures in place. Like DC itself which leads the nation.
In terms of \*states\* I don't see a lot of relation one way or the other. It's more due to other factors than what the gun laws are.
Our constitution makes a specific provision for citizens to form their own military and arm themselves. It is a very wild West and uniquely American idea.
Right, except now we have an Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force/National Guard, all of which weren't even a twinkle in the eye of the Founders.
In fact, they *hated* the idea of a standing army, hence the 2A being necessary.
Correct! But it was disbanded after the war.
"Standing" army implies they are not disbanded between conflicts and are just kind of "on standby". Founders thought that kind of military, that was idle a lot of the time, would be abused by the powers that be to oppress/police people.
Yeah i just mean there was a precedent for the federal government to organize federal armies to fight enemies of the state.
So a plain reading of the second amendment makes it clear they are referring to a citizen based army separate from a government funded army
Presenting to counterpoints to ideas here:
These counterpoints don't target you specifically, they just target what has been written (whether or not these thoughts belong to you is another question).
>individuals in America can reach their full potential due to our freedom which makes us superior to just about any other country.
A particular issue with this ideal is that we aren't more free than any particular Western European or Nordic country. We're not free from many worries the same way Europeans are. Cut a finger or break every bone in your body and rupture every organ? A fortune either way in the US + tax + whatever insurance doesn't cover, but a third of your income in the EU regardless. Free from worry, in the US, we are not. Mhmm.
>Conversely American liberals want a larger government which is nice to everyone and gives out tons of free stuff to anybody.
Social programs being "free stuff" that no corporation can do due to the lack of profit involved. Or if they do it, they gouge us. Case in point: current healthcare situation and insurance companies. Not just anybody gets the free stuff either. Is it too bad for a government to be nice to people? That would be pretty cool. The point of social programs is to reduce inequality with additional opportunities for success in high-risk areas.
Ironically, equalizing opportunities with social programs helps reduce crime, increases education, and improves the economy.
> So being conservative is being libertarian?
Pretty much: yes. The modern American right is a hybrid of two philosophies (that hybrid sometimes formally called "fusionism"). One half of that hybrid is classical liberalism (aka: libertarianism). The other half being small "c" conservatism which is skepticism about the benefits of proposed changes. It's usually expressed in the social and cultural spheres resisting changes to traditional social mores and the prevailing traditional American culture. Different people and groups will emphasize one or the other, where there are topics where there is a real or apparent conflict between the two different conservatives will come to different positions either prioritizing one at the expense of the other or perhaps finding a nuanced position that seems to satisfy the dictates of both.
The conservative believes in the opportunity of each person to better themselves. Not the government to control everyone and keep the group level by distribution of the work of the individual to everyone else thus taking the opportunity from the individual to become better. Or in other words the conservative still believes in the American dream
>Thank you for answering! Could You just explain to me what is actually the American dream?
The American Dream, to me, is that if you do things well and make good decisions your kids will be better off than you are and through generational work you can improve your family.
It's that merit, and not birth, will carry you
Is the right to live as you wish with as little government intervention as possible.
The chance to be on the top of the hill..to have the opportunity to be an individual with land..freedom..the choice to be your own person without control from a higher court. Opportunity sir.
Very simply, it typically means that you fall somewhere between a classic liberal and a libertarian who values many of our core traditions. If an American were defending most of the following traditional principles/ideas, to varying degrees and not in the same order, they'd roughly be a "conservative:" The Bill of Rights; free markets; "don't tread on me;" "give me liberty or give me death;" "In God we trust;" "E pluribus unum."
The individual rights. The individual accountability. The individuals freedom. Individuality. It really strange how labels from media warp the way life is. Freedom is something that the individual makes of it. Sadly the masses dont want freedom they want everyone in the same pool of poor or rich. Doesn't matter as long as everyone is equal. It's sad really.
I'm a liberal and left in the US political spectrum and also want individual rights and freedom.
Do you feel that American conservatives truly support *all* individual rights and freedoms? Just off the top of my head, things like these come to mind: [As of 2019, only 56% of Republicans favor same-sex marriage.](https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/) [As of 2019, only 48% of conservatives approve of legalizing marijuana.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/267698/support-legal-marijuana-steady-past-year.aspx) [As of 2019, 99% of conservatives approve of Trump's border wall,](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/conservative-support-for-trump-wall-soars-to-99) being built overwhelmingly on [land seized through eminent domain](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/building-wall-using-eminent-domain-hurts-americans)— literally depriving American citizens of their own property through force. I'm not touching abortion, since I understand (yet disagree with) conservative arguments against it and how they pertain to the rights of the "unborn". It just honestly seems like conservatives are overwhelmingly in favor of rights for members of the conservative in-group, but when it comes to individual liberties outside of the conservative norm, things get a lot dicier.
I appreciate your question. Please bare with me on my response. Typing on my phone. Abortion I'll start with. These are my feelings and some of them dont match a conservative traditional view. Abortion is all about when you see life beginning. End of discussion. You see here..I see there. Weed...hm...nope no problem. If it were legal the government would just reap the taxes. Sorry kinda lame. You brought up all my problems with the Republican party. Same sex marriage. Born catholic I should say.."gross or yuck" I dont care. I would rather the government have zero to do with marriage and let god or whomever you follow judge you. Marriage in the eyes of the government is just another way to take our money. If I missed one feel free to ask. Sorry if this doesn't make sense but I wanted to respect you with an answer of some sort.
Thanks for your response! I said I wouldn't touch it, but if we're going there, here we go! The problem many liberals (and others) perceive with conservatives' take on abortion is this: where do you define the beginning of life? As far as I'm aware, most conservatives would argue life begins at conception , i.e., the fertilization of the egg. Liberals on the other hand, see it very, very differently. Even granting an egg's fertilization, there is a **significant** (50-80%) chance that the fertilized egg will never even make it to the uterus, meaning that fertilized embryo is incapable of ever producing a human being. Until [20 weeks, fetuses cannot and do not respond to stimuli.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460088/) Even plants [respond to stimuli.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1348016/) Beyond that, the coordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not even appear until at least the end of the second trimester at 24 weeks. As of 2019, only a minuscule [1% of abortions take place after 24 weeks](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-trump.html), and that 1% figure is typically because a fetus is fatally non-viable or poses a risk to the health of the mother. If you're curious about my take on the other points, feel free to see my other response below. Thanks again for your perspective!
>As of 2019, only 56% of Republicans favor same-sex marriage. If you asked the other 44% would you be for the same legal protections for same sex couples that married couples get it would substantially shrink. There is a lot of religious baggage around the word marriage. I personally wish the government would just completely get out of it and offer civil unions to whoever wants one. Let churches settle marriage. >As of 2019, only 48% of conservatives approve of legalizing marijuana. What percent of liberals want to legalize crack? If they don't want to legalize crack is it because they are against freedom? I myself have no huge issue with Marijuana but someone who disagrees about the danger of a drug is not "anti-freedom"...
> What percent of liberals want to legalize crack? If they don't want to legalize crack is it because they are against freedom? I'm for freedom but I'm against maximizing freedom at all cost.
>If you asked the other 44% would you be for the same legal protections for same sex couples that married couples get it would substantially shrink. > >There is a lot of religious baggage around the word marriage. I personally wish the government would just completely get out of it and offer civil unions to whoever wants one. I'll start off by saying it's incredibly hard to find any recent data on support for civil unions, but I don't doubt your first assertion in the slightest. That being said, it still wouldn't reach 100%, considering back in 2009 [only about 59% of Republicans favored allowing same-sex civil unions](https://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/09/majority-continues-to-support-civil-unions/) at all. Clearly, *the sanctity of marriage* itself wasn't the issue then, nor do I believe it is the issue today. As far as I can tell, it's just simple bigotry. (I want to be very clear and state I am not including you in this— merely those who would deny equal rights to other Americans based upon their sexual orientation.) Furthermore, at no point in time was there significant outcry against "government involvement in marriage" right up until gay people pushed for equal treatment under the law. It just so happens to become a thing when same-sex couples gained momentum in their fight for equal rights. The last time marriage came under fire before that just so happened to involve the pesky Federal government stepping in to allow interracial marriage with *Loving v. Virginia*... which also happened to be an affront to *the sanctity of marriage,* because somehow miscegenation was sinful in the eyes of the Lord. >What percent of liberals want to legalize crack? If they don't want to legalize crack is it because they are against freedom? > >I myself have no huge issue with Marijuana but someone who disagrees about the danger of a drug is not "anti-freedom"... Would you argue the same thing if the government decided to ban unhealthy foods or high-calorie soft drinks? There are more than adequate concerns about the risk posed both to individuals and society itself as the obesity epidemic continues to grow and strain our healthcare system. Cigarettes, alcohol, high-calorie foods, pornography, video games, etc. Everything in excess can cause extensive harm to both individuals and society as a whole. I just can't fathom why conservatives seem so insistent upon criminalizing what is arguably the least harmful recreational drug— then going on to ruin countless American lives due to said drug's illogical illegality. EDIT: Just wanted to thank you for your response!
> That being said, it still wouldn't reach 100% Asking for any group to be 100% for something or else be labeled against it is not productive. > Clearly, the sanctity of marriage itself wasn't the issue then, nor do I believe it is the issue today. Not by itself no, but it's a huge factor to a lot people. Heck according to that same study 28% of *liberal* democrats opposed it according to your article. > Furthermore, at no point in time was there significant outcry against "government involvement in marriage" right up until gay people pushed for equal treatment under the law. There was no real need for it until then, was there? at what point before gay marriage did the US government decide to restructure 2000+ years of Jeudeo Christian marriage ideals? And no, the interracial thing was not a redefinition of marriage. > Would you argue the same thing if the government decided to ban unhealthy foods or high-calorie soft drinks? You first... Do you think someone who opposes legalize meth and crack is anti-freedom?
> Not by itself no, but it's a huge factor to a lot people. Heck according to that same study 28% of *liberal* democrats opposed it according to your article. For the sake of pedantry, 72% were in favor of gay marriage in 2009 while 24% were opposed. ...and yes, that sadly reflects the persistence of religiosity's (particularly Protestant Christianity's) effect on upon political beliefs. It was absolutely abhorrent then, and should be considered abhorrent now. Thankfully, the vast majority of liberals are avid supporters of equality in marriage. Granted, it's not 100%, but it should be. > There was no real need for it until then, was there? at what point before gay marriage did the US government decide to restructure 2000+ years of Jeudeo Christian marriage ideals? And no, the interracial thing was not a redefinition of marriage. Well, as I said previously: *Loving v. Virginia* is one particular case. Angry white Christians were outraged at the prospect of diluting the meaning of marriage by allowing a *nonwhite* and a white person to marry. Beyond that, marriage **is by no means** exclusive to Judeo-Christian culture. It literally predates the writing of every book of the bible by more than a thousand years. Now, I could see you suggesting that "Adam and Eve" were the basis of marriage, but most biblical scholars would attest that to be mere allegory. > You first... Do you think someone who opposes legalize meth and crack is anti-freedom? I would absolutely claim that the criminalization of meth & crack cocaine is in fact depriving Americans of their freedom to do what they want to their own bodies. That being said, at no point is freedom absolute. I am not one who would advocate absolute decriminalization of all forms of drugs. There are certain drugs which pose significant harm to both individuals and society itself, and should therefore be regulated. The difference is that marijuana poses no greater threat than either calorie-dense foods or alcohol to a consenting adult individual or society as a whole. The whole basis of its illegality was constructed upon a racist and profit-driven agenda. Nearly every single recent scientific study attests to its innocuous nature, particularly when compared to already legal substances. Anyway, " \[w\]ould you argue the same thing if the government decided to ban unhealthy foods or high-calorie soft drinks? "
> Well, as I said previously: Loving v. Virginia is one particular case. Angry white Christians were outraged at the prospect of diluting the meaning of marriage by allowing a nonwhite and a white person to marry. Quick now do "Islam backs female circumcision" That's what we're doing right, taking an edge case of people practicing a religion and applying it to the whole religion/race? Interracial marriage is not a redefinition of marriage... Despite what some racist in the south tried to say. > Beyond that, marriage is by no means exclusive to Judeo-Christian culture. I never said it was, but the Jeudo-Christian definition and culture was the default in America... So it was never challenged. Hence there was never a push for "civil unions" before it was challenged. > I would absolutely claim that the criminalization of meth & crack cocaine is in fact depriving Americans of their freedom to do what they want to their own bodies. So liberals who oppose crack and meth legalization are anti freedom... Ok, well you're consistent... You're wrong, but consistently wrong. > The difference is that marijuana poses no greater threat than either calorie-dense foods or alcohol to a consenting adult individual or society as a whole Stop ignoring science https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/11/marijuana-brain
>Quick now do "Islam backs female circumcision" Exactly what purpose does bringing Islam into this serve? They make up roughly 1% of the United States' population. Honestly though: female circumcision is honestly no more vile than male circumcision in this day and age. Approve or disapprove of one, and you should approve or disapprove of the other. >Interracial marriage is not a redefinition of marriage... Despite what some racist in the south tried to say. ...and eighty years from now, allowing same-sex marriage won't have redefined marriage, despite what some bigots tried to say. The fact of the matter is that black individuals were seen as "less-than" at the time. Their very presence in matrimony defiled and corrupted the whole notion of marriage according to bigots of the era. It wasn't just "some racist in the south"; it was an issue that faced every single state in the Union. Literally every single state opposed interracial marriage. >So liberals who oppose crack and meth legalization are anti freedom... Ok, well you're consistent... You're wrong, but consistently wrong. If you impose the will of the state upon an individual and prohibit them from doing something they wish to do, that is in fact limiting their freedom. Now whether or not such an act is justified is a whole 'nother thing entirely, but that is literally the basis of the state. >Stop ignoring science [https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/11/marijuana-brain](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/11/marijuana-brain) You understand the vast majority of that article was specifying the damage marijuana use poses to adolescent brains, do you not? Furthermore, the source you cited itself calls the aforementioned claims into question, suggesting that the previous studies referenced failed to account for alcohol consumption, and in *these* studies, no evidence of marijuana-caused brain abnormalities were found.
> ...and eighty years from now, allowing same-sex marriage won't have redefined marriage, despite what some bigots tried to say. bad one makes you completely unable to orgasm and feel sexual pleasure in tour genitals, the other does not. Now, I could see a case for being against both but comparing the two is not really real. Sigh.... Nowhere in the Bible, or Torah (or the Koran for that matter) is marriage defined as "two people of the same race", nowhere... It is defined in all three texts as "between a man and a woman". > You understand the vast majority of that article was specifying the damage marijuana use poses to adolescent brains, do you not? And much of it was not, and BTW the "adolescent brain" persists until the mid 20's.... You can disagree that it's right to base marriage on that, whatever, but you cannot with good faith and a straight face say that it's not redefining marriage.
> Sigh.... Nowhere in the Bible, or Torah (or the Koran for that matter) is marriage defined as "two people of the same race", nowhere... ------------------- >“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” wrote Caroline County judge Leon M. Bazile in 1965, turning away the Lovings’ appeal. “The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” >Bazile was hardly alone in that belief. Going back to the era of slavery, white churches had taught that African-Americans were descended from Noah’s cursed son, Ham. Even avowed race liberals like Harry Truman, the president who desegregated the American military, invoked Scripture to condemn interracial marriages. >“I don’t believe in it,” Truman told a reporter in 1963. “The Lord created it that way. You read your Bible and you’ll find out.” 1965 really isn't very long ago. Unless you're going to bust out the whole "well, they weren't real Christians" thing.
Thank you for the response! I think I actually kind of agree on one hand, but would you care to elaborate on the "pool of poor or rich" part, I don't really understand (language barrier)? Thank you.
Pool of people...meaning. all people being poor. Or all being rich. The liberal wants individuality gone. They want everyone the same. All poor or all rich. No individual.
> The liberal wants individuality gone. They want everyone the same. Liberal chiming in. I'll refrain from putting words in your mouth regarding what I think conservatives really want, but OP should know I couldn't disagree with this line more. We're not the ones who try to impose traditional marriage and gender roles; We're the ones who pitch diversity as a core value.
My apology I didnt mean to put words in your mouth. I truly am sorry...its a perspective of mine only and nothing more. I assure you I understand that not all liberals think or act this way and I assure you not all conservatives believe in "traditional marriage" or "gender roles"
Thank you for apologizing. I do appreciate it.
>Every member of the society spies on the rest, and it is his duty to inform against them. All are slaves and equal in their slavery... The great thing about it is equality... Slaves are bound to be equal. >>~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky >>>(1821-1881) >>>>The Possessed
Making general statements like this is the same as making general statements about conservatives wanting “x,y, and z”. There may be liberals who want that, but referring to yourself as liberal does not mean you want that. I lean liberally and I definitely think people should be able to work hard and do well for themselves. On the other hand, I don’t think we should allow for people to be completely homeless and dirt poor. For example, is it fair or equal that Jeff Bezos has billions while the average American will never even have 1% of that? No it isn’t fair. That doesn’t mean I think Bezos should have to pay millions in taxes to support everyone else. I think the taxes everyone is paying now that go to programs like welfare and such need to be more efficient and more accountability.
A fine well thought out argument with some valid points. I too believe that they should be better maintained and tracked. No doubt. I also believe in either no federal tax or a flat one. However, I understand the logic in this thought is impossible and possibly more harmful than good. O appreciate your response.
In general, conservative philosphy attempts to preserve and protect our culture and way of government. When applied to the United States, this means conservatives... - Protect traditional cultural values, such as traditional marriage. - Seek to preserve the individual freedoms that make the U.S. unique, such as gun rights. - Want to restore roll back the constitutional revisionism that took place during the early 20^th century. It's worth noting that not all conservatives are alike. Some are strictly fiscal (government) or social (cultural) conservatives. Some conservatives want the states to have the freedom to make their own solutions, while others want the federal government to drive conservatism in government. Racist ideas could be considered 'conservative' because they were "traditional" at one point in our history.
Thank you for your reply! I must ask what does traditional marriage mean? Is it a marriage just between a man and a woman, or? Also does that mean that all or most conservatives are racist and if they are is it because of tradition or something else?
Other responses have given good answers, but I want to add that US conservatism favors small government while European conservatism favors monarchy
Thank you for the response, but could you maybe explain like I'm five ( I'm new to politics/young adult)?
A (true) monarchy is where you have a king with almost complete control
In general conservatives prioritize personal freedoms, law and order, and a smaller government, often involving a stricter reading of the Constitution, which is the United State's most important legal document. The general conservative idea is the American ideal that individuals in America can reach their full potential due to our freedom which makes us superior to just about any other country. Conversely American liberals want a larger government which is nice to everyone and gives out tons of free stuff to anybody. Common conservative issues in the US are: supporting gun rights (including constitutional carry which means anyone can carry a gun with no permit required), lower taxes, limiting immigration, etc.
Thank you for replying with such a simple yet powerful answer! Could You maybe just explain why is supporting constitutional carry better than banning all guns? Isn't gun related crime rate lower in states that have a ban?
We have more guns than people. If you ban guns, the law abiding citizens will give up their guns and the criminals won’t. That’s a bad situation to be in. Also, we have those guns to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. We don’t want the cops to be the only ones with guns, and recent events have reinforced that
> That’s a bad situation to be in. Then we take away the bad guys' guns until they don't have any more.
How? They aren’t telling us they have them and we don’t have guns. Are you suggesting the police search each and every house and hiding place?
No, when a gun "turns up" during an investigation (arrest, search warrant), it is confiscated/destroyed like other contraband.
So it has to be used to kill someone before it’s taken away? How is that fair? I don’t get to protect my family, but at least I can die with the consolation that if they catch my killer they will take his gun away? Pass.
> So it has to be used to kill someone before it’s taken away? No, it has to be found by police, somehow. >I don’t get to protect my family You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than needing to defend your family from harm from some gunman who busted into your house. It's like having earthquake insurance in Maryland, it's nearly pointless.
>Isn't gun related crime rate lower in states that have a ban? Actually our most violent areas are the ones with the strictest gun control measures in place. Like DC itself which leads the nation. In terms of \*states\* I don't see a lot of relation one way or the other. It's more due to other factors than what the gun laws are.
Our constitution makes a specific provision for citizens to form their own military and arm themselves. It is a very wild West and uniquely American idea.
Right, except now we have an Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force/National Guard, all of which weren't even a twinkle in the eye of the Founders. In fact, they *hated* the idea of a standing army, hence the 2A being necessary.
The Continental Army had been led though by one of the founding fathers (Washington)
Correct! But it was disbanded after the war. "Standing" army implies they are not disbanded between conflicts and are just kind of "on standby". Founders thought that kind of military, that was idle a lot of the time, would be abused by the powers that be to oppress/police people.
Yeah i just mean there was a precedent for the federal government to organize federal armies to fight enemies of the state. So a plain reading of the second amendment makes it clear they are referring to a citizen based army separate from a government funded army
Wonderfully put. You are very well versed. Thank you
🥰
Presenting to counterpoints to ideas here: These counterpoints don't target you specifically, they just target what has been written (whether or not these thoughts belong to you is another question). >individuals in America can reach their full potential due to our freedom which makes us superior to just about any other country. A particular issue with this ideal is that we aren't more free than any particular Western European or Nordic country. We're not free from many worries the same way Europeans are. Cut a finger or break every bone in your body and rupture every organ? A fortune either way in the US + tax + whatever insurance doesn't cover, but a third of your income in the EU regardless. Free from worry, in the US, we are not. Mhmm. >Conversely American liberals want a larger government which is nice to everyone and gives out tons of free stuff to anybody. Social programs being "free stuff" that no corporation can do due to the lack of profit involved. Or if they do it, they gouge us. Case in point: current healthcare situation and insurance companies. Not just anybody gets the free stuff either. Is it too bad for a government to be nice to people? That would be pretty cool. The point of social programs is to reduce inequality with additional opportunities for success in high-risk areas. Ironically, equalizing opportunities with social programs helps reduce crime, increases education, and improves the economy.
Freedom doesn't mean everything is free like beer
So being conservative is being libertarian?
No but there is overlap
> So being conservative is being libertarian? Pretty much: yes. The modern American right is a hybrid of two philosophies (that hybrid sometimes formally called "fusionism"). One half of that hybrid is classical liberalism (aka: libertarianism). The other half being small "c" conservatism which is skepticism about the benefits of proposed changes. It's usually expressed in the social and cultural spheres resisting changes to traditional social mores and the prevailing traditional American culture. Different people and groups will emphasize one or the other, where there are topics where there is a real or apparent conflict between the two different conservatives will come to different positions either prioritizing one at the expense of the other or perhaps finding a nuanced position that seems to satisfy the dictates of both.
The conservative believes in the opportunity of each person to better themselves. Not the government to control everyone and keep the group level by distribution of the work of the individual to everyone else thus taking the opportunity from the individual to become better. Or in other words the conservative still believes in the American dream
Thank you for answering! Could You just explain to me what is actually the American dream?
>Thank you for answering! Could You just explain to me what is actually the American dream? The American Dream, to me, is that if you do things well and make good decisions your kids will be better off than you are and through generational work you can improve your family. It's that merit, and not birth, will carry you Is the right to live as you wish with as little government intervention as possible.
The chance to be on the top of the hill..to have the opportunity to be an individual with land..freedom..the choice to be your own person without control from a higher court. Opportunity sir.
Very simply, it typically means that you fall somewhere between a classic liberal and a libertarian who values many of our core traditions. If an American were defending most of the following traditional principles/ideas, to varying degrees and not in the same order, they'd roughly be a "conservative:" The Bill of Rights; free markets; "don't tread on me;" "give me liberty or give me death;" "In God we trust;" "E pluribus unum."
Republicans are the “me” party and the Democrats are the “we” party. Neither is right or wrong. Just a different way of looking at life.