Why do the issues of pornography and gay/lesbian rights have to be concerns exclusive to those of balancing the budget, ending wars and a strong job market? Being concerned about one means that you cannot be concerned about the other?speedsix wrote:if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way
I would also be interested in how our country was begun, so that I can gain a further understanding of the statement above.
Though Bachmann appeared at first to be a viable candidate, it soon became apparent that she is a perfect example of exactly what you appear to be decrying, but as the exact opposite. She is obviously against abortion, gay marriage and similar social-issues that a Christian Conservative might oppose. Yet she is what one might consider a Fiscal Conservative.
To me this is simply a statement that if you don't follow the Ultra-Conservative philosophy in regards to Social Issues, you by default cannot be a Fiscal Conservative and therefore do not care about your country. This contradicts the very idea set forth in the Constitution that Government should not be intruding in our private lives (unless your private lives happen to be different than mine). This is utter hypocrisy.
My version of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness may differ from yours. Legislating how either one of us goes about that pursuit should only go so far as making sure that it does not interfere with someone else's.
Your feelings about social issues are every bit as valid as mine. But they should simply be discussion points for us to merrily banter about over a cold-drink. They should not be issues handled by the Federal government.