There is a little piece making its way around the Internet. It has turned viral mostly because many see so much truth in it.
"If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants meat products banned.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he tries to better his situation.
A liberal wants to know who is going to fix it for him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals want those they don't like to be silenced.
If a conservative is a nonbeliever, he doesn't go to church.
If a liberal is a nonbeliever he wants any mention of religion silenced, unless, of course, the religion is from another culture.
If a conservative needs health care he shops for it, or looks for a job that will provide it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us provide for it.
A conservative will read this and will forward it, so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will read this and delete it, because he's offended."
There is a widely held perception that liberals want governments to control almost everything. Conservatives don't.
Astute readers are already lining up defenses based on hypocrisy. Be careful, the exceptions are not as exceptional as they may appear.
Liberals, for example, don't believe the government should ban abortions and gay marriage, and conservatives call for restrictions. It appears hypocritical on its face, but is it?
Liberals frame these issues in terms of "choice" and "consent," but continue to demand governmental intervention to validate their choice. In fact, liberals wish to use the governmental purse and the authority of governmental courts to push these issues on everyone irrespective of the stated wishes of the majority expressed through the ballot box.
It is a legitimate function of government to protect life and property. Governments should, for example, prohibit murder. At the very least, governments should not encourage it. If certain citizens believe that abortion is a type of murder, then it makes sense for them to petition the government to prevent it. If a government fails to fulfill its responsibilities, then it is logical for those citizens to demand that it do so.
This is not the same as the person who hates yellow cars demanding that the government ban all yellow cars. Banning cars is a dictatorial and questionable governmental function while the protection of life is not.
Allowing gay marriage is an interesting case, because in a free society, the only function a government should provide regarding marriage is to dutifully record it.
Marriage is what people do, tempered by family and tradition. People married before there were any governments, and they will surely marry after they all disappear.
But, in the present world, secular, centralized authorities have usurped this function. Consequently, the government must define what marriage is, and it obviously can and does tell its citizens who can marry whom.
This debate has nothing to do with banning. That is already established. We are arguing here over a governmental definition.
Controlling others is one thing, but liberals rapidly discover individual liberty when a government doesn't allow them to do as they please. Once they didn't like alcohol and public portrayals of sex, so prohibition of both was demanded. Currently, they like both sex and alcohol. They don't like obesity and cigarettes.
Therefore, anything remotely related to sexuality cannot be controlled by any government, and wine has become a symbol of sophistication. Meanwhile, people who smoke are forced to find a location off governmental property to light up even if it is 20 below zero.
So, child seats, cheeseburgers and salt can be controlled, but abortion cannot.