Social conservatives, what's the end game?

My guess on how social conservatives would answer the question would be:

a:  abortion. well that's murder.  we can't just sit back and do nothing as human beings are being terminated.  that's why we will never compromise in our pursuit to overturn Roe v. Wade.  There is no compromise when it comes to murder.  If we were to do nothing, we'd be complicit in the act.

b:  gay marriage...this one's a head-scratcher to me.  It has no impact whatsoever on heterosexual's marriages.  None, zero, zilch.  This one I'd love to hear an answer for too.

btw, the cool part of the other side (non-social conservatives) is that they are NOT forcing people to have a, and they are not requiring people to have a b.    (Yet! Moo-hoo-ha-ha-ha!)

Thanks Games... I guess what my point is where does it end? I'm not talking about specific issues, I'm talking about what is the point?

I through out abortion because as you mention, some feel it is murder, and it does impact another "person". But this is not a debate on abortion....

For social conservatives, I have heard how the society is going places it should not go. God is not happy with our heathen ways. Drugs, sex, rock and roll. The entire social gambit. Seems to me social conservatives are trying to legislate the Bible.

I simply do not understand why a person can't live their values and beliefs, instead of trying to legislate them to the rest of the country.

And at that point I am completely lost on how one can empower the government to legislate morals, and then claim they are for small government. Small where?

Please provide credible sources for the numbers quoted below, and please explain the bolded portion.  Thanks!

A. Absolutely right. Abortion is murder of a human being and in 99.9% of cases for nothing but convenience. Not health of the mother and not from rape/incest. Moms dying in birth are a 30/100,000 thing in this country. A majority of those deaths are lower class who want their baby and die from poor conditions. Contraception I see as a different thing all together. But I firmly believe the killing of innocents is the greatest civil rights crime of our time. 

I'm not so sure Ray. I mean you just "hear" stuff. And there is a lot of stuff out there. Especially with the last 10 years and Muslim tensions. Seems things are put out and then repeated, and then you hear people agree with it.

It's hard to say how much of that turns into black and white voting. But I do not think it is a small amount. And I'm definitely not giving the other fringe a pass... I just don't care about them. I mean far left liberals just have nothing I am interested in. I do not need to be left leaning to understand live and let live. It' snot socialist to want to end the war on drugs, or not care who is sleeping with who.

The problem is the true "conservative" party platform... small government, fiscally prudent, free enterprise is at complete odds with a social legislative agenda. Yet if you are not a big government socialist... that is all you have to choose. A party completely at odds with itself.

I don't think there ever is an "end game".
That sounds like utopian speech to me. 

In each situation, we're called to do what we ought to do.

The last two Republican candidates have been social moderates.
I think Romney was an excellent candidate, but also was not misled
into thinking that he changed his progressive social positions for anything other
than political expediency. That's fine. It's politics.
He signled to the base though, that he would not push a progressive agenda down our throats. 

There's a large demographic now that seems to value
what some derisively call the "universal right to orgasm without consequences":
anytime
anywhere
any way
with anybody(s) 

and they seem to value this more than sound policy on fiscal and security policies.

I think it's adolescent and for many it extends through a lifetime.

I also think that the correlation between the growth of the "free love" movement 
and the "free entitlement" movement may in fact be one of causation.

So politically, I'm willing to compromise.
I did it with Romney. I supported Santorum throughout the primaries,
but when it came time to vote in PA would have voted for Romeny instead.
Santorum pulled out just before, so it didn't matter.
I would have voted for Romeny because I wanted to win the election more than get everything I wanted on social issues.

This question you put out is a legitimate for debate.
At the same time, circle firing squads do nothing but help the other side.
The concerns of social conservatives are legitimate, sound, reasonable, 
and need to be considered within the context of the conservative movement.
We probably won't be following you into a libertarian "utopia" if you will,
at least I won't. So if you want to build a coalition, you need to continue to take social conservatives seriously.

Ah yes way to dismiss anyone's ideology but your own.

Can't help you one the rest as i am more of a social liberal.  I do believe in limits on abortion however and I do not believe those limits should be changed in the case of rape or incest.

Let's just be 100 % clear, I have absolutely no problem with anyone's personal beliefs.... we might even agree on more than we disagree.

What I am talking about is supporting a legislative agenda of the same.

This is where I come from.... God himself gave me free will. The Almighty One does not even stop me from what I want to do... all he says is that there are consequences to my actions.

I know form personal experience that there are indeed consequences to the decisions I have made in my life. The older I get, the more conservative I get because I have learned from experience. Yet there is not a single law or person on this planet that can stop me from doing what I want. So I also know that applies to every other person on this planet. If I do something that is against the God of my understanding, then that is between me and him.

So I do not see how "legislating morality" gets us anywhere. The Constitution "grants" rights, it does not restrict them. It restricts the Federal Government is what it restricts. I do not agree with capital punishment, but I understand others do. I'm OK with it because I'm not going to commit a capital crime. Some feel a fetus is a person, I do not. The law does not recognize it as such, and the only thing does recognize is the mother... so she wins. I'm OK with that because I am not going to have an abortion, nor would I probably recommend one for someone. Gay marriage is a good one... I can't begin to wrap my head around wanting a Constitutional Amendment to ban something.

So the "end game" I ask about isn't about abortion, it is about legislating your brand of morality. What does it look like if you were to have all you wanted? And if you give the Federal Government the power to legislate morality, do you not see how they might legislate something the rest of the country wants that you do not agree with?

The federal government has already done that with the HHS mandate issue.
It's an attack on religious liberty.

Going back a couple years, Catholic Social Services in Massachusetts
had to get out of offering adoption services because the Commonwealth
was forcing them to grant adoptions to homosexual couples. 

So it's already happening.

The constitution does restrict the power of the federal government.
Abortion issues ought to be dealt with at the state level, not the federal level.

In your post you didn't say you were religious, you said you were Christian. It's not that there is no quarter for religion, it's that we are a country made up of many religions. There are apparently many people who have a strong faith who left the Republican party because the current platform goes against their morals and their faith. I would bet many of them also identify as Christian.

How so... how are you not free to practice your religion as guaranteed by the Constitution? For religious organizations, that gets tricky. I'm not sure what the answer is. They have to go by serving the public, but I understand the conflicts. But at the end of the day, the Catholic Church was FREE to practice how they saw fit and stopped providing adoption services since it conflicted with doctrines. As unfortunate as that might be to the rest of the folks.

In light of the OP, I think this is fair.  But, I don't understand.  Can you help me understand how any liberal (as you put it) policy prevents, or impedes, you or your family's exercise or enjoyment of your religion?  I hear what you write often, but I don't see it in policy or practice.

ETA: Also, in fairness, I think very often the cries of the government or other people "imposing their religious beliefs" on people are very overstated.

I left the Democrat party in 2006 for the same reason.

The irony is that the Democrat party is openly hostile to the very foundation
that would give legitimacy to the preferential option for the poor. 

But in the democratic party, any thing short of total secularism is unacceptable.  Bill Maher is the perfect example of the derision and contempt that librals show for religion.  Yes I am Christian, but secularists don't want ANY God to interfere with their agenda...not a Christian God, or any other.

Ya... that is the other end of the spectrum. I see atheists no different that evangelicals... I'm not down with their dogma. And I think they are fringe.

I have no experience with the Democratic party and what the pressures are against religious folks. I do think there is a broad spectrum of beliefs in America that represent the majority... and then you have the far right and far left. It's discouraging  to hear that about Democrats... I know just from my own personal experiences, then it seems with liberal people, it is perfectly acceptable to be Whiccan, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other "alternative"... just as long as you are not Christian. That is a shame.

So to answer your question... no I do not want Christians to worship in the shadows anymore than I want Buddhist to and that is certainly not my agenda. I think the agenda to remove all Judeo/Christian mention from public is silly. Call it "holiday" all you want, but Christmas is still the birth of Christ, what is the big deal?

But.... if the 10 Commandments are not on the Court house, how does that diminish your religion, and how does that effect YOUR personal relationship with the God of your understanding? Why MUST we be aware of your religion, in order for you to be OK?

That guy's an entertainer.  He defines liberals no more that Rush Limbaugh defines conservatives.

Personally, I don't give a rats a$$ who or what you choose as  you life partner, spouse, or whatever you would like to call them.  The issue I have is that it opens doors to other problems that I don't see being any of the government's business.

For example, gay marriage is legalized.  Two men (or women) decide to "marry."  Both are religious and believe their religion is part of who they are, important enough to want to marry in the church.  Said church denies them on the basis that they don't believe men/women should marry.  The couple sues and now we require the state make a decision about the actions of a church.  This is where my problem is. 

Same type of issue goes with the government funded healthcare.  Effectively, the government is forcing me to pay taxes which can be used to fund birth control, abortions, etc which I do not believe in.  Why is my belief "invalid?"

As for what the country would look like if I got my way, probably very similar to how it looks today.  How will it look since you got your way, probably very similar to how it looks today.  I just don't like the idea of the government having their nose in issues that I believe are very personal.  Regulating business, overall welfare of the country, national security, that is where they should be focusing their time and effort.

No, I can't even listen to the guy anymore. His liberalism is one thing... his complete hate and contempt for religious folks is extreme in the true sense of the word.

Think about that for a minute.

The Catholic Church developed the hospital system to begin with way back when.
Being called to heal the sick is a core belief of the Church.

It's now being attacked by the secularist state
to the point it may need to withdraw from that mission
in order to not violate its conscience.

Practicing my faith is more than praying in private or with the doors shut at Mass.
It's about being leaven in the world.
It's about building up institutions such as the hospital system
and social service systems. 

So yes, religious liberty is under direct attack.