fluffdaddy puts forth the most common argument:
Socially liberal people want the government to uproot conventional morality, which supports liberty, and replace it with an alternate morality that can only support tyranny. They aren't trying to get government out of anyone’s life. They are every bit as judgmental as anyone else. They just want government to judge those who disapprove of sodomy, drug abuse and abortion instead of sodomites, junkies and abortionists.See, liberals neglect the freedom to take away other peoples' liberty, then you're all set!
fluffdaddy enlarges on his previous thesis:
Conventional morality can’t be tyrannical. It’s conventional because most people accept it. People don’t need to be forced into thinking abortion, homosexuality, and drug abuse are wrong. The shoe is on the other foot. Social liberalism is inherently tyrannical and your whole view of social issues is completely incoherent.A bunch of black guys might want to speak to you about this tyranny of the majority idea. Also the majority of people who don't want to ban abortion.
Welcome2thejungle doesn't have that subtly:
Homosexual behaviour is also highly addictive and unhealthy and spreads deadly diseases and emotional disorder. Yes many are seemingly “normal” and appear to live respectable lifestyles and are in monogamous relationships. But with homosexuals that is far from the norm.Yes, hating on gays is worth the social costs! That's why freepers are all about outlawing alcohol as well!
MNJohnnie accuses the other side of hypocrisy and then calls it a day:
Because liberals are all about forcing people to get abortions.
The Socially Liberal want to impose their moral views on everything from murdering children in the womb to homosexuality on everyone else. When the majority object to that agenda, the Social Liberals rush to the Courts demanding their personal political opinions on these issues be imposed ON the majority.The hypocrites here are the "Social Liberals" who posturing as defenders of Liberty while demanding their narrow personal political dogmas on social issues be imposed by Court fiat since they cannot win at the ballot box.
SaraJohnson prefers spending money putting abortion doctors in jail because forcing women to have babies makes them care for themselves better. Wait...
If you are a social liberal, you can not be a fiscal conservative because amorality leads to disease and the inability to care for yourself and your offspring which increases the welfare rolls and crime. Total social freedom (non-judgementalism) requires a large police and welfare state to manage those who do not choose to live morally in life and who are not taught to live morally as is the case in our liberal schools.Enforcing morality is cheaper than the consequence because freepers say it is!
I leave you with Grampa Dave who tells us a story in lieu of an argument:
Well, if that one totally true anecdote isn't proof that social liberalism leads to evil socialism, I don't know what is!
We know a couple, who have proudly bragged about being Fiscal Conservatives and Socially Liberal.
They have been hit hard by the financial meltdown and owe everyone they could get a loan from with zero payments in over a year. They haven’t paid a mortgage payment in about two years.
Now the husband appears to have a Sugar Mommy over 800 miles away, where he is supposedly starting a new business. He goes there for a couple of weeks at a time and doesn’t call or contact his wife during his travel. He is never where, he is supposed to be. The public agencies in the far away city, which he supposedly is setting up training programs for, don’t know who he is, or anything about his so called company.
The wife complains that that he doesn’t give her any money, she doesn’t have money for groceries, and it costs $70 to fill up her 2 year old Mercedes. When we suggest that she sell her expensive Rolex and similiar items, which she still has, her eyes get glassy and she ignores us and others with similiar suggestions. Supposedly, no one wants to buy her Mercedes.
In retrospect, she was a peacenik hippie re made in to a high society liberal and supposedly financial conservative.