If conservatives would stop at the point when they get to limiting government and maximizing personal freedoms, I would support them. The problem I have with most conservatives is that they betray their own ideals by combining religious morality with political philosophy. The blurring of religious and political lives began with the Moral Majority and the Christian Right. Before that, churches purposely stayed out of politics because politics has a corrupting influence on the churches when they get in bed with politicians.
That leads to the same governmental meddling that liberals are accused of promoting, but in different ways, like dictating who can and can't marry, and passing laws to punish the sinners (drugs, prostitution, pornography, homosexuals, etc).
The problem is that power is corrupting. The founding fathers purposely divided governmental power and set up roadblocks to impede any one group from taking power too quickly.
Rather than hoping for a Republican majority, or a Democratic majority, we should be hoping that there's enough division of power between the two that nothing gets done except for the most vital things that we all agree upon.
Originally Posted by Muffrider
All laws are based on someone's morality; laws against murder are based on "thou shalt not kill." In terms of your other examples, the question is - are those laws there to 'punish the sinners,' or because there is distinct societal harm? Not attacking you, just having a discussion that could be fun.
Drugs - I would think anyone with intellectual honesty would agree that there is significant harm, both personal and societal, from drug use. (If you disagree, would drug use be a factor in your determination of whether or not to see a provider?) Now, from my perspective, if we had a society that would allow drug users to suffer the consequences of bad decisions on their own, I'd still be in favor of drug legalization. In other words, if I could be convinced that my money would not be taken and spent on alleviating the consequences of others' decisions to do drugs and destroy their lives, I'd be fine with legalization. However, we don't live in that society; hence, I still think we're better off with drugs being illegal. Even in California there are instances of medical marijuana providers whacking each other, so legalization is no immunization against drug violence.
Prostitution - well, my stance here should be fairly obvious. As George Carlin says, "Selling is legal, fucking is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?" That said, again, there are societal harms that can come our way. Legalization of prostitution would potentially also decriminalize human trafficking, and I think the streetwalker issue is also a societal harm. So my conclusion? Personally I'd prefer VERY CAREFUL AND CONTROLLED legalization.
Pornography - At the moment, the only illegal porn is child porn and I don't think anyone has a problem with that. Well, maybe NAMBLA.
Homosexuals - I'm assuming that you're referring to gay marriage. I'm completely on the fence on this issue; I've yet to hear a particularly persuasive argument for or against this that isn't emotionally driven. I have no emotional ties to the issue.
One thing I'd say is this - don't confuse a MAJORITY with a vocal MINORITY. Take any issue you like, and you will be able to round up a very fired-up group FOR and a very fired-up group AGAINST. That doesn't mean that either group defines the body politic.