Social Conservatism

None of the positions appeal to me. I have strong values but almost none are traditional, maybe because I empathize so much with people outside of mainstream society? I tend to see things from their POV.

 

See above. Going to lunch.

 

hmm, in DnD terms, standard Lawful Something? It's mostly aimed towards safety and control.

This is quite centralized in America, I'm afraid; in my country, its political belief were mostly conservatism (one that's based on religion too) so.. yeah. I'm saying that I'll be one of the more rebellious person in my place. In America / others, I think I'll be more conservative compared to your liberals.

so..yeah, pretty much indifferent >_>;

 

That about sums it up

 

Green I am for. Blue I am completely indifferent to, yellow I don't support, red I don't and I am wildly against it and it is just flat out illogical to me. I also added one more item to the list, because I support it and it is a big issue

-Pro life
-Oppose embryonic stem cell research
-Hesitant to develop technology (bio conservatism)
-Traditional marriage (man and woman)
-Support nuclear family structure
-Oppose child adoption to same sex couples
-Support prohibition of drugs
-Support prohibition of prostitution
-Support prohibition premarital sex
-Support abstinence
-Support prohibition of nonmarital sex
-Support prohibition of euthanasia
-Support prohibition of pornography
-Support public morality (state enforced morality)
-Tough immigration laws

 

That.

 

Those are my stances on the subjects.

 

Principles of social conservatism...

-Pro life - I am pro choice and pro death penalty.
-Oppose embryonic stem cell research - This is absolutely stupid.
-Hesitant to develop technology (bio conservatism) - Technology of any kind should always be developed based on asking "what should we do?", rather than "what can we do?" However, simply banning development for no other reason than the unfamiliar is unappealing to some people is just plain foolish. There is also a big difference between research and development, and mass production. Knowing what we can do and making it available to the public are also two very different things. In the end, I think medical research should be accelerated as much as possible.
-Traditional marriage (man and woman) - I think marriage is a religious institution and therefore a religious freedom, not a government institution, and don't think the government should have any bearing on it. If a religion allows someone to marry a goat, then they are married. The government does not have the right to interfere in religious freedoms.
-Support nuclear family structure - I do support nuclear structure when it can work and is not toxic for everyone involved. I consider it the 'ideal' situation. However, reality is often less than ideal, and I support any structure that works to create healthy and well developed people with the support and encouragement they need to become fully developed healthy adults.
-Oppose child adoption to same sex couples - Adoption must always be based on review of the couple, regardless of orientation.
-Support prohibition of drugs - I disagree with the enforcement of victimless crimes. Therefore, I am very much pro marijuana legalization and pro legalization of any drugs that have been proven to not cause behavioral and criminal problems (even though I don't use them myself) and believe the tax revenue should be used to fight drugs that have been proven cause behavioral and criminal problems such as meth, cocaine, heroin, etc.
-Support prohibition of prostitution - Again, so long as no one is harmed in the process or given a communicable disease, this is victimless crime, and I'm against the enforcement of it. I'm very much pro legalization of prostitution. Nations that have legalized but well regulated prostitution have much less problems associated with prostitution. Would I engage in prostitution, even if it were legal? No. But, I believe in personal choice. Would I discourage people from engaging in it? Yes, but again the choice is their own. The government has no business enforcing personal morality.
-Support prohibition premarital sex - Absolutely not, especially between two consenting adults who love each other. Sex is an amazing and beautiful thing when used responsibly. I am very much an advocate of safe sex, not just physically but also emotionally. There are many risks both physically and emotionally, and I believe people should be well educated in those risks before they choose to engage in sex or not.
-Support abstinence - I support abstinence as a personal choice to avoid the physical and emotional risks of sex. The government cannot enforce this without violating personal rights.
-Support prohibition of nonmarital sex - I'm assuming this is referring to 'adultery' law - as in sex with someone other than the person you are married to... otherwise it's premarital sex? Unless both partners are very emotionally healthy and open to this, then I strongly discourage it as it can lead to all manner of marital problems in the long run. Again, I don't think the government has any business in this area.
-Support prohibition of euthanasia - I see this as part of being pro choice, which I am.
-Support prohibition of pornography - This is one of those rare points where I believe the government should take some control. At current, it is far too easy for children to access pornography, and far too difficult for parents to protect their children from it if they so choose. I would love to see better legislation and enforcement of internet pornography access. One answer is to simply prohibit pornography on any website that does not have the domain .xxx, for example www.nakedwomen.xxx, and from there create web browser permissions that block all .xxx domains.
However, I think adults should have the right to look at whatever they want, and so long as no one is hurt in the process of creating the media, then it should be legal to make and view by adults if they so choose. Personally, I would like pornography producers to take the responsibility to create emotionally responsible content depicting healthy relationships where people love one another - to encourage healthier relationships, rather than the standard raunchy disconnected arrays of close up shots stemming from plots based on selfish gratification and treating people like objects - which have been rather well proven to discourage healthy relationships. The issue isn't watching sex to be aroused. It's the emotional content in that sex. I'm not suggesting that adults shouldn't be able to produce or watch whatever content they want. I'm just suggesting that there be more awareness of responsibility on the part of those who produce them, again a personal choice.
-Support public morality (state enforced morality) - This is such an unconstitutional notion that I can't address it. However, I strongly feel that people should encourage morality on a personal level through freedom of speech.

In other words, I support a lot of socially conservative views, but I very much do not believe the government should have anything to do with them. They are all individual choices, or else they are not valid. I consider myself socially liberal because I believe in choice, even when I would not make those choices.

 

-Pro life - Yes, although not opposed to contraception. Keeping in mind that it usually takes about half a day after sex for sperm to actually reach an egg to fertilize, morning after pills are fine. Obviously when childbearing is likely to lead to the death of the mother abortions should be allowed, and strongly encouraged when it is likely that this would happen too soon for the child to survive. This does not really need to be an explicit special exception though, as killing in self defense is a valid innocent plea for a murder trial and law enforcement rarely bothers to prosecute when the need for self defense is clear.
-Oppose embryonic stem cell research - when it requires the destruction of more embryos
-Hesitant to develop technology (bio conservatism) - hesitant to use government funding for such projects, don't find private research
-Traditional marriage (man and woman) - I'd rather marriage be left up to religious institutions. I'd rather any contracts involved be like prenuptial agreements, with terms defined by the partners and not the state or tradition.
-Support nuclear family structure - How? What does this really have to do wit the state?
-Oppose child adoption to same sex couples - I may be a little uncomfortable with the idea but not enough to want to legally prohibit it. In general I think adoption is too heavily regulated as it is.
-Support prohibition of drugs - I'm ok with bans or regulations in localities (from state governments to private landlords and employers), but the federal government has no constitutional right to get involved except to prevent smuggling into areas where it is illegal. (Well, the feds could also still prohibit that their employees use them.)
-Support prohibition of prostitution - Sounds like an issue to be locally banned or regulated
-Support prohibition premarital sex - Discourage its practice, yes. Legally prohibit it, of course not.
-Support abstinence - Personally yes, but I don't see a place for the government in this
-Support prohibition of nonmarital sex - Discourage its practice, yes. Legally prohibit it, of course not. I don't think the state should be defining marriage anyway.
-Support prohibition of euthanasia - yes
-Support prohibition of pornography - It should be treated exactly like prostitution if money is exchanged. Free amateur porn is fine though.
-Support public morality (state enforced morality) - What does this mean?

Frankly I dislike "morality," as etymologically speaking it deals with what is customary rather than what is right. (Ethics is the same, just from Greek instead of Latin, although to be fair is it usually a shortening of Ethica Arete or "good habits.") It is a very much SJ concept. We should encourage what is right, not what is traditional.







Christians should care greatly about protecting life, but on other issues the new testament seems rather clear that we are to be strict on ourselves but not enforce our views on non-Christians.

No it is not. Libertarians generally favor freedom of movement, of finished goods, resources, capital, and people. The libertarians who oppose open immigration generally do so on the grounds that immigrants are a further drain of the tax payer because of social programs that they would really rather just abolish anyway.

 

I've deleted where appropriate, for my own views.

I'm socialy conservative and while I support all of these things, I don't think there is a need to create laws regarding them.

 

1. What do you mean by "abstinence"? Do you mean abstinence only education? Or do you mean abstinence plus knowledge of contraceptives?

2. I'm not hesitant for technology to be developed, but I am hesitant for it to be employed. We often apply technologies before exploring the full implications of their use, and I am afraid now that we are headed toward an era where the employment of certain technologies may prove to be an irreversible mistake. We may even by making that mistake now.

3. The state enforces morality regardless. It doesn't have to be a theocracy to do so. Mostly, the state (meaning the U.S. government) supports a morality to help perpetuate capitalism combined with conspicuous consumption/consumerism (or spending money you don't have on things you don't need).

 

None of these positions appeal to me except for the issue on pornography.
While I'm all about choice (for adults only) porn is really creating havoc for long time married couples. I think it has something to do with seeing all those pics of "perfect" people obviously having a good time. It's hard to look at that and then go home and look at the spouse you've had for 10 or 15 years. I'm talking about the "skin" you see in mainstream media also. I wish they'd tone it down and make porn a harder to access.

 

It really comes down to this: Who are we to dictate what other people do in their private lives? It is completely and utterly illogical to me to disagree with such a notion. In particular where 95% of these listed things truly have no effect on anyone else around you. Or, the effect is so minimal it is easily disregardable.

 

I blame the SJs.

 

Black reflect my views, red do not.

-Pro life
-Oppose embryonic stem cell research
-Hesitant to develop technology (bio conservatism)
-Traditional marriage (man and woman)
-Support nuclear family structure
-Oppose child adoption to same sex couples
-Support prohibition of drugs
-Support prohibition of prostitution
-Support prohibition premarital sex
-Support abstinence
-Support prohibition of nonmarital sex
-Support prohibition of euthanasia
-Support prohibition of pornography
-Support public morality (state enforced morality)
-Tough immigration laws