I created this poll out of curiosity. Virtually every Republican I have ever met is a fiscal conservative, but I am curious where people stand on social issues.

I would like to hear why you list yourself that way as well.

For my part I am a social libertarian. I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do, without government intervention, so long as that activity harms no one other then themselves or possibly other CONSENTING adults.

Where do you stand?

For those that are unaware "libertarian" is regularly used two ways.

1> Libertarian (Big L) Meaning party member

2> libertarian (little L) Meaning someone holding libertarian beliefs but not a party member.


Just an interesting side note.

My main reason for voting GOP is abortion.
My second reason is defending the Constitution (as in, let's use what it says not what judges feel good about).
My third reason is the theory that the GOP might let us keep more power over our own lives, both in terms of $ and freedoms.
My fourth, rising fast, is that they seem to tell the truth sometimes!

...so I guess I'm a mix.

I am really suprised that so many have passed on this vote. Come on people, are suggesing that there are only 8 declared republicans on this site?

Maybe it's too tough to fit one category -- I found it so.

Interesting. This could be a good discussion. May I ask you (and everyone else who feels similarly) where the dilemma is for you?

This poll focuses on social issues, opinions on social issues vary widely within the party. So, what are the social issues that you feel conflict, making it hard to describe yourself as one category or another in this poll?

Looking forward to this discussion as our party is far more diverse then the opposition would have people believe.

Unfortunately, the problem with this debate is that it will attract too many rational minds. In my experience most "debates" on the internet are populated by extremists on the right or the left of the issues whether social, fiscal, constitutional or other. It doesn't seem to matter! For example, I posted what many would call a radical left social position and a fiscally conservative position on the "Is There A Gay Agenda" forum today. No response! I though I'd be hammered from both sides but so far nothing.



I agree with all of the above except the abortion issue. Even here I might agree if the author is limiting his objections to 3rd trimester abortion for women whose lives or future reproductive abilities are not endangered. In these cases the decision should be a medical one (possibly subject to some form of oversight to restrict the radical left of the issue). Otherwise, I'm a liberal women's reproductive rights proponent. God Forbid, but it keeps my wife and adult daughter happy! The last sentence is for the purpose of levity!

I call myself, for purposes of debate, a secular conservative with republican party affiliation. Why? I don't want to be cornered as a morally certain Christian which I'm not. Fiscally I'm probably more libertarian than republican. I read the constitution with some frequency and it keeps telling me that the government is involved in more issues, both left and right, than it should be.

For what its worth!

The dilemma for me is outlined in my first post.

Opposition to abortion makes me more conservative, since conservatives don't support abortion legal under all circumstances, but this is the official Libertarian position IIRC. (BTW, offwind, your self-description marks you as differing from both pro- and anti-abortion positions, but closer to me, in that you want it banned in some but not all cases -- though we may quibble over details -- than to, say, every major Dem pol I've heard of in modern times.)

Defending the constitution is both conservative and libertarian.

Wanting the gov't to tax and spend less is both.

I'll add: opposing the war on drugs (libertarian). Opposing big brother; opposing the drinking age; opposing intrusions into life in general (libertarian).

So I'm sort of a libertarian who values human life. I couldn't decide which button to pick. And I'm not sure what "moderate on social issues" means. Racially discriminate in jobs but not education? Remove gender references from only half the Bible?

I'm a social libertarian [pot decriminalization, pro-Gay unions, etc], with some socially conservative leanings as well [abortion, I support most of the war on drugs, anti-gay "MARRIAGE"]. It's very surprising not to see more social conservatives here, after all, the Repubs are being driven by the Religious Right

CP

I would be considered Conservative on Social issues.

Abortions should be illegal, although I believe "morning after" type contraception is acceptable.

I am all for abstinence being the major thrust of sexual education. Those who abstain are statistically unable to conceive children or contract STDs.

I believe in traditional family values. Marriage is a traditional institution between a man and a woman.

I believe in the States' right to determine social laws on a local level. This, to me, is much more fair overall. If Kentucky (just as an example) wants to outlaw dog ownership (because they have determined it is cruel to animals), I say let them. Just don't force that view upon other States. The same argument would apply to gay marriage and every other social issue. Unfortunately, the Federal government cannot (and will not) butt out of such social institutions and will not allow the people to retain the right to make their own judgements about morality.

Unfortunately, when the right of an individual state to determine values is compromised, there is a conflict as to what should be done. The Supreme Court (with the notable exception of Antonin Scalia) has repeatedly rejected a "hands off" approach to legislating. Only Scalia (and to a lessor extent, Clarence Thomas) openly advocates allowing legislatures to do what they were elected to do : make laws per the people's will. Scalia has much the same attitude that I do: local communities should be allowed to determine local morality.

So, may it be concluded from your first sentence that you do not believe, as do "The Right to Lifers", life begins at conception and that women, therefore, do have reproductive rights? At least for a few days!

If my conclusion is correct, it appears that you have no objection to terminating a "non-viable" fetus. Absent that objection, does it not flow logically that a woman should have unrestricted reproductive rights through the end of the 2nd trimester of her pregnancy while the fetus is still "non-viable"?

I'd like to see the logic behind your position developed without reliance on sectarian religious traditions and dogma. Not because the traditions are irrelevant, but because reliance on them will just cause "Enlightened Socialists" to mock you.

I really believe that if we are ever to debate effectively with the "Enlightened Socialist/Neo-Marxist Left" we must rely on the foundations of world culture and not on the strictures and dogma of Judaism based Christianity or other religious strictures.

I would consider myself a social conservative. I support Civil Unions with all the rights, but oppose gay "marriage". I am against abortion UNLESS the mothers life is in jeopardy. I also believe strongly in the traditional family and so I don't like the idea of children being brought up in a homosexual home. (I'm sure I'll upset just a "few" people with that one, but IMO a Father AND a Mother are extremely important to a developing child) My feelings on these issues are not influenced by the "religious right", its just what I feel is morally right and natural.

OK folks,

This is meant as a GENERAL social issue topic.

I welcome anyone to start a new topic or post arguments and opinions on specific social issues in active topics devoted to those specific issues.

This was simply a poll to see who everyone was in regards to social issues with an invitation to explain your vote.

So lets get back on topic.

Maybe I misunderstand, but I think you've got some assumptions here that don't work for many Republicans.

One is that Right to Lifers believe that personhood begins at conception. Some do, some don't. I'm a Right to Lifer, and I don't.

Another is that "personhood begins at conception" and "personhood begins at viability" are the only two options.

Democrats often see us only from their perspectives; no need for us to do the same to each other!

Based on answers so far, it seems the best set of questions (though it wouldn't have fit the polling device) would have been: what issues are important to you, and how do your opinions on them compare to those of other Republicans?

Too many different things are lumped together as "social issues" to make it easy to be on just one side of them. I voted libertarian in the poll, but ...

On some, like guns and drugs, I take a radically libertarian position: I'm for legalizing all drugs now, and I consider the Second Amendment to be at least as important to individual rights as the First Amendment.

On others I'd be a moderate. Religion in public places for one. I think the First Amendment's "establishment" clause is being emphasized too much at the expense of the "free exercise" clause, and I'd like to see more balance. On abortion, I'm against any federal involvement, pro or con. On the state level I'm for abortion being legal with reasonable restrictions.

I don't like the Bush policy on education. He's centralizing it too much, exactly the wrong approach. Education needs to be a matter of local choice, and preferably individual choice.

And like Gov. Schwarznegger, I'll accept gay marriage when and if the people of a given state approve it by direct vote, or when the state legislature does. I'm against allowing judges to make those kinds of decisions for us. Same as my position on abortion I guess.