Are there any social conservatives here? [Archive]

Revtim

08-21-2004, 06:05 PM

Seems like even the most hard-core Republicans here are not conservative on social issues.

Are there any social conservatives here?

Hold off that reflexive "Define 'social conservatism' " post Skippy, I got it right here (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Social_conservatism). Social conservatism is a belief in traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society. It is anti-ideological in the sense that social change based on new "ideas" is generally regarded as suspect, while social values based on tradition are generally regarded as tried, tested and true. It is a view commonly associated with conservative religious groups, militarism and nationalism.Although there is no set of beliefs and positions inherant in social conservatism, there are many views which are commonly associated with it, including:

* Opposed to abortion
* Opposed to euthanasia
* Supportive of capital punishment
* Opposed to same-sex marriage
* Opposed to affirmative action

rjung

08-21-2004, 06:14 PM

I'm sure there are a few around here who'd fit your profile.

08-21-2004, 06:18 PM

I doubt it. Most of them that I recall got themselves banned. The majority of the 'conservatives' on this board are fiscally conservative by not socially. Maybe I'll be proved wrong.

For myself, from the OP's list the only one I'd be 'socially conservative' on would be capital punishment. I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other, which I'm sure would make me socially conservative on that topic.

BTW, what about gun rights? Would that be socially conservative?

-XT

silenus

08-21-2004, 06:20 PM

I'm sure that there a lot of posters who would fit part of the definition. For example, I consider myself to be fairly Conservative, but I am liberal when it comes to social matters. I support a woman's Right To Choose, Same-Sex marriage, and don't feel comfortable with most Capital Punishment. But I oppose Affirmative Action. Does it have to be an "all-or-none" definition?

Abbie Carmichael

08-21-2004, 06:21 PM

* Opposed to abortion - in most cases, yes
* Opposed to euthanasia - yes
* Supportive of capital punishment - yes
* Opposed to same-sex marriage - yes
* Opposed to affirmative action - yes

So yeah. Guess I am one.

BrainGlutton

08-21-2004, 06:37 PM

Revtim, are submitting any of the social-conservative positions for debate, or are you just taking a poll of the SDMB community? (Polls belong in IMHO.)

raindog

08-21-2004, 07:06 PM

Revtim

08-21-2004, 07:21 PM

silenus

08-21-2004, 07:39 PM

Abbie Carmichael and the raindog:

regarding the abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage issues, are you simply against them personally, or do you believe these things should be against the law and nobody should take part in them?

If I might answer this as well: I personally feel abortion is repugnant, but I also feel that as a male I am not really entitled to an opinion, and I am well aware that my personal opinion might not make good Public Policy. I have mixed feelings on euthanasia, as I feel there is a slippery-slope there. I have absolutely zero problems with same-sex marriages, and if the Government is going to allow special privileges for married couples, they have to allow them for all married couples, regardless of gender. I feel Capital Punishment is not the responsibility of the State, although I have absolutely no problem with administering said punishment myself, if I feel it is warranted. I oppose Affirmative Action, because I feel it does nothing but permanently relegate selected groups to second-class citizenship. I am adamantly opposed to virtually any form of Gun Control, and I feel that taking money from hard-working people to fund some do-gooders new plan to "help" is idiotic, to say the least. I am opposed on general principles to overseas adventure-ism, but I also understand the need for the only remaining Super-power to exert influence where it is needed. I think Bush and company are idiots, but I do not trust the Dems in any way, shape, or form.

What can I say? I am large...I contain multitudes! :D

Abbie Carmichael

08-21-2004, 08:13 PM

The Asbestos Mango

08-21-2004, 08:24 PM

* Opposed to abortion
* Opposed to euthanasia
* Supportive of capital punishment
* Opposed to same-sex marriage
* Not Opposed to affirmative action

Well....based on that criteria....count me in...........

I'm in this camp as well, so I guess, yeah, I'm a social conservative.

One issue I don't see listed but which I have very strong feelings about is the legalization of marijuana. I'm definitely in favor of it.

Does that mean I can't be a social conservative anymore?

raindog

08-21-2004, 08:49 PM

Abbie Carmichael and the raindog:

regarding the abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage issues, are you simply against them personally, or do you believe these things should be against the law and nobody should take part in them?

Well....an excellent question....I would caution you that you have 5 rather weighty issues, and any one of them could be it's own thread. This thread could be become splintered fairly quickly.

Since you have 3 issues rolled into one, I'll give you a thumbnail answer. Any one of them could be explored in much greater detail.

As to abortion and euthanasia, it seems to me that the state (read:state or feds) has an interest in protecting all of the rights of it's citizens. From in intellectual POV, it is my opinion that life begins at conception, and that the state has some interest in protecting those rights, all the way through the dying process.

As to abortion specifically, I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation of what constitutes the beginning of life. (One that refutes the notion that life begins at conception) Further, there has never been unanimity among intellectuals and the medical/political crowd as to the definition. It doesn't help that there is a seeming conflict between the legality of abortion, and the charge of murder for those who essentially abort an unborn child, through violence, negligence etc. There is no bright line that delineates the point at which "non-vital tissue matter" becomes a human being (read: citizen) with all of the attendent rights that a citizen enjoys. While a woman has a right to privacy, and a right to choose, if that "non-vital tissue matter" is actually a human being those rights cannot be more compelling than the child's right to live, and the woman's rights must be subordinated. That different"rights" may be in conflict is well known, and it is common for the law to recognize that there must sometimes be a hierarchy of rights----that some rights may necessarily "trump'" another right, and in the absence of that conflict the right being "trumped" may still be fully asserted. (in a differnt context) Nonetheless, I believe in personal responsibility. Sexual intercourse produces children. If you *choose* to have sex, and produce a human being in the process, you must accept the responsibility. (that goes for the man too, right? the states are getting better and better at forcing men to pay child support for example)

As to euthanasia I believe that we all enjoy the right of self determination, and the right to reject medical care,even if results in death. It's another thing entirely to allow someone else to have that right for me. Not long ago a woman rejected urgent pleas from her doctors for a C-section and she rejected the pleas because the scars may keep her from wearing a bikini. (her unborn child subsequently died) I fear that someone may euthanize a child who is born with birth defects (even severe ones), or wish to euthanize an elderly parent who is infirmed. That's not to say that a family can't disconnect a feeding tube, after consulting with their doctors, clergy. But I'm not talking about disconnecting a feeding tube. I'm talking about euthanizing a 3 day old baby with birth defects, or an elderly parent who is a burden. I think the state has a limited, but complelling, interest in defending the rights of those human beings.

To be honest, I have not given the thought of same sex marriage much thought at all, from a secularPOV. I've heard snippets of some of the arguments about social fabric etc from those who wish to ban them, or form a constitutional amendment to ban them. While I am sympathetic to their arguments, and support them in principle, the basis of my feelings are rooted more in my religious convictions. I have not spent much thought on the ramifications of allowing SSM.

E-Sabbath

08-21-2004, 10:05 PM

Social Conservative (Libertarian) here. I don't want the government telling me what the heck to do. Period. If you ask me if any specific thing should be legal, I'll generally say, hell yes. Ask me if I like it... different question entirely.
Abortion? Legal. Euthenasia? Legal. Suicide? Legal. Death Penalty? Legal. Same sex marriage? Legal. Not the government's business to decide on marriages, as long as they're consenting adults and not abusing each other. Polygamy? Legal. Same damn reason.

I get this attitude honestly, from my father, and his father, and his father. Conneticut Yankees, farmers. Kind to those they knew, merciful to those in need, and pissed as hell at the revenue agent.

divemaster

08-22-2004, 12:00 AM

If I might answer this as well: I personally feel abortion is repugnant, but I also feel that as a male I am not really entitled to an opinion...I've heard this argument before and don't buy it. By this logic a woman can have no opinion on homosexual rape, or a non-veteran can have no opinion on the war in Iraq.

Personal beliefs do not depend on a shared experience, although such an experience can certainly have great influence.

As far as the poll goes:

Opposed to abortion?
Opposed to euthanasia?
Supportive of capital punishment?
Opposed to same-sex marriage?
Opposed to affirmative action?

Yes on all counts. As a matter of personal belief, as well as for legislation.

Mr. Moto

08-22-2004, 12:02 AM

I'm pretty socially conservative.

I'm pro-life and anti-euthanasia. I oppose affirmative action and traditional welfare, preferring a more work-based approach.

I'm pro-gun rights as well.

I do support civil unions, though. And I struggle with the death penalty issue.

Blalron

08-22-2004, 01:53 AM

As far as the poll goes:

Opposed to abortion?
Opposed to euthanasia?
Supportive of capital punishment?
Opposed to same-sex marriage?
Opposed to affirmative action?

Yes on all counts. As a matter of personal belief, as well as for legislation.

You support capitol punishment, yet oppose euthanasia?

How about we reach a compromise on this. Make the penalty for attempting suicide be death. :D

PaulFitzroy

08-22-2004, 02:29 AM

I oppose Affirmative Action. What if I petitioned for the Indiana Pacers to let me play for them and give me a 2.5 million dollar contract simply because there aren't enough 5'8" white guys with no basketball skills whatsoever on the team? Sound ridiculous? So does giving someone 20 college admission points because he's black or Hispanic.

I support abortion. There are too many damn babies being borth in this country to begin with. In fact, I even support retroactive abortion. There are thousands of stupid people out there who should be aborted right now.

I support gay marriage, although I think it's ridiculous to be gay-married in a religious service (your religion hates you!)

I am a supporter of the death penalty. In fact, I think that the death penalty should be carried out directly by the family of the murderer's victim. By whatever method they choose, as long as it's not cruel or unusual.

I'm a strong supporter of euthanasia, naturally. Right now the youth in Asia are being opressed by the communist war machine. Power to Asian youth!

I believe every man has the right to own as many damn firearms as he pleases, in whatever damn state he pleases, of whatever damn calibre and rate-of-fire he pleases!

And, finally, I am a strong supporter of medicinal marijuana. Laughter is, after all, the best medicine, and what better way to induce laughter than to toke up?

That said, I'm also a supporter of non-medicinal marijuana.

lissener

08-22-2004, 02:46 AM

I've heard this argument before and don't buy it. By this logic a woman can have no opinion on homosexual rape, or a non-veteran can have no opinion on the war in Iraq.

Personal beliefs do not depend on a shared experience, although such an experience can certainly have great influence.

As far as the poll goes:

Opposed to abortion?
Opposed to euthanasia?
Supportive of capital punishment?
Opposed to same-sex marriage?
Opposed to affirmative action?

Yes on all counts. As a matter of personal belief, as well as for legislation.
You miss the point. The consequences of a man's having a say in abortion rights are 100% not his to bear. A man expressing a political opinion--i.e. voting--on abortion rights is the same thing as an Islamist state dictating a woman's dress.

Abortion rights should not be subject to state interference; should not be within the jurisdiction of the government at all. It should be a private decision between a woman and her doctor; no man but the father of the child should have any voice in the matter whatsoever.

The alternative, if you want to talk about slippery slopes, is chaining a woman to a hospital bed and dictating the use of her body against her will.

duffer

08-22-2004, 03:24 AM

You miss the point. The consequences of a man's having a say in abortion rights are 100% not his to bear. .

I assume you supprot the right of a father to disavow the child and therefore be off the hook for child support? I mean, according to your argument, there is only one responsible parent in this, right?

Liberal

08-22-2004, 06:34 AM

SentientMeat

08-22-2004, 06:47 AM

I believe Brutus would fit your profile, given that he advocates strongly authoritarian right-wing government.

And the confusion in E-Sabbaths classification comes, I believe, from the utterly nonsensical manner in which the words "liberal" and "conservative" are used in the US. Elsewhere in the world, "liberal" refers to minimial government interference, either fiscally or socially.

Liberal

08-22-2004, 07:14 AM

Good point, Sentient.

E-Sabbath

08-22-2004, 08:27 AM

I'm a conservative. I want things the way they were before the New Deal and WWI and WWII. Government out of my life.

I'm just so far right I meet at the left.

Revtim

08-22-2004, 08:32 AM

There's yet another dimension to this, isn't there. One can be staunchly conservative in their personal viewpoints on particular issues, yet feel it's not the gov't's responsibiliy to enforce those views.

Whether one considers less gov't involvement conservative or liberal seems to be ill-defined. I'm sure a lot of people think that the gov't "allowing" certain activities is very liberal, wheras others see the same gov't as "not interfering" and conservative.

ivylass

08-22-2004, 09:05 AM

* Opposed to abortion I am not in favor of it, personally, but I'm not going to stop someone from having one. I just don't think it should be used as a form of birth control
* Opposed to euthanasia Nope
* Supportive of capital punishment Yep
* Opposed to same-sex marriage I don't care one way or the other. Won't affect my marriage
* Opposed to affirmative action Yep

YMMV, of course.

E-Sabbath

08-22-2004, 09:15 AM

I do believe RevTim has a point. You see, the Government only does what we allow. We have _all_ the rights, we have merely ceeded certain ones to the government. The government does not 'allow' jack. They don't own us. All they can do is restrict certain things.

Liberal, where I come from, the leftist sort, the Great Society type, says that the government is the big father who makes programs to protect us all. I don't hold much with that.

zamboniracer

08-22-2004, 09:19 AM

And the confusion in E-Sabbaths classification comes, I believe, from the utterly nonsensical manner in which the words "liberal" and "conservative" are used in the US. Elsewhere in the world, "liberal" refers to minimial government interference, either fiscally or socially.

This is a slight hijack, but you don't honestly think Maggie Thatcher is a small "l" liberal, do you Sentient?

Thudlow Boink

08-22-2004, 10:21 AM

The consequences of a man's having a say in abortion rights are 100% not his to bear. A man expressing a political opinion--i.e. voting--on abortion rights is the same thing as an Islamist state dictating a woman's dress.So, one shouldn't be allowed to express a political opinion on any issue that one is not personally affected by? This would mean we can't speak up on anyone else's behalf, even the behalf of those who can't speak up for themselves. We couldn't protest cruelty to animals, or abuse of small children, or inhumane treatment of the severely mentally disabled. We couldn't protest exploitation of the poor unless we ourselves were the exploitees (or exploiters).

I agree that, when it comes to issues in which one is not directly involved, one should tread carefully; it calls for humility and wisdom. I strongly disagree that one is not entitled to express an opinion or try to effect change.

It seems to me that, among both conservatives and liberals, you'll find wide differences of opinion over just how much they trust political power: should it be wielded whenever it looks like it'll contibute to the common good, or should it be used sparingly and warily, to meddle with people's lives as little as possible? (I myself am kind of stuck in the middle. I don't trust government all that much, but neither do I trust what people will do without government.)

iamthewalrus(:3=

08-22-2004, 01:26 PM

Opposed to abortion: No
Opposed to euthanasia: No
Supportive of capital punishment: No
Opposed to same-sex marriage: Very much no.
Opposed to affirmative action: Yes.

I suppose I don't really fit your definition. But we agree on one point.

SentientMeat

08-22-2004, 01:34 PM

you don't honestly think Maggie Thatcher is a small "l" liberal, do you Sentient?Economically, yes. (That's in UK terms of course. In the US, Thatcher would practically be a leftist.)

Liberal

08-22-2004, 01:36 PM

Funnily enough, here she was called a fiscal conservative. That might have been due to her gushing admiration of President Reagan.

raindog

08-22-2004, 02:06 PM

You miss the point. The consequences of a man's having a say in abortion rights are 100% not his to bear. A man expressing a political opinion--i.e. voting--on abortion rights is the same thing as an Islamist state dictating a woman's dress.

Abortion rights should not be subject to state interference; should not be within the jurisdiction of the government at all. It should be a private decision between a woman and her doctor; no man but the father of the child should have any voice in the matter whatsoever.

The alternative, if you want to talk about slippery slopes, is chaining a woman to a hospital bed and dictating the use of her body against her will.

"........-i.e. voting--on abortion rights is the same thing as an Islamist state dictating a woman's dress......."

That's absolutely not true, and a poor analogy. If the fetus in a woman's womb is indeed a child, a human being, than there is more than the woman's "rights" at stake. There is now a second person who has a direct and compelling stake in the woman's perceived "right to choose."

And despite all of the rhetoric and clever bumperstickers on both sides of the debate, that is the central question: Is this a life, a human being, or is it simply 'non-vital tissue mass?' (Which is exactly how I've seen it phrased)

If it is a child, than the people (Read: the state, even men) have an interest in protecting the life of the [defenseless] child. In that context, the woman's rights must be subordinated.

Currently, it is true that a man has no say as to whether an abortion is chosen or not. In addition, in the cases where he desires that an abortion takes place, and it is not, he is responsible for years of child support. Many men are chagrined at the notion that they have no "rights" in the matter, but only [the potential for] obligations; namely years of child support for a child they did not want.

(It's compelling logic, but I have no sympathy for them. If you engage in activity that produces a child, stand up straight and accept personal responsilbility for your *choices.* The sames goes for a woman. Yet the prevailing attitude for many women is summed up in a statement I saw in a thread some months ago,
" Stop me from an abortion and suddenly I have an unwanted baby on my hands." " There seems to be a total lack of personal responsibility)

It's not lost on many people (men and women) that killing an unborn child often brings charges of murder. If a drunk driver kills an unborn child he will likely be charged with manslaughter, even if she was on her way to an abortion clinic. It is clear that even the law recognizes the rights of the unborn in many circumstances.

But to suggest that the opposition to abortion (which incidentally is shared by both men and women) is the same mindset that puts women in burkas is misguided.

FriarTed

08-22-2004, 02:51 PM

SocCon here!

Opposed to about 95% of abortions

Mostly opposed to legalized euthanasia (esp. active, but oy, I can understand the tough cases.)

Pro-capital punishment but willing to negotiate down
(life w/o parole, chemical castration for sex criminals, branding, maiming)

Opposed to same-sex marriage- oh yeah, but not opposed to civil unions or to getting gov't out of the marriage business & making them all civil unions

Generally libertarian on medical marijuana & leans to decriminalizing ordinary marijuana use

Opposed to quotas & racial factors overriding actual job qualifications, not necessarily all affirmative action

And to add in a few-
Libertarian on adult consensual porn, but conservative about shielding kids from it

Ruthless about banning bestiality porn (believes in incarceration for the produces & forced psychiatric treatment for the performers)

RE any facet of child porn production or possession, see comment on capital punishment

Blalron

08-22-2004, 03:08 PM

I assume you supprot the right of a father to disavow the child and therefore be off the hook for child support? I mean, according to your argument, there is only one responsible parent in this, right?

The father's contribution to the childs existence is minimal and can be completed within minutes. It is the woman who chose to incubate it and supply it with nutrients for 9 months.

furt

08-22-2004, 03:32 PM

Rucksinator

08-22-2004, 05:12 PM

* Opposed to abortion - No, but I wouldn't mind a ban on elective 3rd trimester abortions.
* Opposed to euthanasia - No, but I think my definition differs from raindog's ("or an elderly parent who is a burden"). It's OK if the person being euthanized wants it.
* Supportive of capital punishment - Yes
* Opposed to same-sex marriage - No
* Opposed to affirmative action - Yes

1010011010

08-22-2004, 06:00 PM

Opposed to abortion
No. However, it takes two to tango, and the question arises about how disagreements are settled when the male and female disagree. If the female has no wish to carry a fetus to term, then it is entirely her choice, IMO. If the male does not wish to reproduce, though, I think there should be a process by which he can renounce his parental rights and protect himself from parental liabilities.
Opposed to euthanasia
No. I wouldn't even limit it to terminal illnesses, chronic pain, or similar situations. Limit it to having your affairs in order and a notification of relatives, perhaps...
Supportive of capital punishment
Yes. The purpose of prisons and jails is neither rehabilitation or punishment. It is, quite simply, to seperate certain individuals from society for the protection of the population. How we deal with criminals while they are segregated is where the question of rehabilitation v. punishment properly arrises. Capital punishment is a logical extreme of "seperation from society", especially in cases where there is no intention of returning the individual to free society.
Opposed to same-sex marriage
Meh. Essentially, I'm opposed to marriage... mixed-sex or same-sex. I find it offensive that Tennessee took it upon itself to brand my relationship as "Holy Matrimony". I think there should be secular categories of legally binding personal relationships... and if you want to dress yours up as "marriage" or "holy matrimony" or what-have-you, that's your own business. Anyone who wants the legal status should get a "civil union" as far as the state needs to be concerned... and if they want to call it something else when they send out the inivitations or tell their friends, they can do so.
Opposed to affirmative action
Yes. Institutionalized racism is bad... Institutational counter-racism that is itself just a different kind of instituationalized racism is also bad. Which is not to say institutionalized counter-racism is necessarily bad... just that Affirmative Action is broken.
Supportive of gun rights
Yes. I interpret the 2nd Amendment as being about making sure the average citizens have the ability to fight the US military and win. Anyone who says anything about "legitimate hunting or sporting purpose" is missing the point, IMO.
Opposed to legalization of drugs.
No. Given the previously stated purpose of imprisonment, it's difficult to find a justification for most "victimless crimes". It should be taken into account as a factor for sentencing for other crimes, though.
Opposed to legalization of prostitution.
No. See above. Though it should be controlled in such a way to maintain protections against persons being coerced into the profession.
Supportive of censoring Porn, the internet, "Think of the Children!", etc.
No. This is not the state's job. If kids want to go look at porn, they should be free to do so... if parents don't want their kids looking at porn, they're also free to limit what their kids look at. OTOH, if you're a dirty old man sending kids porn without their request, this falls under a different category.

msmith537

08-22-2004, 07:17 PM

* Opposed to abortion - No (especially if its some girl I knocked up)
* Opposed to euthanasia - Yes (if it's me..for everyone else...meh)
* Supportive of capital punishment - yes
* Opposed to same-sex marriage - meh
* Opposed to affirmative action - yes

KarlWinslow

08-23-2004, 10:18 AM

* Opposed to abortion - Yes
* Opposed to euthanasia - Yes
* Supportive of capital punishment - No, I oppose it
* Opposed to same-sex marriage - Yes
* Opposed to affirmative action - Yes

I stand out on one issue, but I definitely consider myself a social conservative. I'm not going to pay to stay, though.

FWIW, I don't think affirmative action belongs on a list of SocCon issues; I think of it more as a political issue. Plenty of social liberals are opposed to it (think libertarians) and plenty of people who oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, pornography, etc. support it.

smiling bandit

08-23-2004, 10:31 AM

* Opposed to abortion -check
* Opposed to euthanasia -check
* Supportive of capital punishment -not!
* Opposed to same-sex marriage -check!
* Opposed to affirmative action -meh

Abortion: Murder, plain and simple. I get very riled about this issue, because as far as I am concerned everyone who promotes it is aiding and abetting homocide and committing a very grave sin. And I particualrly despise people who think the Catholic church shouldn't even say something about it to their own followers who publicly support it.

Euthanasia: As much self-interest as theory. Pain is to be tolerated; the pentitent man can endure all things with God. if people are having trouble with it, they need to be more connected with society - almost anything can be dealt with, with friends. On the same hand, Euthanasia treats people as a piece of meat. Of course, I also don't want corrupt doctors killing people off - and with legal euthanasia, its something that will start happening a lot. And of course, there will be people who get pressured into it by relatives or doctors.

Capital Punishment: I do oppose capital punishment. On the other hand, were I elected to a high office, I couldn't really keep it from happening. Its so darn hard to care because most of the people who get are such awful humans beings. but overall, yes, I do oppose it and would like to change it to a life sentence without parole. if the political climate was right I would work to end it. On the other hand, i rather shamefully would ignore the McVeigh's and Osama's of the world to the firing squad. I also have no problem blowing the crap out of evil foreign regimes if I deem it neccessary.

Opposed to same-sex marriage: lets not even talk about it. You disagree with me, I *don't* respect that, but its pretty obvious you aren't going to change your mind and I won't either. You obviously are missing a few assumptions. On the other hand, I have no problem with homosexuality itself, I just think they should be chaste about it. And hey, we've got plenty of openings for single priests...

Affirmative action: I oppose it on a number of grounds, most particularly because I think it is distinctly counter-productive. It tends to resut in the hiring of unqualified minorities - and mostly blacks despite the Mexican/Central/South American populations being an equal if not larger problem - and not actual social advancement. Token was a job position in the 70's and 80's. Liberals still haven't learned that you can never, ever do something *for* anyone. You can make it easier or more attractive.

It also appears to be the case that new immigrants from Africa do no worse than other immigrants, which is pretty well.

thermalribbon

08-23-2004, 10:43 AM

Opposed to Abortion in almost all cases. How many people really get pregnant from rape or incest. Most people, I feel, use it as birth control. Any way, it ought to be left up to the states. Why can't New York allow abortion and Pennsylvania prohibit it?

Support Voluntary Suicide. If I ever am suffering through a terminal disease, I should at least be allowed to decide my own fate.

Support Capital Punishment. Some crimes are so heinous, society should impose a death penalty.

Support Gay Marriage. Although I'm not thrilled with the way the courts are handling it. It also ought to be a voter decided issue at the state level. If my state had it on the ballot, I'd vote in favor of gay marriage.

Oppose Affirmative Action. The government ought not to attempt imposing some correction of past wrongs by favoring certain groups and therefore alienating other groups.

Steve MB

08-23-2004, 11:59 AM

I do oppose capital punishment. On the other hand, were I elected to a high office, I couldn't really keep it from happening.
This is a craven cop-out -- if you were elected to a governorship of the presidency, you most certainly could keep it from happening (through exersize of executive clemency).

Debaser

08-23-2004, 01:21 PM

* Opposed to abortion - No.

* Opposed to euthanasia - No.

* Supportive of capital punishment - No.

* Opposed to same-sex marriage - Yes. (Because of the way it's being done with judicial activism - not because I really mind the concept.)

* Opposed to affirmative action - Yes. AA is racist. I'm against racism.

However, according to Airman Doors' test [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=272103] in this thread[/b] I'm a moderate conservative on non-fiscal issues. I certainly would call myself more socially conservative than the center of the SDMB.

But, to answer your question, I don't think there are "socially conservative" posters on the SDMB in large numbers. Maybe if they are, they just lay low and stay out of GD. They certainly would not be welcome if they harbor such opinions on a liberal message board. Fiscal conservatives have a hard enough time. The social conservative viewpoint could quickly result in pile ons and banning if they aren't careful.

Debaser

08-23-2004, 01:33 PM

Fixed code:

However, according to Airman Doors' test in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=272103) I'm a moderate conservative on non-fiscal issues. I certainly would call myself more socially conservative than the center of the SDMB.

John Mace

08-23-2004, 01:39 PM

* Opposed to abortion - I support parental-consent laws and oppose late-term (post-viability) abortion.
* Opposed to euthanasia - conflicted, but generally yes.
* Supportive of capital punishment - I'm okay with it in principle; though in reality, our system is far too deeply flawed.
* Opposed to same-sex marriage - no
* Opposed to affirmative action - yes, in general though in some cases it may be neccessary. I'm big supporter of "affirmative access" type programs (i.e. requiring recruiting efforts, etc.)

FWIW, I support legalizing drugs and prostitution.

Your call.

I line up pretty much the same way, although I think the term "euthanasia" is too broad to just say you support or oppose it. I'd need a clear definition before I weighed in. I'm generally opposed to capital punishment, and would support a constitutional amendment to end it. Until that happens, I don't see it as materially different than allowing the state to imprison someone for life without the possibility of parole.

No way you're a social conservative, and neither am I. :)

Psycho Pirate

08-23-2004, 02:20 PM

* Opposed to abortion: Yes, I am opposed to murder. Sex comes with consequences that both parties are aware of before the act. In cases of rape, it is a horrible situation, but two wrongs don't make a right. In the rare cases of the life of the mother, I have yet to meet a mother not willing to die for their child.
* Opposed to euthanasia: Yes.
* Supportive of capital punishment: Yes, preferably carried out 5 minutes after sentencing. Death Row is cruel and unusual punishment
* Opposed to same-sex marriage: Yes, primarily for religious reasons, although I am not a huge fan of government benefits for any married couples.
* Opposed to affirmative action: Yes, as I consider it to be the same thing as racism.

Count me in as socially conservative.

raindog

08-23-2004, 02:35 PM

Debaser said:

But, to answer your question, I don't think there are "socially conservative" posters on the SDMB in large numbers. Maybe if they are, they just lay low and stay out of GD. They certainly would not be welcome if they harbor such opinions on a liberal message board. Fiscal conservatives have a hard enough time. The social conservative viewpoint could quickly result in pile ons and banning if they aren't careful.

I would certainly agree not in large numbers. I don't know if they stay low or not, but GD is the only forum I look at. (I have little time as it is)

As to being welcome or not, I would say that I have been treated with respect and dignity for the most part. I've never felt harrassed or unwelcome in spite of the fact that my views have often been contrary to the prevalent social/political climate here.

Your last sentence is the one that interested me. It wouldn't speak much for the SDMB folks if they banned SoCons simply based on their views. Removing a significant part of the dialogue on idealogical grounds is hardly a recipe for fighting ignorance. So why would a SoCon need to be careful? (vis s vis a SoLib?) I've never been asked to leave by either a member, or the SDMB brass.

I have no reason to believe that they are anything but fair, and getting banned results from being a bonehead, whether conservative or liberal.

Nobody

08-23-2004, 06:44 PM

* Opposed to abortion - Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger.

* Opposed to euthanasia - Mixed feelings, which I think would be too hard to describe here.

* Supportive of capital punishment - Yes. Let the punishment fit the crime.

* Opposed to same-sex marriage - I support same sex civil unions.

* Opposed to affirmative action - Quotas and set asides, yes. Preference of a woman or minority for hiring or promotion, yes. If, after taking that out, there's any other aspect of affirmative action remaining, then I might support that.

Also, topics mentioned by others:

*Legalized marijuana - Unsure.

*Legalized prostitution - Against.

*Gun rights - Support. But I also don't have a problem with some gun control also, because I believe that guns should only be owned by mentally sound, law abiding citizens.

*Porn - Banning it is totally unrealistic, but I am strongly in support of shielding children from it, including letting public libraries put filters on their computers.

foolsguinea

08-23-2004, 10:12 PM

I think you can be a political moralist of progressive stripe & agree with various things some would think "socially conservative." Social conservatism is a bit of an odd (even historically ignorant) idea, really. Those who have pushed for abstinence from drug use, say, started out as radicals. Most "socially conservative" positions were innovations at least once.

That said, I am a philosophical moralist, & tend to have mild social-conservative sympathies.
~ Used to be opposed to abortion, but what exactly are we going to do the perpetrators if we criminalise it? In an age of overpopulation, we have bigger worries.
~ Not really opposed to euthanasia, & don't think such opposition is necessary anything to do with "conservative."
~ I am for capital punishment in theory. Draco was misunderstood. ;)
~ Sort of leery of same-sex marriage in theory, but kind of libertarian in practice, since losing an argument about it in the Pit several years ago. More specifically, I abstained in this year's Missouri referendum to constitutionally prohibit it, whereas some close friends were against that prohibition, because I could see both sides.
~ I'm a libertarian on affirmative action. People can use whatever criteria they want to hire people, including racial exclusion or racial quotas, so long as they aren't restraining people's ability to be hired at all. So, I'm not opposed to affirmative action, but I am opposed to a lot of affirmative action cases.

foolsguinea

08-23-2004, 10:20 PM

~ Legalizing marijuana is asking for marijuana-related road fatalities. You can legalise after the fossil fuels run out & all the automobiles are junked.

~ Prostitution is illegal for a reason. It's not that prostitutes sell their bodies, it's that they sell them too cheaply, to too many, & for the wrong things.

~ Gun control is really an urban/rural difference. A perfectly reasonable-seeming hunting weapon is out of place in a densely populated area.

~ As for pornography: When one of <a href=http://scarygoround.com>John Allison</a>'s characters proposed, as a way to determine whether man is basically good or bad, a global vote on whether music or pornography should cease to exist; I had to think which was good & which was bad. Um, I deplore mind-warping violence in art, but I'm not really anti-porn specifically.

foolsguinea

08-23-2004, 10:22 PM

I was going to preview, then decided not to. Bleh.

Bryan Ekers

08-23-2004, 11:22 PM

I'm Canadian, can I play?

* Supportive of abortion on demand
* Supportive of euthanasia, with regulations
* Supportive of capital punishment, but opposed to its return to Canada on purely practical grounds, i.e. I don't wish to see our judiciary turned into an appeals industry
* Supportive of same-sex marriage
* Opposed to affirmative action

Hey, I'm a pretty positive guy!

TeaElle

08-24-2004, 07:25 AM

Opposed to abortion -- Deeply, but would prefer to see women given better options and opportunities to avoid unwanted pregnancies and to deal with them when they occur over a legal ban.
Opposed to euthanasia -- From medical personnel, yes, but mainly because of the conflicts of interest engendered in allowing the practice. (And the classic slippery slope question -- once it's allowed, what's to stop it from becoming mandatory?) But if you want your husband to smother you with a pillow because you can't take it anymore, that's on you and him, I suppose, and I might be persuaded to use my intense knowledge from 13 years of Law & Order and 30 years of mystery novels to help you craft a reasonable cover story for the cops who will investigate.
Supportive of capital punishment -- In concept, yes. In practice, not so much. If it were more uniformly used, and only in cases with incontrovertible evidence (i.e. strong eyewitnesses, DNA, fingerprints, gunshot residue, confessions) I'd be fine with it.
Opposed to same-sex marriage -- Nope. Strongly supportive of it and cannot fathom how it's a "conservative" principle to support a constraint of liberty.
Opposed to affirmative action -- In concept, no. In practice, yes. I'd rather see all of the effort and money poured into affirmative action going toward improving our pathetic education system and advocating strong, intact families, both of which would have a huge impact on narrowing the acheivement gap between whites and minorities in the U.S.
Supportive of gun rights -- You bet your sweet bippy. You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Seriously. Worry about stolen, black market guns. Worry about criminals, who are usually doing other stuff that ought not be doing long before they get their hands on a gun. Leave me and other law abiding folks the hell alone.
Decriminalization of drugs -- For it in the cases of some drugs. Against it in the cases of drugs that can kill in one dose. It's not a logically/theoretically consistent position, but I just have a hard time wrapping my brain around legal heroin or crack, but legal marijuana doesn't bother me nearly so much.
Prostitution & Porn -- (I'm trying hard not to... oh has to be done -- band name!) Uh, anyway, at the moment I've vascillated back toward the "your body, your choice" position on both. So long as the industries are regulated to protect against the spread of disease and coercion, and kids are kept away (from participating -- protection from seeing porn is a parents' job) I'm okay with them.

duffer

08-24-2004, 07:32 AM

Too many have said it better than I. (Just don't hold it against them)

Conservative and not changing. (Off to target shoot)

Debaser

08-24-2004, 08:56 AM

As to being welcome or not, I would say that I have been treated with respect and dignity for the most part. I've never felt harrassed or unwelcome in spite of the fact that my views have often been contrary to the prevalent social/political climate here.

Good for you. Being a conservative, you will find that you are outnumbered on the SDMB. This means that you will find you must perform to a higher standard than other posters. That you have had no problems as of yet would indicate to me that you are a reasonable and friendly poster. Because, after 300 posts, you would have been flamed otherwise.

Your last sentence is the one that interested me. It wouldn't speak much for the SDMB folks if they banned SoCons simply based on their views. Removing a significant part of the dialogue on idealogical grounds is hardly a recipe for fighting ignorance. So why would a SoCon need to be careful? (vis s vis a SoLib?) I've never been asked to leave by either a member, or the SDMB brass.

I have no reason to believe that they are anything but fair, and getting banned results from being a bonehead, whether conservative or liberal.

True. Those who get banned do so because of behavior, not because of political orientation. I meant not to suggest that there is some conspiracy among the mods. Indeed, they do a great job of being fair and unbiased.

However, it is simply a naturally occurring event. Because there are so many liberals, they end up getting away with more. Out of line posts are more likely to go unnoticed. If they step across a line, they are more likely to be gently nudged back by their peers. However, as a conservative, if you cross the same line a pile on is likely to result. The end result is that many more conservatives get in trouble than liberals. After all, the mods go to where the fires are, and it's usually a conservative being burned.

This is all simply MHO, but after years on the SDMB I have noticed a distinct pattern. Two posters (one liberal and one conservative) could both join the SDMB. They are both a little rough around the edges. They are rude, bend the rules and not open to new ideas. The liberal will be gently coaxed into the correct behavior over time and will learn from mistakes. The conservative will be isolated and attacked relentlessly.

JRDelirious

08-24-2004, 09:23 AM

[the following response is a CARICATURE]
The liberal will be gently coaxed into the correct behavior over time and will learn from mistakes. The conservative will be isolated and attacked relentlessly. That's where he gets in trouble: the conservative refuses to admit he's mistaken and will stick to his guns -- and why not, after all, he knows he is objectively right, by God!! And in any case, isn't dealing with aproblem with gentle, sensitive appeasement a wimpy liberal trait, while conservatives appreciate and exhalt steadfast directness and strength? :p ;) :D

[/caricature]

But yeah, you are right in that the Mods can't help but have to intervene where there's already a conflagration, and very often by the time they get there it's the party that feels backed against the figurative wall that will have behaved more aggressively.

As to the dearth of "social conservatives" in the SDMB, what I see we DO have is a lack of straight-"party"-line followers. Just look at all those criteria above: hardly anyone will give you a straight unconditional "yes" to every single one. AND, as mentioned, in the SDMB we're far likelier to run into people who ARE supportive of many "conservative" positions but do not want them to be government-enforced.