Is homosexuality wrong? Not in my book. I think the argument that gay marriage *might* undermine traditional marriage is pretty weak. Looks to me like a natural outgrowth of the idea that marriage is a freely-chosen union of two individuals. I quite like that idea, don’t care to go back to the more institutional view that was so bound up in rigid gender roles.

But do I want any of my kids to be gay? Well, no, not really.

And then I find myself in the odd position of been a pronatalist pro-choicer too.

Are big families great, even if they are pretty poor? Sure!
Should anyone be forced into giving birth just because they had sex? Lord, no.
Do I think single/poor parents should be entitled to some level of state support for their kids? Yes!
Do I think single women of limited means should probably have abortions instead of babies? Yes! (hey, nothing stifles your options on the job AND the marriage market like a rugrat. I’d drive my daughter halfway across the country for an abortion if needed. But I’d prefer not to have to.)

Economically, I disregard anything that comes out of anyone’s mouth if it’s proceded with “The country’s going bankrupt! The Chinese own us now!” Especially if you also tell me that we are printing money like mad. One of those things may be true, but I don’t see how they can both be.

I don’t believe in God, at least, not a God who is much fussed about us on anything resembling an individual level, have respect for the traditions of my elders but recognize that those traditions arose out of circumstances that aren’t necessarily ours, and generally oppose attempts to preserve their superstitions in amber.

that’s kind of retarded.

Some “progressive” ideas that social conservatives earnestly resist unambiguously meet the burden of proof required by hesitant Straussians, as these ideas serve the basic principles of the Enlightenment far better than the reactionary opposition. An atheist may value human fecundity, but cannot consider it an absolute good in principle. Similarly, atheists are incapable of considering abortion or homosexuality inherently “evil,” as they do not believe in evil in the first place. Any negative aspects that an atheist may see in gays and abortion must be balanced with the positive implications of gay rights and abortion rights. Religious people use absolutes to make their moral judgments (good vs. evil, in many cases). Atheists have no “divine” compass to conveniently make ethical decisions for them, and therefore are more inclined to consider evidence and reason when making moral judgments. The anti-gay sentiments don’t hold up under such scrutiny. And the backlash against the gay rights movement is a huge part of social conservatism in the U.S. (one of the two hallmarks of the religious right, according to Robert Putnam’s newest book “American Grace”).

Until someone explains it to me better, I cannot understand how an atheists’ secularly-derived social priorities could possibly overlap so heavily with the religious right that the atheist considers herself a social conservative. If you wish to enlighten me, please consider the two central political issues of the religious right: abortion rights and gay marriage.

Only Razib can speakk for himself (and has, to great confusuion among the commentariot), but one can see a place for light governmental regulation and safety netting combined with some appreciation for traditional approaches to social structuring (aka: conservativism) without being driven to that opinion by some sacred text.

i didn’t say anything like that. if you restate what i say in your own words like that again, i’ll ban you. and don’t be a retard on this thread people, or i’ll close it.

Unless of course, we are using different definitions.

Jeff, please enlighten us. It seems you view belief in God as mandatory for making those types of moral judgments. I disagree. Seems to me an atheist could have secular reasons for making those statements, e.g., some atheist might think human fecundity is the highest good, another might think maintaining the traditional values of one’s culture/society/ethnicity is the highest good, etc.

Zephyr, there aren’t very many libertarians who identify as liberals in my experience. There was a movement to start encouraging that during the last election cycle. (I seem to recall Wil Wilkerson encouraging liberaltarian for instance) Seems to me you typically end up with two groups: libertarians who hate both parties and libertarians who find conservatives the lesser of two evils and think they can get more done there. There are social libertarians who see that as the most important issue of course and can stomach heavy government regulation. (And let’s be honest, despite the rhetoric, it’s not like Republicans really hate government when they are in charge)

Note: I’m neither a social conservative nor a libertarian. Lest anyone get any ideas.

You’re not a conservative, you’re a *fiscal* conservative.

Don’t know how significant it was but doing RELIGID vs PARTYID gives a more evened out perspective with only the “Strong Republican” being low for the Nones. (With Ind being highest)

BTW – I liked was the ARIS report did. Ask if you have no religion. Avoids the stigma of atheist or agnostic. I personally suspect there are more atheists than normally reported precisely because of the stigma. And, as I’ve noted before, at a certain point it’s pretty hard to distinguish deists from atheists anyway.

… libertarians who check the conservative option.

Doesn’t this describe you?

I am a traditionalist and I suspect that my grandparents (had they been buried) would turn over in their graves if I did not follow family traditions. Therefore, I am among the unwashed horde in the A&A/liberal cell.