Actually, I would argue that there is no conflict between the two, that actually being politically conservative *requires* social liberalism. I would argue that the conflict is the other way around, being socially 'conservative' means you want govt intervention in private, social matters.
:-D
Cuz to me, 'politically conservative' means 'I believe in a conservative use of govt power'. Careful. Common sense. Like 'I spend conservatively'.
I think gays should be treated just like anyone else. I don't think govt should be sanctioning any marriages, but if it does, people should be able to marry any other human being they want. There should be no 'vice' laws, people should be free to do what they want until they harm others.
Libertarians are 'political conservatives' to the extreme. Unfortunately, libertarians also believe in other things like the non-initiation of force, which I do NOT believe in.
So I'm no libertarian either.
I'm just some wierd guy on the net with his own wierd opinions. :-D
The first inalienable right granted by God is LIFE.
Protecting life is part of the government’s job.
Actually, I would argue that there is no conflict between the two, that actually being politically conservative *requires* social liberalism.
Okay. Please explain what you mean by "social liberalism", and then how being "politically conservative" requires it.
I would argue that the conflict is the other way around, being socially 'conservative' means you want govt intervention in private, social matters.
Since your original statement was "I'm socially liberal, but politically conservative", before we can consider the relevance and validity of this assertion, we need to know your definition of "socially liberal" and your explanation of the causal link to "political conservatism". Exactly how does political conservatism require social liberalism?