Liberal (at least, not conservative)
Currently a philosophy major at a pretty liberal college (Macalester, St. Paul).
I follow my own brand of Libertarianism. That is, I feel that small government is highly important, and that anything above the level of "state" should be concerned exclusively with inter-state economic policy, and economic policy regarding other nations.
I would leave it at "no government beyond the local/state level," but I feel that corporations are effectively an alternate form of government, usually an oligarchy, that also should remain at the local/state level. Thus the need for interstate economic control.
I'm an agnostic - God cannot be "proven" in any scientific manner. Instead, belief in God needs to be achieved via intuitive personal encounter or realization. That is, I believe the only way to become Christian is to be "born again."
I have leanings towards Zen Taoism, at its most non-theistic.
Additionally, I feel the concepts of "benevolent God" and any sort of eternal Hell are contradictory.
I feel that the stances of pro-abortion and anti-death penalty are not contradictory. A fetus, while "human" and "alive," is not a "person," in the same way that a rational adult is. Abortion should not be done frivolously, as a fetus does represent the potential of a "person," but it is not "wrong" in the same sense or for the same reasons that the death penalty is "wrong."
I am not "pro-abortion" or "anti-life." I would not "root for" an abortion. However, it should not be dismissed off-hand, and anyone who would undertake an abortion on account of simple convenience or "I just didn't want a baby" has other problems anyway.
I feel that a semblance of a nuclear family, with two parents, one (or both!) of whom devotes a significant portion of their time to the care of their children, is pretty much necessary for the proper raising of a child.
Whether this is a man and woman, or two men, or two women, doesn't matter, nor does it matter whether the man or the woman is the one primarily devoting their time to the child's development.
Or I suppose if they can afford it a (full-time) nanny.
Although I will not discount automatically "proof" that gay/lesbian couples result in less balanced children, I am highly suspicious of the conclusions that can be obtained from numerical "proof," and feel that there are plenty of reasonably structured homosexual families and plenty of completely screwed up traditional families, such that the homosexual ones shouldn't be banned. This is specifically in relation to the banning of, or desire to ban, homosexual couples from adopting children, as well as any bans on same-sex marriage.
Also, the environment is totally messed up and it is our fault.
Also, Ann Coulter is absolutely horrible, and although I can understand some people agreeing with her, I am surprised and suspicious of claims that she represents conservatives as a whole. Or that she's serious.
Hm, don't want to end on that.
Oh, why the evolution hate?
It's not correct and there are plenty of flaws, but that just means it's not done yet as a theory.
I have a hard time understanding the alternative. Intelligent design is just the teleological argument as proposed by scientists instead of philosophers/theologists, and the teleological argument is pretty weak.