If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Anything that serves humanity is good, obviously. The only argument someone might make against the claim is that what serves trans-national corporations necessarily serves humanity, and that's not true. If anything that could make a profit were necessarily a benefit, we should make crack legal and also allow dumping of toxic by-products into local rivers and streams.

i'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

why would one even think that? it's kind of mindless. if you were a German citizen during the third reich, would you support Hitler? If a U.S. president decided to bomb some tiny helpless nation in order to detract attention from some current challenge to his presidency, would you support that?

no one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

Depends on what's meant by proud. My country is not *better* than the rest *just* because I was born in it, but that's no reason not to have national spirit. Just like I can be proud of myself, for whatever I have accomplished, yet hope that my neighbor is proud of himself as well. If pride is snobbery, that's a different matter.

our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

1. Every race has qualities, possibly many qualities, that are superior to the respective qualities of some other races.
2. That doesn't make any one race overall superior to any other in qualities.
3. Even if it does, that doesn't make one race *better* than another, superior qua superior to another, or deserving of more respect or consideration than another race.
4. The question is not clear on whether "compared with" refers to the superiority of the respective qualities or to how many qualities are superior, so it's ambiguous.
5. It also sounds like it's trying to ask something other than what it's actually asking, which can make it hard to answer.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

pretty superficial to choose whom you associate with on the basis that it will help you spite someone else.

military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

Yes and no. Obviously, rules aren't always perfect, so unless international law is extremely lax, there may very well be some actions that are justified, on the individual level, that defy international law. The problem is that international law is not that strong to begin with, it's not easy to bring all these countries together, and so if international law is considered to be something to be broken when one deems it's appropriate, then there is virtually no international law at all.

there is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

FOX network comes to mind.. oh, and of course, Michael Moore.

Now, the economy. We're talking attitudes here, not the FTSE index.

people are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

People of various nationalities, at least in this country, seem to mix fluidly. Class might be a different matter. The rich think they're better than the poor, and probably everyone else as well. Half of social interaction and bonds formed happens at the workplace, or at school, and obviously people with the same job or who live in the same area roughly are of the same class. And the homeless practically only associate with the homeless.

controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

Unemployment can lead to people begging for change and dying on the streets. Inflation is an inconvenience that means your money will degrade over time if it's not invested. I say controlling unemployment is more important. If you can't tell, I don't know much about those issues though.

because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

I think that truth is self-evident, and it's also representative of how corporations generally need regulation in various forms and how just being a financially successful company does not necessitate that that company does humanity more good than harm. Many corporations are entities without conscience; conscience is an impediment to monetary success, so our "social darwinism" system determines that it's mainly sociopaths that have the most economic and legislative power. The *least* we can do is curb it.

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.

Why wouldn't it be? If Person A needs something, isn't it good that Person A gets it? If Person B is best at something, isn't it better than Person B does it than that Person C, or Person A, does? Of course the statement is suggestive of fascist communism which is something we're taught to hate, but the statement in itself is merely reasonable. And communism doesn't have to be fascist. Wouldn't it be great if we all lived in a society where people freely donated their time and effort to the needs of their neighbors and of everyone, out of love?

it's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

Is it? I don't know. It would be nice if tap water were more drinkable. But it's good that we have tap water at all. Going to the store to buy water isn't any worse than going to the nearest river to collect it.. or would/should/could people draw it from a well instead and drink it? And can we not do that now? And is having to get drinking water from the store reflective more of society or of overpopulation or the fact that people choose not to live next to rivers? And isn't tap water ok to drink with a sufficient filter?

land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.

Of course not. It's just Earth. It's the place where we live. It's The World. Who has a right to possess something that's been here for 4.5 billion years? That is the foundation of life itself? The ownership of land is actually a way of saying 'don't do anything to "my" area of land or you will be physically abused.' (or indirectly threatened with physical abuse, as all law enforcement does ultimately.) It's another mode of separatism and fear/threat. Also, it's why a homeless person can hardly find a place to sleep, let alone arbitrarily build himself a hut somewhere to live in.

it is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

It's not as regrettable as if they actually hurt society with their manipulations of money (which is also a likely scenario). But it's still regrettable because that money could go to better causes than building somebody a yacht or a mansion. Of course, that argument holds whether they made a fortune and contributed or made a fortune and didn't contribute. Also, anybody who makes millions of dollars probably made so much more money than how much they contributed that it makes the amount of contribution they made insignificant, because one man can only do so much contributing in one lifetime..after that, it's all manipulation.

protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.

I don't think so. It sounds like it's just a way to make sure you remain richer than the other country. My country and the welfare of my people isn't any more important than any other country and the welfare of their people. We're all humans. Yes, each agency has to take care of itself, but that doesn't have to mean to the degree that it seeks imbalance between it and the other agencies.

the only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

No, a company is an active agent, and as such it has all the responsibility that any other active agent, such as a person, has, and those activities are chosen and executed by human beings, such as the CEO. The CEO can either have a social conscience or not. To tolerate or accept companies caring *only* about the bottom dollar is to tolerate or accept malignancy. Growth only for growth's sake is the modus operandi of cancer.

the rich are too highly taxed.

No, they're not taxed enough. Think of how many *useful* things we can do with that money that would otherwise be spent on exorbitant luxuries. I know everyone thinks that if they can make that much money, they deserve to be able to reap its rewards. That's because of our attachment to the American Dream. Since we're trained to think that happiness comes in the form of material possessions, and that success comes in the form of intelligence, effort, luck or merit, we like to think that, yes, we *could* become rich, and we like to feel vicariously happy for those who do make it big. Statistics shows that affluence does not greatly influence happiness levels; happiness lies in your own hand. And success is not measured in money and comes directly from mentality. “A systematic study of 22 people who won major lotteries found that they reverted to their baseline level of happiness over time, winding up no happier than 22 matched controls” (Authentic Happiness, Martin Seligman, pg. 48)
“Within a few years, [paraplegics] wind up only slightly less happy on average than individuals who are not paralyzed” (ibid, pg. 48)
All this *beside* the fact that the rich find loopholes to pay even less taxes than you or I do.

those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .

Ultimately, medical care should not be about how much you can pay. One person's health and life is not worth more than another's because he can pay more. That being said, given society as it is, those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of, or more precisely more of, medical care. Why? Because there is practically no limit on how much can be spent on someone to keep them alive. And you can't afford, through universal health care, to say the sky's the limit with everyone who has health problems. So, per the fact you can't (shouldn't) say, "regardless of how much money you have, we will not permit you to purchase this extra medical treatment that will save your life, or your legs, etc.", those who can pay should have the right to "higher 'standards'' of medical care.

governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

Absolutely. Bygons will be bygons, right? Wrong. If you're misleading the public, you're obviously not working *for* them. You're trying to get them to decide to do (or not do) something that they would not do (or do) if they were aware of all the facts, ergo you're trying to make them make a decision contrary to their own benefit, ergo you're working *against* them. This is perfectly representative of the sociopathy of many corporations. In fact, I truly believe that the government should exile people who intentionally mislead the public, such as in advertizing, to any degree. Even if the degree of the infraction is slight, in indicates that their motivations are against their fellow man rather than for, just to fill their own pockets. Except like I said, that no other country is more important than mine, so I wouldn't want to foist those people upon them.

a genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

yes and no. How can a market be "genuinely free" if it imposes restrictions? While that may be a contradiction, we do have to impose restrictions to prevent and dissolve monopolies. Which means that, no, a genuine free market doesn't require restrictions (because that's a contradiction), but therefore a genuine free market isn't what we need. Capitalism isn't a pristine ideal fallen from the heavens; it's merely a demonically effective Nash equilibrium of selfism..so it's not always perfect.

the freer the market, the freer the people.

There has to be so much law just to keep the "free" market in place and functioning, that it's of little bearing whether the market is totally "free" within that infrastructural context. E.g., you need theft control, contract enforcement, tax law, protection of one's person and life, minimum wage, social security, etc., etc., so it's not like a "free market" == a libertarian utopia. Just like we need restraining orders, we need to restrict some aspects of the market to protect us against the sociopathic vampires of business.

Now a look at some of your personal social values …

abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

I know it sounds reasonable to allow abortion, because the mother can't necessarily afford to raise the child, the child might be retarded, deformed, he would be neglected, or maybe it's a rape baby, etc., but if you think about it it's not very consistant. If a mother threw her newly born baby into a dumpster for *any* of these reasons she'd go to prison. Now let's say she, through abortion, kills her 9-month-old fetus. What's the difference between this 9-month-old fetus and a newborn baby? Not much. But one is supposed to be "a part of her body" and she should have a right to her own body. Let alone the fact that it's another human being in there.
Yes, in some states it's illegal to commit abortion so late in pregnancy. But how would we possibly know when the appropriate cut-off limit is? It's obviously not immoral to ovulate without fertilization and have a period, but somewhere in between there and a newborn child, it becomes murder to commit abortion. And it's debatable where that point is. We don't really know anything about life, despite what medical science will try to convince you of. It can't measure life directly, only its biological couplings. Now, if you have a gun pointed at a target and there may or may not be someone standing behind that target, do you pull the trigger? I think not.

all authority should be questioned.

The authorities that be just aren't good enough to not warrant questioning. Authorities are flawed humans. If we mindlessly follow authority, we may end up doing all kinds of atrocious acts. The Standford prison experiment and the Milgrim experiment instantly come to mind.. oh, and war.

an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

An eye for an eye and everyone's blind. Two wrongs don't make a right (but three lefts do). There is no philosophical (viz., thoughtful) justification for retribution. You could reach and pull out something, but it comes down to that retaliation is just a dark, twisted desire to inflict damage on another person so that you'll feel better. And the great thing you can do to heal humanity's karma is to accept abuse without a brooding grudge or inflicting damage back onto them and perpetuating the cycle. Conversations with God says, "all attack is a call for help." I don't know if that's true, but it's an odd coincidence that 9/11 == 9-1-1. And I do think that everyone who inflicts damage on others was themselves damaged, ultimately. You just can't always see it because what we live in is so far removed from being a utopian society.

taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.

Just because something cannot survive on a commercial basis *does not* mean that it's not financially worth it. Some examples are public education, social security, the NSA, the police force, the FBI, roads & highways, the Food and Drug Administration, Fire & Rescue, parks and libraries. I believe that theatres and museums in particular are things that need to be placed in this category. I think that art is something that needs to be sponsored. It's hard to make a living on art, but art probably improves human progress--and I mean *real* progress, not technological progress--greatly because it expands our perspectives. Museums expand knowledge, similarly to what the public education system does, in addition to cultivation.

schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.

Schools are like prisons. Children are held hostage in them. I'll quote someone I once knew: "I remember this girl in 4th grade. She peed on herself because a teacher ignored her raised hand. That is terrorism right there." Those children who don't have the discipline to sit quietly and listen to a teacher talk endlessly about unimportant facts in this unnatural environment are given medication to help them concentrate. Nothing like a little neurochemical coercion to aid in the psychological and ideological coercion to conformity. If schools taught anything meaningful, that would at least partially justify the above, but for the most part it's memorizing facts, a good portion of them questionable, and preparing them to be effective cogs in the economic machine. How will they sit for 8 hours in front of the cash register if they don't know math? How will they submit to their bosses if they're not subversed by their teachers early on? And lastly, how is education supposed to satisfy a healthy thirst for knowledge, when they're not given a chance to ask for it or receive it on their own terms.

all people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.

This is the third or fourth question that tries to ask one thing while actually asking something else. People naturally keep to their own kind, in a general sense. That's why we have cliques, that's why we have buddies. That's why kids like to hang out with kids and adults like to hang out with adults. It's the simple law of attraction, like attracts like. So is it better that different sorts of people 'should' (better that they should? how does that make sense?) keep to their own kind? Well if that's what people like to do, then yes, it's better that people do that, of course. So the question, as stated, is meaningless. But the question is obviously asking about more sinister intentions in a rather vague way. Does it mean that if a black person gets on the bus with me, he deserves the evil eye? I guess it means *something* like that, and I think the obvious answer is that anybody who feels that way is a dunderhead.

good parents sometimes have to spank their children.

Spanking or even threatening to spank is abusive, violent, and subversive.. that's not love. I know that many parents in America think that spanking is a necessity, that otherwise you couldn't control your children. And little do they know that in some cultures, like Norway, spanking is highly taboo, and I think even illegal, yet somehow Norwegians seem to get along fine. It's actually considered one of the best places in the world to live. I think that part of the problem is that Americans just don't *know* how to raise their children otherwise, because they don't have any good examples, because everyone here believes you simply subvert them by any means necessary to get your way. It reminds me that I once read that native Americans have a tendency to mentor their children by teasing rather than by punishment.. but that probably requires a whole new level of rapport between parent and child..

it's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.

Yes, parents are idiots and don't know how to best raise children, so there's no reason a child shouldn't keep secrets from their parents. They should have some privacy. That may prevent them from being totally controlled and smothered, especially regarding the issue of sex. Whether parents like it or not, adolescents are sexual beings and they're gonna have sex. Parents won't have it because we're still in the wake of puritanical ideas about sex and how it's somehow dirty.

possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.

Yes, but I can't even argue for this position because I don't know why it's a criminal offence to begin with. Marijuanna isn't that dangerous. Perhaps it slows you down as a cog in the economic machine. Maybe that's why it's illegal. Or maybe it's a gateway drug, but then.. if it were legal, would it be a gateway drug? Alcohol isn't a gateway drug..

the prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

Absolutely not. Schooling needs to refine children, to teach them what's right, and let alone relevant facts about society, culture and the world that don't directly have to do with the job market. One thing I would definitely like to see in schools is Positive Psychology. From Wikipedia: 'Positive psychology is a recent branch of scientific psychology that "studies the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive."' This is opposed to normal psychology which focuses mainly on pathologies. Or even better, here are some ideas for courses from Conversations with God book 2. Each one is a separate course, and they're not meant to be *additional* to the usual fact-based courses; they're meant to be the primary curriculum, especially at the earlier ages:
• Understanding Power
• Peaceful Conflict Resolution Elements of Loving Relationships
• Personhood and Self Creation ‘Body, Mind and Spirit: How They Function
• Engaging Creativity
• Celebrating Self, Valuing Others ‘joyous Sexual Expression
• Fairness
• Tolerance
• Diversities and Similarities
• Ethical Economics
• Creative Consciousness and Mind Power
• Awareness and Wakefulness
• Honesty and Responsibility
• Visibility and Transparency
• Science and Spirituality

people with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

People may use the right to reproduce irresponsibly, but reproducing is a God-given right. It's totally essential to being an Earth-based life form, like breathing, and the government has no right to put restrictions on it. To even conceive of such a thing is ridiculous; to actually implement it is more audacious than I can describe. There are some laws that I don't agree with, maybe vehemently disagree with, but a law restricting whether someone can reproduce, I am cognitively unable to take seriously. It doesn't compute. The Venn diagram just doesn't intersect. Although having to go to war with the government, may compute..

the most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.

Bullshit. People are oranges, discipline is the clockwork orange. Now, discipline in itself can be a virtue, when a person desires it and cultivates it willingly. But discipline by subversion, as something that children have to "accept", is not. Saying the most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline is to say that we will not accept them behaving in ways that we do not prefer.

there are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.

Yes, but only because there *are* no truly civilized cultures in this world. That culture would not engage in war, even if were being attacked, and would not need laws. Nor would its members injure each other as they sometimes do in tribal societies. If you look at the atrocities that humanity by and large inflict on itself and the rest of the world, a "savage" society is a welcome relief; at least they're connected to nature and vitality. At least they're healthy. At least they don't systematically cause the extinction of uncountable species.

those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.

Not true. Because the workforce is not a sublime ideal. Just the fact that people who slip through the cracks can end up on the street corner asking for change proves this. You don't know what the reasons of people who are able to work are to refuse the so-called opportunity, the opportunity for wage slavery. And not to mention that some of those people who are deemed "able" may not really be able on all levels. It's easy to see why the sentiment expressed in this question is commonplace; it stems from anger. If it were up to me, absolutely everyone would be guaranteed housing, clothing, food and perhaps other basic needs related to psychological and spiritual contentment/fulfillment.

when you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

Depends on how you think about it. If you just think about it over and over with no solutions, then that will only bring you down. But other than that, it's better not to be in denial. It's better to be wholesome, knowing that what problem ails you will not be forever. Or if it will be, then you can't change it so what's there to think about?

first-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.

Obviously there would be exceptions, everybody is different, some people are really amazing, so saying "never" doesn't make any sense. As for the general case, I really don't know. Nor do I care. I am not against immigration anyway. People who are are just afraid of sharing their wealth with people from less fortunate countries.

what's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

If that were true, why have a law against selling crack? I know it's a simple argument, but I see no need to go any further..

no broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.

Absolutely disagree. As pointed out earlier not everything that deserves funding is commercially viable. Also, I'd say that public broadcasting is of a much higher quality, in the big picture, than most TV. It just doesn't have the same dazzling immediate gratification. Crack, anyone?

… and how you see the wider society.

our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

Yes. I'm scared to contemplate that maybe some people don't agree. But then, if everyone else agrees that would certainly make GWB an odd one. People are way too paranoid about terrorism. Really. Do you know how many people die in car accidents alone every year in the US? Let's just say it's *many times* the number of people who died *once* on 9/11. We are obsessed with fear. If we care that much, why don't we put roll cages in all cars? Why don't we eat healthier? "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

a significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

I guess it depends on which party is in power..one that causes progression, or one that doesn't. That consideration notwithstanding, I guess the question comes down to whether 2 morons arguing with each other results in better policy than 1 moron choosing it. We know they're morons because if people were wise then they would know the best courses of action and therefore wouldn't have to argue in the first place. However, checks and balances probably lead to more stability and less fascism than no checks and balances. But I'd still rather see a state that has only a democratic party or a socialist party than one with one or both of those and a republican party. It's like having a "cognizant party" and a "retard party" vs. having only a cognizant party. Which do you choose?

although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.

Only squares think that only wrongdoers get in trouble with the law and that all laws are just.

the death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.

Again, there is no philosophical/thoughtful justification for retaliation. Retaliation is perverse; schadenfreude. The death penalty is pure retaliation. Capital punishment doesn't even save money, because of the court costs and costs of execution and death row..if one were even to look at life as a purely monetary consideration.
This is why most civilized nations these days don't have a death penalty, speaking of progress. Is it any surprise that republicans favor the death penalty more than democrats?

in a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.

That's not my definition of civilized. Commandment/obedience = subversion. Why do you have to subvert and threat people in a civilized society? Why would you use metaphors of above and below if everyone were fully respected? I call this mentalty primitive thinking.

abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.

Depends on what you mean by "represent." Art doesn't have to represent something to have meaning or convey something. But I do think that some crap passes as art these days that isn't art, particularly abstract art. Like people are too postmodern to admit that maybe it's just crap. Instead it has to be profound because otherwise they run the risk of not getting it. Perhaps people don't know what has value these days because the psychosphere is so fragmented. But I'd call a piece of crap a piece of crap. If it's not intended to mean or convey any message or impression in particular, it's not art. Or or even if is but does so indirectly only for the purpose of obfuscation/pretense, rather than necessity or poignancy, it's not art. Also, if it is intended to mean something but has the brilliance of chicken scratch, it's not art.

in criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.

Since there is no justification for retaliation, protecting others is the only remaining excuse for penalization, and of course rehabilitation should be attempted. The only reason to deprive someone of the opportunity for rehabilitation is that you hate them. Is hate a virtuous emotion?

it is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.

I don't know. I *think* that in many cases rehabilitation is ineffective. But it could be just because we don't know how to rehabilitate them. Besides, trying is justified on the basis that you don't know if it will work or not before you try.

the businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

Paper shuffling and Earth raping are not more important than expression and enlightenment. duh...

mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

*Somebody* has to stay home and take care of the kids. Where are our values these days? How do kids receive love and support and guidance? Isn't it silly to go out and work for someone else just to pay for some babysitter's career taking your place at home? Women might find the idea disempowering that they should stay at home and raise the kids, but the sad truth is that in a typical family only one person can do it, and women are the more suited for it because they are more nurturing. The idea isn't sexist because this is simply the best way to act in a world that's topsy-turvy in the first place. This applies of course only if there are kids at home... otherwise, I think the respective spouses should do whatever the hell they want. The idea that the women should do the dishes and sweep the curtains, or the man should fix the car and do the plumbing, ..well, there's no point in adhering to those ideas unless both parties agree. What other meaning could there possibly be in that? What could any other idea of what 'should' be done possibly be based on?

multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

I don't know what 'plant genetic' means. Multinational companies are unethically exploiting everyone and everything, period.

making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

Making peace with the establishment, particularly if it's not a very good establishment, is an important aspect of being a very small person. Or, alternatively, broken.

If you got through that okay, you'll find these propositions on religion a breeze.

astrology accurately explains many things.

Yes. The counter-argument usually goes that astrology is so vague that it could say anything and fit the situation. Just because that, theoretically, could account for astrology's apparent accuracy, doesn't mean that it does. Astrology *has* to be vague because it deals in energies and general principles, which merely influence situations, rather than define them from scratch. That doesn't mean that some descriptions aren't more appropriate for a given scenario than others. People aren't against astrology because it's an inherent evil; they're against it because it's not possible in their model of reality. The only way to really tell if astrology is accurate is to look into it and judge it subjectively with open, unbiased mind, or at least a mind that is truly skeptical--by which I don't mean the kind of skepticism that outright rejects anything that's amazing, but the kind that treats all possibilities equally, possibly by virtue of having enough imagination to see how a possibility *could* be true, or having the keenness to see why the presumption that it's false is ultimately baseless. And my personal, subjective experience with the zodiac is that it's..amazing.

you cannot be moral without being religious.

I'm not religious, and I'm moral. There are plenty of decent people, with good consciences, who aren't religious. You could even argue that it's a more genuine form of conscience or morality, because they're not moral because of a fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, or even the sycophantic willingness to please an archetypal father-figure. Not necessarily true, but it could be argued.

charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

charity's advantage: it's a willed action and more heart-to-heart because it's personal
charity's disadvantage: it's less reliable. you can't guarantee that the people who need it will receive the necessary charity without a social program.
caveat to charity's advantage: social security is also willed, just on a more collective level. some people may not agree with the policy, but a society's policies--especially those of a democracy or even a democratic republic--are ultimately expressions of the people.
conclusion: both charity and social security are good (and are by no means mutually exclusive), but social security is better.

some people are naturally unlucky.

yes. Your thoughts about things determine the reality you will experience. If you think that's new-age mumbo jumbo, welcome to my personal experience. So some people are unlucky because they don't expect the positive outcome (sometimes being more intelligent and/or a realist can be a curse), and because this bad luck is naturally due to their state of mind that naturally arose, they are naturally unlucky. Of course, some people are naturally lucky, too.

it is important that my child's school instills religious values.

I'd move to another country if I had to to avoid my child's school instilling religious values. In fact, the term "values" is a misnomer. What's so valuable about mindless prejudices?
"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. […] A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men." - Bertrand Russel
I could go on and on about religion, but I'm sure I've already done it.

Finally, a look at sex.

sex outside marriage is usually immoral.

Uhh, speaking of mindless religious prejudices.

a same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.

I don't know whether that would be confusing for the child or not, and if it would be, I don't know what the cut-off age is for appropriateness. Although research is in order, I would guess that children are adaptable and it's not really a big deal.

pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.

While I think pornography is a poison, I'm very libertarian and think that people should be free to pursue their poison.

what goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.

and why would it be? I mean, really. gimme a break.

no one can feel naturally homosexual.

Well the cure for thinking like that is to talk to a few homosexuals. You know, communicate. Actually find out.

these days openness about sex has gone too far.

there's no reason not to be open about sex, because sex isn't intrinsically dirty or unfit. again, this dates back to puritanism.