The wedding

• Socialists: Yes, they see a heterosexual majority oppressing a homosexual minority by denying them marriage, and so naturally support the reform. Socialists want to impose a single conception of civil marriage, including homosexuality, to the detriment of those who consider marriage to be only between a man and a woman. Legalizing gay marriage is therefore an act of social justice that promotes a more inclusive and tolerant society. It ensures that same-sex couples enjoy the same legal rights (inheritance, taxation, filiation, etc.) and protections as heterosexual couples, thus bridging a de facto inequality. At the heart of the argument lies the belief that all citizens should be treated equally under the law, regardless of sexual orientation. Denying marriage to same-sex couples is seen as unacceptable discrimination.
• Conservatives: No. They see traditional marriage as a fundamental institution of Western civilization, dating back 2,500 years and historically defined as the union between a man and a woman. This definition is not arbitrary, but rests on biological (the ability to procreate naturally) and cultural/religious foundations. A radical redefinition of marriage is seen as a threat to civilized society. To legalize gay marriage would be to denature or redefine this sacred and fundamental institution, emptying it of its original meaning and primary vocation, which is procreation and the foundation of a family in its natural form. Rapidly changing social norms are often viewed with suspicion, as they can lead to a dissolution of reference points and a loss of cultural or national identity. Marriage is seen as a pillar of this order.
• Libertarians: Yes and no. The consistent libertarian approach is to defend the privatization of marriage, i.e. marriage entirely free from state intervention. Marriage is a non-state institution, and the state has no business forcing others to recognize traditional or gay marriage. The solution? Get rid of compulsory civil marriage and leave this role to private associations: churches, synagogues, mosques or private secular organizations. This political solution, which respects property rights and individual freedom, could be called the separation of marriage and state.
• Centrists: Yes. Centrists would recognize that society has evolved and that a significant part of the population wants same-sex couples to be recognized. They adhere to the principle of non-discrimination and believe that individuals have the right to lead the lives they choose, including legal unions. They would be sensitive to the argument that same-sex couples should enjoy the same legal rights and protections (inheritance, social protection, taxation) as heterosexual couples. For centrists, the State must reflect the diversity of its citizens and the modernization of the law, while maintaining a certain social cohesion.

Immigration

• Socialists: Yes. They see illegal immigrants as an oppressed group and native-born whites, hostile to immigrants, as their oppressors. Moreover, restrictions based on nationality or religion are discriminatory and contrary to human rights. The state has a duty to welcome people in need and to promote diversity and integration.
• Conservatives: No. The state has the sovereign right to control its borders and to choose who enters its territory. Restrictions may be necessary to protect national security, cultural identity or society's ability to integrate. They fear that allowing immigration will destroy the identity of nations, and further undermine the work of even the most modest citizens. Borders and a well-defined population are part of civilized values.
• Libertarians: Yes and no. Yes to market immigration and no to state immigration. Because in a heavily state-sponsored world, immigration is always subsidized and creates an unfortunate claim to the labor of others, that is, an artificial right, a form of economic transfer. However, from the point of view of the freedom/coercion axis, an open border gives the individual the choice of government and the ability to vote with his or her feet. This is why the best immigration policy would be to reduce state involvement and allow citizens to decide for themselves.
• Centrists: Government must manage immigration in a balanced way. While restrictions based on religion are generally unacceptable, those based on nationality or skills may be necessary to meet economic needs and ensure successful integration, while respecting international conventions and human rights.

Firearms

• Socialists: No. Public safety must take precedence over the freedom to own guns. Strict regulation is necessary to reduce violence and guarantee the safety of all, because the state has a duty to protect its citizens.
• Conservatives: In part yes, the right to own a gun for self-defense is an important value. However, regulations to guarantee safety and public order are also necessary, but they must respect this fundamental right.
• Libertarians: Yes, the right to arm oneself is an essential component of the right to self-defense. The state should not have a monopoly on force, and individuals should be able to protect themselves without hindrance. But regulating the carrying of weapons should be left to the market, professionals and citizens' associations.
• Centrists: No, regulation is essential. While the right to own firearms may exist for certain uses, public safety and the reduction of violence require strict controls (permits, background checks, type of weapons) to strike a balance between freedom and order.

The drugs

• Socialists: Yes Penalization is ineffective. Legalization allows control and revenue generation.
• Conservatives: No. Consumption is harmful to health and social order.
• Libertarians: Yes provided the state’s role in society is reduced. The state has no business interfering in personal decisions as long as they don't directly harm others.
• Centrists: Complex debate. Decriminalization possible but strict regulation imperative.

Health

• Socialists: Yes. The problem of obesity is the problem of the manufacturers who market soft drinks. The soda tax is a Socialist proposal to combat manufacturers or sellers of sugary drinks accused of making profits at the expense of public health.
• Conservatives: In principle, yes. The government's mission is to ensure the health of its citizens. But conservatives generally prefer solutions based on personal responsibility and education. Imposing a tax on sugary drinks would be seen as excessive government interference in citizens' personal decisions.
• Libertarians: No. A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that it's unfair to protect people from themselves. Citizens are adults, not children. Attempts to impose better health habits by coercive means are considered costly, ineffective and ultimately counterproductive. The problem of obesity must be tackled by private initiative.
• Centrists: Yes, they would be open to the idea of a tax if it were proven to be effective, and if its social and economic drawbacks could be mitigated. They would see it as part of a wider, integrated solution, rather than an isolated measure.