Political "social conservatives" and "fiscal liberals" are the same kind of oxymoron.
In my own personal life, I think people would say I'm "socially conservative." I have a very quiet life and a fairly conservative, modest lifestyle. I don't go out to bars and get drunk, I don't "party" or date around, I devote a lot of my free time to charities, I tithe my church, in which I am very active, etc. I even dress quite modestly. I wear almost no jewelry, keep my makeup and hair naturally styled, don't wear low-cut or tight-fitting shirts or skirts above my knee, etc.
This is tied to my faith, in the sense that it's my desire to exemplify humility and modesty in everything I do and all that I am. I don't do this because I think it's a mandate of any particular doctrine in my faith - I don't think the Bible tells me to not wear short skirts, for example - but because it is important to me, personally, to not seem like a hypocrite for saying that I believe in a modest, humble lifestyle is rewarding for Christians while appearing to thoughtlessly buy into a lifestyle that is contingent on the world's materialist definition of stylish, desirable or popular.
There is a lot of leeway within Christianity. Some Christians believe that passages like 1 Timothy 2:9-10 encourage Christians to dress "plain" - drab colors, no makeup or jewelry of any kind, heads covered for both men and women (see: the Amish). Some Christians believe that these passages are contingent on the behavior and personality of the Christian, not clothes at all, so that even string bikinis on a Christian is modest. I'm probably somewhere in the middle. I'm all about the happy mediums, y'all. Politically, however, I think I would say I'm "socially liberal." I respect that other people choose differently and have the right to choose as their consciences lead them. I'm fortunate enough to live in a country where the freedom to mold our own lives in the pursuit of our own happiness is a constitutionally-protected right. That means that as long as you don't infringe upon other people's freedoms, lives and pursuits of happiness, you have the right to live whatever lifestyle you want without the government restricting you. You can find something extremely distasteful on a personal level, AND ALSO not support limitations on it. For example: I find the use of marijuana extremely distasteful on a personal level, but I think it shouldn't be illegal, for many reasons.
I think political discourse would flow much more smoothly if more people understood that personal preference is not the same as legally mandated. The fact is: The Constitution of the United States isn't obligated to cater to people's personal turn-ons and turn-offs. It's there to ensure a society in which we can work toward the maximum amount of liberty for the maximum amount of people.
This is why "social conservatism" and "fiscal liberalism" in a two-party system as we know it are political oxymorons to me.
Take "social conservatism" within the Republican party. I can intellectually understand the position that the government should have an extremely limited role in the economy. I'm a very staunch small-L libertarian and I believe that the government has exactly two roles: to protect the inalienable rights of the governed, and to provide for the common defense in cases of war, invasion, etc. So in this regard, I am a political conservative.
On an intellectual level, I can also understand, if vehemently disagree with, people who believe that the government should be made to conform with their moral preferences as much as humanly possible. This includes communists, people who believe in Sharia Law, and people who think the US government needs to follow the Christian Bible to the letter. I don't agree with any of these people and don't think this is compatible with a free democratic republic or the American system of government, but I get where they are coming from.
What I can't get is people who believe both things at once. You can't say you believe in a tiny federal government when it comes to your TAXES and your businesses, but you ALSO believe the government should force the moral rigors of a specific religious group when it comes to marriage contracts (just to give a hot-button example, though there are many more) on the rest of the population.
If you believe in a small government that should stay out of the private sphere, then this includes the private sphere of people whose lives you find morally objectionable. And this axiom works the other way, too - to the people who are "fiscally and socially liberal." If you believe in a government that should stay out of people's private lives, then it needs to stay out of people's decision-making when it comes to their businesses, their religions that say things that get on your nerves, the education of their children.
This is why I support classical libertarianism. To me, both Democrats and Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouths and are totally inconsistent in both practice and theory. The mental gymnastics it takes to reconcile these things is beyond imagination to me.
The United States Constitution ain't Burger King. You can't always have it your way.
