On being a libertarian and minding one’s own business

Most devotees of the libertarian mindset pride themselves on being above the fray of other people’s messy emotions and biases.  They come down on the side of gay marriage because that shows their willingness to allow others to make their own choices and to advocate that we all should just mind our own business.  They favor open borders for about the same reason, everyone should just live and let live and not try to impose their values or lifestyles on others.

I think it’s reasonable to question whether supporting gay marriage and open borders actually do uphold live-and-let-live principles, minding one’s own business, and allowing others to make their own choices in how they choose to live, or whether these hotbed issues are masking a hypocritical impulse and/or a psychological need of libertarians to feel superior to those who disagree with them.

Gay marriage cannot possibly be about civil rights or equality because no one of consequence questions the civil rights of anyone based upon their sexual preference.  Gays already have the right to get married, it’s just that they have that right in exactly the same measure as everyone else.  They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.  What they are demanding is not the right to marry, but the right to make a fundamental change in the definition of marriage, a definition that has existed for multiple millennia. This is certainly not an example of any live-and-let live principle, and it is not minding one’s own business. It is the desire to impose by force an enormous life-stye change on everyone else. Above all, it is an attempt to force everyone else not just to give tolerance to the gay life style, but to applaud and cheer it, to give accolades to it by acquiescing in a fundamental change in what a marriage is so that homosexuality will no longer be deemed to be a departure from the universal norm in all of human civilization on earth, a natural way of living that recognizes the distinct and unique difference between male and female.

This comment by Rachel Lu makes a similar point:

Personally, I doubt that the velvet revolution will happen. It’s like the frog in the pot of hot water; if you turn up the heat very gradually, it will let itself be boiled to death, but if you heat things up too quickly, it will jump out. For a religious country like the United States, liberals [and libertarians] moved too quickly. People are actually thinking about marriage now, and that’s bad news for the homosexual marriage agenda. As with the abortion issue, the marriage arguments are going to become more sophisticated and more familiar, the issue will become entrenched in American society…

My central point, though, is this. A person who truly cares about individual liberties should not support homosexual marriage. A person who relishes pluralism, and takes pride in a society that enables people of widely divergent beliefs to flourish, should not support homosexual marriage. A person who wants us all to “mind our own business” should not support homosexual marriage. Insofar as homosexual persons truly want to live undisturbed, peaceful lives (and some, I believe, really do) they should be content with a substantially similar legal arrangement such as a civil union. Mind your own business by leaving marriage alone.

Right. You libertarians want to be left alone?  Well, so do the rest of us.

Here is something interesting: How the Trans Agenda Seeks to Redefine Everyone

This too:  Resistance is not futile; submission is deadly

This is worth your time as well:

I was going to make some points in this same vein on the open borders issue. I’ll do that next time.