I’m not interested in the audience, I’m talking personally to you.

Char-Lez

I don’t ask the government to enforce my moral code. I ask that our culture and our families not be undermined by the policies of the state in what it imposes and what it allows.

However, the state of the culture determines the state of the nation. Government grows as a result of our lack of moral restraint in society.

Societies where prostitution is rampant, where marriage is disrespected, where unborn children are slaughtered like cattle, and people are no longer morally capable of making a decision because they are controlled by substances, that society is in decline, having sunk into pure libertinism.

Citing the 10 Commandments is interesting, but it’s also misleading. If you study the rest of the Old Testament Civil Code, God lays down: he forbids Homosexual Conduct, he forbids adultery (Lev. 18:22), he governs commercial affairs. If one wants to appeal to the Bible, a half-hearted examination of the Ten Commandments will not suffice. One must examine the entirety of the Pentetuch.

While, we are under grace as Individuals, that doesn’t mean that society can be lawless. That we can say, “Marriage is whatever we want it to be and all morality is private.”

John Donne was write, “No man is an island.” Do you know how much we pay for Illegitimacy each year? Or divorce? The reason we recognize and protect marriage is that as a society, we have seen that marriage is more than just a religious ritual, or an individual right, it is a community necessity. Statistically children raised by a mother and a father in the bounds of marriage are less likely to end up committing a crime against you and me, they’re less likely to end up living in jail for that crime, they’re less likely to end up ignorant, and uneducated. Yes, we may find the exceptions, but you don’t govern according to exceptions, you govern according to the rule.

Libertarian leads to more government because it’s out of touch with reality. Throughout American history, there have been laws regulating what Libertarians would call private conduct. Locality have had laws against prostitution, adultery, and homosexuality from the founding of our country. While, it was never written into the Constitution, it was one of those issues left to the States, and most States took actions as they felt appropriate to protect the values, the culture, and the decency of their community.

If you want to continue to this debate, I’d be happy to set up a time for us to do a Lincoln-Douglas style debate podcast on this topic. I’m not going to debate much more in the comments thread because few people othere than you are going to read this if we go much further.

Your argument implies that one function of government it so uphold (your) moral code. This is patent nonsense, and most definitely not in the constitution. The same argument could have been used against freeing the slaves or giving women the right to vote.

As for the assertion that it is politically undoable, see aforementioned emancipation and sufferage.

But, on one point you need to seriously reconsider your position, and that is your understanding of the Libertarian thought on morality. Morality is the absence of force or fraud in human relationships, and any other relationships are up to the conscience of the participants. Libertarian philosophy is absolutely against an “anything goes” society, including tyranny from the left or the right.

To help you understand better, we Christians must look at the Libertarian philosophy through the lens of the Holy Scriptures. I draw your attention to ten commandments:

1: “You shall have no other gods before Me”
This is between man and God, not addressed by the Libertarian philosophy.

2: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Again, this is between creator and creation, not between men.

3: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.”
Same here

4: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
More of the same.

5: “Honor your father and your mother.”
The Libertarian philosophy is not in conflict here. One could not be honorable to his parents by wielding either force or fraud being used against his parents.

6: “You shall not murder.”
No conflict here.

7: “You shall not commit adultery.”
Adultery is, ultimately, a lie, and thus fraud. No conflict here.

8: “You shall not steal.”
No conflict here.

9: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
No conflict here.

10: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
No conflict here. This addresses what is in your heart, and the Libertarian philosophy does not speak to those issues, only to issued between people, not inside an individual.

Of course, we no longer live in the age of law, but in the age of Grace. Thus our highest arbiter must be the Lord Jesus Christ. Even He gives us no commandment with which the Libertarian philosophy is in conflict. This is precisely because the philosophy stops at actions, physical or spoken, between people.

Libertarians hold that you cannot hit someone else, nor can you lie to them for personal gain. These things are not counter to Christian values, nor could practicing them lead to moral anarchy, for Libertarianism demands respect of others, and control of your own behavior.

Char-Lez

I think that the libertarian viewpoint fails as well in the belief that moral chaos or any old moral/cultural system can support freedom and I think that is so wrong. Moral anarchy will ultimately lead to a tyranny far greater than anyone can imagine.

You make a pretty good point about one party compromising. Perhaps it’s a good reason to get government out of the marriage business all together? There doesn’t seem to be any upside to it. Registering civil unions for all, straight or otherwise, would solve this issue nicely.

As you would rightly point out, this position is not a compromise, it’s a reformation. It’s taking government out of the role of religious enforcer where it does not belong and puts it square in the role of contract arbiter were it does belog.

And, more directly to your point, by taking the road of civil union for all you completely disarm those who would sue on grounds of discrimination.

Char-Lez