I am still waiting for that secular libertarian who would be able to give me a consistent, logical answer to this question: Why should we tolerate sodomy anymore than we tolerate murder, or child-molesting, or rape? Of any of the popular philosophies among the secular libertarians, there still isn’t one that would explain consistently, on the basis of its own beliefs and presuppositions, why sodomy is OK and why it should be left alone.

Those who are Randians and who want to excuse sodomy, are always uncomfortable about Ayn Rand herself and her views on sodomy. She considered it “immoral” and “disgusting.” She believed there was an objective reality behind being a man and being a woman, and that sodomy was a self-conscious decision of an individual to reject that objective reality and act contrary to it. I find Ayn Rand’s view perfectly consistent with her own philosophy. For a Randian to make the move to approve of sodomy takes nothing less than a deviation from the very principles of Objectivism, as can be seen here.

Those who are Rothbardians, and therefore cling to the “natural law” theory, can never produce for me that law of nature which couples male with male. After all, if “natural law” is our guide, there should be some principle in nature that makes sodomy so “natural” as to be beneficial to keep around and tolerate. I have never heard of one. Yes, yes, they say that the individual pleasure can be considered such “law of nature,” but so is my individual pleasure of having sodomy banned by law. Whose individual pleasure should be considered more valid then? Another version of the “natural law” argument says that sodomites are such “by nature,” genetically. But how did “nature” make such a mistake, to mix the genes in the same body? And has anyone discovered the gene of sodomy to know for sure that it exists?

Well, there is the argument for “self-determination,” of course. Even if we could avoid the obvious issue with the validity of that argument (for example, all the asylum inmates, and prison inmates too, suffer from the society’s unwillingness to accept the validity of their self-determinations), we still have a problem. And it is: If subjective sexual lusts are allowed to be the basis for self-determination equally to nature and objective reality, then what would be the problem of allowing rapists and child-molesters to use the same argument? In fact, even today, following accepting sodomy as a “human right” are attempts by different groups of psychologists to do the same for rapists and child-molesters.

Many secular libertarians are also evolutionists. The evolution argument is that anything is good which contributes to the survival of the species. Tell me again, how does sodomy contribute to the survival of the species? Even if we accept the nonsense that it is genetic, isn’t that gene a mutation that is self-destructive, and therefore bad? What would happen if all males in a species are sodomites? How would that contribute to the survival of the species?

Many of them are surprised when I ask those questions and when they discover that one doesn’t have to be a Christian and uphold the validity of the Biblical law in order to condemn sodomy and demand its suppression in a society. Their own non-Christian systems of beliefs – when developed honestly, consistently, and logically – require the same thing. Not that I argue that any non-Christian system has any validity in itself. But, man, when will non-Christians start being consistent with themselves?

No matter what system of thought or faith we take, sodomy is perverse, anti-natural, wicked, immoral, and disgusting as much as child-molesting, rape, or murder.

And if this is so, libertarians need to stop and consider: What is the main point of attraction for people who have perverse, anti-natural, wicked, immoral, and disgusting inclinations?

The state.

From Hitler and Stalin, through cops who pepper-spray and tase peaceful protesters just for fun, to TSA agents who steal valuables from luggage or drool over scanner pictures of women, the state and its institutions have always attracted the worst of the worst in our society. A perverse, immoral, wicked person is always under threat in a society where his victims are free to act. In order to continue in his perversity without the fear of reprisal, he has one option: the state. Either join it, and thus get the protection the state agents enjoy, or lobby it – or even better, control it – and change its laws so that they protect his perverse, immoral, wicked inclinations.

A libertarian should expect, then, if sodomy is perverse, immoral, disgusting behavior, for sodomites to try to use the state and its laws to protect themselves.

And guess what: That’s exactly what has happened over the last 40 years. The sodomite community in the United States has specialized in bullying legislators, on state and federal level, into passing laws which protect sodomy, and not only that but also forcing sodomite propaganda on the rest of the population. Sodomites are not content to simply do what they do in the confines of their homes. They want to force it – through legislation and government force – on everyone else to accept it as normal and good, and to silence – again, through legislation and government force – everyone who dares say the truth about sodomy. Exactly what we expect from any immoral, perverse person to do: use the state to make him save in his perversity; and then force his perversity on others.

The freshest example of this is the new bill that is pushed through the California legislature which would ban parents of minor children from “curing their children of their same-sex attractions.” And it is sponsored by sodomite groups who have been lobbying California legislators for decades now to force sodomy on the rest of the population, by law. They are not content to practice it in the confines of their homes. And they do not recognize the rights of the parents to decide for their own children. No, sodomites require that the children belong to the state so that the state can involve and enforce sodomy, over the decisions of the parents.

Some secular libertarian groups are opposing the bill. Too late. And inconsistent. The problem was partially created by these same secular libertarian groups who supported the “rights” of the sodomites in the first place. They have been active in feeding the monster of sodomite activism while it was still a baby, under the pretext that all creatures have the right to live. Now that the monster is grown up and is devouring its own allies, secular libertarians are surprised, and try to oppose it. They are now trying to be part of the solution after being part of the problem for many years.

Which brings me back to what I have said before: that secular libertarianism is no libertarianism at all. It is a garbled mish-mash of self-contradictory ideas based on no moral standard at all, unable to give any consistent blueprint for social, political, or legislative action that would make sense and actually support the cause of liberty. Just like conservatives, secular libertarians are unable to answer the question, By What Standard?

When there is no clear ethical standard, there can be no defense of liberty. As secular libertarians are beginning to see, in the case of sodomy, the unprincipled defense of perversity is not a defense of liberty, it is encouraging statism and tyranny. Only a defense of liberty as defined by the law of liberty, that is, the Law of God as revealed in the Bible, is a true defense of liberty. Which means that a true defense of liberty must always go together with a war on perversity because moral perversity always breeds tyranny. Until that truth is accepted, secular libertarians will pay lip service to liberty but will in fact work for more tyranny in the land. Only Christian libertarianism is the true libertarianism. Any other libertarianism is an exercise in self-deception.