LGBT is Now a Movement to Control People

I would’ve considered myself a supporter of most LGBT values and goals up until 3 years ago. Anyone who knew me before then  knew very well that I strongly believed in treating gay people with respect and for them to have equal rights. However, 3 years ago I went from ally to an opponent of LGBT causes.

I want people to live by their preferences. If government has marriage, I believe it should be extended to all sorts of preferences (gay, polygamy, etc.). I also desire gay people to not be treated horribly on the cultural level.

3 years ago the LGBT movement accomplished every possible noble cause it had. Gay people can get married, and most of society treats gay people with respect. Anything else the LGBT movement can accomplish is likely to be absolute trash and government tyranny.

At the cultural level I want people to experience a base level of respect and honor. We have accomplished this. To try to cure bigotry in a small minority of people would require incredible tyranny. We are well passed the point of cultural victory for sexual preferences. Some people will be an ass, but asses exist for everyone and LGBT people don’t have a special right to not have to deal with the assholes everyone has to deal with.

Every goal that I see under the banner of LGBT today is about forcing people to have certain values through government violence. LGBT is now purely a movement that is trying to control people and take revenge on values they don’t believe in. I, obviously, think that is shit. The LGBT movement won its last noble cause 3 years ago … all that is left is victim peddling, and tyranny.

Open This Content

Bridging Sanctity of Marriage and Marriage Equality

Marriage is often defined as the “legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other…A similar union of more than two people.” (

Throughout U.S. history until the the turn of the twentieth century, the marriage license was not mandated for people to be married. U.S. federal laws regarding marriage, which were illegal, up until then were just about tax purposes and waging a war against Mormons and blacks.

The government then started issuing marriage license mandates as an attempt to prevent blacks and whites from marrying each other. Interracial marriage was seen as disgusting, thus using junk science arguments, faux religious arguments, and archaic social norm ones. Not unlike the arguments against same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and incestuous marriage (i.e., marriages between legally-consenting adults).

The U.S. Constitution, for whatever it is worth, does not delegate any marital responsibility to the federal government. Not even in the Fourteenth Amendment. Any federal law regarding marriage is therefor illegal and the federal government is being lawless. State governments, where their state constitutions allow government involvement in marriage, tend to abuse this power.

The typical arguments are religious, even though no religious text advocates the government issuing marriage licenses. Not to mention religious texts talk about, positively and negatively depending on context, different forms of marriage, not just the “traditional” views of marriage. For example, many of God’s prophets were polygamist.

Another example, the famous Leviticus verse is often misinterpreted, for nefarious purposes. The word “abomination” did not mean “evil” back then. With this context, as well as the context of the book itself, it is easy to know gay acts are not frowned upon. Religious people often forget to read the texts as they were written, not how they can be interpreted today (this common practice flies in the face of the Bible being “the Word of God” argument).

Family values is often a phrase thrown around to oppose all other forms of marriage. The arguments are weak, given history is filled with voluntary, functional polygamy. Plural marriage, even in the Bible, was used for survival, as well as love. Lest it be forgotten, many people choose to be single, are asexual, and even promiscuous being straight and monogamous. It’s not logical to conclude only gays and polygamists can be immoral, marriage-wise.

Without a religious source, a federal allowance, and history being on the side of opponents of other forms of marriage besides man and woman, it is obvious they have lost this debate both spiritually and sociobiologically.

If marriage is sacred, then the sanctity of marriage can only be respected if it only involves the legally-consenting adult partners being married. May it be a man and woman, two men, two women, multiple partners, or what have you. By getting government involved, one is violating the sanctity of marriage.

If equality is the goal of the other side, then the marriage license mandates must likewise be opposed. Without such laws there would be no government to ban marriage or to beg for permission thereof.

Legally-speaking, marriage is a contract between the parties involved. This is where power of attorney (including medical POA), insurance claims, presence in wills, custody arrangements, estate assignments, etc. can be made. Regardless of the kind of marriage. No government required.

Hospitals that refuse to acknowledge POA do so at their own risk. Lawyers and notaries would be able to draw up papers and contracts to make the process smooth. All the marriage license does in this area is make all of the above de facto. The only issues would be the tax code and adoption laws – both of which need to be abolished if freedom is to flourish.

Only through marriage privatization can both sanctity of marriage and marriage equality be protected. Government has neither a right nor responsibility being involved in an institution so personal as marriage.

David Boaz of the Cato Institute argues “In the debate over whether to legalize gay marriage, both sides are missing the point. Why should the government be in the business of decreeing who can and cannot be married? Proponents of gay marriage see it as a civil-rights issue. Opponents see it as another example of minority “rights” being imposed on the majority culture. But why should anyone have—or need to have—state sanction for a private relationship?”

Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute likewise argues “The existence of the state, as well as its benefits and legal rights associated with marriage, add a layer of confusion. The very presence of legal marital protections and benefits cries out for the state to define what constitutes a legitimate marriage. By itself this is a dangerous power. If the state can define a marriage, it can dictate the workings of the marriage and family too. It can police the raising of children, kidnap kids, prevent them from working for wages negotiated by contract, limit or mandate family size, and a host of other considerations.”

Thus repealing or bypassing laws that violate the sanctity of marriage and prevent marriage equality is the only way to defend the institution of marriage. So far, all other arguments are purely political and based on neither facts nor common sense. Repeal or bypass the marriage license mandates.

Conclusion? The only honest-to-god marriage equality argument is also the only honest-to-god sanctity of marriage one. Get ALL government out of ALL marriage. The institution of marriage is sacred, and is a bond between the legally-consenting adults involved. Not the government. (Not for nothing, but the government thinking it should be involved in any marriage sounds creepy)

Kenny Kelly

Open This Content

Whence Cometh Moral Outrage?

Send him mail.

“One Voluntaryist’s Perspective” is an original column appearing most Mondays at, by the founder and editor Skyler J. Collins. Archived columns can be found here. OVP-only RSS feed available here.

Everyone seems to have their own definition of morality. Why is that? If morality is “the proper behavior for a person in society”, which I think it is, then why is there such disagreement on what constitutes immoral behavior? Or put another way, what causes people to feel “moral outrage” toward certain behaviors and not toward others, and why do some feel it toward a given behavior while another does not? Why the seemingly subjective nature of moral outrage, but not of morality? Got your shovel? Good. Let’s dig!

What is Moral Outrage?

Ward H. Goodenough offered an apt definition of moral outrage. He wrote, “[Moral outrage] is a response to infringements or transgressions on what people perceive to be the immunities they, or others with whom they identify, can expect on the basis if their rights and privileges and what they understand to be their reasonable expectations regarding the behavior of others.” Moral outrage seems to come in at least two forms. It can be a feeling of disgust, likely rooted in the same part of the brain where we feel disgust for disgusting things like gross food or a gutted human body. It can also manifest as a feeling of “righteous wrath” or justified anger. To feel moral outrage, then, is to feel disgust and/or anger toward someone’s behavior.

Personally, I feel moral outrage toward all sorts of behaviors, a list that has changed over the years. I currently feel moral outrage when I witness or hear about a parent spanking a child, a husband smacking his wife, a pervert raping a woman, a cop beating a suspect, a soldier dropping bombs on innocents at wedding parties, and so on and so forth. You may or may not feel moral outrage toward these same behaviors. You may be the parent, the husband, the pervert, the cop, or the soldier, or otherwise empathize with them and their morally outrageous behavior. Why the disparity?

The Basis of Morality and Moral Outrage

Moral behavior is that which can be considered proper for a person in society, and immoral is that which is improper. The properness of behavior depends on its consequences to society, the community and fraternity that exists between persons. Society is either maintained or destroyed by the behaviors of society’s members. Dishonesty, robbery, battery, rape, and murder are obviously immoral behaviors because they are destructive toward community and fraternity, and therefore, society. Every human behavior can thus be reasoned as being either moral, immoral, or amoral (not moral or immoral). Ethics, the science of morality, is an objective discipline which uses both reason and experience (history) to determine moral from immoral, or ethical from unethical, behavior.

If morality has an objective meaning, why do people feel moral outrage disparately? Humans are social animals. We have biological and psychological needs from birth to be nurtured by other humans. The first society that we experience are our immediate family members. As we experience this and larger society, we become socialized. Socialization is “the lifelong process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within his or her own society.” Every person’s socialization is different. Hunter-gatherers are socialized differently than white affluent North Americans because the society in which they are raised are different, sometimes greatly so.

Socialization is the reason that people feel moral outrage disparately. As people inherit different norms, customs, and ideologies, what they consider to be immunities, rights, and privileges – and transgressions against them – are likewise different. A white child being socialized in the antebellum South won’t feel the same moral outrage toward black chattel slavery as those not raised to consider such slavery as normal and customary. Does this mean that slavery is moral to the white person from the antebellum South? No. Slavery is never moral, even though the white person might consider it so. Similarly for the person who feels moral outrage toward moral or amoral behavior, such as peaceful drug use or voluntary polygamy. (Or the feeling of moral outrage toward the moral outrage of another!) Morality is not a subjective determination, as previously explained. Moral outrage isn’t either, but it is something felt relative to the socialization that someone experienced. That’s why it seems like morality is subjective.

Changing Hearts and Minds

Even people who were seemingly socialized identically can feel moral outrage differently. I consider the existence of the state to be a moral outrage, but my siblings don’t. Why do I feel moral outrage toward the state? Probably because I’ve learned different things about the state than they have. I see state interference in the economy as destructive toward society because I’ve studied sound economic theory. Indeed, it took economic arguments to get me interested in liberty in the first place. Likewise for parenting. Once I understood the destruction that the practice of punitive parenting creates toward society (micro and macro), I stopped spanking. In both cases, economics and parenting, it wasn’t until I understood why certain behaviors were destructive toward something I value – ie. society – that I began feeling moral outrage toward the state and punitive parenting.

This is instructive if I want to change hearts and minds, moving them toward voluntaryist practices both inside and outside the home. Calling others immoral is more likely to create alienation than conversion. Actually, it stands to reason that calling others immoral, and thereby creating alienation, is destructive toward society, the community and fraternity that is a prerequisite for getting others to change their hearts and minds about what to feel moral outrage toward. I’m certainly guilty of doing this, intentionally or not. I do like to pick apart what I consider to be immoral practices. And if others are offended by that, what can I do about it? I can continually try new approaches and see how they turn out. I don’t want to alienate others, but I also don’t want to show tolerance for immorality. Thus is the fence I balance on daily.

Final Thoughts

As usual, more can be said. These are fascinating areas of study. Society, socialization, ethics, moral outrage, philosophy, economics, parenting, all of it. The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know and how little control I have in the world. Even within my own life I’m surrounded by other people with their own values, knowledge, wisdom, and desired ends, all of which I have no control over. I can be an example, but that’s about it. And I choose to figure out and behave morally toward others because I value society and desire to see it maintained. Which desire also compels me to publicly identify and try to convince others to likewise behave morally. To each our own, I suppose.

Read more from “One Voluntaryist’s Perspective”:

Open This Content

On Utah’s Polygamy Ruling

Once again I’m disappointed on a ruling seemingly for liberty. A federal judge in Utah ruled two days ago that Utah’s law prohibiting polygamous cohabitation to be unconstitutional. That a federal judge would interfere with a local law is troubling. It’s a display of power by a bigger state over a smaller one. Local laws against polygamous cohabition are unjust, as all statist laws are, but a federal judge’s interference is likewise unjust. I am glad that those engaged in polygamous cohabitation will no longer be hunted down by the individuals calling themselves the State of Utah, but I think the price paid is too high, a price that will be borne by everyone, not just those engaged in polygamous cohabitation. And that’s today’s two cents.


Open This Content

Legalize Polygamy!

Editor’s Pick. Written by Jillian Keenan.

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

Read the full thing at »

Open This Content