A question for pro-gay-marriage libertarians: Isn’t it well past time to admit you were wrong?

I don’t pay much attention to libertarians. They start wrong and stay wrong, with politics rather than the underlying ethics of self-adoration, which is why they cough up so many ugly, anegoistic cult leaders. Much worse, they’re anti-family, which leaves me wondering if formalized libertarianism might not be a Soviet- or CIA-crafted Emmanuel Goldstein false-flag op – the cult of the ineffectually childless super-stoked poindexter rebels. But, worst of all, whenever any random Marxist sneers their way, they fold like a house of cards.

I took note of them early last year, when a friend pointed out that at least one bigfoot libertarian, Stephan Kinsella, had jumped onto the gay-marriage bandwagon. This is not an anomaly. Putative friends of human liberty are forever waking up next to smelly Marxists, this going back to the times when Marxists still bathed once in a while. I didn’t care too much – the state’s sanction of marriage is plainly criminal rent-seeking, and, hence, the only appropriate libertarian response to that sanction is to eradicate it entirely. I realize now I might have cared more.

Nota bene: Sex outside of marriage is bound to be self-destructive. By marriage I do not mean an elaborate ceremony, with or without the state’s seal of approval, but rather the mutual commitment of the married couple to their enduring, exclusive storgic and romantic love. Without that, it does not matter with whom or what you frolic, since your ‘love-making’ is simply meat-mannequin masturbation – except that ordinary self-pleasuring doesn’t inflict you with lifelong painful memories. Even so, that much is your business. The only way most people learn to avoid self-destruction is by living through it too many times.

Likewise, the claim that homosexuality is genetic in origin seems dubious to me. That which resembles all other obsessive sexual fetishes seems much more likely, to me, to be nothing more than yet another obsessive sexual fetish – the irrational sexualization of inappropriate objects beginning with a sexual trauma occurring at (no surprise) the age of conceptual fluency – ages four to six. Note that if homosexuality actually is genetic in origin, it would seem to owe its ongoing existence to guile – to the dreaded ‘closet’ – which implies that uncloseted homosexuality will tend to eradicate itself from the gene pool by the same process libertarianism is eradicating itself from the meme pool: No family, no future.

Whatever. The question before the house is simply this: Are pro-gay-marriage libertarians prepared to admit, at this late hour, that their advocacy of the state sanction of homosexual marriage has been a huge and steadily more consequential error?

I was wrong, too, in my own way. All I objected to was the further rent-seeking despoliation of innocents who have not been licensed by the state to socialize the costs of their relationships to their neighbors. I did not foresee the ensuing wars on the right of free association and the freedom of conscience. And it seems obvious by now that the state’s full sanction of homosexual marriage will result in the immediate imposition of new ‘fair’ employment and housing laws. Conservatives have lamented the slippery slope that will lead to state sanction of polygamy, incest and bestiality, but no one that I know of has given any thought to which of your freedoms will have to give way when when all other obsessive sexual fetishes are given the legal standing of sacred sexual orientations.

People get to be who they are. That’s what liberty means. And as a matter of practical ontology, they will be who they are. But they don’t have any right to my life, to my freedom of thought and action or to my property. To say otherwise is to claim to be a libertarian while making war on human liberty.

So how about it, Stephan Kinsella and other erroneously pro-gay-marriage libertarians: When can we expect to hear the three rarest of words – “I was wrong” – from you?