1 vote

"But the Founding Fathers were Christians

And we are a Christian nation... we can not allow things like gay marriage!"

How do you guys address arguments like this without alienating potential future libertarians? I want to wake people up, but, being from the deep south, I get this one A LOT, and it's frustrating because I feel like I have to handle it with kid gloves...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Quite right.

Separate the pragmatic and the idyllic.

In a perfect world, marriage would be a life long covenant between two people, before God, recognised by the community.

It's not. Currently, it could be put as a standing arrangement between two people, before the State, recognised by the community .

In the first case, the state has no say, and the community recognises what it will; this is idyllic and utterly irrelevant to the person asking the question.

In the second, the person asking the question is asking how they can be forced by the state into recognising as marriage something they believe is not. Irrespective of your agreement with them or not, forcing them through the power of the state to recognise that relationship as a marriage is not libertarian but statist in nature.

Yes, the current arrangement forces people not to recognise gay marriage as marriage. That is also statist in nature, but you don't undo statism by layering it with more statism. You actually have to go back and unpick the laws which force people to accept the government's definitions and restrictions, not just change the laws which are repugnant to liberty into other laws which are differently repugnant to liberty.

There are no earthly Christian nations ...

because the kingdom of Christ is not of this world. Furthermore, the Hebrews tried to be like all the other nations with earthly kings to go before them and quite frankly it didn't work out too well for the jews. Any Christian should consider the notion of a Christian nation with an appointed ruler or government other than God a lesson in what not to do ...

Tell them they are

undermining the sanctity of Christian marriage by giving it a definition defined by the state. No definition means no ability for government to condone any type of marriage. Besides, could Christian agree on a definition anyway? How would they like the state to define what a sacrament means too? Christians all agree on those, right?

ever wonder why libertarians are such HUGE losers?

Ever wonder why they never win elections?

If you don't wonder, maybe you should.


'nuff said.


Well, I'll help you set it up a bit more.

Tell them that...

"Our ancestors were raised with a very different understanding of freedom compared to what we believe today. On the one hand, they believed that, among other thing, a tiny sales tax on some licenses and consumer goods was worth starting a war for independence. On the other hand, they didn't believe that women, the poor or young adults deserved the right to vote or the inalienable right to property. They mostly didn't believe that slavery was wrong. God sees no difference between black and white, poor and rich, young and old, bond and free, but our Founders did.

Given the limitations they were born into, of COURSE they would've opposed gay marriage. However, they ALSO would've opposed a state monopoly on marriage contracts. Before you put the cart before the horse and argue for more big government restrictions on personal choices and relationships, consider that freedom is all that is sought by the LGBT community. The freedom they seek is smaller than the slave's freedom. It's smaller than the woman's freedom. It's smaller than the Native American's freedom. Let them have their small freedoms, so that people don't take away your big freedoms."

I completely disagree here

"On the other hand, they didn't believe that women, the poor or young adults deserved the right to vote or the inalienable right to property."

I disagree, they actually understood the real meaning of 'submission' something completely lost on our populous today.

If I asked you to submit to natural law, what am I asking of you?
Am I not asking you to respect and follow the laws of nature?

If you asked a woman to submit to her husband, why do you perceive this differently? Why does it all of the sudden seem like slavery?

Women of that generation, were respectful, often considered nobility, highly educated, many had their own businesses, and ran trade commercially for themselves or their husbands, while many whored themselves out, and lived life to the fullest.

There was no "women cannot work" garbage, until the early 1900's and some housewife did not understand the meaning of submission, and changed it to mean slavery. They submitted to the Christian principle, that it is a mans job to rule. A woman supports and helps her husband and her family, making her "free" eliminates her responsibility to her husband, and tears down the structure of family.

Please stop with the garbage that they founders did not respect women, they were a bit wrong on slavery, but let me ask you a question...

Under British rule, slaves were beaten if they were caught outside their owners house, if you were a slave owner, and you set all your slaves free, who's to say someone who didn't get the memo, wouldn't kill them for not being on their owners property?

I read some letters of Abigail adams the other day, in it, it said "I hired a negro to do some housework, I am contracted to pay him 10 pounds for the week." -It struck me, was this a free man? or did she pay a slave to do her yardwork?

Thomas Jefferson was said to have more slaves than anyone, and even took pictures with them. I have heard the uneducated say "He just wanted to show off how many slaves he had! Hateful bastard" Really?! I consider them rescued, he gave them a house, food and clothing, and treated them as his own family, even children did yard work back then! If you didn't work, you didn't eat!

A christian knows it is our job to take care of the poor, as well as support our fellow believers. As many of the founding fathers were financially VERY well off AND Christian, they were the ones protecting them, not enslaving them.

Don't forget, only 8% fought the British, many people still swore allegiance to the crown, and still followed its laws.

Also, people do not understand

Any and all societies will fail when corruption becomes mainstream, and sins become accepted.

The founding fathers understood, it did not matter what form of government you have, if the people are of upstanding morals. They chose a republic, because it gave those WITHOUT morals, the best chance to regain their power.

This is something anarchists(no offense) do not understand. 'No government Anarchy' would not work without a moral society, likewise, neither would a monarchy, or a oligarchy, or a republic! A republic was chosen because it gives us the best chance at retaining control of ourselves, when the pieces begin to fall apart.

Anarchy is very final, you are either in it, or you are a slave of some government. A monarchy, while it can be benevolent, is the same, you are already in it, and you know your a slave. A republic, gives the people the ability to take BACK a failing government, this is the only reason it was chosen.

The founding fathers were far smarter, than people around here, give them credit for.

It's just more deflection

To a brainwashing that people received during their childhood. It's just the way some people are raised. I was raised by very fundamentalist Christians and it took me a long time to not view homosexuals as automatic deviants and offenders of God. The best thing you can do is tell them you understand their view, but what doesn't hurt them is none of their business and the same goes for what they want to do with their lives. They don't have to accept gay marriage, they just have to accept that it's not their business.

No train to Stockholm.

The fact is....

regardless of what you believe, "you do not have authoritative rights over another individual." Tell this to anyone who brings up the issue.

My only concern with the gay marriage issue, is making it illegal for a church to refuse to marry, I don't care if people get married, just no forcing, on any side.