Chat with a libertarian on homosexuality issue

I discussed with a NUS political science undergraduate at a website featuring articles written by NUS students on current issues. He was espousing the libertarian political philosophy that the state should not interfere when it comes to issues of personal morality, and took the stance that homosexuality should not be criminalized. I questioned him whether according to this libertarian moral philosophy , there should similarly be no laws criminalizing incestuous relationships, or regulation banning prostitution from the heartland, or laws regulating public decency and punishing people from running around naked in public.

His view was that yes, according to libertarians, or classical liberals, prostitution should be legalised. It doesn’t matter where the brothel is, so long as it as legitimately acquired property, the prostitutes are there voluntarily, and each transaction is mutually agreed upon. As for incestuous sexual relationships, if two parties mutually consent to it, and there is no fraud or aggression in it, then it should not be a criminal issue. As for public decency, he says it depends. If someone is streaking naked in public, there might be grounds to have the police charge him or respond to him on the grounds of disturbing public order. He is also for the state getting out of the business of sanctioning marriages and relegating this to the private sphere where individuals choose their marriage arrangements.

He asserts that there is no such thing as public good, only individual good, and the individual is the highest unit in society. He says that “the minimal state thus constitutes a “framework for utopia” – an overarching system within the boundaries of which any number of social, moral, and religious utopian visions may be realized.” And he thinks classical liberal values are superior because that is the bedrock where all other values are made possible.

I am not sure what will be his stance with regards to censorship laws. Would he also argue against banning materials containing racist, pornographic, or even homophobic content from being published and issued? He professes himself to be a catholic by the way.

From what I heard in a public law lecture by Professor Thio Li-Ann, there are many areas in the public sphere where the government ought to approach differently. So while the government may lean towards a libertarian stance towards a thing such as free speech, it may differ in its approach to other issues, and take a relatively more non-liberal approach. I suppose some fine adjustment and middle ground to how one approaches thing is a wiser step to then to sway completely to the side of one or the other. And I see the non-proactive enforcement of the 377a provision in the penal code criminalizing homosexuality as striking that balance. Homosexuals are still free to engage in their actions in their own private life, but this is not something that the government or society would want to condone as an acceptable and normal lifestyle.