2 Peter 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
We have all things that pertain to life and godliness right now. We are connected to life and godliness right now.
Jesus Christ calls is to glory now, as Jesus Christ is risen, so we are risen sons of God. We walk In virtue which is excellence now through the perfect Holy Spirit that is put in us through faith.
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
We are partakers of God’s nature through faith in Jesus Christ and the new birth experience of the Holy Spirit.
We've escaped the corruption in the world. We don't identify with corruption. I am not corrupt and I won't be corrupted, I will not be governed by a corrupt government.
Not all are like this, but most don't want to have pesky sexual morals questioned. (now, if you take libertarianism, you may disagree with the idea of one man, one woman, one life time, but you will draw the line somewhere; sex must be consensual, children cannot consent to sex because they cannot understand the full ramifications, nor can some young adults, etc.)
Interestingly enough, I know of two who have some serious scruples: Perry Willis of Downsize DC and The Zero Aggression Project:
https://zeroaggressionproject.org/uncategorized/can-you-legislate-morality/
Oddly enough, Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller, has Ten Suggestions that, though they disrespect the God factor, (See #1 Suggestion in God, No,) do respect other ideals, such as honoring your parents and family, and avoiding making a promise you can't or don't intend on keeping. He also points out if Christians truly believe Jesus is the only way, they should be sharing the Gospel, and takes no offense when they do.
I’m a libertarian who agrees with voluntary heterosexual monogamy. I’m not aware of libertarians who disagree with it.
Scruples (principles) are good things. It’s the unscrupulous (unprincipled) people you have to look out for. For clarity I’m going to avoid that term. By your tone you seem to have a problem with Willis or what he wrote in the linked essay. What’s the problem?
His conclusion is reasonable:
For example, I think it’s ok to try to talk people out of homosexuality, but inappropriate to throw them in jail for being homo. Jesus didn’t throw anyone in jail. He told them to go and sin no more. If marriage is a form of private contract, then two adults should be able to contract what they want short of violating others. Laws against homos adopting other people’s children can be appropriate, though, because a non-consenting third party is affected. The “slippery slope” down from gay marriage has turned out to be less fallacious than initially claimed as we can see with the increase of grooming. But that brings up a different issue of coercion: government schools. If children’s mandatory attendance and families’ education budgets had not been coercively captured by the state, then there wouldn’t have been such a setting for the grooming.
He is absolutely right here, and it lines up with how Jesus treated the woman caught in adultery, often the biggest stone- throwers are also the biggest hypocrites. I normally don't post links to sites, then complement the authors, when I have a bone to pick with them...I personally think he has a higher standard of morals than any Neo-cons (especially war-mongers), Christian or not.
I fully agree on the rest of your point as well.