I went to your source, it said this:
“For example, writers at the Independent Gay Forum endorsed the Libertarian Party and LGBT Libertarian organization’s position that the Boy Scouts of America should be free to exclude gay men as scouts and scoutmasters on the grounds that the government has no right to interfere with private organizations’ views on homosexuality.[6] Likewise, the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed the libertarian perspective in opposing federal hate crime legislation.[7]”
Which is what I said. I used to (before I became too busy) spend lots of time on libertarian blogs, I read a lot of libertarian books, and I read a prominent libertarian magazine. Homosexuality almost never comes up, we chiefly talk about government overreach or economics, not social issues. Libertarianism is kind of agnostic on social issues, it’s more about economics and government policy.
As for “homosexualizing the military,” if it turns out to have no effect on military utility, then what reason is their to avoid it? If, otoh, it turns out to have a negative effect (such as a big drop in recruitment or fighting or low morale or whatnot) then it should be reconsidered. The military is not the priesthood, it is part of a government body, and government is secular.
If you support the homosexual agenda and unlimited abortion and open borders as libertarianism does, then you are justified in promoting it and defending it and their agenda.