I was under the impression that libertarians believed the homosexual lifestyle should be treated no differently than a heterosexual lifestyle. Certainly the Libertarian Party believes that:
"We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.
We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.
We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."
So, that brings us back to the original point in post #8. Libertarians may be opposed to the "active promotion" of the homosexual lifestyle by the government, but they don't object to it being promoted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Correct?
Please clarify the difference between "'active promotion' of the homosexual lifestyle" and "promoted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle."
I'm not a member of the Libertarian party. My views could be characterized as libertarian, though such labels are always inadequate. My stance on homosexual lifestyle is indifference. I don't care about how other people live their lives, so long as they do not violate the rights of others. I don't care about homosexuality, polygamy, shacking up, traditional marriage, or whatever lifestyles I may have omitted, so long as those lifestyles are between consenting adults. Why do people care about how other people live their lives? I think that we should stop recognizing marriages altogether. The stance that I think our government should have on this issue is, "if you want to get married, go to your church/synagogue/mosque/etc. Don't go to city hall - it is not the government's business."
[snip] "We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."
So, that brings us back to the original point in post #8. Libertarians may be opposed to the "active promotion" of the homosexual lifestyle by the government, but they don't object to it being promoted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Correct?
First, let's not confuse the LP with all libertarians, nor the Objectivist libertarians with other, including Christian, "libertarians," because on this point I think they start to divide. But generally, the libertarian is going to ask which part of the government is in the position to actually "promote" homosexuality. If President Bush were to tell someone, whether 'on the job' or in private conversation, that homosexuality is fine and dandy with him, then the average evangelical Christian is obviously going to disagree with that, whether he's libertarian or not. OTOH, the Objectivist, probably an atheist, likely won't care about the private conversation thing; but when Bush goes out and creates an 18 billion dollar 'Homosexuality is Fine and Dandy Initiative' using taxpayer money, then they, like the other libertarians, will mind. They just don't believe that the government should ever be in the position to promote such things to begin with - schools, libraries, etc., are illegitimate uses of gov't power.
So then, if a private citizen wants to promote homosexuality as an acceptable way of life, then so be it - it isn't the job of the government to blow taxpayer dollars on telling that private citizen that he or she can't do that. The government shouldn't get involved until Bruce and Chester start humping one another in public.