[MitchellC]

First, I should say that I'm not a believer in Objectivism, of which most LPers apparently are. I'm a Christian and consider myself a conservative. However, I'm largely in agreement with the LP when it comes to the massive deregulation they endorse. With that said...

[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.

[robertpaulsen]

Well, for now let's set aside the labels of (L)libertarian, conservative, Christian, etc., because I think they're getting in the way.

Do you think that it is proper for the public schools to be teaching that the homosexual lifestyle is no different than the heterosexual lifestyle (ie, they're both equally acceptable)?

(-- back to labels --)

I was under the impression that large-L Libertarians and most small-l libertarians approved of this teaching practice. That was my only point.

(And the ironic point is that true (L)libertarians wouldn't approve of public schools to begin with.)