Talk:Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights

message: The following passage was in the section "Libertarian opposition to certain gay rights goals"  but it looks like they support this group.  This has been moved here because I did not see anywhere else to put the passage; it may be better suited to a page on Libertarianism and gun rights.
* Libertarians feel that the government restrictions on private ownership of guns, even concealed weapons is a gay rights issues becuase they believe in a right to self-defense and that the best way to detor gay-bashing for gay people to carry guns.  This position has won support from the Pink Pistols clubs that have sprung up across America and acts as a gay National Rifle Association.
angrysquirrel July 5, 2005 23:31 (UTC)
Is it possible that the existence of "Pink Pistols" validates the person's claim?  Similar claims have been made in regard to women's self-protection (Quigley, Paxton -- Armed and Female.)  As a result, there are also women's 2nd-Amendment-related groups. 
Chally 09:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 comments 

message: The Boy Scouts were chartered by an act of Congress, and they have legislated rights that no other organizations have.  How are they private? --James S. 12:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they're not as private as some would like to call them, but they're not directly funded by the government.  They do, however, take advantage of indirect support, such as being allowed to meet in school buildings after hours. Alienus 02:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy Scouts 

message: [NOTE: the previous edits of the “Libertarian perspectives on gay rights” article by “deBohun” were made at a computer that apparently had an auto login saved for the Wikipedia page. I have now established this account, “SonOGalt,”  to address future edits.]
My edits were aimed at eliminating errors in fact, and to address the article’s spin on the libertarian position on gay rights. I did not attempt to change the substance of the article. Below are my edits, your edits, your objections, and my response to each: (changes in double asterisks)
==Line 17.
Yours: “In response, some have offered several reasons why they feel that libertarians should not be trusted to promote gay rights. The first thing they point to is where the libertarian movement sharply disagrees with **common** gay rights goals.”
Mine: In response, some have offered several reasons why they feel that libertarians should not be trusted to promote gay rights. The first thing they point to is where the libertarian movement sharply disagrees with **the** gay rights goals **of the political Left.**
Your objection: >>1) The gay rights movement is associated with the New Left, which is why it includes demands for many positive rights, which libertarianism opposes. It is inaccurate to speak of the gay rights goals of the political left, as there are many gays who support the gay rights movement even though they're not necessarily liberal themselves, and many on the left who have no strong feelings either way about homosexuality and are not active in this issue. Fundamentally, trying to isolate the leftists from the gay rights movement is a POV framing.<<
My response: To claim that gay rights cannot be disassociated from the Left is to grant the Left ownership of the issue; however, no one owns an issue. I am not trying to isolate anyone, but to merely remove this subtle underlying claim for the right to dictate views on gay positions. You are correct that many non-leftists support gay rights. This does not mean that they necessarily also endorse positive rights or other positions of the New Left. It merely means they endorse equal rights for homosexuals. However, the Left has consistently tried to manipulate the Gay community into believing that support for gay rights requires buying into the entire leftist curriculum. This is not true and the libertarians offer a reasonable alternative position on gay rights. I am merely trying to clarify that for the reader.
==Line 31.
Yours: 
* Some libertarians (such as Ron Paul) oppose legalization of same-sex marital contracts, others **are** favor **of ** ending government definition of marriage or respect of marriage entirely and support allowing churches to decide **it.**
Mine: 
* Some **quasi** libertarians (such as Ron Paul **, who has been a frequent Republican Party member**) oppose legalization of same-sex marital contracts, **while** others favor ending government definition of marriage or respect of marriage entirely and support allowing churches to decide**whom they will marry, but neither is a position of the Libertarian Party and only the latter position can be said to typify the mainstream of libertarian thinking.**
Your objection: >>2) Calling Ron Paul a quasi-Libertarian is highly POV and the location of this amounts to poisoning the well. Paul is actually a paleolibertarian, which is hardly "quasi".<<
My response:  Dr. Paul’s consistent voting record against increased government spending certainly has a (small-l) libertarian flavor to it, however, my prime objection to this reference is not that Dr. Paul doesn’t call himself a libertarian, he often does, or that he doesn’t hold many libertarian views, he does. The problem here is that the reference is to his non-libertarian views and therefore the only purpose in citing him as a libertarian is to infer to the reader that his anti-gay rights views are somehow also libertarian--they’re not. The fact that Dr. Paul calls himself a libertarian, does not make every position he takes a libertarian one. As you point out, Dr. Paul could more accurately be called a paleolibertarian (or a member of the Old Right), so what not just call him that? 
==Line 31. (continued)
Yours: 
* Some libertarians oppose allowing gay couples to adopt and have custody of **children. **  
* Some libertarians oppose ending the ban on openly gay servicemen and women in the armed forces.
Mine: 
* Some **self-identified** libertarians oppose allowing gay couples to adopt and have custody of **childrens, while some others oppose ending the ban on openly gay servicemen and women in the armed forces, but this is in not a position of the Libertarian Party or of mainstream libertarian thought.**
Your objection: >>3) Likewise, calling some libertarians "self-identified" is an attempt to cast doubt on their libertarianism and is quite POV.<<
My response:  You are correct, it is my intent to caste doubt on the “libertarianism” of the unnamed individuals you cite. You are attempting to do the same thing here as you did with the reference to Dr. Paul above. By referencing the scary, non-libertarian viewpoints of particular individuals, you are attempting to influence reader opinion toward libertarian views of gay rights. Citing views outside the libertarian mainstream and representing them as mainstream, or even hinting that they might be mainstream, is a form of yellow journalism. These days I think they call it FUD—to disseminate “fear, uncertainty, doubt.” The only possible standard for evaluating libertarian policies and positions has to the Libertarian Party. They are the only group even remotely resembling a mainstream standards organization in regards to libertarian positions or policy. If you are not willing to do that, then to be honest, you have to admit openly that for as long as we allow people to describe themselves, many of them aren’t going to get it right and some will misrepresent themselves intentionally. 
==Line 43.
Yours: Gay Republicans agree with the Republican Party on issues of taxation, trade and foreign policy, and gun control. Libertarianism has provided a theoretical framework for gay Republicans to advocate a gay rights movement that they feel should be closely aligned with a belief (shared by conservatives and libertarians) in lower taxes, free markets, and limited government. Hence many gay Republicans such as Andrew Sullivan and organizations such as the Log Cabin Republicans and the Independent Gay Forum address gay rights from a perspective that is clearly libertarian in character and often differs from how gay liberals and moderates view gay rights; for instance, **gay Republicans, such as** the writers at the Independent Gay Forum, endorsed the libertarian position that the Boy Scouts of America should be free to exclude gay men as scouts and scoutmasters. Gay Republicans have also endorsed the libertarian perspective in opposing hate crime legislation.
Mine: Gay Republicans agree with the Republican Party on issues of taxation, trade and foreign policy, and gun control. Libertarianism has provided a theoretical framework for gay Republicans to advocate a gay rights movement that they feel should be closely aligned with a belief (shared by conservatives and libertarians) in lower taxes, free markets, and limited government. Hence many gay Republicans such as Andrew Sullivan and organizations such as the Log Cabin Republicans and the Independent Gay Forum address gay rights from a perspective that is clearly libertarian in character and often differs from how gay liberals and moderates view gay rights; for instance, **some of**  the **gay** writers at the Independent Gay Forum endorsed the libertarian position that the Boy Scouts of America should be free to exclude gay men as scouts and scoutmasters. Gay Republicans have also endorsed the libertarian perspective in opposing hate crime legislation.
Your objection: >>4) Repeated insertions about the Libertarian party are irrelevant and POV. Not all libertarians are members of this party, or even support it, regardless of whether they agree with some of its policies. The common theme here is that you keep trying to marginalize any libertarians who differ from you, and that's just not acceptable.<<
My response: In a free society, people can define themselves as they wish, and some define themselves as (small-l) libertarians, based on a their support of a system of minimal government. However, “minimal” is relative and subjective. For some, the current U.S. government is “minimal,” compared, for instance to China or the old Soviet Union, for others, the current U.S. government is massive and invasive, compared to the U.S. government of only a few generations ago. My point here is that while a strict definition of (capital-L) Libertarian is possible (based on the Libertarian Party's requirement of membership being a certification of the following, "I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals”), an absolute, measurable definition of (small-L) libertarian is unfortunately amorphous and individualistic. Without that, (small-l) libertarianism can only be vaguely defined based on some commonality of viewpoint amongst those choosing to call themselves libertarian—a majoritarian definition as it were. And, given that, it is disingenuous to attempt to define “libertarianism” based on the views of a particular individual’s, or minority of individuals,’ self-definition of themselves as libertarian. So, no, my point is not to marginalize, but rather, just the opposite, to not allow you to credentialize certain views as libertarian, simply based on how a particular individual or minority of individuals chose to define themselves.
On an edit I didn’t make, to provide such a superficial explanation for the Boys Scouts case is to intentionally blur the issue. Libertarians would also oppose any legal requirement that straights be allowed to join gay clubs. Would that make them anti-straight? Hardly, but that is what can be inferred from this cursory description of the case. For libertarians, the issue was not about gay rights, but rather about freedom of association, something that should be of greater concern to gays then joining some anachronistic boys club. That a group of gays assisted in defending the BSA’s freedom of association is one of the finest examples of integrity that I’ve ever seen.
==Line 61.
Yours:
*Gay **Republicans** That Invoke Libertarian Principles … **Independent Gay Forum 
Mine: 
*Gay **Conservatives** That Invoke Libertarian Principles … **Independent Gay Forum 
Your objection: >>5) You offer no citation or explanation for removing "Republicans" in the context of the Independent Gay Forum and the groups at the bottom. You do need one.<<
My response: The Independent Gay Forum could only be considered “Republican” if it were chartered as a political organization (a (c)(4) for instance), had the official sanction of the Republican Party, or, more liberally, if all, or possibly a majority, of its members were members of the Republican Party. None of these circumstances exists. In fact, the IGF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, which by law must remain politically independent. It is not endorsed by any political entity and its membership consists of Libertarians, libertarians, Republicans, conservatives, and (non-defined) independents. It is nothing more then an association of writers who define themselves outside the mainstream of liberal thought in regards to gay rights issues; it is a Republican organization neither in spirit nor in fact. If Hillary Clinton were to publish an article on the importance of family at http://frc.org, it wouldn’t make it justifiable to list the conservative Family Research Council under a “Democratic” heading—and it would be dishonest to call the FRC a liberal organization based on Hillary's other views. Likewise, it is dishonest to list the IGF under a “Republican” heading. Even a “Conservative” heading is probably misleading. “Independent,” “Non-alaigned,” or “Non-New Left” may be headings that are more appropriate. The same reasoning applies to other corrected references to the IGF.
-----
Let me apologize for my inexperience with the Wikipedia. I will admit that I failed to initially explain or discuss my edits (as I have done so now, above). I was unsure of how to do so. It was obvious from first exposure that the Wikipedia has its own culture, and that that culture is quite complex. The system and documentation is somewhat arcane and I didn’t attempt to decipher it whole before proceeding. Instead, I took the advice on one of the welcome pages, and jumped right in by attempting to contribute in an area with which I am familiar. As evidenced by this response, I am gradually learning the system and the culture.
I fail to understand however, how my neophyte status justifies the use of personal epithets. I am not quite sure what constitutes a “drive-by” or “sock puppet,” however it is obviously an attempt to color opinion of me in the same way that this article attempts to color libertarian positions on gay rights. As to the edits of my monobook.js file, while I am new to Wikipedia, I am neither an idiot, a technical neophyte, nor a time waster. I quickly observed that this was the mechanism used to efficiently rollback my edits and decided to use it myself. SonOGalt 01:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Edits by Alienus… 

message: ::My comments follow…
::1.) Rand was not infallible, and, from what I know of her thought on homosexuality, it was largely the product of her age, something she was unfortunately not able to transcend. Rand was not a libertarian however, a fact that she went to considerable effort to establish, therefore, her thoughts on homosexuality are irrelevant to this discussion--unless it is to emphasize that she could be wrong, and could also be wrong about the origin of the gay rights movement. A gay rights movement existed in Germany in the later half of the nineteenth century, and there were individual voices speaking out for gay rights in France, Switzerland, and England even before that (reference the Wikipedia’s own article on the subject). This was long before any gay rights movement manifest itself anywhere in the United States, let alone within the purview of any political movement that can be identified as the New Left. I find this point to also be irrelevant however, as the claim that a political position can “belong” to anyone is, as an understatement, without merit. I will however grant that the New Left can define itself and its positions, a right you apparently will not grant Gay libertarians. The voting record of the LGBT majority (or the size of Libertarian vote counts) is irrelevant to the question of who should be allowed to define libertarians or the libertarian position on gay rights. This article is, after all, about “Libertarian perspectives on gay rights;” it is not about “New Left definitions of libertarianism,” or about “New Left views of libertarian perspectives on gay rights.”  Finally, you state, “The bottom line is that the gay rights movement is whatever the REAL (emphasis added) people who constitute the bulk of the gay rights movement say it is.” This statement would seem to reflect an oppressive and dictatorial position. I am always suspicious when someone starts defining “real” people, since such attempts at dehumanization are usually intended to accomplish political marginalization or worse.
::2.) Dr. Paul is free to call himself whatever he wishes and to make whatever degree of contribution to libertarianism with which he is comfortable. (And, he has contributed substantially.) However, I repeat, the purpose in citing Paul’s comments in this article is not to define mainstream libertarian perspectives on gay rights, but rather to color reader opinion of libertarian perspectives on gay rights. No matter what he chooses to call himself, nor how libertarian his other political positions, Dr. Paul’s position on gay rights can in no way be defined as libertarian or as representative of libertarian opinion (see below). Citing him on gay rights is merely a scare tactic.  
::3.) While I might choose to call myself a member of the New Left, once I start agitating for the elimination of Affirmative Action would it then be appropriate to cite me as representative of New Left opinion in an article on “New Left perspectives on civil rights?” I think not. To do so, would be to attempt to discredit the mainstream of New Left opinion, not to accurately describe New Left opinion. As the Wikipedia observes, the “terms liberal and conservative are generalizations and do not point to any concrete set of ideals or values.” Whereas liberal and conservative positions are largely a whimful accumulation of inconsistent political goals, libertarianism is much more narrowly construed. The Wikipedia itself accurately defines libertarianism as, “a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as they allow others the same liberty, by not initiating physical force, the threat of it, or fraud against others.”  Dr. Paul’s position on gay rights cannot objectively be considered a libertarian, since it would use the force of government to provide special rights for some at the expense of others.
::4.) Words have meaning and definition, without which communication would be meaningless, if not impossible. If indeed you believe that words are without meaning and definition, that communication cannot be held to objective standards, that words can defined on the whim of the user, then may I suggest that you might be happier without the frustration of working on an encyclopedia project whose purpose is to document meaning and definition. 
::5.) You are correct, my position on the BSA issue is absolutely biased. It is biased from the libertarian position on gay rights, which is what this article is about. If your goal is to document “New Left opinion of Libertarian opinion on Gay Rights,” may I suggest that it may be appropriate to start a new article, or to constrain your comments to a subsection called “Critique of Libertarian positions on gay rights.” To spin libertarian opinions themselves is less then forthright.
::6.) Thank you for agreeing to allow the IGF to define itself. We appreciate it. However, to merely replace one incorrect citation with another, or to make further reference to Republican opinion in an article on libertarian opinion (as is your stated intention) is only going to lead to further accusations of abusing this article for your own political purpose. May I again suggest that contributing a subsection called “Critique of Libertarian perspectives on gay rights” may be a more appropriate course of action. In the meantime, you should let gay libertarians define themselves, based on their own standards.
::SonOGalt 07:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Alienus 

message: 1) Ayn Rand was very much a libertarian.  Her political views were, if anything, archetypically libertarian.  Rand rejected the term, however, both because she seemed to mistakenly think that libertarianism necessitated anarchism and because she was angry with the Libertarian movement for not accepting Objectivism as a whole, considering it to have stolen that one aspect of her all-or-nothing philosophy.  There's a whole article on Libertarianism and Objectivism, which you might like to read.
Though many libertarians reject Objectivism, Rand is still a great example of the relationship between libertarians and the gay rights movement.  Quite simply, Rand opposed the gay rights movement wholeheartedly and unambiguously because she recognized that it was dominated by leftism.  As for gay rights in general, she had the usual mixture typical of libertarians, in that she supported some while opposing others.  Her personal feelings were, of course, less than neutral.
The reason I point out the small number of libertarians in the gay rights movement is that it directly impacts on their ability to set the agenda.  No matter what abstract definitions you offer, what's more important is what the people who form the core of the gay rights movement say gay rights are.  If this is "oppressive and dictatorial", then so be it.  The alternative is to give minor views more weight than they deserve, which goes against Wikipolicy.
2) If the article identified Paul as mainstream, then perhaps you'd have a point.  Instead, it says "some libertarians" and names a notable one.  This is completely correct.
3) The New Left hasn't been new in a long time and, in fact, there's not much left of it, either.  One thing that remains of it influence today is that there is still a leftist core to the gay rights movement, which is why it features such anti-libertarian things as the call for protection against discrimination by non-governmental entities. As I've explained above (and further above), no matter how libertarians choose to redefine gay rights, theirs remains a minority view with little impact on the movement as a whole.
Anyhow, not only is your example irrelevant, but it happens to be wrong, as members of the New Left did not unformly support affirmative action.  Don't confuse broadly accurate generalizations with specifics.  For every political extreme, there are always people who know better than to accept it across the board.  There are actually Objectivists who support welfare.
4) Words have the meanings we agree for them to have, which is why dictionaries merely record actual usage.  If people who honestly call themselves libertarians -- like Paul -- make political statements, these are the statements of actual libertarians and therefore worth mentioning here.
5) The article is not written from the Libertarian POV and never will be.  It is written from the neutral POV, and I will personally ensure that it remains so.  Among others things, this means that a critique of libertarian perspectives on gay rights is a necessary part of any article on the topic.  Note that the NPOV requirement is not negotiable.
6) On the occasions when you're correct, I'll gladly concede it.  I did change the reference so that it said "libertarian", not "conservative" or "Republican", so I'm not sure why you're being a sore winner about this.  Save your soreness for the many points that you lost. Alienus 07:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to reply 

message: This article mentions Libertarian oppostion to the National Endowment as an area in which some Libertarians oppose certain gay rights.  As art funding does not seem to be related to gay rights I'm deleting it, but if anyone knows why it was there in the first place, please revert the change. Emmett5 23:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Endowment for the Arts 

message: The article states the following: “Libertarians oppose public education and feel that parents have every right to send their children to an ex-gay camp, or to a school that teaches discrimination against gays, unless such camps or schools engage in physical abuse of the childre .”
This claim needs to be supported.  The article cites the Libertarian Party Platform, but the cited reference does not fully support the claim.  It states:  
:::::”Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children.  … Children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.”
The article says that parents may send their children to ex-gay camps “unless such camps or schools engage in physical abuse.”  The Platform does not limit abuse to “physical abuse,” but rather “abuse.”  If Libertarians have said that abuse is always physical then that should be cited, if not the article should be changed.  Further, the platform does not contain any specific reference to the issue of ex-gay camps.  Is there any specific reference by the Party, its leaders or other prominent Libertarians specifically referring to ex-camps?  If so, that should be cited.  If not, I believe that this may be an open question among Libertarians.  The platform recognizes strong parental control and limits on the child’s right to exercise his or her rights, but it also affirms the existence of those rights.  Unless there is some specific position taken by Libertarians on this issue, I think that this article should not make such a definitive statement.  The Platform does contain this: “We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community.”  This could imply that “abuse” is determined upon some kind of “community standard”  basis.  This could result in very disparate results (e.g. parents from San Francisco convicted of abusing their children when they send a child to an ex-gay camp, while those from a more socially conservative community would not be).  Anyway, I think that the claim in the article needs to be better supported.  Franklin Moore 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the nature of libertarianism, it may not be wise for us to try to think this through on our own.  A better course, I think, would be to research this, and perhaps to ask Rob Power of the Outright Libertarians if he could point you to an official policy of the Libertarian Party.  I'd ask him myself, but we don't get along. Al 23:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly do not mind seeking the imput of others, incuding Rob Power and will attempt to get his input.  I'll let you know what sources he can cite as the the Libertarian postion on this.  I will also ask that whoever added this to the article to provide support.  I agree that we should not think this through on our own, No Orginial Research afterall.  I simply want this article to be correct and cite sources to that effect.  The article as it is now, might be correct, but does not cite sources that support this claim.  I am going to do two things: (1) post on Rob Power's talk page, as well as the Outright Libertarian Talk page to seek their input and (2) insert a citation needed on the artilce.  As of now, I do not feel it appropriate to remove the claim, but unless some cite is forth coming I shall remove, at least, the reference to physical abuse.  I shall of course, welcome any support for this claim from any person, Rob Power or otherwsie.  Franklin Moore 05:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it fair to assume that, just because the USLP holds a belief, that libertarians across the globe agree? This is especially relevant w/r/t the rights of minors, as libertarians elsewhere are spearheading the campaigns for children's rights and lower voting ages (currently 16 in most of Austria), etc. It doesn't feel libertarian to me for a parent to force a school or camp on a child (YMMV). Libertarians elsewhere would be appalled.  samwaltz 14:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for ex-gay camps 

message: With all due respect, the American Libertarian Party's platform is not an authoritative source on libertarianism, but when read as it reads (and not with meaning read into it), it does represent the general opinions of most libertarians.
First, A truly libertarian approach is no regulation.  Any policy that defines anything of a private or personal nature by a government is contrary to the libertarian ideology.  So, any definition of marriage, or of condition of adoption, or of enrollment in the military—whether pro- or anti-gay—is inherently contradictory to libertarian thinking.
Second, the "Conservative-Libertarian Connection" section is heavily biased by a leftist view of right-leaning libertarians.  Most libertarians are not "slumming" with Republicans—in fact, they tend to view both major parties as contrary to their ideology.  It is in fact better to refer to the socially conservative members of the Republican Liberty Caucus as libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Republican-leaning libertarians.  A libertarian believes in freedom (hence the origin of the name): of both the economic and social sort.  
There are few libertarians who "are leery of standing up to the religious right," as that interest group supports restriction of society.  Though many libertarians sided with the Reagan-era Republican Party—which believed in reduced spending, small government (with the notable exception of the military), and little social policy—most have largely distanced themselves from the current incarnation of that party—one that believes in heavy spending, large government, and conservative Christian-influenced social policy.
Finally, there are also left-leaning libertarians, who believe some restriction and regulation is necessary to facilitate the free society to which libertarianism ascribes.—Kbolino 05:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences among libertarians 

message: Under "Libertarian opposition to certain goals of major gay rights organizations," I am removing these two lines:
* Some libertarians oppose allowing gay couples to adopt and have custody of children.
* Some libertarians oppose ending the ban on openly gay servicemen and women in the armed forces.
To include these statements here implies that these are libertarian specific opinions, but in reality these are opinions that are held by "some" (using the same phrasing) from almost any political group. The vast majority of libertarians do NOT believe these things and the way they are included misrepresents libertarians as a whole. AlexMc 20:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two lines removed 

message: It looks like most contributors know this, already. References specifically to members of the U.S. Libertarian Party are capitalised; references to non-affiliated libertarians are written lower-case. I just caught a few contrary applications elsewhere when entering the Democratic-libertarian connection. samwaltz 14:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIG-L and little-l libertarians 

message: is too propagandistic. A part of it is dedicated to point out the "failure" of some Democratic authorities in combating some "anti-gay" legislations. But what in hell the Democrats' stance on anything has to do with the "libertarian perspectives on gay rights"? This article is ridiculously propagandistic and its authors don't even care to hide it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.50.135.160 (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article 

message: I notice that all the parties, with the exception of Libertarianz and Canadian Libertarians, are parties in the European Liberal tradition and are not Libertarian. They should be removed or replaced with the correct national libertarian platforms. One would think you were trying to look more popular across the world than you really are! 62.56.73.102 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... no. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are both derived from the latin word "Liber" meaning free. Whereas the term "liberal" has become corrupted in the US and other countries, it has retained its original meaning in other countries. Read the platform. samwaltz 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarians and gay rights worldwide 

message: It would be interesting if we could have libertarian perspectives on the topic of pederasty, which many understand to be a form of homosexuality. While homosexuality has already been legalised in most Western countries, there is a new movement of age of consent reform whose goal is to socially legitimize pederasty. Libertarians probably have some interesting things to say about that. ADM (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on pederasty 

message: The French Alternative Libérale is not a libertarian party at all. Don't misunderstand: "liberal" in french means "free marketeer".
I removed this part. Utilisé (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Their manifesto seems quite libertarian to me.  AV3000 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Liberale 

message: I agree that a lot of the viewpoints listed here are logical consequences of libertarian principles. But the OR is out of control. We really need notable libertarians and libertarian publications to document these claims. Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive OR

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.goproud.org/index834e.html?p=329
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608080329/http://www.alternative-liberale.fr/index.php/index.php/programme/libertes-individuelles.html to http://www.alternative-liberale.fr/index.php/index.php/programme/libertes-individuelles.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified