Talk:Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights

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)

Boy Scouts

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)

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)

Right, so how do libertarians feel about that? Some of their stances seem clouded to me. 66.57.225.195 03:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)DEL

Browned. A Liberarian would probably support all groups having equal access to a public school. Although a libertarian feels that all education should be private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.91.75 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Edits by DebohunSonOGalt

DebohunSonOGalt, you recently made a number of unexplained, undiscussed and very POV edits to the article. Seeing that you've editing nothing BUT this article, I figured you're likely to be a drive-by or a sock puppet. This is strengthened by the fact that you quickly installed a popup into your monobook.js. My response was to revert these changes, not sure if you'd bother driving by to again.

Well, now you're back and this is becoming an edit war. I know you can't win it, but I'd still rather head it off at the pass before we go into the tedious block and protects and such.

Again, your singularity of purpose, as well as your timing, does suggest that you're a sock puppet, but if you're really not, then come here and justify your changes. If you can explain them well, nobody will revert them.

Briefly, here are some of my key objections:

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 lihj;on 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".

3) Likewise, calling some libertarians "self-identified" is an attempt to cast doubt on their libertarianism and is quite POV.

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.

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.

If you can't respond to these objections, I will be forced to once again revert your changes. If you try to edit war, not only will I invoke 3RR violation on you, but I will have your sockpuppet status checked. I just did this with Raisinman and got his account permanently blocked. Alienus 19:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a day without a response, so I'm going to go ahead and revert. When you do show up, please don't launch an edit war by reverting. Instead, come here and answer these questions so we can get some sort of consensus. Alienus 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Edits by Alienus…

[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 [1]

Mine:

• Gay **Conservatives** That Invoke Libertarian Principles … **Independent Gay Forum [2]

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)

Reply to SonOGalt

We don't interpolate text on Wikipedia, so I'm going to just number my answers. But first, I just want to say that a name like "SonOGalt" makes me want to immediately run out and rename myself InsaneCollectivistRandBasher. I won't because I'm not one and because I don't much like blatantly partisan names. They show what I consider an unhealthy identification with ideologies and fictional characters, and they tend to prejudice people instead of allowing a genuine consensus based on the content, not the label. Alienus 02:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1) As Rand wrote in a book of the same title, the new left is where the modern gay rights movement originates, so in this sense, the left already owns the issue for the same reason I own the fruits of my labor. (For that matter, Rand was hardly a poster child for gay rights, herself.)

As I pointed out to Rob Power, the voting record of gays in America overwhelmingly supports this. A clear majority vote for the Democrats, with a minority going with the Republicans, then a smaller minority for the Greens, with the rest scattered across the other parties, including the Libertarians. Even the Log Cabin Republicans, who constitute the mainstream of the non-leftist gay rights movement, seem to support gay rights policies more consistent with that of the Democrats than the Libertarians.

Frankly, as a component of the overall gay rights movement, the Libertarians are just not that significant in their numbers. And as a component of the Republican party, they've been soundly betrayed by W's love for the religious right. In short, to the extent that libertarians are a genuine part of the gay rights movement, as opposed to a counter-movement, they're just too small a part to be a major influence on the whole, much less to reframe the issue into libertarian terms.

The bottom line is that the gay rights movement is whatever the real people who constitute the bulk of the gay rights movement say it is. And gay rights are defined by this movement, not by the Libertarian Party. Alienus 02:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

2) Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian, and I'm certainly not going to argue with him on that matter. That would be about as bad as telling Mormons they're not Christian! His claim to libertarianism is legitimate, even if you personally think that his views are not pure enough for your standards. I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide who's a "real" libertarian.

3) I was going to say that, with regard to Paul, you were coming close to a No True Scotsman fallacy. Well, for the matter of libertarians who don't happen to agree with you about adoption and the military, you very clearly cross that line. At best, you could argue that these people are not loyal members of the Libertarian party, but you're in no position to exclude them from ranks of the libertarians just because they're bigots.

4) We've been over this. If they say they're libertarian and we have no strong basis to think they're lying, then they're libertarian. Libertarian views are whatever views real libertarians hold, not some mythical ideal that you measure them up against.

5) Your summary of the BSA issue is amazingly biased. The fact is that gays are now and will always remain a minority, so any "neutral" stance that allows gays and straights to discriminate against each other will generally favor the latter. True neutrality is to disallow discrimination across the board. You can argue that allowing the BSA to exclude gays (and, for that matter, atheists) is consistent with Libertarianism, and I'll grant you that, but the issue here is actually whether it's consistent with gay rights, as defined by the left-originated gay rights movement.

6) I read the Mission statement of the Independent Gay Forum, and while they may well be independent of the mainstream (leftist) gay rights movement, they clearly reject conservativism along with "progressivism". In short, it's not accurate to call them either conservatives or Republicans; they're libertarians. I'm going to go ahead and fix the text to reflect this. While I'm there, I'll offer another example of how gay Republicans differ from libertarians, with citations.

For the record, the terms I used weren't "personal epiphets", they were technical terms. A sockpuppet, for example, is an additional account created by an existing user. A drive-by, analogous to a drive-by shooting, is a one-time participant who runs in, makes massive (and usually bad) changes, then runs off, never to be seen again. It turns out that you're in another category: eager new editors who don't quite understand how things work yet. I'm not holding that against you or using it as any sort of insult, just recognizing the reality.

Just to bring you up to speed, what we do now is to wrangle over this further. Where we have agreement (such as the status of the IGF) we act on that. Where we lack it, we wrangle some more or let it rest. Alienus 02:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Alienus

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)

Reply to reply

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)

Lack of Progress

I agree that a "neutral" point of view should be everyone's goal. However, I don't concede that the article, as written, is anywhere near neutral. It is written from a leftist point of view, and with the clear political intent of framing a poisoned viewpoint of libertarian views on gay rights. Unless this is addressed, this is going to descend into an edit war. As long as there is a refusal to recognize an objective standard for libertarianism and to allow gay libertarians to define themselves and their positions, I see no possibility of a meeting of the minds on this. We need to identify next steps for getting higher ups at Wikipedia involved in this. 24.206.164.42 18:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians are free to define their own view on gay rights, but non-libertarians are also free to compare this with the mainstream view and point out the differences. From a libertarian POV, the mainstream gay rights movement is against the equality of gays. Likewise, from a liberal (and even Log Cabin Republican) POV, the libertarian movement is against the equality of gays. This article is not going to be written in the libertarian or liberal POV, so we're not going to make any "objective" judgements on which group is correct. We'll just present both their viewpoints, in their proper places and proportions, so that the reader can judge for themselves.

I'm assuming that you're SonOGalt but forgot to log in. What I'm going to do now is flag this article as needing a third opinion, since you do not seem to be able to respond to my arguments. Alienus 19:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. [3] Alienus 19:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that the article reads pretty NPOV, I mean, unless the facts are compleatly wrong, it doesn't seem to try and attack support or opposition among Libertarianism from a certain perspective. If the facts are "poisoned", then non-poisoned facts should be found. Plus, gay libertarians are hardly representative of the majority of libertarians, how would getting their perspective help this article? Homestarmy 19:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for weighing in. Let's see what SonOGalt has to say in response. Alienus 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you said "From a libertarian POV, the mainstream gay rights movement is against the equality of gays." I don't think libertarians view the so-called mainstream gay rights movement as being against equality. I think they view liberal gays as sometimes going about it in the wrong manner. Pushing one's views onto others by legislation is usually not the best way to bring about change. Although I totally support gays being able to marry (although the government has no business in the marriage department, and they use to not be), using the court system to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts (instead of letting voters decide) only caused more problems for the gay community. It caused the wave of anti-gay marriage ammendments in 2004 (along with Bush's scare tactics), and gave fundamentalist preachers an excuse to whip up their gay-hating troops into thinking all of society will break down if those ammendments weren't passed. That's just one example, but I just thought I'd voice my opinion. Yes, I do think this article does have a clear left-leaning view on libertarian ideas in the gay community. i can see this article has been a battleground for a while, so i'll discuss any here any major changes i think should be made to the article.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:3o

I didn't wade through the massive discussion above. Suffice it to say that the article's problem isn't so much its point of view but the fact that it doesn't cite its sources and almost all of it reads like original research. Sources need to be cited where it's said that "libertarians believe X". Fagstein 09:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's a reasonable point. Can't go wrong with more citations. In most of these cases, the source is fairly obvious. For the majority libertarian perspective, there's the Libertarian party's own platform, as well as the position statement for the Outright Libertarians. For minority views, some already mention specific names, so it's just a matter of tracking down the original statement, while others might be a little harder to source.

Thanks for your input. Alienus 20:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy and Fagstein, thank you for weighing in. I'm curious, did you both get a chance to read my Talk posts, where I go into considerable detail about why I feel this article is POV? Let me provide a hypothetical comparison: imagine, an article on Christianity, with a cite about a particular Christian's reconstructionist views on homosexuals, something along the line of, "Some Christians believe homosexuals are evil and should be stoned to death when discovered." That cite wouldn't begin to accurately reflect mainstream Christian thought, and even if the individual cited choose to call himself a mainstream Christian, his self-indentification wouldn't make him one. So, making such a cite would serve no purpose other then to poison the viewpoint of readers by implying that Christianity advocates the stoning of homosexuals. This is my objection to this article. It repeatedly attempts to describe libertarians and libertarian thought through reference to ideas that are in the extreme minority of libertarian throught, and in terms limited to the Left-Right oppositional paradigm. Libertarians are not part of the Left-Right paradigm and neither they nor their positions can be accurately described in Left-Right terminology. The Republican references serve only to freighten Democratic readers. The purpose of such writing can only be to intentionally influece the reader. If you look back through the history of this article, you will discover my original edits were extremely minimalist and targeted only to remove the influences I describe here. Regarding Homestarmy's suggestion to find out what mainstream (presumably straight) libertarian opinion is, I applaud it. However, as there is no standards body for libertarianism, the reasonable reference would be to the Libertarian Party platform, or to accepted definitions of libertarianism. I made reference to both in justifying my edits (above). Regarding Fagstein's suggestion to provide citations, I also concur. That should be expected. However, citing a reference for Ron Paul's views on homosexuals, will not remove the fact that he is in an extreme miniority of libertarians who believe as he does. It also will not address that fact that when his opinion is weighed against an accepted definition of libertarianism that the opinion itself cannot be accurately described as libertarian. SonOGalt 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What source do you have for your assertion that this represents an "extreme minority"? If this is a reliable source, cite it in the article and let the reader decide. Just because it's a minority opinion doesn't mean it should be left out of the article.

It is not may job to prove that Paul's position represents a minority viewpoint. It is yours to prove that it represents a majority viewpoint, which you cannot do. Why? Because the viewpoint cannot be reconciled with basic definitions of libertariansim. Because his viewpoint is in direct opposition to the Libertarian Party platform on gay rights. Because no major libertarian organization takes such a position. It is not a libertarian view point, but rather a conservative one. Two things which you seem to consistantly confuse. 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

At no point have I suggested that he's the majority. You're fighting with a straw man. Please address my claims, not the products of your imagination. You're also working off the premise that libertarianism is incompatible with bigotry, which is just silly. Alienus 09:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just some Christians. As it stands, both the RCC and SBC are clearly and strongly against gay rights, and they constitute a majority of Christians in America. So it would not be at all misleading to write that Christianity is against gay rights, particularly if you supported it with cites to what I've alluded to above. Alienus 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This statement is very revealing in that I made no mention of mainstream Christian views on gay rights, but rather instead a mention to an extremist minority's views on homosexuals. To confuse the two and respond as above reveals an hystrionic perspective that fears any position but its own. Reconstructionist viewpoint is no more representative of Christianisty then Ron Paul is of libertarianism. Reconstructionism terrifies me as much as libertarianism apparently terrifies you, however I still have the integrity to not imply that Reconstructionism is representative of Christianity. 24.206.164.42 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in your comment that has any bearing on either me or this article. Alienus 09:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is whether "some libertarians" believe this. A single libertarian suffices, and Paul is notable as a libertarian. No claim is made that he represents the majority or mainstream view. Alienus 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple rule of grammar here: "One" is not "some". You need at least two to have a "some". For that matter, why be vague about this? "Some libertarians believe" is weasel language and should be avoided. If one notable person says something, just leave it at that. Fagstein 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not leave it at that. 24.206.164.42 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't really have a choice because you don't actually have any sort of argument to stand on. If at least one noted libertarian says a thing, it follows that some libertarians believe it. If you wish to claim that he's the only one, it's up to you to support this. Alienus 09:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The existence of one notable libertarian who can be reliably sourced with this view shows that, as you say, at least one libertarian believes this. Should we therefore assume that only this one notable libertarian holds this belief or that less notable libertarians who hold this belief don't count? I would think that one notable source suffices to show that some number of people, however small, hold this belief. If anything, we'd need further evidence if we wanted to say that only one does. Alienus 23:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, as I have said before, over and over above, reporting extremist minority positions is only justified if you are trying to posion the well. Please show me evidence that Ron Paul's position on gay rights is representative of libertarianism; you can't because it doesn't. I call myself a liberal (as in old-world, classical liberal), does that mean I would be a credible cite in an article on "Liberal views of gay rights"? I doubt you would tolerate that.

You call him an extremist, but that doesn't make him one. He does appear to be a minority, which is fine because that's how he's described. "Some" is not a majority. Alienus 09:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We're not saying only one person holds this belief. We are merely saying that he holds this belief. Saying that other people besides him hold this belief is conjecture. It may be right, but we have to show it without using original research. In other words, don't make any statement (even a vague one) regarding the number of people who hold this belief unless you have a source for this information. Fagstein 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that the Libertarian Party's platform is in opposition to Dr. Paul's beliefs on gay rights is substantial evidence that he is in a minority position, and one without credential. 24.206.164.42 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, nobody has said he's in the majority. You are fighting the ghosts of your imagination. Come back when you wish to address what has actually been said.

Uh-huh, and how exactly can we tell the precise number of people who agree with him? Alienus 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We cannot, and therefore he should not be cited. 24.206.164.42 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If we can't be precise, then we should use accurate but imprecise terms, such as "some". In fact, that's what we do. Alienus 09:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign in, 24.206.164.42, is me. SonOGalt 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

National Endowment for the Arts

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)

Support for ex-gay camps

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)

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)

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)

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)

Differences among libertarians

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)

Two lines removed

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)

BIG-L and little-l libertarians

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)

Why does this page even exist?

I see almost no citing. This looks very much like original research. This looks almost like a school essay, and does not deal in cited facts. The previous comment was left by anonymous user 142.179.18.241 at 07:54, 13 April 2007 .

Quoting AND citing the official platform is completely sufficient.The only thing I think is missing is a comparison of various libertarian parties worldwide, but I assume that will come with time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samwaltz (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for adding a stroked out "vandalism" comment. The point is that this is all original research and filled with weasel words.

The previous comment was added by amourfou.

This article

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).

The description of the libertarian support to some gay rights, and criticism of the demands of mainstream gay rights groups, and the philosophical basis for both the supportive and oppositional stances, are the only points the article is supposed to focus on; however, some editor insists in comparing, in a very tendencious and pro-libertarian fashion, the libertarian approach to gay rights to that of the Republican Party and, especially, the Democratic Party, to the great disadvantage of the latter. I ask the person who's doing so to stop it -- most Wikipedia readers are probably more interested in a factual, rather than propagandistic, approach to the subject they have in mind and, again probably, are capable of making up their own opinions on the basis of the information they receive. And even if they are not, Wikipedia does not aim to be a partisan encyclopedic website.201.50.202.62 08:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Libertarians and gay rights worldwide

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)

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)

Views on pederasty

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)