I very much dislike how modern science calls everything a fact, regardless of how inconclusive it’s findings are. Everything is a fact now, even if its not. Many, even on this forum sadly or anywhere, have succummed to that lazy method of reasoning and are unwilling to go down the road of superior scrutinity to further validate their claim.
Ofcoarse I am not referring to any one here specifically, just saying it’s a problem in general all around us. 
Actually, this book sounds awesome. Thanks.
You have this backwards btw. Those who claim that homosexual attraction is a choice/lifestyle and say anything about removing those from society for being ‘non-family’ (whatever that means), have all the burden of proof on them.
To be quite frank: Who cares? What impact does Hoppe’s views on homosexuality/bisexuality/tap dancing midgets/sadomasochistic Esperanto language camps operated by black men dressed as avocados have on anything?
(Classical) liberalism and/or libertarianism is not, has not, and will never conform to the standards of political correctness, be they Kinseyian or Keynesian. And the benefits of attracting homosexual people to our cause are miniscule compared to the alliances that can be made with secessionists. I don’t think it’s a coincidence many American homeschoolers are religious, nor that the senior faculty of this Institute is largely Catholic. Even Rothbard and Block, both avid atheists, were in favour of religion as a stopping power against secular monarchs and tyrants. There are far more people interested in seceding over, say, abortion than over things like whether homosexuals can get government-approved marriage documents.
I’m not saying we should go out of our way to piss off the gay lobby, but I don’t think we’ll get much traction out of an alliance with them. If anything, it would only contribute to the “All liberals care about is drugs” stereotype, except with homosexuality tacked on.
Praetyre,
This is about property rights and consistency. I can’t believe you’re making this strategic stuff up to defend aggression.
Remember: I didn’t bring this stuff up. If it were lost to the times and forgotten that would be fine by me. But Daniel brought it up here, and Stephan brought it up on Libertarian Standard. And if you’re going to revisit this topic you’d better be sure you’re doing it right and not simply defending a decades old bad view.
I think by homosexuality hoppe just means people with the same junk that are attracted to one another.
Here’s a pretty good interview with the author also:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3554279466299738997#
That is pedophilia, not homosexuality. Hoppe wasn’t arguing against pedophilia but against homosexuality and it’s “advocacy”. Again: homosexuality is not something people advocate or choose, it is something that people biologically are.
By todays standards yes, however in ancient greece it was not. Boy of 15 o16 was seen as a man. It is totally relevent to what we are discussing. Were these practices widespread because of some predisposition or because of a differing culture concerning sex.
It is also relevent that many of these relationships continued into adulthood. It was common for soldiers of the time to engage in homosexual relationships while on campaign. This would be totally unthinkable in our society.
It seems that the permissive sexual culture of ancient greece allowed for the widespread practice of homosexuality, bisexuality, and peophillia (your description, not mine) (I am also not equating these acts with one another).
Also to be clear I am not trying to show that all homosexuality is a choice. Only that historicly there is evidence that culture can affect the sexual preferences of the people in society.
Nielso: "… And if you’re going to revisit this topic you’d better be sure you’re doing it right "
Do it right?
“… and not simply defending a decades old bad view”
Because the newer the better?
You’re being definitional. Clearly what I meant with sacred was un-touchable. People who believe that version could not separate it politically.
In other words, if you’re a libertarian, then you cannot hold the fish and the trees as un-touchable.
Un-touchable for yourself or everyone? Can you not hold something sacred and respect other people’s political views? It might be rare, but I can believe there is someone who’s a libertarian based on the N.A.P. and having a free-market stance, yet not partaking in activities that the person see’s as violating what’s sacred.
Is there an atheist here who thinks homosexuality is a choice?
Do you think there’s a correlation between atheism and bad science?
Ayn Rand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_and_homosexuality#Moral_views
I find it ironic how the Kinseyian crowd calls everyone who disagrees with them intolerant and bigoted (which brings to mind this) and yet treat any questioning of their “Homosexuality is set in stone” dogma like AGWers treat questioners of the Gospel of Gore.
Is there an atheist here who thinks homosexuality is a choice?
How is this relevant to what anyone here has said? Religion has nothing to do with this.
I’m a heterosexual who is attracted to thin and beautiful women. this is not a choice…yet I can advocate the value of my desires to others who prefer ‘thick’ (read: fat) women, men, etc.
ever hear about the ‘carbon footprint of a person’ applied to population control? I have.
sigh
shooting people for rolling their eyes at musical theatre? civilzation at its finest.
this is a sad, sad day for the LvMI forums.
what aggression are you talking about?
the preference is not. the action is…
just as heterosexuality is not a choice but the act of engaging in sex is (relevant to the celibate, those ‘waiting for marriage’, those in monogomous relationships who turn down the honry babysitter, etc.).