So, I'm explaining the idea behind it, don't shoot the messenger: homosexuality is inherently hedonistic.

Homosexuals can not have their own children, at least they can't both be equally invested in the child, which means they're not invested in the long-term success of any community and society. This gives them a short-term view of the world, focused on the events that will happen in their life time. This is not morally evil, but it's not ideal for a group of people trying to create the best environment for children. Also, remember that Hoppe said that in a libertarian social order Communists were necessarily incompatible whereas homosexuals are incompatible with a "covenant" to provide the, again, best environment for children.

As an individual, you act in your self-interest. Charity may be in your self-interest because you feel good about helping people. Homosexuals are much less likely to feel genuinely invested in the next 100 years of any society, as they are so "short-lived" as childless individuals. If you have children, you might do "irrational" things like saving shit loads of money to help them- irrational in the sense that it's "not in your self-interest" to make such a sacrifice for the next generation, of course if you recognize empathy as granting one happiness as well as spending, it becomes clear that the investment in the next generation causes parents to sacrifice their immediate "hedonistic" materialist pleasure for the empathetic pleasure of their children's well-being. While on an individual level, one man with children may be less concerned about the future than a man without, on average it seems necessarily true that a group of adults with children (or at least capable of having them) will be much more invested in the long-term success of society than a group without.

Maynard Keynes, a reputed homosexual, said things like: "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again." which is exactly what you would think if you weren't going to have kids; parents, on the other hand, frequently leave their children "irrational" amounts of money and property. Keynes is willing to risk long-term troubles for immediate "solutions" because he's worried about his lifetime and not the unborn children who will pay for the stimulus spent today.

I, personally, would not see the need for libertarian homosexuals to be "physically removed" unless they were openly promoting irresponsible sexual behavior; yes, chastity is a virtue if you want your society to function in the long term, if you disagree on this point please compare the relative chastity of empires as they build or at least maintain status, as compared to the relative sexual liberation and decadence during collapsing empires. Speaking of chastity, if promiscuity is any sign of hedonism, and I would say that it is not exactly a "higher form of happiness," then the sexual promiscuity of homosexuals is empirical evidence of hedonistic tendencies. Hedonists aren't bad in principle, just not the best people to have around children. Personally, I don't hate homosexuals, but I don't think homosexual behavior should be encouraged; hold your outrage, I am sure some people have no choice in the matter, for those that do, we should encourage them to prefer heterosexuality, or at the least not glorify the "diversity" of homosexuality. Why? Because if an individual does have some degree of choice (he or she is not strictly disposed towards heterosexuality or homosexuality) then it would be in society's best interests if they were heterosexual due to an issue of incentives I explained above. I recognize that some people may be "on the edge" as in not purely heterosexual or homosexual, and it is objectively in the best interests of a society in the long-term for the former to be preferred, assuming you agree to the premise that people having a long-term interest in society is good for that society (this is exactly the argument Hoppe makes for monarchies being superior to democracies: the incentives of the people in charge.) Is it unfair for the individuals in society to non-violently encourage other individuals to behave in a way that benefits society's long term stability? I would say no, people use social pressure to enforce what they think is in their best interest/child's best interest, so either make an argument as to how the pressure is excessive or inappropriately applied or stop expecting anyone to care. The incentives homosexuals have, compared to a heterosexual, is towards hedonism. Again, this doesn't mean they're objectively horrible people, it's just a fact of incentives, and incentives shape behavior (if you deny this you are now reaching liberal-tier special pleading of incentives not affecting behavior.)

We should also discourage transgenderism for much the same reason. Since 80% of children who "think they're the opposite sex" for a bit (trans) end up satisfied with their equipment as adults, and since getting snoopy snipped (reassignment) does not lower the tremendous suicide rates of transsexuals, and since transsexuals have difficulty even in the world's most "progressive" European societies, we should not encourage this. We should encourage our children to think critically, even if this is uncomfortable for some people who have difficulty thinking critically for whatever personal reason. We should encourage people to diet and exercise, even if this means that people that are overweight feel less comfortable in society and have to pay more for clothes since there's a smaller market for them (pun intended, heh.) If we can agree on this (and by encourage I mean non-violent social pressure) I don't see why we can't agree that we should discourage a lifestyle (like hedonism or homosexuality) which is bad for the long-term sustainability and success of society? Would it not be better for everyone else if such patterns of thought were concentrated in certain areas (which would actually be a stunning example of how destructive such lifestyles are?) I should clarify that I don't think that homosexual couples who lead stable monogamous lives lead destructive lives, but I am also not so blinded by some desire to make gays feel accepted that I pretend that this is the norm in the gay community. At the very least, it would be rational to require that any gays within a family/kin/child-centered community would be expected to be adoptive parents. If you want to organize your family-centered community with a bunch of hedonists, whether or not they're heterosexual, go ahead, but I would not agree that's in any child's best interest.