Your "argument" is becoming more torturous by the hour.
1) The argument about the bill is immaterial -- I did not raise the issue, Starchild did. Assigning it to me is evidence of your characteristic dishonesty.
2) Ron Paul, along with every other participant in the "values voter" debate, pledged to increase abstinence education funding if elected president. That's not "libertarian."
3) On marriage, Paul claims to support "getting government out of the marriage business altogether," yet was a vocal proponent of the DOMA, which creates a federal definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples.
4) Your knee-jerk defense of Ron Paul, regardless of the facts, record, or even "who said what" is even more amusing when you consider that his primary campaign issue, the war in Iraq, is an area within which I am in strong agreement with him. . . and an area where you claim that the LP will be destroyed if it adopts a stance similar to Paul's (and mine).
You and I disagree. You're going to have to deal with it -- and if you're going to make attacks on what I have supposedly said, make sure you're actually citing my posts, not what Starchild posted in response to my notes on the AP's "values voter debate" reporting.