Kevin McCullough

The indignity that the African-American community has expressed on this point is completely legitimate. Why should a person who engages in homosexual activity be given preferential treatment (i.e. status for treatment they otherwise would not receive) based purely on who they choose to sexually engage? There is nothing a black man can (nor should) do about the color of his skin. Unjust treatment for such a condition is abhorrent and unbiblical. But there is not one person that has ever been born who did not enter into a consensual sex act without choosing to do so. And if one is able to choose between who they do or do not copulate with - then there is NO similarity between the civil rights movement and the progressive preferential rights movement of today's homosexual activists.

Liberals recognized that weakness in their arguments some time back and thus began attempting to also eliminate the idea of "the right to choose" when it came to sexuality. They have spent millions attempting to smear legitimate psychologists who have determined that homosexuals can "change their orientation" (fancy words for "choose who to sleep with"). Activists have ridiculed prominent former homosexuals who no longer engage in homosexual behavior but rather have healthy and loving families and marriages.

Radical homosexual activists have also attempted to slander my voice for speaking so openly (and herehere, here, and here) about the comparisons of homosexual behavior to other sexual deviancy such as adultery, the use of pornography, incest, and pedophilia. All are sexual actions, all are chosen to be engaged in by the adult parties involved.

Long explanation short is - if homosexuals are not biologically compelled to act on their urges, but rather make them based on choice - then the discussion is over. The "born that way" argument is dead, and does not apply. And if THAT is true - then the debate about marriage is equally already settled. Marriage is a sexual union that God has established, and that society has recognized as having certain benefits. Homosexual unions by their design don't measure up - because they are missing the key ingredients.

What was shocking about Sklar's comments is that in her eagerness to appear uber-tolerant to the very sexual chic movement of the day (bisexual twenty somethings) she passes condemnation on her own "belief system."

With sexual relationships being "more fluid" with no "boundaries that are hard set", girls with more "flexible views" towards their sex partners, gender choices not being on a "fixed path", and woman who are leaving their lesbian amores for the security of a traditional marriage - Sklar is arguing choice, not biology.

In doing so she is arguing for the foundational view that we humans choose to control who we engage in sexual acts with. And in arguing that she ends the debate on the radical agenda she has been working towards for the last three decades.

The jig is up.

Game, set, match.

You can put it on the board...yes! 

Even though she didn't intend to it’s refreshing to see a radical homosexual activist like Roberta Sklar finally admit the truth.

I'm confident however, it will not become a habit.