This week, in her own words, for an ABC News story that was to be written in support of a more tolerant view towards college campus bisexual liberality, radical gay activist Roberta Sklar conceded the entire debate of the radical homosexual activist agenda. In doing so she conceded the most important truth of the matter to the people who have argued the biblio-centric view of marriage and family. She also caved in her own chances of furthering her radical beliefs. Beliefs that only thirty years ago were considered abnormalities in human behavior.
In other words - gay activist Roberta Sklar - lost the gay debate.
How'd she do it?
Here's what she said this week:
"These young women see sexuality as a fluid thing," said National Gay and Lesbian Task Force spokeswoman Roberta Sklar. "It's not just between your legs. These relationships are physical, emotional and intellectual, and the boundaries are not hard set," she said.
Sklar said a growing number of young women have a "more flexible view" of their sexual partners, and their early choices of gender may not be a "fixed path."
"I know a woman who had relationships of depth with members of both sexes," said Sklar. "She didn't put a tag on what her sexuality identity was. Recently, I saw her at her wedding to a young, lovely man. In no way does she deny her history or say she has found her true sexuality. It was all her true sexuality."
Sklar loses, here's why:
For the past thirty years radical homosexual activists have sought out a way to justify their desires and behaviors beyond pure human choice. And by all measure they have been quite effective - at least in moving public opinion - though they've made little headway on fact. They have sought from science a biological explanation of their sexual behavior. They have sought to find medical, genetic, even DNA related origins. These searches have been in vain as there is still no biological, genetic, or cellular explanation for their sexually related behaviors.
This did not stop them from making the broader assumption in pop culture and media that an explanation would be found. Thusly a thirty year PR effort to redefine and hi-jack the civil rights movement to include people who engage in homosexual actions has succeeded in making people "think gays are 'born that way'" regardless of what science says.
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 here, here, 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.