Dr. Ben Carson got eviscerated by the media because he claimed that people who engage in homosexuality do so by choice. Dr. Carson’s analogy about prisons was not the best example to use to make his case, but the choice factor is a given. And even if choice is not a factor, just because a person has an inclination to do something, the something he or she is inclined to do does not mean that thing should be done.

Even President Obama said that homosexuality is a choice, a view that those in the gay community would dispute and argue against if anybody else had said it:

“I think people know that treating folks unfairly, even if you disagree with their lifestyle choice… Let them live their lives, and under the law they should be treated equally.”

So as long as a person claims that what he or she does is a “lifestyle choice,” that person must be treated equally? Are there any limits to these “lifestyle choices”? On what basis can a “lifestyle choice” be questioned?

What if a pedophile claims that he can’t help himself, that he, like the homosexual (or any of the other 50+ types of sexual expressions that the folks at Facebook have engineered), is biologically inclined to want to have sex with prepubescent children? Who’s to say that his inclination is not so inclined?

What people in the same-sex debate don’t want to discuss is once it’s accepted that people don’t choose their 50+ (and counting) sexualities, is that it opens the door to the belief that morality can’t be part of the discussion. Anybody who claims otherwise is shouted down.

Dan Savage is a perfect example of the anti-bully bully. He’s an in-your-face advocate for the normalization of all things sexual. The only morality he cares to discuss is that any person who questions his view of sexuality is immoral.

“Radical LGBT activist Dan Savage plumbed new depths of lewd anti-Catholicism in a series of Twitter posts on Saturday. The hypocritical ‘anti-bullying’ activist pointed out how a ‘“repair” on this statue of John Paul II makes him look like he just stuck 2 fingers in a squeaky clean altar boy.’”

Savage is the homosexual community’s version of ISIS. He’s the person sent out to flay anybody who dares to question the moral appropriateness of same-sex sexuality.

It’s gotten so bad that Republicans are flipping and flopping all over the issue. David Koch, one of the “evil” Koch brothers believes he can gain fuller acceptance by joining in an amicus brief to get the Supreme Court to force the states to mandate same-sex marriage.

“The brief he will reportedly sign in DeBoer v. Snyder, a case that could afford same-sex couples a constitutional right to marry, will host a number of other prominent conservative signatories, including retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former Reagan White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein and former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman.”

Based on what? The Constitution doesn’t say anything about marriage? The 14th Amendment was not drafted to include same-sex marriage. So how are these men accounting for the legitimacy of same-sex marriage or marriage in general? On what basis can moral arguments be made for same-sex marriage? Where is the moral basis to be found? Those presenting the amicus brief never say:

“‘Over the past two decades, the arguments presented by proponents of [same-sex marriage bans] have been discredited by social science, rejected by courts, and contradicted by amici’s personal experience with same-sex couples,’ a portion of the brief, provided to The Washington Post, read.

“‘Such bans impede family formation, harm children, and discourage fidelity, responsibility, and stability.’”

Discredited? Based on what? Biology? Common sense? Choice? The courts? Personal experience? Should what some people choose to do be mandated by law so that everybody else must accept a person’s lifestyle choice, so much so that to have a contrary opinion will bring on fines and loss of a business?

What is the ultimate source of right and wrong in society to justify any of the above claims? That’s the question that needs to be asked. But once this question is asked, the next question is inevitable: What is marriage, and who defines it? It’s this question that no one wants to ask since it would destroy the entire same-sex argument and nullify so much liberal agitprop, not only about homosexuality but about the entire liberal worldview.