Pink Equals is Not About Equality

Post date: Mar 27, 2013 4:20:32 PM

The first problem I see with the "equality" being requested is that it's not requited.

Lets start with my websites. When I write a blog using the Bible as my basis that is not in favor of homosexuality, I get threats and my site has been shut down multiple times by my host. I never condone violence against homosexuals. It's strictly against the New Testament.

So, where's the equality when I have to be tolerant of homosexuals promoting their lifestyle as something good, but they can shut me down for my views? Am I not entitled to freedom of speech and by extension freedom to disagree in a public forum?

The second issue I see is to what end will they push rights?

Today, it is one man + one woman. If the homosexual agenda passes, it will be one person with another person regardless of gender or sex. Still, if a person wanted to marry within their own family, it's outlawed. So next, will inbreeding be allowed? These are people who also love one another deeply.

Suppose inbreeding becomes permissible, then what? Do we drop age limits? Can an adult marry a child? In other cultures, girls can be married off as young as 4 years old. Why not allow it in the US? It's about love, isn't it? Or will you discriminate against 13yr olds who love their boyfriend/girlfriend (who may or may-not be under 18) and feel they're ready for marriage?

What if a person loves someTHING else? There are historic accounts of people having sexual relations with animals. If a person really loves the animal, why shouldn't they be able to marry? Animals have feelings too. Some say they can love just as deeply as humans. It's about love, isn't it?

Yes, someone will say I'm going overboard, but homosexuality is nothing new. Neither is inbreeding, nor pedophilia nor bestiality. The question of sexuality and marriage demands an answer. Where do we draw the line?

The final issue I see is that homosexuality is being treated as a birth trait.

Let me break this down before I go further. I'm not talking about tendencies, but rather, the pursuit of a homosexual lifestyle. Everyone is born with a lean to something. Some people are naturally athletic while others are more intellectually minded. I agree that homosexuals have certain tendencies. Males can have feminine tendencies just as females can have masculine tendencies. I'm not going to argue that.

What I will argue is the action taken upon those tendencies. It's a choice. I'm Latino. I don't choose to be Latino. I can't choose to be another race. It's in my genetic makeup.

I can choose to speak Spanish. I can choose to speak English. I can choose to eat burritos and rice. I can choose to eat pizza. My birth as a Latino does not change how I choose to live my life.

Despite their tendencies, homosexuals are choosing to pursue same-sex relationships. Yet we are protecting them as if their actions are beyond their control. They choose their partner in the same way I chose mine. They find someone who they think will make a compatible partner. The issue is still the choice. Regardless of what the choice is based on, it's a choice.

So, why are we protecting people's choices from scrutiny? As in my first issue, if my choices can be scrutinized, why can't I disagree with the homosexual's choices? I am not condoning violence against homosexuals, but merely disagreeing with their actions and lifestyle. Those who disagree with homosexuals are shutdown and attacked (verbally and physically).

Where is the equality?