As if we didn’t have enough problems to deal with in these trying times, the sex question has rudely penetrated the public discourse this week. Down in Southern Cal, homosexual patriots were condemned for wearing their military apparel in a gay pride parade, which critics cited as an example of forbidden political speech. There is still much resentment in the Armed Forces concerning gays. You’d think that brave soldiers who face rabid jihadists in hostile lands could handle themselves in the shower room, but some prejudices die hard.
In Rome, the Pope let it be known that he disapproved of American nuns ministering to the needs of the needy without the required admonishment of their decadent lifestyles. I suppose he’s trying to atone for the sins of the Fathers who tended a little too closely to the flock of altar boys in years past.
But Chick-Fil-A was the big story of the week. Poultry purveyor Dan Cathy defended his franchaise’s policy of funding anti-gay marriage initiatives around the country, inciting shreiks of protest from activists, politicians, and even the Muppets. It seems absurd, coming from a man named Cathy, but the company is sticking to their guns, while publicly stating that they don’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring or serving. (One wonders how they address the ‘No Shirts, No Shoes, No Service’ policy when dealing with cross-dressers.)
I haven’t eaten at a Chick-Fil-A in decades, since I lived in Atlanta in the seventies. I remember the restaurants had two entrances, one for regular folks and one for little people. Given that you had the choice of entering the establishment through different orifices, their policy seems contradictory.
The whole gay marriage issue is a no-brainer for me. Homosexuals are a fact of life, whether you approve of the lifestyle or not. If two people want to enter into a commitment to be true to each other, who am I to say nay? And of course there is the argument that marriage will decrease the amount of sex being practiced, or that they deserve to be as happy or as miserable as the rest of us. I’m sure that it will make divorce lawyers very happy, and wealthy.
Critics argue that it will only lubricate the slippery slope into further debauchery, like polygamy and marrying outside of the species. Anyone who thinks they can handle more than one spouse deserves their fate. As far as the species question goes, perhaps there should be a requirement that the bride or groom should be able to utter the words “I do.” That would pretty much narrow the field to parrots, and maybe the higher primates in a few generations.