Questions of Sex

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.

This entry was posted in Culture, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Questions of Sex

  1. Michael Anderson says:


    Two things.

    With my ancestors in Utah have had to juggle multiple wives and seemingly able to keep them sorted just fine, and plenty of cultures still allowing this as well, I’m not sure outlawing polygamy is the best way to go. Better to keep it out in the open to make sure there isn’t any abuse going on. I would also like to see some cultures adopt multiple husbands–in fact, since we are suffering a man-cession it might be an interesting idea to having middle-aged, employed, and fully functional professional women in Nevada County marrying stables of middle-aged unemployed males. By sharing resources, this might take some of the pressure off of the DMV office on Sutton Way, local bars, and the McCourtney Rd. transfer station.

    Regarding sex with animals, I don’t see what’s the big deal. But I doubt your requirement would fly. Most of this sort of sodomy occurs with pigs, goats, lambs, and horses, for which the evolutionary path probably will not include speech for another 100,000 years anyway. Parrots are out for obvious reasons, as well as primates (at least until the learn to stop flinging their feces). So I think we’re stuck with the barnyard animals, where human speech is non-existent, unless we’re talking about Mr. Ed.

    Michael A.

    • Tom Odachi says:

      That’s hilarious Michael!

      On the subject of the gay pride parade… When I was still on active duty, I disagreed with the newly implemented policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT). However, since leaving the military, I saw the error of my ways, and have come to support the full integration of gays and lesbians in the military.

      My main reason for opposing this onetime allowance to march in uniform from Secretary of Defense Panetta, is based on the simple fact that it violates a long standing regulation of prohibiting military members from participating in any activity that is political, partisan, or controversial. Why would the DoD politicize a social issue that violates a long standing regulation?

    • rlcrabb says:

      I was watching C-Span last weekend and there was a fellow who was talking about the problems with China’s gender gap, as in there are too many men and too few women. There are no doubt many nervous farm animals out there in the rice paddys, not to mention the panda population. He was saying that at some point in the future the Red Dragon might end up invading their neighbors, just for the women.

      • Michael Anderson says:

        Good points, Bob.

        With this whole marrying thing, why do people care what sort of a contractual relationship individuals might want to enter into, even if it’s with an inanimate object?

        Let’s say a guy wants to marry his sofa. He loves his sofa–in any personal position it provides a great view of the TV screen, and has a handy side table which can hold chips, popcorn and any sort of beverage he desires. If he wishes the state to sanction a relationship that will last until “death do them part,” why should anyone else care?

        Now, if the guy wanted to marry his sofa at Emmanuel Episcopal, I think the parish has every right to say no. But otherwise, live and live I say.

        • Todd Juvinall says:

          Marriage is bewtween one man and one woman. You start marrying a chicken or several other barnyard animals, pretty soon you have the island of Dr. Moreau.

          • Michael Anderson says:

            That’s hilarious, Todd. That’s like worrying about a guy knocking up his couch and making a bunch of little half-couch/half-human babies.

          • PeteK says:

            Making love to a couch would produce a “love seat” offspring I believe.

      • Greg Goodknight says:

        I believe Scotland was where the men were men and the sheep were fearful.

        Moving on, “If two people want to enter into a commitment to be true to each other, who am I to say nay?”

        It isn’t about commitment to each other, it’s the money. One doesn’t need the government to make a commitment to one’s beloved. In fact, before governments even existed people somehow managed to make lifelong commitments, and many of the beasts of the world managed to do so too… my first wife and I, backpacking in the San Jacinto wilderness, watched a pair of coyotes, one with a lame hind leg, make their way through the forest; a poignant moment.

        Demanding gay marriage is demanding equal economic subsidy, without the implied reproductive roles which is why the subsidies are there to begin with. Every civil law advantage of traditional marriage is available to same sex couples in California through civil unions, but not Federal benefits like social security or favorable tax treatments, nor does it automatically trigger private employer benefits like health insurance that most but not all employers choose to not exend.

        Some employers choose to extend benefits to domestic partners now. This is mostly about forcing the rest to do so, and while I have no problem honoring gay and lesbian friends and associates desires to be treated as a married couple, including referring to their spouses as such whether they have chosen civil union or some informal marriage declaration, I have a big problem with clear democratic majorities rejecting same-sex marriage. including subsidies, being overturned by the courts.

        • 1 in five hetero couples until recently, were unable to conceive. By the logic above, they should be denied tax benefits, subsidies? Gay couples can and do adopt, should they have to do so before getting the govmint subsidy?

          ” I have a big problem with clear democratic majorities rejecting same-sex marriage. including subsidies, being overturned by the courts.”

          So in this case you are in favor of mob rule?

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Curious how some call those pesky elections “mob rule”, especially when they just happen to match centuries of precedent. Should we let the mob help decide who gets to be President?

            I’m still guessing that “implied reproductive roles” is enough for the less impulsive readers to understand. In any case, 4 of 5 trumps 0 of 5.

          • Michael Anderson says:

            “Should we let the mob help decide who gets to be President?”

            Yes, the Electoral College is obsolete, undemocratic, and will eventually destroy our Republic unless we get rid of it.

          • Todd juvinall says:

            It amazes me that supposed intelligent people can’t understand the Electoral College.

          • Michael Anderson says:


            I understand it just fine, and I’m glad you’re in on the discussion.

            The Electoral College was originally designed to prevent majority tyranny over minority rights, always a good thing. But the political terrain has shifted in America in the past 200+ years, which is why it’s now obsolete.

            Smaller states have way too much influence in our federal system, not just in presidential elections but also in Congress and the Supreme Court as well. It’s actually a huge crisis.

            Don’t take my word for it, read on:

            Michael A.

          • TD Pittsford says:

            OK, Todd. Why don’t you explain the Electoral College to the rest of us poor, uneducated, guttersnipes who nonetheless labor under the apparently naive assumption that our vote really counts. We all know that there’s only ONE thing that elects presidents: M-O-N-E-Y! The Electoral College is not above accepting a few well placed perks.

          • Todd juvinall says:

            TD, a bunch of 18th century men explained it all for you in the document they wrote. Go read it. I am amazed the American people are so ignorant of the term “united states”.

          • “I’m still guessing that “implied reproductive roles” is enough for the less impulsive readers to understand. In any case, 4 of 5 trumps 0 of 5.”

            When two gay females form a family unit, and both head for the sperm bank, then by Greg’slogic, they should get double the benefits and deduction of a hetero couple, since the can out-produce the hetero couple in the same unit of time. Many of the 4 of 5 who can have kids in the hetero unions, don’t. What shall we do for octomom’s?

          • Michael Anderson says:

            Todd, you didn’t read behind the links I provided, or you wouldn’t have written what you wrote.

            The Electoral College actually emphasizes the federal gov’t–just because it works to your political advantage today doesn’t mean it will tomorrow.

            Two points in favor of the Electoral College, from one of the links:

            “[It] contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system.”

            Yeah, well, we know how great that system has turned out. And as we know, voters in every state are registering as independents in record numbers.

            “[It] maintains a federal system of government and representation.”

            So, the Electoral College is not really about states rights at all. Instead, it keeps the power concentrated in Washington D.C., which you supposedly abhor.


          • Todd juvinall says:

            The Electoral Colege is all about state’s rights. It has nothing to do with the two party system. It simply lets the states award their EC votes as they want. If every state decided to allot the EC votes per district winner, then a winner takes all would change everything. So you gripe is with how the states allocate, nt the EC itself. The nation is a republican form of government and perhaps that is where you are stumbling. We are not a true democracy like Greece or Spain.

          • Steve Frisch says:

            Todd, neither Greece no Spain is a ‘true” democracy as you are stating. Greece is a republic and Spain is a constitutional monarchy with a republic form of government.

          • Todd juvinall says:

            It appears the term democracy has been utilized to define whatever a government wants to call itself. Spain and Greece allow people to vote so it means a democracy to them. Democratic Republic yet is a dictatorship of one man and the military isn’t it? The term democracy is being used now in the middle east. So, everyone is right and everyone is wrong in their definitions since the real world disagrees on the definition too. I am curious as to why you said nothing about the issue of the Electoral College.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Yes, the Electoral College system puts a thumb on the scale for small states like Wyoming, but the President and SCOTUS are the President and SCOTUS for the people and also of the various sovereign states. Without this compromise there probably wouldn’t have been a Union, and anyone who thinks there’s a way to dissolve this has been smoking some bad granola.

          • rl crabb says:

            The reality is the majority of states will never relinquish their stranglehold on the big states, and if it ever did come to pass the United States would come apart at the seams.

          • Steve Frisch says:

            Todd, I was pointing out that you were incorrect when you tied to use Greece and Spain as examples of a direct democracy, above. Both countries elect a representative body to speak for the people, and bestow powers and authorities to their representatives. They are “republics” not democracies, to almost exactly the same extent that the US is a republic.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “The reality is the majority of states will never relinquish their stranglehold on the big states”

            Bob, I think it’s more like the smaller states will never voluntarily give up having any role whatsoever in national politics. Wyoming has exactly the same number of Senators that California does, while only having one member of the House. And they have three Electors. That isn’t a “stranglehold” but it is relevance.

            If California wants more Senators, the state should break up into three or four states. Who knows, maybe a bankruptcy will help that along.

  2. The planet is already well past it’s sustainable carrying capacity for humans living quality lifestyles with whomever. Anything that causes a reduction in population without violence is a good thing. In thirty years the oldest profession will be thoroughly roboticized. That should help. Of course, providing family human love to the zoombi-ized males wandering around may bring up Clockwork Orange problems. Welcome to Spaceship Earth, for those of you with Facebook accounts:

  3. Robert Lovejoy says:

    Marrying a sofa? I think that is called a couch potato. Barnyard animals? Just practice safe sex by spraying a big orange X on the sheep that kicks. You haven’t lived until you pork a turkey. Ain’t bad. Afterall, you stick your hand up there every Thanksgiving, so your little prod fits in nicely. The reason real Scottish men wear quilts is the blasted sheep can hear a zipper a mile away. I have been stuck in a routine lately. I stop by the cemetary after work and have myself a cold one. Now before you all get your panties in a bunch and call me a deviate and put down necrophilia, I know from whence I speak. Millions practice necrophilia on a monthly basis. I know. I have been married a long time.

  4. Michael Anderson says:

    Marrying multiple barnyard animals = polymanagerie

  5. TD Pittsford says:

    I could be wrong (and am often) but it seems that those who are the most vociferous misogynists are those that doubt their own sexuality. Whatever happened to “live and let live”?

  6. Ryan Mount says:

    I do not patronize Chick-Fil-A due to their misuse English language. But this is ‘merika, and we somehow feel free to take liberties with it.

    > only lubricate the slippery slope into further debauchery

    Pun noted. Genius really. And, I genuinely LOL’d. Not in the faux Internet sense, but in real life in front of my computer monitor to the point where my loved ones (there are people who indeed love me) asked, “What up with that?”

    I’m still confused (I confuse easily) about why this is an issue.

    14. Whoops. Wrong Internets field.

  7. rl crabb says:

    The liberal-Hollywood-Infomedia is preparing us for beastiality….Watch….—chimp-and-the-woman/

  8. Robert Lovejoy says:

    My views over same sex marriage have changed over the years. I believe a marriage is between one man and one woman as a standard historic definition. But, sometimes you cannot choose who you fall in love with and that complicates things. I am involved in a gay marriage as after all these years my wife came out of the closet and announced she is a lesbian. I still love the little woman and they say compatibility is essential in marriage. We both like the same thing.

  9. Robert, if all true, you are truly a gem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *