I think this is where I came in ....
Back on February 1, 2011, I asked whether eating “Jesus chicken” makes you a homophobe, because LGBT activists of the supremely bratty sort were kvetching about the ties between Chick-fil-a president/COO Dan Cathy and various pro-life, pro-family organizations. Cathy and his family, who own Chick-fil-a, have yet to be accused of discrimination in hiring and serving homosexuals; nevertheless, their overt religiosity and opposition to same-sex marriage make them high-profile (or at least medium-profile) targets for the bullies in the LGBT lobby.
Now, according to LifeSiteNews (courtesy of Baptist Press), students on nine college campuses (campi?) are trying either to block franchise stores from entering their campuses or to close franchises that are already open precisely because WinShape, the Cathys’ charitable foundation, has made over $2 million in contributions to groups such as the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund, Focus on the Family, Exodus International, and the Family Research Council.
These donations, say NYU freshman Hillary Dworkoski, show that the restaurant is out of sync with her university’s “open and inclusive campus.”“Maintaining a contract with an anti-gay vendor like Chick-fil-A undermines what makes this university so great,” she wrote, in a Change.org petition asking the school to give the fast food chain the boot.Dworkoski, a bi-sexual, acknowledges that the Student Senators Council recently voted against removing vendors for “political reasons,” but argues that the school still allows the removal of companies that “violate human or labor rights.”“As Secretary Clinton recently announced, ‘gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,’” she writes. “As such, I respectfully request that NYU remove Chick-fil-A from campus.”
The thing is, as I’ve long maintained, homosexuals have the same legal ability to get married as straight people do; no human right — if marriage is properly described as a “right” — is being violated. The error comes in thinking that any old sexual union can be described as a “marriage”.
In two of my most recent posts ["Of marriage and mortgages (Part I)" and "Of marriage and mortgages (Part II)"], I tried — in my usual clumsy and tortuous fashion — to illustrate the fact that marriage isn’t simply a mindless, ritualistic celebration of Eros or a social program to encourage monogamy. Setting all spiritual and religious concerns aside, marriage isn't necessary for a couple to live together in a sexual relationship, nor does living together in a sexual relationship by itself make a marriage. Marriage is oriented towards the procreation and rearing of children; marriage ties not just the couple together but also their social networks to provide the optimal context in which a child can grow to maturity. And since it takes a couple of decades to raise just one child to adulthood, the ties of marriage itself must be ordered towards lasting the very long-term ... until death do they part.
“Same-sex marriage”, given the procreative emphasis of marriage, is for this reason an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. As I said in Part II, love — and I’ll willingly concede that gay couples do love — is a necessary ingredient for a successful marriage but not by itself a sufficient cause for marriage. Not only is child-rearing the focus of marriage, children tend to do best with their birth parents in a traditional family; blended families, single parents and same-sex couples simply can’t compete. While senior couples do marry, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon — and still not all that common an occurrence — because it’s only in the last century or so that large numbers of people were living into their sixties, especially that large numbers of women were living past menopause.
In fact, the only reason we can talk about “gay marriage” with a straight face (um ... yeah) is because various “progressive” groups have spent the last fifty years or so obscuring the very necessary connections between sex, reproduction and marriage in the name of various interest groups’ “rights”. In Miami, Ohio, for instance, we have an instance where a woman has divorced herself from her genotype and now insists the University of Miami hire her as a man to be resident assistant of an all-male dorm. If that's not narcissistic enough for you, we have Nadine Schweigert, who wasn't simply content to declare herself forever celibate — she went and married herself before 45 friends and family members willing to indulge her silliness.
To speak of the Cathys’ donations to pro-marriage organizations as “anti-gay” and “a denial of human rights” isn’t merely overwrought hype, it’s your boilerplate shut-the-opposition-up ad hominem attack. The Blogger Who Must Not Be Named constantly reminds us, “Tolerance is not enough. You. MUST. Approve.” But even approval isn’t enough — you must give in to every demand, no matter how picayune or self-defeating it is.
And self-defeating it is. For if any relationship can be described as a “marriage”, then there’s no particular reason or meaning to “marriage”, and consequently no reason for anyone gay or straight to pursue such an expensive, complicated and pointless status. A gay married couple is no more special or guaranteed of relationship longevity than a gay couple who simply cohabit without any legal or religious rigmarole.
Besides, Chick-fil-a can simply move just off-campus, to a spot where they can serve the student body without being caught up in silly on-campus political movements.
As I said last year, I’m no fan of Chick-fil-a, and I tend to view QSR chains as willing tools of Satan. But you also don’t have to be a homophobe to recognize that homosexual unions, whatever else can be said about them, can at best be only analogous to marriage, not literal marriages. By their nature, they miss marriage’s procreative orientation, as well as the complementarity of a man-woman union.
But then the issue was never about human rights. It was always about wanting what others have, and spoiling it for them when you can’t have it yourself.