Homosexuals Demand that Chick-Fil-A Stop Serving “Gay Chicken”

by: Michael Minkoff 
Filed under Family

I must admit I don’t get around much, so I didn’t even know the reliably left-leaning Huff ’n’ Puff Post had a “Gay Voices” section. But yesterday, I read an article from there that covered a recent petition (with a whopping 1,500+ signatures!) that demanded that Chick-Fil-A be consistent with their “anti-homosexual” values and stop serving “homosexual” chicken at their restaurants. As the petition explains, some male chickens will mount other male chickens, so Chick-Fil-A cannot be consistent with their values until they make sure that none of the chicken meat they are serving comes from “homosexual” chickens. Wow. I’ve read some really, really stupid petitions in my life. But that one… Where do you even start?

First, I’m sure this petition was meant as a sort of barbed joke, but it falls squarely into the “Boom! How will you ever recover from the devastation of my cleverness?!!!!” category—a category which regularly falls far short of its intended goal. I feel bad for the people that wrote this actually. Is this really the best they can come up with?
Second, if these people actually think Chick-Fil-A is a hate-filled, anti-homosexual company, wouldn’t it be more consistent for Chick-Fil-A to serve only homosexual chickens? I mean it’s not like Chick-Fil-A sends their chickens on luxury vacations. They kill them. And then we eat them.

Third, why are homosexuals so obsessed with the fact that animals intermittently commit homosexual acts? The fact is that animals really don’t practice homosexuality per se. It’s not like any of them are exclusively attracted to the same sex. They just have no self-control. They will hump pretty much anything around if they get the notion. My dog used to hump male and female dogs, plush toys, the legs of guests, sectional sofas… you know—anything. He was a dog, after all. He ate our underwear and pooped in the hallway too. I fail to see why that matters. Animals variously engage in incest, genocide, cannibalism, pedophilia, and other socially unacceptable behaviors. If homosexuals want to legitimize their behavior by claiming that it is “only natural,” what leg do they have to stand on to condemn anything—including the so-called “intolerance” of Chick-Fil-A?

I’m frankly already very tired of this. Homosexuality is a behavior which means it involves a choice. It isn’t like race or gender. At all. So quit comparing it to the Civil Rights movement or Women’s Rights. Frankly, that degrades and insults those movements. They don’t and they didn’t involve a choice or a behavior. People don’t have to do anything to have a certain skin color. Women don’t have to act like women to be women. They just are. A homosexual is defined by a sexual behavior. If this doesn’t involve a choice then pretty much any person compelled to a certain behavior could claim he didn’t have a choice either. This would basically mean the destruction of any foundation for laws against anything—an entirely arbitrary boundary line of ethics that bobs with public opinion like a ship tossed on a stormy sea. Which kind of sounds like where we are right now.