Ed. Note: Dan Cathy was reported as saying the following: “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

This letter is a response to the articles covering the controversy surrounding the statements made by the president of Chick-fil-A regarding same-sex marriage.

First of all, to the matter of free speech. It is my understanding that Mr. Cathy made his comments as president of a privately-held company and not as an individual citizen of the United States. As a company officer, he speaks on behalf of others who may or may not agree with him.

In so doing, he exposes himself and his company to public ridicule and protest. If he issued the comments as an individual who happens to be president, then he has every right to his opinion.

Of course, now that corporations are people too, that opens up another whole can of worms. Frankly, if I was in the business of selling chicken, I would refrain from making such public comments because it may alienate more than just those spoken about and may in the long run be bad for business. We’ll see how this plays out over the long haul.

My prediction: it will cost the company losses, and this will outrun the revenues gained on “appreciation day.” As a heterosexual male, I will not buy anything from this establishment because the CEO abused his corporate power just so he could glorify himself at the expense of other human beings.

And now to the issue of same-sex marriage.

A homosexual person is one who is sexually attracted to others of the same sex. Except for a genetic variation of nature, they are virtually identical to their heterosexual counterparts. They feel the very same kind of attraction to the same sex as heterosexuals feel about the opposite sex.

Now, granted, there are those who freely choose this behavior as a “lifestyle,” but that accounts for a very small percentage of homosexuals. In fact, if one is not genetically predisposed to this behavior, then by definition they are not truly homosexual but rather some deviant variation of perverted behavior.

Some would argue that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but I believe that this behavior will be proven (through the persistence of science) to result from natural genetic variation.

One can draw on the example of the developmentally challenged (no offense intended toward either group), who by no action of their own are born comparatively slow or deficient in mental, physical, or emotional growth. Homosexual people are therefore entitled to engage in sexual behavior (and by extension same-sex marriage) consistent with their genetic makeup so long as it is between consenting adults.

To deny them this right would be the same as denying heterosexuals their right to consensual sex (and by extension marriage as well). Some would argue that sexuality is strictly for the purpose of reproduction, but the animal kingdom has many variations of species who also cannot reproduce.

Human beings are sexual beings, as was intended by their creator, and to suggest that a genetic variation of nature somehow makes homosexuals less human is indeed an inhuman concept.

Joe Bialek

Cleveland

Bialek has a bachelor of arts, in political science and a master of arts in public administration from The University of Akron.