Who says these two drawings are shtupping, FRC guy?
This is truly one of the most bizarre arguments against marriage equality I've ever come across. After running down his side's recent losses on marriage, Family Research Council Senior Fellow Bob Morrison writes:
But take heart, friends, even E.T. knows the truth about mankind. Back in 1972, NASA launched Pioneer 10. This spacecraft was sent to the farthest reaches of the Solar System and beyond. It boldly went where no man has gone before. It bore a message, an indelible truth about humanity. That deep space probe contained a Golden Stele. That plaque was engraved with symbols showing extra-terrestrials where Earth was located in the Cosmos, something of our level of scientific sophistication, and figures of a man and a woman.Those two humans were intentionally drawn to show no race, no religion, no national or ethnic identity. But that man and woman told the truth: human beings are male or female.
Now, the standard liberal line is that such a bifurcation of humanity is old hat, patriarchal, retrograde. As a candidate, Barack Obama said that marriage was between a man and a woman, "and God is in the mix." As president, however, this most liberal of our leaders proclaimed that he has "evolved." The rest of us, those who support true marriage, or who still think God is in the mix, are therefore left behind his ever forward-looking progressive ranks. To him, we are bitter, clinging Believers.
But there's the problem of the Golden Stele. It was fashioned by PBS's most famous atheist, Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagan sagely intoned that the cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be. No religious fanaticism there, right? And his taxpayer-financed messages were broadcast not only around the world, but sent out on Pioneer 10 out beyond the farthest planets.
Dr. Sagan was the one who conceived the engraving on that Golden Stele. Male and female created He them. Verily, Dr. Sagan did. And if Science proclaimed this simple truth in 1972, we have a right to ask what scientific evidence has President Obama or any of his wise men, er, wise persons, divined since that year that would disprove the learned Carl Sagan?
E.T. Phones Home on Marriage [TownHall via FRC]
Okay. So yes, this plaque did in fact show an image of a man and a woman. Here's a sketch:
How exactly does that speak to homosexuality? I mean, as far as I can tell, these two drawings are not humping. Heck, they may not even know each other. The man's waving and the woman's just kind of standing there, drinking in some sort of pensive pause. For all we know, the guy is waving at his male partner, and the woman's all like, "Shit, I thought I had a chance with this one!" Or, alternately, the woman could be like, "Why did I marry this doofus who waves without purpose when I could have instead gone off with my friend Eve?" Nothing in this drawing tells us for sure.
Folks like Bob Morrison seem to believe that gay people are at war with the idea that our world features both males and females. It's so damn silly! The reason why I am married to a man rather than a woman is precisely because I recognize that there is something called "man" and that I, someone who actually gave the other side the old college try, am attracted to it (and only it). Same goes for lesbians. Same goes for bisexuals. Even those who fall more into the "I don't see gender" camp still tend to recognize gender—they just don't see gender as an obstacle in terms of attraction.
The problem is that groups like FRC take our openness and lack of myopia and turn it into some sort of boon for their side. When a male feminist like me stands up against chauvinistic rants from someone like Erick Erickson or Bryan Fischer, they act like I'm saying there is no such thing as gender, when what I am really saying is that gender is not a limitation. Or when I say that I love a man, they act as if my orientation is out to destroy the heterosexual orientation for all who happen to be drawn that way. They see a world where there are two genders, two clearly defined (or even biblically mandated) roles, and only one possibility for coupling. Because I instead look to the natural world around, ably state that their narrow view is unsupportable by actuality, and make the case that their attempt to box us up is actually detrimental to our collective strength, they act like I'm the one at war with humanity's design, abilities, and forward march. I see it differently. Quite.
The thing is, if an extraterrestrial being were to come to our world and see that there are these two creatures known as "man" and "woman," I'm actually quite comfortable in my belief that this unknowing creature would instinctively assume there to be more than one possibility for how these beings exchange in love and physical affection. It is only natural, after all.
comments powered by Disqus