« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
10/07/2009
The big [only straights should] bang theory
We all know that the evangelical social conservatives are, as a movement, about as globally warmed up to the idea of evolution as they are evolved on the issue of global warming. We also know that a couple-of-thousands-year-old existence is the general timeframe that they place on the lifespan of this here planet. And we know that when it comes to LGBT people, they rarely if ever allow for any possibility that the billions of people who have fallen into this category since the beginning of time could in any way fit into the order of the world. But in a new piece for the Family Research Council's blog, FRC's Peter "gays should be exported" Sprigg uses a new Washington Post piece on evolution to "explain" why even though he and his peeps may not believe that the world even existed millions of years ago, and why they may not believe that people evolved from any other being, those who do use empirical evidence to support their belief in those two concepts should still side with his crew's views on homosexuality:
Almost at the end of this [WaPo piece], the article describes what C. Owen Lovejoy, an anthropologist at Kent State University, says about the social organization of this [newly discovered] species:
The males, he argues, pair-bonded with females. Lovejoy sees male parental investment in the survival of offspring as a hallmark of the human lineage.
So, how long has marriage (i.e., “pair-bonding”) been a male-female union? About four million, four hundred thousand years, if this secular scientist is to be believed. And what was its purpose? To insure “male parental investment in the survival of offspring”—something which the advocates of same-sex “marriage” contend is now no longer necessary.
And what will we be discarding, if we change the definition of marriage from being a union of a man and a woman? Only “a hallmark of the human lineage.”
Marriage is not merely a religious institution, nor merely a civil institution. It is, rather, a natural institution, whose definition as the union of male and female is rooted in the order of nature itself. And it doesn’t take a Bible to prove it. In this case, evolutionary theory points to the exact same conclusion.
How Long Has Marriage Been the Union of a Man and a Woman? Scientists Say—4.4 Million Years [FRC Blog]
Now, never mind that no gay activist -- NO GAY ACTIVIST -- has ever denied the role in heterosexuality in ensuring the survival of the species. Never mind the highly likely possibility that in every species to ever exist, their were homo-oriented beings right alongside the hetero majority. Never mind the fact that some people of science even think that homosexuality plays an evolutionary role in biology. Never mind that this particular scientist is in no way indicating that those who may have "pair-bonded" with the same gender in any way harmed the course of evolution. And never mind THAT SPRIGG AND FRC DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN (OR AT LEAST TEACH) ALL THIS! If there's an opportunity to shun same-sex marriage, they will grasp on to any castable fossil with their reach!
To us, Sprigg's words on evolution are kind of like someone who doesn't believe in Noah's Ark proceeding to testify to the quality of its onboard room service. Perhaps both the origin of species and the origin of Cafe Noah's Eggs Benedict should be left to those who swallow them whole.
Your thoughts
"...male parental investment in the survival of offspring as a hallmark of the human lineage."
Um, no. Other species, a lot of other species, raise offspring as a pair, in fact, a some secies (unlike humans) bond for life. But, heck, why let facts cloud the issue at this point?
Posted by: ColdCountry | Oct 7, 2009 4:28:35 PM
The fact that one scientist (or small team of scientists) are "arguing" that Ardi was of a species that "pair bonded" doesn't make the argument true. That they are "arguing" the theory, also doesn't make it untrue. But, the much more widely held theory of social ordering amongst much more recent hominans (where evidence of social/societal arrangements are much more readily available) is that the males huddled in encampments separate and apart from female encampments.
But, even if this "pair bonding" theory does withstand scrutiny, that doesn't in any way eliminate the very real likelihood that same-sex couples also "pair bonded" in a very similar way, perhaps even to raise offspring where one or both of the birth parents became deceased. Everything is a theory, and virtually nothing can be conclusively proven beyond a doubt, but that doesn't stop the lying liars from attempting to twist any shred of credible science into their supremacist lie.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 7, 2009 4:38:45 PM
Yep - the next find will be those civil contracts they signed.
Posted by: Dale | Oct 7, 2009 5:51:08 PM
And, Dale, after that we will dig up the golden statues of the cows that they worshiped as well! And evidence of hedonistic, anything goes orgies with Woolly Mammoths (perhaps in the form of elephant sized condoms?? Maybe still wrapped around fossilized tusks??).
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 7, 2009 6:23:48 PM
Well, Mr. Mills, if that is the case, the earth will suddenly be only 6,000 years old again.
Posted by: Dale | Oct 7, 2009 7:24:11 PM
Okay, everyone - get on this one - quickly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LItKZ8jj4Y&feature=player_embedded#
Posted by: Dale | Oct 7, 2009 7:59:10 PM
All of which diminish Sprigg's "twisting of one scientific possibility into a self-serving lie" into the nonsensical nothingness that it is. Of course, the mere existence of a 4.5 million year old Ardi, pretty much diminishes the lies from the lying liars into nonsensical nothingness anyway!
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 7, 2009 8:11:34 PM
Now, now, Dick Mills - they're not liars! They're just intellectually lazy. They're fervent believers in the god of the gaps - don't know why something happened? God did it! Only problem is, smart people who haven't abdicated reason will investigate the gaps in human knowledge, and make discoveries that push god further into the corners of human ignorance.
To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, to the scientific mind, a serious question requires study, examination and rigorous testing, but to the religious mind, all that is required is an "aha! God did it!" The reasoned mind seeks the unknown to solve the riddles of existence. The religious mind seeks the unknown to "prove" that god exists. Pathetic.
Posted by: DN | Oct 8, 2009 12:39:35 AM
It's unbelievable that this is coming from an anthropologist. Anthropology is a field that requires rigorous, steadfast open-mindedness at all levels of study and involvement.
Posted by: Parnsnip | Oct 8, 2009 1:40:16 AM
Well, DN, it may be true that the average of the minions who buy into the lies is simply intellectually lazy, but the liars who fabricate the lies have to go to great lengths to taint the truth. Those are the ones that I actively and aggressively label as lying liars.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 8, 2009 7:50:34 PM
comments powered by Disqus
