Penguins, dog vomit and human sexuality

[meegbear]

"And Tango Makes Three" is an illustrated children's book about two male penguins that raise a baby penguin. It's based on a true story of two male penguins in New York City's Central Park Zoo that "adopt" a fertilized egg and raise the chick as their own. Some concerned parents see the book as a homosexual propaganda piece and want it removed from the library's regular shelves. A parent would have to consent before his or her child could check out the book.

There's no doubt the book is being pushed as a homosexual primer to soften up young minds for the more scholarly propaganda. In "Biological Exuberance," author Bruce Bagemihl claims, "The world is, indeed, teeming with homosexual, bisexual and transgendered creatures of every stripe and feather. ... From the Southeastern Blueberry Bee of the United States to more than 130 different bird species worldwide, the 'birds and the bees,' literally, are queer."

Here's the premise: Whatever animals do in nature is natural. What's natural is normal. What's normal is moral. So if penguins engage in homosexual behavior, then that behavior must be natural, normal and moral. How can we mere mortals impose our rules of sexual behavior on what's natural in the animal kingdom? Homosexuals extrapolate that what animals do naturally in nature applies to what higher animals can do naturally without judgment. But the lower animal/higher animal model breaks down when other so-called natural behaviors in animals are considered. For example, the Bible states, "It has happened to them according to the true proverb, 'A dog returns to its own vomit' (Proverbs 26:11) and, 'A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.'" (2 Peter 2:22) Now, I would like to see the homosexual propagandists explain how these behaviors might explain the normality of animal behavior and its human parallels.

<snip>

We mustn't forget other "natural" animal behaviors. Animals rape on a regular basis. Should we make the leap the homosexuals want to make regarding penguins? If homosexual behavior in penguins is a template for human sexuality, then why can't a similar case be made for rape among humans? As hard as it might be to believe, the connection has been made. Randy Thornhill, a biologist, and Craig T. Palmer, an anthropologist, attempt to demonstrate in their book "A Natural History of Rape" that evolutionary principles explain rape as a "genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human life because it is a kind of sexual selection – a successful reproductive strategy." They go on to claim, however, that even though rape can be explained genetically in evolutionary terms, this does not make the behavior morally right.

<snip>

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=5303

TOTAL FUCKTARD

[Sapphocrat]

1. Well, that's a real Christian attitude.

Typical WingNutdaily.

[WindRavenX]

2. sigh

Being gay is a successful reproductive strategy-- there seems to be a relation with male brothers and homosexuality; the theory is that having a sibling be gay has benefits to their siblings (who share 25% of their genes) and thus helps keep their genes in the gene pool.

I'm really at a loss of his rape analogy, because rape in many times is not a successful reproductive strategy. First, in most of these cases where animal copulation could be considered rape (and I'm not sure he can quantify this), it occurs with a very low status male whose offspring will probably not perform better than a higher ranking male with stronger genetic makeup.

This guy is full of shit. Is his biology credentials from accredited universities?

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. Okay, first it's "against nature"

and then when it's not, it's akin to the foulest behaviors found in nature. Come on, you frickin' braindead fundies, pick a lie and stick with it.

Oh, but nature is all fine and dandy when it's The March of the (heterosexual) Penguins, eh?

Dear hateful fundies: STFU!

[WindRavenX]

4. lol, they were using "March of the Penguins" as evidence of ID!

:rofl:

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. In short, "OK, it's not 'unnatural' after all".

On to fallback position #1: "Just because it's 'natural', it doesn't follow that it's morally/ethically OK".

On the plus side: progress is being made.

On the minus side: it reminds me of the scene from Blazing Saddles where Gene Wilder tells Cleavon Little that in another forty years he might even be allowed to shake hands with the townspeople in broad daylight.

[NMMNG]

6. These dipsh*ts prove yet again they know nothing about animal behavior

'A dog returns to its own vomit'

Yes, and a dog will eat his own sh*t too. What of it? Humans eat all sorts of nasty stuff such as brains, entrails, fungus, testicles and more. We're not exactly pristine in our eating habits.


'A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.'

And the reason the sow wallows in the mire is to keep itself cool, not because it likes filth. Pigs have no sweat glands, and therefore must use other methods to cool their bodies. But of course back in Biblical times they didn't know that, and some people today continue to be ignorant of that because they think the Bible is a textbook.


Animals rape on a regular basis.

Not every instance of animal copulation that looks like "rape" to a human is necessarily forced upon one party by another. However there are instances in which one animal will engage in forced sex acts with another animal (or other animals) and typically for the same reasons as humans do it--for dominance/power. This is very much a natural behavior, though in human circles it is unacceptable as one party is not giving consent. Homosexuality is a completely different situation as consent is present.

[bluedawg12]

7. You can't have it both ways: it's un-natural because

You can't have it both ways: it's un-natural because it doesn't occur in nature. Then, when examples in nature abound, dismiss it as nothing more than animal behavior.

Isn't that the entire premise for those bigots who try to use nature to bolster the heterosexual agenda of bigotry?

On the other hand, we share behaviors and impulses with the animals that may well have been adaptive at one time, consider the topic of rape in animals, Isn't that simply the male of the species casting his seed far and wide as is his imperative?

The real issue here is not God nor nature.

If you argue for homosexual fairness and right you get Leviticus and Paul. So don't bother debating with religious folk, leave them to their beliefs.

And, don't claim that we are merely nothing more than biological urges, among-st the strongest of this is said to pair bonding for the purpose of mating and producing off spring.

We are the some of out biology, ancestral behaviors, hormonal fluxes, genetics, and all the rest, but what makes us human is the unique ability to reason.

Identifying male penguin pair bonding with chick rearing behaviors does not mean that this is a roll model for me, I hate cold fish. It merely proves that it is not a uniquely perverse product of the human brain.

Talk about sexuality from the point of reason and be sure to include love, loyalty, happiness, fulfillment and admit that the strong urge to be physically and emotional drawn to one of your own gender is a recurrent expression of human emotion through out history, non inquisitors fire, no Nazi death camp with pink arm bands, no oppression by any of the many totalitarian thinking nations such as Afghanistan, Iran and Russia are devoid of their own gays.

So, admit that we are real because we are always here. Having said that, do the right thing and remember that all deserve life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

One more trueism, my being gay harms not your family, your family being anit-gay actually harm me and mine.