Gay Penguins?

[DanKroh]

"How do we know that the instinct to engage in adoptive behavior by these male penguins is evidence of gayness? The article does not describe any other behavior that would be clearly homosexual. I don't know how hetrosexual penguin couples have sex, but unless these two male penguins tried to have sex with one another, I'm not at all sure that I would call the reported behavior gay."

 

First, since when does sex define a relationship?

 

Second, the article may not mention it about this couple, but there are observations of other gay penguin couples engaging in sex. Yes, their anatomy is compatible. Google is your friend.

[Rooster7]

One of the primary arguments against Homosexuality tends to sound something like, "its unnatural" or "it doesnt occur in nature" and if there are Gay Penguins, then Homosexuality isn't unnatural, Homosexuality does occur in nature and Homosexuality is not a personal choice but a born, natural orientation.

 

Okay. So if animals have incestial relations or eat their own poop, then we should celebrate and encourage people who imitate these natural behaviors as well?

 

What about the dolphins that commit gang rape? Should we be releasing those gang bangers that were so unjustly imprisoned for fulfilling their natural desires?

 

Please. Lets stop comparing animals to humans. And if you insist, please qualify the argument by limiting the human comparisons to your friends and family and leave the rest of us out of it.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well, Rooster7, does this mean you will no longer describe homosexuality/homosexual desires as 'unnatural,' as you have in the past? Occuring in nature is a clear refutation of 'unnatural.' Of course, that something is natural says nothing about whether such behavior is good, bad, or indifferent. But it ought to stop the red herring of 'unnatural' being thrown around. But it never seems to.

[Trevorum]

Rooster, like it or not, you are 98.8% identical to a chimpanzee.

[Rooster7]

Merlyn,

 

Well, Rooster7, does this mean you will no longer describe homosexuality/homosexual desires as 'unnatural,' as you have in the past? Occurring in nature is a clear refutation of 'unnatural.' Of course, that something is natural says nothing about whether such behavior is good, bad, or indifferent. But it ought to stop the red herring of 'unnatural' being thrown around. But it never seems to

 

I disagree. Merlyn since you dont believe in God, I dont envision any of my arguments resonating with you. But God created man in His image. I believe that we possess a moral capacity that does not exist in the animal kingdom. If the definition of natural is a propensity to commit an act then any act could be labeled natural. Certainly, over the span of history, humans have given into every twisted desire imaginable, including incest, rape, torture, murder, and the like. But I dont see those behaviors as the fulfillment of a natural tendency. Its a perversion of what God intended for us. And as moral beings, I think we know when were committing such a perverted act.

 

In fact, you should flip your question and ask yourself - why do people use the red herring of its natural to defend their behavior? Why do gay advocates use it in an argument to defend homosexuality? After all, if everything is natural per the animal kingdom including rape, incest, and eating ones poop, then why emphasize the behavior IS natural? The word has no meaning or power.

 

Only when humans recognize themselves as created beings with a moral and intellectual capacity that is above the animal kingdom does the phase natural behavior have meaning and power. Else its just a ruse to justify oneself and/or others whove entertained and given themselves over to perversity, a.k.a. unnatural desires.

 

Trevorum,

 

Rooster, like it or not, you are 98.8% identical to a chimpanzee.

 

Well then, I guess that other 1.2% must be pretty important.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Rooster7 writes:

"If the definition of natural is a propensity to commit an act - then any act could be labeled natural."

 

Well, if the definition of 'natural' is a red bowling ball, then very few things can be described as 'natural.' But I don't think either definition makes any sense.

 

A much more common definition of 'natural' is that which occurs in nature.

 

And I certainly don't use 'natural' to defend homosexuality, but I also don't use unnatural to argue against it. Wearing glasses is unnatural.

[Rooster7]

My point is (and was) - just about anything can be seen in nature, and thus anything can be labeled as natural. Consequently, if you ignore the customary connotation of the word (i.e. normal and acceptable), its use as a decriptive term is useless.

[baschram645]

I was just reading through this posting and as I scrolled down passed the sponsor sidebar that was advertizing a gay gift site. But no penguins.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Rooster7 writes:

My point is (and was) - just about anything can be seen in nature, and thus anything can be labeled as natural.

 

Eyeglasses aren't.

 

Consequently, if you ignore the customary connotation of the word (i.e. normal and acceptable), its use as a decriptive term is useless.

 

Uh, it's certainly useless if people use a word like "natural" to mean something entirely different, like "normal and acceptable," yes. Which is why I object to using terms like '"unnatural" to describe traits that clearly exist in nature. "Acceptable" is clearly a value judgement, while "natural" does not appear to be a value judgement (but it is if you use it to mean "acceptable"). "Normal" likewise can refer to whatever is most common, like righthandedness or heterosexuality, and misusing a term like "natural" doesn't add to any discussion. Would you call lefthandedness "unnatural"?

[evmori]

Penguins ain't humans so what ever they do has no bearing on whether humans should do it or not! And to think so is absurd!

[Trevorum]

Dang straight, Ed! I'm never gonna wear my tuxedo again!

[Kahuna]

I believe this discussion has reached the point where, in an old Monty Python sketch, the British colonel would break it up, saying, "This is getting silly." John Cleese would then say, "And now for something completely different."

[Hal_Crawford]

I think it is safe to say that this started silly. Subject line is "Gay Penguins?" Any questions?

[John-in-KC]

Kahuna,

 

Would you care for a lovely breakfast?

 

We have Spam,

Spam and Eggs,

Spam, Eggs, and Sausage,

Spam, Egs, Sausage and Spam,

Spam, Spam Eggs, Spam, Sausage, and Spam,

Spam, Spam Spam...

 

 

[Kahuna]

Would you care for a lovely breakfast?

 

Fine, as long as we leave the Spanish Inquisition out of it.