All I need do is post in order to draw the ire of these haters. Whas a guy aspoda do ova hea?

You are required to be willing to engage in honest debate. Not trolling.

__________________
" ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

" ... this egregiously ignorant christian ... Archangel 03.09.09

“Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”

It does m,ean something significant. It means that they are significantly different from the norm, whatever that norm may be.
Darn those heteros! How dare they procreate!
[quote]
I always have to chuckle at the "if everybody was gay..." mentality.
It's an absurd argument based on an even more absurd premise.
If every organ in our body was a lung, we would all die.
We need diversity to get the human body functioning properly.

There is no need for homosexuality to exist within a species, but there is a need for heterosexuality.
As I stated above, homosexuality, unlike heterosexuality, serves no benefit to a species.

Here ya go. Geese Ducks and Swans: Anatidae - Behavior And Reproduction

Without explanation? I've explained it to you several times. Maybe words with more than one syllable confuse you. Let's all say it together now an-thro-po-mor-phis-m.
Well, maybe if it occurred out in the wild with millions of potential female mates, I might agree. But because a male penguin refuses to order from an extremely limited menu doesn't prove squat.
Seeking the attention of the same gender while REJECTING the sexual attention of the opposite gender is a clear sign of homosexuality.
So, if you cruise a gay bar and nobody suits your fancy, are we to assume that you are straight? By your logic, that's exactly what we should conclude from your behavior.
So laymen are now animal behavior experts? When I see a monkey appearing to laugh at another monkey, should I assume that one is a comedian?
Wow! Can't get one by you.
Here's your gratuitous picture.
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/Im...660R-25046.jpg

Acting in a "abnormal" manner doesn't mean that they are abnormal, only that they are responding in a non-normal manner.
I'd say that I couldn't tell by looking at Chris and Pat what their sexuality was. If I saw Chris kiss Pat (and both were girls), there could be a number of explanations other than they were gay. Maybe they were expressing happiness to see each other after one was away. Perhaps they're foreigners.

But you did. You said the penguins were gay, thereby projecting human traits on animals.

The sad part is that you don't recognize that calling an animal "gay" is ascribing human characteristics to that animal. There could be a million reasons that the two male penguins hang out together. Maybe one's a great storyteller and the other an excellent listener. Regardless, you don't know why, but insist on calling them gay to reinforce the mistaken concept of gayness in the animal world.

On edit: You never answered MY question. Does a prisoner that corks his roomie make him gay?

__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

I swear. It's like you're chasing your tail...
So now the significance of the difference is that it IS a difference???



I have no doubt that you will refuse to honestly recognize the actual comment.
It's not that they are "procreating".
It's that they are OVER-procreating.

It's the difference between "watering" the lawn, and OVER-watering the lawn to the detriment of the lawn's health.


And you perpetuate your flaw.
The human society organism functions BETTER WITH homosexuality.
Over-population is helped to be kept in check.
More orphans are adopted by more couples.
Society is better with homosexuality.


You are very wrong on that claim.
Many people have recognized an evolutionary benefit to homosexuality, for many of the reasons I have discussed.
Helping to curb population over-growth. A mechanism which routinely spells disaster for species in nature.
Providing a group of people who can ADOPT children is beneficial to the species.

Your approach is like having two sets of birds. One with a short beak, and one with a longer beak.
The longer beak is advantageous, but you insist that we don't need longer beak birds, and if all the birds were "short beaks" the animal would survive.
But the point is that the animal has a BETTER CHANCE at survival with the longer beak, just like the human species has evolutionary advantages WITH homosexuality.


The article clearly talks about the main purpose of the coupling being reproduction.
It makes no mention of what "defense" is being mounted.
I would love to hear you explain how a single penguin would "defend" against a predator to the nest area...


And I have already shown how that is flawed. How ridiculously inaccurate it is.
If these two penguins had been male/female, you would have easily claimed them acting as "heterosexual".
But when the gender of both penguins happens to be male/male, you refuse to admit that they are acting as "homosexual".


You saying the word "anthropomorphism" is not really an argument.
YOU and YOUR MIND are fixated on gay sex, so you want to make exclusive ideals about what constitutes "homosexuality".





IT DOES happen in the wild with millions of potential female mates.
And you obviously WILL NOT "agree" either, cause you don't want to admit reality.


Your problem here is that if a male penguin refuses to take a mate, he simply refuses to take a mate.
That doesn't automatically mean "shack up with another male, creating a nest together.


That's what happened here, and with numerous species in the wild.
THAT WAS EXPLAINED in the article you rejected cause you didn't want to listen to what you called a "puff piece".


ROFLMAO!
You are so intellectually disingenuous it isn't funny.
If a person (animal) cruises a gay bar and doesn't go with ANYBODY, that demonstrates NOTHING.
No hint as to either gay or straight (unless you want to question why the guy was at the hypothetical gay bar in the first place...)

HERE is an honest way to look at the situation.
1) If an opposite gender mate is selected, YOU YOURSELF WOULD classify it as "heterosexual".
2) If NO mate is selected, obviously no conclusion can be met.
3) If a SAME GENDER mate is selected (especially when opposte gender mates are available), the LOGICAL classification (matching a mirror of #1 above) is to recognize homosexuality.

But you are insisting that we have to pretend that #2 and #3 are the same thing, which is absurd. Ask most straight guys if a bunch of women were courting their attention, would they just go off and have sex with another guy.
They would say NO!


Your reply makes no sense. Possibly due to a lack of knowledge on your part.
Penguins are hard to gender-identify. It takes an up close examination to identify the gender.
The people at the zoo recognized courting and mating behavior, and assumed another typical boy-girl coupling situation.
But only after they looked closer did they recognize neither was a girl.

THIS is part of your problem. You want to REFUSE to admit any sign of homosexuality.
If it had been boy-girl, you would classify it as "heterosexual".
When the "girl" turns out to be another boy, you want to stick your head in the sand.
It's a mental condition on your part to refuse to admit the obvious.


Most guys who dress up as women are straight.
But without surprise, you would assume gay, wouldn't you...

You are full of convenient assumptions, with no real fair/honest look at the situation.


Finer semantical nits than that are not picked.
Typically cause most people don't try to make up lame junk like that...
Why can't you just admit that the "abnormal" is homosexuality?


And thus, you ignore the substance of what I said.

1) Chris and Pat were behaving in a manner you WOULD admit was straight, if they were opposite genders.
They pair off. They create a nest together. They exclusively live together, ignoring the advances of other birds.
You don't even try to deny that is "heterosexual" behavior.

2) But now that both Chris and Pat are seen to be of the same gender, you REFUSE to admit that they are gay.
It's an absurd double-standard on your part, where you are REFUSING to admit "gay" when if the situation was different (by the gender being opposite), you WOULD classify as straight.

I'm not just talking about Chris and Pat just "kissing" each other.
These birds weren't just "kissing" each other.



"gay" is not just a "human trait".
Your approach is like insisting that "breathing air" is a "human trait", and if I say animals do it too then you accuse me of "anthropomorphism"...


Or rather, a millions excuses by JPSartre12, the self-proclaimed lack of expert, while the ACTUAL EXPERTS doing ACTUAL RESEARCH are ignored...
Refusing to admit gay animals exist by simply refusing to acknowledge "gay" can be applied to animals is one of the lamest response efforts I have ever seen to date.


With the absence of the availability of one gender, choosing sexual release by the only available gender obviously doesn't identify anything.
If the only flavor available is chocolate ice cream, that doesn't prove the guy likes chocolate over strawberry.

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

Oh, for Pete's sake...

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why Some People Are Gay: Notes (and Clues) from the Animal Kingdom - TIME
Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom: Scientific American
Gay animals | Psychology Today
Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name - The New York Times

... and on, and on, and on.

Wikipedia, Time, Scientific American, Psychology Today, the NY Times... I'm sure we're all familiar with the "puff pieces" they crank out.

Some ostriches are so determined to shield their eyes from reality, they'll stick their heads up their butts if the ground's too hard.

__________________
"He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave." -- William Drummond

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it." -- Mikhail Bakunin

"I don't go to mythical places with strange men." -- Douglas Adams

Bravo!

I sure do miss the old fashioned "govenment leave me alone" common sense conservatives. We are left with a group who would have the government hand out rights based on nothing more than faith and lies. A bad mix.

And in the US we can thank homosexuals for the initial propagation of AIDS.
I couldn't get a taker to debate me formally on that one a few years back. I wonder why. Challenge
War's a good population control. So is starvation, so homosexuality has no benefit to society...except maybe dinner theater. rolleyes:
Refer back to my statement on AIDS and add in a decreased life expectancy.
I'm lost. Who argued in favor of single parents?
You ASSume way too much about me, I can see that.
And not all same sex compansionship denotes homosexuality. News flash: people do have friends of the same sex without being gay.
Do you do that just so it feels better when you stop?
We're talking about THIS penguin. Please try to keep up, will you.

They're instinctive nestmakers. That's how they roll.
When did I call it a puff piece?

Do you know that particular animals entire sex history? Of course not. It's like the old joke: screw women all your life, but suck one c@#$ and you're forever a c@#%sucker.
I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I can definitively know the motives of a wild animal.
So maybe the penguins were far-sighted and thought each other was a member of the opposite sex. Who knows.
I have no problem saying that some animals engage in homosexual acts. I'm not willing to ascribe human labels to their sexual behavior, however. Do you know if the same animal hammered a voluptuous female when you weren't looking and a knothole in a tree ten minutes after that?

[quote]
Most guys who dress up as women are straight.
But without surprise, you would assume gay, wouldn't you...
Then all the queens that I used to watch parading into the student union for RU chapter of Homophile League events were my imagination?

I believe I already said that. Homosexuality is abnormal. Homosexual acts are abnormal in the animal world. Anything else you ned clarified?
I don't ascribe ANY human behavior or trait to animals. Where's the double-standard in that?

You said yourself that being gay was more than having homosexual sex. Do you think that most animals are "evolved" enough to be as sophisticated as you?

I've seen lots of so-called experts get their science completely wrong...and I'm a scierntist by profession myself.
And in a cage with a limited number of opposite sex suitors, behaving instinctive with another male doesn't make it gay.

Let the ad hominems continue. Nice to see you again, MrWrite. I can always count on our resident light-in-the-loafer crowd to show up.

__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

And how many STDs have heterosexuals taken the lead on up until AIDS?
And why are you fixating on just the "US"? Ignoring the fact that WORLD-WIDE, like every STD before it, it is still a DOMINANTLY heterosexually transmitted disease?

And how is this in any way topical?
Oh wait. It isn't.
You're just trying to obfuscate and avoid my point with meaningless side-commentary...
And without surprise, my prediction was 100% correct...

I have no doubt that you will refuse to honestly recognize the actual comment.
It's not that they are "procreating".
It's that they are OVER-procreating.

It's the difference between "watering" the lawn, and OVER-watering the lawn to the detriment of the lawn's health.

And you perpetuate your flaw.
The human society organism functions BETTER WITH homosexuality.
Over-population is helped to be kept in check.
More orphans are adopted by more couples.
Society is better with homosexuality.


So you throw out "war" and "starvation" as alternatives to population control, as opposed to homosexuality???
ROFLMAO!
How about considering whether or not they are DESIRABLE alternatives for population control?

I swear. Anybody who isn't completely shoving their head in the sand on the issue will see your response as further proof of how homosexuality IS A GOOD MEANS to population control...


Are you honestly trying to contend that AIDS is a viable EVOLUTIONARY response to population control???
Cause I think it's a crappy idea. Just look at the AIDS babies in the world (brought about by heterosexual parents) and you'll see just how flawed your thinking truly is...

Well. Maybe YOU won't be able to see it.
Others will though...


Yeah. You are lost.
My comment had nothing to do with single parents.

Perhaps you should take your self-admission of confusion and take a few more minutes to carefully UNDERSTAND what people are saying first?


So if a male/female bird were to go through the mating process, build a nest together, and raise a child together, you wouldn't declare that as "heterosexual"????

Or was your reply just a weak attempt to imply something contrary to reality, when the truth was that I was dead-on...


Didn't say it was.
But when two guys refuse female mates, shack up together, and raise a child together...
Yeah. That clearly points towards "gay" (without extenuating circumstances).

If you think otherwise, I would love to see how you would enforce the Florida law against gay adoption.
Would you look at two guys living together, trying to adopt a kid together, and say "Well, I don't see any proof that they're gay cause I don't have a video-tape of them having sex" and let them adopt?


ROFLMAO!
Way to stick your head in the sand, AGAIN!
I was referring to YOUR comment of "Well, maybe if it occurred out in the wild with millions of potential female mates, I might agree."

You really seem to be getting yourself confused, as you don't want me to talk about an issue that YOU YOURSELF started...


Would you care to document SINGLE penguins being "nestmakers"?

Cause as it is, you keep making up menial excuses for admitting the obvious, asserting incorrect claims right-and-left...


I'm sorry. That was another poster.
You blindly discounted the research of experts by accusing them of committing an error you obviously over-categorize...


The possibility of "bisexual" is obviously on the table.
I believe multiple posters have explicitly stated that about the penguin...


No. But arrogant enough to deny the obvious categorization...
So I guess the people who research animals, who have observed these gay animals throughout the animal kingdom, they're all just "arrogant" too?



When you reach the "absurdly lame excuse" stage, you're showing the weakness of your position.
You eschew the research of experts, and now toss out wild speculation with no substance...



What "human label" do you think has been applied then?
Please. Be explicit and quote the offending statement.


ROFLMAO!
Let me repeat myself...

Most guys who dress up as women are straight.
But without surprise, you would assume gay, wouldn't you...


Are you going to try to pretend that what you described was "most men who dress up as women"?
Cause if not, you need to review a little something called "anecdotal evidence" and recognize what it says about how limited your observations truly are...


After that reversal of yours, I am fine.


Talk about a pointless reply that completely fails to address my point...


And how many of these "getting it wrong" consisted of some internet hack (that would be you) refusing to recognize their research, and denying it based on pure prejudice and parroting "anthropomorphism" over and over again?


1) First of all, regarding these penguins, they HAD AVAILABLE females.
The article clearly said that a variety of females came by, and were rejected.

2) Second, it's not just the rejection of the female, but the NESTING with another penguin, AND THEN RAISING a kid together...
Like I have stated repeatedly, that clearly establishes behavior that would be labeled as "heterosexual" with opposite gender birds.

3) I swear.
At this stage, it is obvious that the only way you would admit these animals were gay is if they put on a boa, walked around with a purse, and got AIDS together...
Your denial is evidence of something, but it ain't evidence against the classification of these two penguins.


Completely bypassing the NUMEROUS examples of research on the issue of "gay animals", to complain about being likened to an ostrich???

Your claim of "scientist" must involve working for a right-wing think tank, cause you haven't shown any interest in learning the facts of the subject you are attempting to speak on...

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

Without surprise, these articles were not addressed...

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

Nor will they be.

As we all know, facts have a pro-gay bias and must therefore be not be taken into account.

__________________
"He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave." -- William Drummond

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it." -- Mikhail Bakunin

"I don't go to mythical places with strange men." -- Douglas Adams

Thanks for posting all of the overwhelming evidence that those with an agenda will apply human sexual perceptions and characteristics to the animal kingdom in their lame attempt to make homosexuality appear normal.

I mean, obviously when 2 male penguins take turns keeping a stone warm to hatch it, they are proving homosexuals are nurturing rather than the overwhelming instinct for Male Penguins to parent an egg even if he hasn't found a female mate yet, right? It is precisely this type of scientific rationalization which corrupts the legitimacy of objective and honest science. In every single example this posted drivel offers we see the desire to make ridiculous connections rather than accurately observe how these activities serve the larger social make up for the groups of animals they take place in.

The assumption made when pro gay advocates are allowed to corrupt objective science with this type of irrational perversion of scientific observations of the social activities in the animal kingdom is that these animals are thinking in sexual terms rather than purely instinctually. As if they strive after orgasms with other males rather than acting according to a deeper need and desire to attract the females in the area. Have you ever known a human woman who was attracted to a homosexual to the extent that they would knowingly get into a relationship with him? You know, like Linda did with her new allegedly gay mate? Or maybe she's just a swinger so she was attracted to him cuz he's bisexual and goes both ways, right?

If the foolishness which these bogus reports represent weren't so incredibly misleading, they would be humorous, but as it is they are just more pathetic apologetics designed to normalize the abnormal and unnatural in human sexuality.

I may be wrong, but I think you're missing the salient point. I believe the purpose of these articles (and many posters' arguments) is to show that people can and are, in fact, born gay. The reason this should be important to you and for gay rights in general is that if homosexuality isn't a choice then discrimination against them is wrong. (Personally, I think it'd be wrong either way but I'll stay on point) For instance, for someone who believes in god, gays being born gay would mean that god made them that way. As long as people can convince themselves that being gay is a choice, they won't have to treat homosexuals with the respect and dignity that they'd treat people born with other conditions...like straight hair or brown eyes.

__________________
-Computer $1500.00
-Monthly internet connection $35.00
-Monthly electricity bill $245.00
-Convincing a Socialist that incentive is the mother of motivation,

Priceless!

This perverse comparison alleging homosexuality between humans and animals does nothing to prove that anyone is actually born homosexual. That's why using what animals do to justify human homosexuality is so warped and dishonest.

So assuming that people are in fact, as you say born gay is balderdash and shows precisely why these fallacious articles are so damaging and misleading in their conclusions.

So let me tell you how people become gay, it's a result of the sin nature, just like every other predominant sin which afflicts every human being. It just so happens that a small percentage of us are afflicted with this sin in their nature. This doesn't mean they were born with it, but it means they acquired it somehow which I can't determine or explain how or why.

But God knows CxT, but if He created them gay, you can be sure that He wouldn't have condemned homosexuality in the bible. So your claim that blames God doesn't make an ounce of sense. And one more thing. I don't endorse discriminating against homosexuals at all. What I do endorse is equal exercise of the law which means no special rights for people who choose unnatural lifestyles.

Everyone can marry in this country, as long as it's a person of the opposite sex. That is the construction of the historical nuclear family which is the basis upon which humanity has formed civilizations since our inception. Why do you argue for changing that very successful formula now when all you need do is look at the results of gay unions being allowed in other societies to see the negative repercussions that resulted from those social experiments?

[quote]What I'm saying is that there's a contention that homosexuality/bisexuality is found in nature in animals (you'll never convience ME otherwise because my male rats had sex with eachother). If there is a genetic component for homosexuality in animals then there could be one in humans, since we are animals. And in a religious context...animals don't have sin, therefore if animals do it its not sin. Furthermore, if there is a Gay gene, that means that either god put it there or that there is no god...

Its balderdash because you say so? Dude, come on, even disregarding science, you as well as I have met kids 4, 5, 6 years old that you just KNOW are gonna be homosexual.

Yes, that makes more sense then just admitting that people can be born gay. I guess god DOES work in mysterious ways.


We've been over this....HE DIDN'T. Men wrote the bible. Even if I believed in GOD, its abundantly appearant that the bible wasn't written by a supreme being.

2 things...
1. If the govt. is going to stick its nose in our private lives and use its power to 'encourage' certain behavior, then the greatest possible number of citizens should have access to those benefits.

2. If marriage is 'good' for society (and I DO think it is) then the more people who settle down and become happily married, the better the benefit to society. If homosexuals will ONLY marry other homosexuals, then allowing them to marry will increase the number of happily married people.

__________________
-Computer $1500.00
-Monthly internet connection $35.00
-Monthly electricity bill $245.00
-Convincing a Socialist that incentive is the mother of motivation,

Priceless!

You stated that homosexuality was beneficial to society. I pointed out that I see little benefit derived from AIDS. Very relevant, don’t you think?

Note to self: Found is sarcasm-challenged.

See above note to self.
Here’s your statement” I would love to hear you explain how a single penguin would "defend" against a predator to the nest area.” Now explain just what you did mean by it. You certainly weren’t trying to say that two couldn’t guard a nest better than one could were you? If that’s the case, then you need a reality check.
I would say they are acting as birds and not try to fit them into a human template of behavior in which they don’t belong. Animals /= human.
Guys /= animals. I don’t believe that I ever said that humans couldn’t be homosexuals. It is, as I have contended, a HUMAN ONLY construct. As for the adoption scenario, I’m OK with gays adopting kids. I’ve seen no evidence that gays, as a group, would be any better or worse than heteros.

My comment was about the captive penguins. They didn’t have millions of female penguins to choose from. Please try to keep up.
Of what relevance is that? We’re not talking about SINGLE behaviors.
Any time I hear a supposed scientist use human behavior to describe animal behavior, my hair stands on end. (or is it that my feathers get ruffled, to use an anti-anthropomorphic expression)
How about “animal sexuality” without the humanization?
See feather comment above.
Still having trouble with that sarcasm thing, I see.
###!!!?? Are you kidding??!! The term GAY!!!!! Where the F#$% have you been?!!!

I apologize for not hanging out in gays bars. I will defer to the EXPERT.
Reversal? Somebody’s been sampling the funny mushrooms again…..
At least you’re consistent in your lack of ability to comprehend sarcasm.

IMO, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that ascribing human labels to animal behaviors is nothing more than a) an attempt to dummy down findings to layman terms or b) an incredible compunction to be politically correct.

You said yourself that if a gay man rejected a bar full of men, he wouldn’t be labeled a hetero, but you insist on using the same logic in applying it to THIS penguin exposed to a very limited number of potential mates.
As for the obligatory smart-assed comment, you wouldn’t know a gay penguin if he shoved his beak up your XXX.
I’m sorry, but anyone that starts his list of references with a wiki reference isn’t to be taken seriously.

__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)