It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay penguins hatch rejected egg

page: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Edit: Everything already said....

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Galaxie182]




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
*Switches on fundamentalist mindset*

Damn these gay penguins going against god! What chance wil this chick have? He'll grow up being bullied, confused, will end up smearing his face in glitter and dancing to techno music in a club filled with other male penguins all hating god. IT'S NOT NATURAL!

*Turns mindset off*

I think this proves rther nicely that being gay is a part of nature, a small part but it's there. It also shows that being gay doesn't stop you being a good parent in the animal kingdom.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


still no evidence tho

so there is no evidence than ?

only words written "claiming" its true


Pics or it did not happen!
Pitcures of your conception and birth please, or it didn't happen.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
this poor penguin chick is to be brought up by two Gays. How will it ever adapt and be a normal penguin with two gays looking after it, oh, the confusion the poor chick will be having, with two penguins mincing round the pool. what has penguinkind come to.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 



............................. prison.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by MajesticJax
 


I agree. One of the major sitcking points that people have used to take away rights from homosexuals is that it is "not natural" and "against the law of God" (presumably this is the god of nature). This is an example of how that argument is flawed.


I have always wondered as to what rights have been taken away from Homosexuals.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by arcnaver

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by MajesticJax
 


I agree. One of the major sitcking points that people have used to take away rights from homosexuals is that it is "not natural" and "against the law of God" (presumably this is the god of nature). This is an example of how that argument is flawed.


I have always wondered as to what rights have been taken away from Homosexuals.
the right to be treated as an equal. The right to walk down the street and not get the s**t kicked out of you. the right to pay the same tax as straight couples. The right to the same inheritance tax as straight couples. Equality is all anyone wants.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
So, basically, you're telling me that you will become gay if you are placed in an unnatural environment?


Seriously?


No, I'm not telling you anything. Read again what I said: "Couldn't one argue that this is evidence of homosexuality being a product of an unnatural environment?". I was presenting an arguement, not even stating my opinion. Also, what I meant was that homosexuality could be a potential product of an unnatural environment, not that every being placed in an unnatural environment must be gay, I apologize if that was unclear.


reply to post by constantwonder
 

It is interesting that you brought up peanut allergies, it reminded me of a study I read about a while ago (maybe even on here?) that found that the allergy might be caused by lack of contact with peanuts as a child. It makes me wonder if pollen allergies could have a similar cause, and for that matter, homosexuality. Obviously that is an extreme generalization, but I don't think most people, including myself, fully appreciate the extraordinary signifance of early-life experiences (physical and mental), which for all we know could be as important as genetics, if not more so, at determining 'who we are'.

If homosexuality is nature's form of population control, it begs the question 'How is homosexuality more efficient that a smaller libido?' I haven't been able to figure out an adequate answer to that yet. I'm curious if any others have any theories about this?

Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not 'for' or 'against' homosexuality, and I'm still 100% skeptical about its nature, I'm only trying to present logical and objective arguments for the sake of learning.

And if anyone's interested here is a link to that peanut allergy study:
Peanut Study



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by EverythingYouKnowIsWrong
 


I have a nut allergy, and I'm a bender
(but I'm not a penguin)


I've no idea how often I was exposed to nuts as a child, I just know that my parents thought that I just didn't like them (I was a fussy eater anyway) didn't realise that me running off to the loo to bring it all up as my throat tightened, was an involentary reaction, and not just me being a wally.


As for the sexuality aspect, I always had a back of the mind idea that it might be natures way of keeping the population down. But I'm no expert on such matters. I can say, that I grew up in a mainly female enviroment, as my parents split up when i was about 8, and i lived mith my mum and sister for the rest of my childhood. it could well have had some kind of effect on me. I don't know, and to be honest, I'm not that fussed.
I've heard many theories as to why people are gay, as i'm sur we all have. And there have been some pretty good studies which show that gay men, have a simular brain make up to straight women, and gay women to straight men. So IMO it's still a subject that's far from being proven either way. And whilst there are religious folk, who'll use scripture as some kind of fact. We'll never get to the bottom of it. (again, this is my opinion only)



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by vip867
OK I am wondering are they claiming that these penguins are gay because they are taking care of a rejected egg and have unsuccessfully mated under enclosed conditions? Or are these male penguins actually sexual with other males? It sounds like the first to me, and if that being the case it just seems like another case of the media jamming this gay crap down our throat (no pun intended) every chance they get. Everything on TV and in the news is so gay this gay that lately. Unless these male penguins are actually pounding on each other I just don't see what's so gay about uncoupled adults naturally trying to make sure that there species survives by hatching and careing for a young chick.


If you read the story you would also have seen that they brought in a group of females to "cure" the males before this happened. And the attempt failed.

Now: How would they have seen that the attempt failed?
A) Male penguins continued to care for the egg that wasn't there yet?
B) Male penguins continued to boink each other instead of the females?

The sexual part in the story is a bit between the lines, agreed. But that is because it was meant to be an "awwwwwwww" story and not bestiality porn.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


I read the part about the female penguins being brought in to try and get them to mate. But if you have ever noticed that many different species either do not mate or do not mate well in enclosed enviorments. Think like the pandas, heck they even showed them panda porn in effeort to try and arouse them. What I getting at, is that maybe the penguins have some stage fright or something. I just dont believe that hanging around other males and raisng an offspring is gay. Like you said the actual homoing out part of the penguins is a little between the lines and was not the way I read it. But I could be wrong. The way I base this is if they are sexual with each other than there good as gay. If not then I dont really see a big deal whith what there are doing.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
so according to this genetic theory
Monks must be born genetically celibate
Prostitutes must be born genetically disposed to, well, do what they do.
any other form of "sexuality" must be genetic also?
like a rapist is genetically disposed to rape people?
i am not comparing homosexuality to rape (totally different)
and i am not comparing homosexuality to celibacy(different)

But what I am comparing, is that if ONE of these things (homosexuality) is GENETIC , than it only follows that SOME of these other "Sexual Lifestyles" like Celibacy would ALSO be genetic no?

if not plz explain why, thanks
and include all examples so we can see where it goes in each situation


Your argument is:
Being a monk, prostitute, rapist or homosexual is a sexual lifestyle.
Being a monk, prostitute or rapist is not genetic.
Therefore being a homosexual cannot be genetic.

You are using an incorrect premise, as none of your examples qualifies as a sexual lifestyle.
In being a monk, prostitute, rapist there are too many other factors involved to call the choice a sexual lifestyle.
Being a homosexual, like being a heterosexual, is not a sexual lifestyle, it's an inclination.

Only the practice of homosexuality is a sexual lifestyle, as is the practice of heterosexuality. Inclination and practice, although often correlating, are separate issues.

However this is not the worst flaw in your argument.
You are attempting to argue by similarity, which is a logical fallacy.
I might just as well argue that, because some people dye their hair, hair colour is not genetic.

There are many pages on the net on logic and logical fallacies. It may be to your benefit tp study some.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u
 


OK. Even in the study you posted, if you definitely have the 'gay gene', seeing as identical twins have identical genetic makeup and your identical twin is definitely gay, which is supposedly the only way you can be gay, there's only a 50/50 chance you'll be gay. Does that sound to you like there is no choice in being gay?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Awwwww! That is so sweet!!
I love penguins!

But wait.....I thought according to some, that there was no such thing as gay animals because gay is not natural...
This article proves diffrent



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
It's interesting to know that at this early stage of penguin evolution their counter parts are not stoning them or saying that their prophet penjesus loves all the pinguins except gays. Are they evolving faster then us? One indicator that they are is that they don't have marriage and even without that they stay with their partners for a lifetime, therefor eliminating the same sex marriage problem.

All you gay bashers really need to examine your ideals and take this penguin example as a reflection of how behind you realy are.

I am not gay but in my next lifetime I wanna ba a penguin and skip this sorry stage of human evolution where we still have people who think that others who are different then them deserve to go to hell. I like the cold weather anyhow.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugarmonkey
Awwwww! That is so sweet!!
I love penguins!


Sugarmonkey -me too!
Have you seen the video of this cheeky one?
www.belowtopsecret.com...



But wait.....I thought according to some, that there was no such thing as gay animals because gay is not natural...
This article proves different


Yes, apparently the animal kingdom is positively overflowing with it -much to the consternation of certain 'overtly religious' types:


'Gay Elephant' Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

A Polish politician, furious over a gay elephant, obviously hasn't been keeping up with the latest research on homosexuality in animals.


"We didn't pay 37 million zlotys for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there," said Michal Grzes, a conservative councillor in the Polish city of Poznan, Reuters reported last Friday.

What Michal doesn't know, apparently, is that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. The definitive text on the subject, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, written by Canadian biologist and linguist Bruce Bagemihl, is an obsessive catalog of a phenomenon so widespread that the can barely contain it.

For the Cliff's Notes version, you have only to look to a 2006 article on the subject, which points out that big horn sheep live in "homosexual societies" in which they "bond through genital licking and anal intercourse." (Male sheep that choose not to engage in the behavior become social outcasts.)

And that's just the beginning.

"Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in 'penis fencing,' which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages."

www.popsci.com...

Whilst not 'batting for the other side' myself -I realy can't see anything wrong with homosexuality and, if the practise is prevalent in the animal kingdom to such a degree ,then it must be a naturaly occuring phenomenon.

After all we're animals too (anyone who disagrees -read 'The Naked Ape' by Desmond Morris).
Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Oh my! that pengy got lucky!
I'm glad he wasn't dinner for the whale!

I never heard about the gay elephant before! Just goes to show it is as natural as being heterosexual.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


UHHH no... my evidence still stands.

There are many shallow people here.

Wake up. Homosexuality is NOT a choice.

FROM EXTERNAL SOURCE:

J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies. Later experimenters found similar evidence in females. One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage. He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. He found that there was a 'remarkable concordance' for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28 [2].

Hamer hypothesized upon examining the family trees of the same men that on each subject's mother's side, there were markedly larger numbers of homosexual men, all stemming through the maternal lineages. This observation, along with his startling discovery on Xq28, led his findings to be dubbed the "gay gene study". The statistical probability of the 5 genetic markers on Xq28 to have matched randomly was calculated to be 1/100,000 [2], lending even more support to his findings.

This finding of a possible 'gay gene' prompts a look into two evolutionary concepts, and how they are affected. The Superior Heterozygote Theory states the phenotypic (actual) expression of homosexuality is the result of homozygosity for recessive (non-expressed but present) genes [11]. In simplification, if the person's genetic code is heterozygotic (one homosexual gene and one heterosexual gene), if the homosexual allele (half of the genetic code) is the allele passed on to the next generation, it will become the phenotype. Heterozygotes are only capable of being passed through to the next generation by mothers (as the Y-chromosome is incapable of heterozygosity), this again links homosexuality to X-linkage.

Link here; allpsych.com...

For goodness' sakes, please... open your eyes! Stop being stuck in 1992 or something!!!



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder
woah ,

everybody came down on me there


Heres all i think about the issue,

1. as far as i know no gene has been isoloated to show that homosexuality is genetic (feel free to educate me on this if im wrong)

that pretty much sums up what i know about the genetic argument here.

As far as nature or nurture im going to have to say i cant argue either way with any certainty.

i will say however that even if homosexuality is a geneticly inherited trait, that all homosexuals may not be geneticaly gay. Im sure there are some who have chosen homosexuality. Although the evidence i have of this is from female individuals.

SO i guess sdog id say that in general encompassing all who are homosexual bisexual (insert other snappy label) that its both nature and nurture. Some born some chose

but this is mho based solely on what i understand about the subject




READ ABOVE:
J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies. Later experimenters found similar evidence in females. One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage. He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. He found that there was a 'remarkable concordance' for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28 [2].

Xq28.

There. You have been educated.

(Oh, and if u attack the 'remarkable concordance' phrase as rendering this evidence 'inaccurate'... I have nothing to say about your stubbornness to see the truth.)

To muzzleflash and Ferris.Bueller:

Is it because you fear God might have created homosexual people too, if I tell you it's genetic? Is it because you want homosexual people to go to hell, and you only want YOURSELF to go to heaven?

I don't know what makes you think that way... why don't YOU educate me? What proof do you have that it's tastes?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
so according to this genetic theory

Monks must be born genetically celibate

Prostitutes must be born genetically disposed to, well, do what they do.

any other form of "sexuality" must be genetic also?

like a rapist is genetically disposed to rape people?

i am not comparing homosexuality to rape (totally different)
and i am not comparing homosexuality to celibacy(different)

But what I am comparing, is that if ONE of these things (homosexuality) is GENETIC , than it only follows that SOME of these other "Sexual Lifestyles" like Celibacy would ALSO be genetic no?

if not plz explain why, thanks
and include all examples so we can see where it goes in each situation


1) Why would a monk or rapist be genetically disposed to be celibate and to rape people, respectively?

When a boy is born, is he EQUIPPED to be celibate? When someone is born, is he/she EQUIPPED to be a rapist?

No.

But homosexual people are EQUIPPED to be gay. They view the same sex as attractive. They cannot help it. They might want otherwise (and God knows I know SO MANY PEOPLE who wish they were straight) but they can't help it. Their hormones rage with the sight of same-sex people. They get turned on by same-sex porn.

I know how much gay people wish they were straight, but it is NOT a choice. If it was a choice they could just go out with women and love women - but they can't. And it's not their fault.

Do you tihnk they would choose to be a minority? Which IDIOT would choose to be part of a minority? I'm Asian-American - but I'm BORN that way. If I had a choice, I would love to be white, because you don't hear racial slurs for the majority. Likewise, the "straight" people don't get slurs. Why would anyone want to be part of a minority if they could help it? That's just plain idiocy!

They would rather just be themselves and be accepted for who they are... but it's because of all the people in society who condemn them and despise them and think "they chose it" that force them to try to love the opposite sex...

And it is not good for anyone.

This is a very important fact to grasp. Please understand this.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join