Penguins are so gay

[Msixty]

HARDY-****ING-HAR!

We've got a comedian in the house!

think i could make some cash off that? my SKS needs same new bells and such....

You're a riot! Stop, stop! You're killing me!

if only i could lol

No, the penguins probably weren't really homosexual but when I asked them for a interview, they declined to comment.

hm, must be afraid of cretures from horror movies

Your point was to prove you are an idiot, poor debater, and bad at grammar? Success!

no, my point was lost in the sludge you suck up in place of a brain

Copying, no. Using it as my resource? Well, DUH. It's the only source I was offered.

aaah, ok, i see, inability to do things for yourself, here, i'll offer you another source since you can't find things (like ratonality) for yourself. www.google.com do you need a step-by-step of typing it in as well?

Oh, please do. You're easier to debunk than Koko.

ok i'll just keep it up then

 

[Phantom]

here, i'll offer you another source since you can't find things (like ratonality) for yourself. www.google.com

"Google?" What is this "Google" you speak of?

On that note, I need to get off for the night. Instead of derailing J5's thread, make a new thread if you want to debate the homosexual tendencies of the animal kingdom. This post wasn't intended to debate the penguins' sexuality- it was whether or not the mature nature was a suitable topic for impressionable children.

 

[Ctrl]

Well ****. Here I am trying to start a thread on the gay thing so that terms and conditions can be defined, and you are extrapolating it 4 generations into gay penguin adoption. A lot of presumption is made, that I am not sure is fact. I don't think you can debate such things presuming that it is either "OK" or you are a homophobe. There is debate in there, just waiting for a coherent argument first.

 

[Msixty]

Well ****. Here I am trying to start a thread on the gay thing so that terms and conditions can be defined.

you act as if it is a contract, or we are buying/selling something, not the best way to look at something like this, and some of us are not far to one side, i'm not pro-gay, and i'm not someone who is totally against it

and presumption is/was made, but you nor i am ever going to stop that from happening, it's what allows for the argument to be disproved, if everything was fact we would NEVER solve a debate, and nobody's opinion would be affected in the slightest.

 

[snafu]

Well ****. Here I am trying to start a thread on the gay thing so that terms and conditions can be defined, and you are extrapolating it 4 generations into gay penguin adoption. A lot of presumption is made, that I am not sure is fact. I don't think you can debate such things presuming that it is either "OK" or you are a homophobe. There is debate in there, just waiting for a coherent argument first.

Woosh......
Right over my head. WTF?

 

[Msixty]

This post wasn't intended to debate the penguins' sexuality- it was whether or not the mature nature was a suitable topic for impressionable children.

AHEM

i do not feel that the mature nature of the book in question is propor for children to be exposed to at a young age, i feel this way becouse, im my personal opinion, the book implies that homosexuality is an acceptable practice and is ok for animals and people, although the book most likely does not state this in plain print, i feel that is the general implacation. this is not something that children should be exposed to in such a way at such an age, they have not learned enough about sex and what it is to fully comprehend the messege from the book, although the book does not display phisical homosexual actions, it may only lead to such 'sexual education' in schools in the future.

was that good enough for you? is the topic back on your fragile track? it is not so bad to expand a topic, we are not within a box constructed by the initial post......


although i admit that the gay penguin thing was getting silly (but then again, look at the thread title)

 

[Msixty]

Woosh......
Right over my head. WTF?

it's ok to be confused snafu, he really wanted to say something but couldnt think of anything useful to put in

 

[Phantom]

AHEM

i do not feel that the mature nature of the book in question is propor for children to be exposed to at a young age, i feel this way becouse, im my personal opinion, the book implies that homosexuality is an acceptable practice and is ok for animals and people, although the book most likely does not state this in plain print, i feel that is the general implacation. this is not something that children should be exposed to in such a way at such an age, they have not learned enough about sex and what it is to fully comprehend the messege from the book, although the book does not display phisical homosexual actions, it may only lead to such 'sexual education' in schools in the future.

was that good enough for you? is the topic back on your fragile track? it is not so bad to expand a topic, we are not within a box constructed by the initial post......

Much ****in' better, Mutha****a! Watch your step next time before you bring down the wrath of the etiquette Nazi.

Really though, off-topic bunny trails are fine. But holy ****, don't run your mouth so much when someone is AGREEING with you.

Ok, Now I am really getting off for the night.

 

[Msixty]

Much ****in' better, Mutha****a! Watch your step next time before you bring down the wrath of the etiquette Nazi.

well **** howabout the grammar commusist? (yes, i do realise i need spellcheck, but i have only notepad and no internet one)

Really though, off-topic bunny trails are fine. But holy ****, don't run your mouth so much when someone is AGREEING with you.

my mouth is directly connected to my 'talk **** and never shut up' lobe (but surgery is sceduled for the 82nd of september

 

[Jhony5]

Another link to a local news article.


http://kutv.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_320123107.html

Notice the article states that the school in question has moved this book to the non-fiction section. While the book itself straight up says the penguins are "in love". This is a fictitious statement and presumes to know the emotional commitments of these wild animals.


Posted by M60:

did they **** eachother becouse there were no females around?

Dammit fool are you blind? I can't post links in Braille.

Hmm...thats weird. I never thought of that. Can blind people enjoy the internet? Bah thats for another thread I suppose.

and they tried to hatch a rock,

This is where the supporting argument that "homosexuality is natural, even in nature" crumbles without fail. In the wild, there would be no fertilized egg handed them by humans. In the wild their gay cavorting would have been limited when their reproductive instincts kicked in. The article said it plainly. The penguins tried to fertilize rocks that resembled eggs. This is indeed not homosexual behavior at all. Gay men do not try and fertilize things that resemble females.

I suggest one possible key to this strange tale. Within all animal packs, an alpha male is determined. The other males follow the lead of the alpha male. I say the alpha male in this case had a wiring issue in the brain that derailed its normal reproductive habits. The lesser male he was paired with, simply followed suite and thus the ensuing confusion.
Fact is if this behavior was trend setting in the wilds of nature, it would be wholly detrimental to the continuing of the cycle of life through reproduction.
A quote from Rush Limbaugh:"Maybe the dinosaurs didn't die from an asteroid strike. Perhaps they all turned gay".

Its a funny statement no doubt, but it carries with it a stunningly accurate measure of what would happen if the predominate number of any species selected homosexuality as its norm.

To argue that homosexuality doesn't go against nature, is flawed beyond reason. Should people not be allowed to participate in a gay lifestyle? Should it be illegal to do so? Hell no. Thats oppressive and against everything America stands for.

But, walk with me down this scenario for a minute. What if, over time, our society became 75%-85% homosexual? What would be the consequences? Chaos? As the generations go by our numbers would reduce and a crisis would ensue. Its inarguable.

These things are at the heart of the matter. These things are why we should not disguise entertaining tales of happy animals at the local zoo, as a means of teaching acceptance of unnatural acts that counter normal sexual reproductive mannerisms.

Some lessons are best taught at home. However the 'gay agenda' recognizes that many people will not teach their children sexual diversity. So here we have introduced a clever measure to do this for them.

 

[Msixty]

Dammit fool are you blind? I can't post links in Braille.

nope, i have 20/20 20/15 vision, my hearing is questonable though

Hmm...thats weird. I never thought of that. Can blind people enjoy the internet? Bah thats for another thread I suppose.

the 3D computer screen for the blind...... you could become richer than bill gates

 

[Jhony5]

Posted by M60:

nope, i have 20/20 20/15 vision, my hearing is questionable though

Than I shall shout for now on. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW MOTHER****ER?!?!? I kid I kid.

the 3D computer screen for the blind...... you could become richer than bill gates

Braille pornography. Yes. I will go to my secret laboratory and develop this new age wonder. When I'm rich I'll buy this website from Bob and ban every last one of you ****ers. Except for DK. I'll keep him around. I've grown quite attached to this parasite (talk about ironies).

 

[eisanbt]

To argue that homosexuality doesn't go against nature, is flawed beyond reason.

A baby is born sterile...... UNATURAL MONSTER I TELLS YA!!!... Shoulda Coat-Hangered the ****er before he got out. My guess; it chose to not develop functional testicles, yes that must be it. Nature wouldn't allow such a thing to happen.

 

[Jhony5]

A baby is born sterile...... UNATURAL MONSTER I TELLS YA!!!... Shoulda Coat-Hangered the ****er before he got out. My guess; it chose to not develop functional testicles, yes that must be it. Nature wouldn't allow such a thing to happen.

I'm really lost as too what you meant by all that. A baby isn't an egg. It was to some degree at one point. You need to make yourself more clear. Ummm...WTF in hell are you trying to say?

 

[Ctrl]

Hmm...thats weird. I never thought of that. Can blind people enjoy the internet? Bah thats for another thread I suppose.

Yes. There is a program called Jawz that reads it to them and deciphers links from text... etc. Porn does need some work though.

 

[Jhony5]

Yes. There is a program called Jawz that reads it to them and deciphers links from text... etc. Porn does need some work though.

Behold, the beauty of GF. We go from gay penguins to blind porn surfers.

But thanks for answering my question on that. I had never once thought of that before.

 

[Ctrl]

I'm pretty bad about thread hijacking too. I really do want to debate some preconcieved accepted notions on homosexuality before entertaining discourse this far removed. I wanted to come back to this once everyone understood what everyone thought. Laughably it is my attempt NOT to jack this thread from gay penguins to "what is gay?".

 

[Jhony5]

I'm pretty bad about thread hijacking too. I really do want to debate some preconcieved accepted notions on homosexuality before entertaining discourse this far removed. I wanted to come back to this once everyone understood what everyone thought. Laughably it is my attempt NOT to jack this thread from gay penguins to "what is gay?".

So whats your opinion on the book? In relation to its detrimental effects on the psychology of a child's undeveloped mind. Does it go beyond acceptance of alternate lifestyles into a realm of sexual confusion? I'm not willing to say that it could cause a child to "turn gay". Just that it creates an unnecessarily confusing atmosphere in the development of understanding reproduction.

 

[Ctrl]

I am willing to take it further and suggest that it lays the groundwork for environmentally conditioning a child to believe that being gay is not only normal, but special. It is not only acceptable, but fantastic. It moves beyond confusion into the realm of laying a groundwork for brainwashing in later years when hormones hit and the world becomes very frustrating and confusing. Kids are so impressionable. Lots of folks in prison are gay for the stay not out of necessity, but because it is the norm. They are adults... what IS the effect of this on our children? Are YOU willing to experiment?

Once deviance becomes the norm, our society is lost.

 

[Jhony5]

Once deviance becomes the norm, our society is lost.

Which is why I posted this earlier in this thread>>

What if, over time, our society became 75%-85% homosexual? What would be the consequences? Chaos? As the generations go by our numbers would reduce and a crisis would ensue.

it lays the groundwork for environmentally conditioning a child to believe that being gay is not only normal, but special. It is not only acceptable, but fantastic.

Very well put. You might cause me to override my own opinion on social causes for homosexuality with thinking like that. When I first saw this story on the news I didn't know what to think. Instinctively it felt wrong. Like a violation of what is supposed to be. I know that if my 7 year old daughter brought that book home from her school library and we set down to read it at night, I would respond with a resounding W T F !!!

Its hard for some to disseminate people being offending by such a thing, and pure bigotry. This would be the long term effects of political correctness on our society at work. By being so accepting of alternate lifestyles, society as a whole has set the groundwork for damaging consequences.

Ultimately the reasoning the school provided for not pulling this book from their offerings, was censorship. A suspicious reason at the least. They do not offer books that glorify drug use or promiscuity. Is that not censorship when placed within the same scope of reasoning?

Just because this book doesn't overtly teach homosexuality as being a wondrous alternative, doesn't suggest that it isn't covertly doing exactly that.