Penguins are so gay

[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 fuckin' better, Muthafucka! 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 shit, 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 fuckin' better, Muthafucka! Watch your step next time before you bring down the wrath of the etiquette Nazi.

 

well fuck 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 shit, don't run your mouth so much when someone is AGREEING with you.

 

my mouth is directly connected to my 'talk shit 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 fuck 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 MOTHERFUCKER?!?!? 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 fuckers. 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 fucker 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 fucker 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.

[eisanbt]

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?

 

 

I were saying ta ya dat it wud appear dat sometines in the bush animals are born without the ability to reproduce; they are sterile. My post was to mockingly show that just because something happens which does not serve the purpose of furthuring the growth of the species does not mean that it dosn't happen naturally, or commonly.

 

Sarcasm.....ha...ha....

[Jhony5]

Sarcasm.....ha...ha....

Sarcasm is best done overtly, like whacking your target with a shovel. Otherwise it can be misinterpreted during the deciphering process. Even with the explanation, I cannot make sense of your previous sarcastic remark.

 

My post was to mockingly show that just because something happens which does not serve the purpose of furthering the growth of the species does not mean that it doesn't happen naturally, or commonly.

Just because something occurs naturally, doesn't mean it can't go against nature itself.

Example. Some humans are born with such egregious mental defects that they are entirely incapable of taking care of themselves. Sociopaths are another good example of the unnatural development of a natural organism. All these things, mental defects, sterile born animals and the like, go against the natural order of things. They are in effect, a mistake. An error. Sad as it is, they exist in defiance of nature.

[eisanbt]

If the natural order didn't involve variation and deviation than the procaryote-Jhony5 would have a hard time typing a response now wouldn't he? The poor Hemihegetotherium trilobus was most certainly a unnatural species by this logic; not only was it different from the Hemihegetotherium dilobus but it didn't evolve/survive to this day. Surly an example of disruption to the natural order of never ending consistency...<--(More sarcasm)

[Jhony5]

The poor Hemihegetotherium trilobus......... Hemihegetotherium dilobus

The Hemiwhosayswhathefucktherium?

 

My point stands as to the unnatural act of Penguins trying to fertilize a rock (an act of reproduction), while shunning the females he needs to produce an actual egg for him to fertilize. Attempting to fertilize and procreate is a natural action. Attempting to do so to a rock suggests a defective brain function and is entirely unnatural.

 

The book ignores the actions of these penguins as dysfunctional. Instead it attempts to highlight the fun and sweet side of what is in reality, a self-destructive behavior.

[hugo]

In a world with 6 billion homo sapiens it is hard to argue homosexuality is a problem for the species.

[Jhony5]

In a world with 6 billion homo sapiens it is hard to argue homosexuality is a problem for the species.

True, and the odds of homosexuality ever becoming a threat to the human specie's existence is highly improbable. However too truly gauge the merits of any behavior, one must ask "What if everyone did this". If everyone was gay than the human species would die off within 80-100 years. We all know this will never happen, so to use this as a reasoning for hating the homosexual is in err.

[hugo]

What if no one raised food? We'd all be dead as soon as our canned goods ran out. Does this mean everyone should be required to at least have a garden? The fact is homosexuality was a problem for nomadic warriors who needed every soldier they could get. It is no longer a problem. We are aborting 100's of thousands of individuals and feebly trying to reduce immigration.

[eisanbt]

"What if everyone did this".

 

 

Kant was an idiot.

[Jhony5]

Does this mean everyone should be required to at least have a garden?

No. Every person should though, do something to contribute to society. By either having a job or paying taxes.

[hugo]

No. Every person should though, do something to contribute to society. By either having a job or paying taxes.

 

But there are a lot of people that should not be reproducing.