moonbattery.gif


« Senate Looters Propose Lifestyle Taxes | Main | Stockholm Syndrome and the Moonbat Elite »


June 9, 2009

More Pervert Penguins

AFP, a German zoo, and two abnormal penguins have teamed up to deal a devastating blow to the institution of marriage:

Two homosexual penguins have successfully hatched an egg that was rejected by its parents and are now proudly rearing the chick, the German zoo housing the couple said…
"Z and Vielpunkt, both males, gladly accepted their 'Easter present' and began straight away with hatching the egg," said the zoo in Bremerhaven, in northern Germany.
"Since the chick arrived they are behaving in the same way as one would expect a heterosexual couple to do. Both happy fathers are now diligently handling the everyday care … of their adopted offspring," the zoo said. …
"Homosexuality is nothing unusual among animals," the zoo said. "Sex and coupling up in our world do not necessarily have anything to do with reproduction."

There you have it: the Bremerhaven Zoo has spoken on the meaning of marriage and sexuality morality.

I wonder if the zoo spokesmoonbat snuffled the interviewer's bottom. After all, animals do that too, so it must be proper behavior.

tango-makes-three.jpg
Pervert penguins recruited to fight in the culture war.

On a tip from General Will.

Posted by Van Helsing at June 9, 2009 8:49 AM

Comments

but, how do homo penguins "fist"??

Posted by: eat me at June 9, 2009 8:52 AM

Has anyone actually observed the two engaging in sex?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 8:54 AM

This is not a rare occurrence at all. God made all these creatures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 9:12 AM

Can someone please explain how the egg was fertilized to make it viable?

OF COURSE NOT.....it was fertilized by MALE and FEMALE.

Stupid dipshits.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 9:28 AM

Homosexuality is part of the sin that came with the fall of Adam and Eve. Now we got Adam and Steve packing each other fudge, spreading AIDS, fisting each other and signing up for NAMBLA. Nice.

Posted by: Enoch at June 9, 2009 9:29 AM

Animals in the wild also eat their own young and fling poo at one another on occassion.

If you have to resort to listing animal behavior in support of your perverted lifestyle, then by all means have at it. If you're trying to make your perverted lifestyle appear mainstream and respectable, however, perhaps you should opt for a different tactic.

Posted by: cowlove at June 9, 2009 9:31 AM

Read the news. Hetero people are eating their young, or very near.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 9:33 AM

This is your tactic, not mine. Just offering up more facts along the lines of the post. Take a breath.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 9:35 AM

Read the news. Hetero people are eating their young, or very near.

Even taking the claim at face value, surely we lock those people up, right? Yet if it's homosexuality we're talking about...animal behavior is justification? You're confusing.

This is your tactic, not mine. Just offering up more facts along the lines of the post. Take a breath.

If you're going to present facts, expect discussion.

Posted by: cowlove at June 9, 2009 9:40 AM

Of course, in the natural world, female mammals lactate
to feed their young. So if two males were to try this the
baby would die. This proves how un-natural an act
homosexuals raising offspring is. Thank you Tango!

Posted by: D. King at June 9, 2009 9:42 AM

Well, its usually presented as "unnatural" so while I don't propose that we start acting like animals (as much as I'm sure you'd love to fling poo at me) I offer it up as evidence against the "its unnatural" argument.

Animals are governed by the laws of nature. They do not decide what they are going to do, they just do.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 9:45 AM

Anonymous,

How the hell do animals that don't copulate practice homosexual activity? Mammals that act-out this behavior are most likely demonstrating dominance.

My female boxer mounts my male boxer quite often when he gets too rowdy. Is that maybe "femdom".

Also, haven't scientists come to the conclusion that animals(except man and dolphin)don't have sex for pleasure. Which would then seem to preclude actual homo tendencies, unless queers have found a way to procreate.

Posted by: RD at June 9, 2009 9:45 AM

...homosexual penguins? Not likely. These stories are ludicrous. Animals mate based on smell not affection. If these two animals are mating, then one of them either smells funny or has some broken smell wiring. And if they're just chumming around, who cares. Anyone who has had two household pets of the same sex can see that they enjoy each other's company.

Posted by: DJ at June 9, 2009 9:45 AM

Anonymous, it's a semantic argument then. My examples in response to your link served only to demonstrate that what may be "natural" in the animal kingdom often has no place in human society. Calling it "unnatural," "perverted," or "uncivilized" all serve to say essentially the same thing.

Posted by: cowlove at June 9, 2009 9:49 AM

SO, its only natural if cowlove deems it so?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 9:53 AM

SO, its only natural if cowlove deems it so?

No, silly. I said very simply that pointing to behaviors of wild animals is not a justification for human actions. Hence the examples of eating their young and flinging their poo. If you'd like to justify said human activity, use a different tactic, as this one ends in failure for you.

Posted by: cowlove at June 9, 2009 9:56 AM

If you could flip a switch and we'd all suddenly be gay, absent modern scientific "breeding" techniques, the human race would be extinct in just a few decades.

Homosexuality remains and will always be an aberration.

Posted by: vonster at June 9, 2009 10:01 AM

RE: Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 9:33 AM

"Read the news. Hetero people are eating their young, or very near."

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Anonymoose?

I don't know of any "Hetero People ...eating their young", but apparently you have been eating those funny looking 'shrooms again....

Posted by: TonyD95B at June 9, 2009 10:05 AM

Interestingly, there have been cases of homosexuality among penguins. This is not, however, to indicate that homosexuality is in any way "normal" for penguins. It's simply a reaction to an imbalance in the sexes. The homosexual penguins (documented only in captivity, mind you) indeed have intercourse, which is quite possible given their phisiology. Who is it to say, short of much research, that the adoption of an egg is anything but the expression of the PATERNAL instinct in both cases?

I don't think we're looking at anything that can't be explained within normal adaptation.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at June 9, 2009 10:09 AM

No, silly. I said very simply that pointing to behaviors of wild animals is not a justification for human actions.

Exactly. Animals don't have choices, humans do. We can aspire to be more than the sum of our biological components.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 9, 2009 10:46 AM

Anonymous, taking a crap on the sidewalk may be natural to an animal, but we're talking HUMANS here... we'd be arrested for that because we as humans are supposed to have choice, morals, and work in a society.

By the way, why hide behind the "Anonymous" moniker if you're so damn sure of yourself and your convictions? I never, ever get that with you libs.

Posted by: Atomic Lib Smasher at June 9, 2009 11:10 AM

Male emperor penguins typically hatch the eggs even when they are paired with a female. The story sounds like just another example of moonbat projection. And please, folks, has anyone ever seen a penquin penis? Do you know why you haven't? They are SMALL.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 9, 2009 11:30 AM

Anyway these gay freaks can push their perverted lifestyles on kids using adorible little penguins GAYS SUCK

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at June 9, 2009 11:32 AM

I'm sorry, I may have been misleading. When I said penguin penises were small I should have said they don't exist in the traditional sense of the word because their sexual organs are internal. Oh, and another thing, penguins poop and have sex with the same hole, so I guess in that respect even the heterosexual penguins are like male homosexuals!

Posted by: Judith M. at June 9, 2009 11:54 AM

I love how upset conservatives get over a little fluff story like this. You can read the story and interpret it as you will, but nothing quoted refers to humans!

I also love how conservatives perceive gay marriage to be a threat to their marriages. If the value of your marriage is relative to the value of other people's marriages, then the much larger number of failed heterosexual marriages is the bigger threat.

Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 1:21 PM

Please, Brandon, I, for one, was not born yesterday. I know an attempt to normalize homosexuality by appealing to aberrations in the animal kingdom when I see it. "It's natural, don't you know? Even penguins can be gay!."

This sort of thing is part of a much bigger conspiracy to break down the defenses of the general population and get them to accept homosexuality as normal. In isolation, this article is silly. As part of a larger conspiracy, it raises my hackles.

As for your argument that divorce is a threat to the sanctity of marriage, I couldn't agree more. What I fail to understand is why one threat to the sanctity of marriage (divorce) is a valid argument to allow for another threat to the sanctity of marriage (homosexual "marriage")?

Posted by: Judith M. at June 9, 2009 1:36 PM

The way I see it, the sanctity of a marriage has nothing to do with anyone but the people in the marriage ceremony.

If gay marriage ruins the sanctity of a marriage, then the same argument could be made that jewish marriage ruins the sanctity of catholic marriage, or that mixed race marriage ruins the sanctity of single race marriage.

Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 1:50 PM

I love how upset conservatives get over a little fluff story like this. You can read the story and interpret it as you will, but nothing quoted refers to humans!

Put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose the story described how penguins kill any and all homosexual penguins in their midst. It’s just a little fluff story, nothing to get excited about. It doesn’t even refer to humans!

I also love how conservatives perceive gay marriage to be a threat to their marriages.

Judith nails it. Homosexual marriage doesn’t threaten normal marriages, it threatens society, by mainstreaming perversion as normal (which it isn’t) and acceptable (ditto). People shooting up drugs don’t directly threaten me either, but their behavior undermines society. You do agree that junkies are perhaps not the basis of a healthy society, I hope?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 9, 2009 2:21 PM

Actually, what's hilarious is how lefties conflate a story about a couple of dumb birds into a justification for radically changing the fundamental values of society.

Posted by: V the K at June 9, 2009 2:30 PM

V, why shouldn't lefties look to bird brains? Makes perfect sense, when you think about it.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 9, 2009 2:34 PM

So conservatives advocate the government regulating what it considers perverse? How does that fit with the fundamental values of our country?

And how can you possibly find a criteria for perverseness, when it is completely subjective?

Comparing junkies to homosexuals doesn't make any sense at all, and on most subjects conservatives don't want the government regulating dangerous activities, but because they find homosexuals disgusting they are willing to regualte this.

If it really is about the danger to society because of sexually transmitted diseases, it would make more sense to only let virgins get married, because virginity is a much stronger indicator of STD status than sexual orientation.

Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 2:47 PM

Junkies and homosexuals both spread disease. I don't want the government regulating homosexuality; I want the government to stop encouraging it.

And how can you possibly find a criteria [sic] for perverseness, when it is completely subjective?

So you don't recognize the concept of perversion? Anything and everything is OK? If not, what criterion do you use to decide?

If it really is about the danger to society because of sexually transmitted diseases, it would make more sense to only let virgins get married, because virginity is a much stronger indicator of STD status than sexual orientation.

So answer one question: would you perform CPR on a homosexual, or risk exposure to his blood? Admit it: even if you ultimately did it, you'd think twice about it first.

And you'd be sensible to do so, because homosexuals are a major reservoir of all STDs. Not just AIDS, but syphilis, gonorrhea, and also hepatitis B and C. SK, dust off your earlier post from PubMed.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 9, 2009 3:00 PM

Even if we estimate that 10% of the population is gay (that's a high estimate) and that homosexuals are twice as likely to have a STD (another high estimate), there would still be 4.5 times as many straight people with STDs than gay people.

Sure, I am disgusted by things and find things perverse, but I know something is perverse because, well, I think it's perverse. It's where logic breaks down and gut reaction takes over. Whose gut reaction shall we write into the law?

Any random person is more likely to be a heterosexual with an STD than a homosexual with an STD.

Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 3:13 PM

Even if we estimate that 10% of the population is gay (that's a high estimate) and that homosexuals are twice as likely to have a STD (another high estimate), there would still be 4.5 times as many straight people with STDs than gay people.

The absolute numbers are not the point, obviously; the point is the frequency. By the argument above, if you don’t want your car stolen you should buy a Ferrari and park it in Harlem, because very few Ferraris get stolen there.

But let’s go to the phones. MMWR Analysis Provides New Details on HIV Incidence in U.S. Populations , which “... confirmed that gay and bisexual men of all races, African Americans, and Hispanics/Latinos were most heavily affected by HIV.”

Similarly,

The P&S [primary and secondary] syphilis rate among males is now six times the rate among females, whereas the rates were almost equivalent a decade ago , suggesting that increases in men have largely been among men who sex with men.

The fact is: male homosexuals pose a significant public health problem. It’s as simple as that.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 9, 2009 4:13 PM

"The way I see it, the sanctity of a marriage has nothing to do with anyone but the people in the marriage ceremony."

Seriously? You can't see that promoting sound and lasting marriages has ramifications for society? Marriage has ALWAYS had societal implications, in every culture, and within every religious tradition. When the norm for marriage is life long union between a man and a woman that is ordered to having and raising children, societies tend to thrive. When it is viewed as a temporary license to have sex and shack up, society has suffered. Authentic marriage is a natural as well as religious institution and it existed before Christianity and even before Judaism. An institution that old shouldn't be tampered with, and I might add that if homosexual marriage is SO essential, how have we managed to survive since the beginning of time without it? Indeed, why have homosexuals not even been interested in it until about a decade ago?

"If gay marriage ruins the sanctity of a marriage, then the same argument could be made that jewish marriage ruins the sanctity of catholic marriage, or that mixed race marriage ruins the sanctity of single race marriage."

All of the examples you list have no impediments to being authentic marriages. No if you said marriages between a man and his donkey, I would agree that that allowing such a thing would conf

Posted by: Judith M. at June 9, 2009 4:22 PM

Well said, Judith. The problem is that contemporary culture takes a rigorously self-absorbed hedonistic perspective, and fails to look at broader implications of social mores.

For example, why do cultures generally favor monogamy, and frown on adultery? (Yes, the practice falls short of the principle, but the principle remains.) Easy - because it promotes a stable, progressive (in the real sense) society.

It's the same reason that murder and theft are forbidden, and that we work hard to enforce the rule of law: because it promotes civil society. Societies that lack these things quickly degenerate into a "Mad Max" type scenario.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 9, 2009 4:51 PM

So conservatives advocate the government regulating what it considers perverse?

So, by that logic, we can't outlaw bestiality, incest, or pederasty... because that would be "regulating what is considered perverse."

Posted by: V the K at June 9, 2009 5:25 PM

V, that's a preview of coming attractions, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 9, 2009 5:29 PM

Female praying mantises eat their male mates' heads during sex. I can't wait for the feminists to take that as their mascot...

Posted by: RockDove at June 9, 2009 6:47 PM

"If gay marriage ruins the sanctity of a marriage, then the same argument could be made that jewish [sic] marriage ruins the sanctity of catholic [sic] marriage, or that mixed race marriage ruins the sanctity of single race marriage."

Sooooo... Besides implying homosexuals are a race, you also imply homosexualism is a religion (which may actually be true). LOL! Just when I think a liberal can't say anything more stupid - they out-do themselves.

I don't recognize the homosexual race or the homosexual religion. So that I guess that makes me "homophobic," huh?

By that same reasoning, I suppose since I abhor Rap "music" and don't celebrate "Kwanza" I'm a racist, too, huh?

You see - you just can't win with silly unreasoning liberals. It is perfectly okay for them to publicly foam at the mouth when the name Jesus is uttered in a public place - but if someone calls a homo a homo that breaks all the rules. If someone says homosexuality is taboo - then that someone is hateful.

No people who ever lived practice hate more openly or with more fervor than liberals. They are right up there at the top with the Taliban. (Only liberals are directly responsible for far more deaths than the Taliban.)

Posted by: Jimbo at June 9, 2009 8:30 PM

DISNEYS and his SILLY SYMPHONIE of WHO KILLED COCK ROBIN being robin not being dead but wounded by one of cupids arrows and a entire cast of birds paterened off hollywood celberties of the time like JENNY WREN patterned afer MAE WEST and a coucko patterned after HARPO MARX its pretty streight

Posted by: Flu-Bird at June 9, 2009 9:10 PM

I wonder what would happen if they were two homosexual male mammals instead, when they try to get milk for the new baby...

Posted by: BURNING HOT at June 9, 2009 10:06 PM

Just out of curiosity; is there some way penguins can tell which sex the other is, just by looking, as they all pretty much look the same?

Posted by: comet at June 10, 2009 6:35 AM

Well at least in HAPPY FEET it was MUMBLE and GLORIA and not MUMBLE and LOVELACE

Posted by: Condor at June 10, 2009 7:47 AM

Female JACANNAS have up to six little males sitting on nests a female PHALAROPE is bigger then the male and he dose all the nesting and care for the young

Posted by: turu the terrible at June 10, 2009 9:38 PM

*Sigh*

The sheer amount of absolute bullshit comments I've just read staggers the mind.

Then again, I'm assuming you're all American, so I can't say I'm too surprised. Try getting with the rest of the world. You'll notice (though, it's a long shot considered you people only see what you WANT to see) that the countries that have legalised gay marriage have some of the lowest crime rates, lowest teenage pregnancy rates and the highest standards of living. They haven't been burned to the ground, or had some sort of wrath from God visited upon them.

You silly little homophobes are a dying breed anyway. We'll all be living in a better world when the last of you finally pops your clogs, so kindly hurry up.

Posted by: TDLfri at June 16, 2009 3:33 PM

Well said, turu the terrible. Watching conservative Americans defend their bigotry and gluttony is amusing to the point of absolute terror. The fact that that entire culture is being crushed under the wieght of theor own excess (and their big fat white asses)is tremendously gratifying.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 16, 2009 4:17 PM

The religious right always goes on about the "sanctity of marriage", or allowing gay marriage somehow destroys society. But they never explain *how*. It's always just an assertion that Bad Things will happen. The least you could do is cite some sort of reference, an example maybe, of how gay marriage (and gay marriage alone) led to the destruction of a society. But I won't hold my breath, because no such example exists.

Posted by: Haseen at June 17, 2009 1:43 PM

Wow! What's with all the homophobia?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 17, 2009 6:28 PM