So, these gay penguins have been around female penguins before, or is this the first time they've ever been around female penguins, meaning that they were only around other male penguins their whole life, in which case, it might not show that penguins that are gay are born gay, but that penguins are pretty loyal to their mates.
They also might be monogamous, unlike many other animals who will mate with more than one other member of their species, proving that polygamy is not a choice. Perhaps they should try placing gay penguins with other male penguins that they've never seen before, and see if anything happens between them.

I knew it!! No heterosexual of any species would dress up that spiffily their entire lives. C'mon, tuxes as evening, morning, sleeping, swimming, hanging around the iceberg, AND lingerie attire? I mean Realllllllll-y! ;~D

Juxtaposition got a point there....they are either developing a sudden mental stress of not able to find their lifetime partners...or it's just a sign that gay people are not smarter then animals...just following their desire and not logics.
Anyway, nervous, soon-to-be beheaded males of a pack of going-to-be-sacrificed-goats try to fuck other goats, male or female....

Those goddamn queer penguins...

They also might be monogamous, unlike many other animals who will mate with more than one other member of their species, proving that polygamy is not a choice.

This justification does not work, because polygamy implies a continued relationship with all of the partner that one chooses to have. Animals who mate with more than one partner are not polygamous; they're just whores.

or it's just a sign that gay people are not smarter then animals...just following their desire and not logics.

The whole point is that its not desire, its biologic and naturally occurring. I won't even try to argue that sexual preference has nothing to do with intelligence because I doubt it would do any good with you.

So, these gay penguins have been around eggs before, or is this the first time they've ever been around female eggs, meaning that they were only around rocks their whole life, in which case, it might not show that penguins that are gay try to hatch rocks, but that penguins are pretty determined to hatch anything that resembles an egg.
They also might be lapidoviporous, unlike many other birds who will incubate white objects that look like eggs, proving that ovipourosity is not a choice. Perhaps they should try placing gay penguins with other rocks and eggs that they've never seen before, and see if anything happens between them.

If a dog humps my leg, does he have a foot fetish?

But seriously, I think the whole "nature vs. Nurture" thing is a double edged sword. One person's example of diversity is another person's genetic flaw. You might convince some people that it is an acceptable genetic characteristic, but those who oppose homosexuality will just see it as another pre-disposition to be weeded out.

I have been told by a self-confessed Liberal here that kids who are retarded should be aborted if the flaw is found before birth. Can you imagine how a WASP family with a fear of disgrace would handle genetic homosexual pre-disposition?

I guess what I am saying is that "natural" isn't a clean bill of health to 90% of the people who oppose homosexuality, and the idea just reverts the whole thing to the level of "illness". A big factor in the medical establishment rejecting homosexuality as a mental illness was to prevent it from being "treated". Offer enough proof that homosexuals can't control the propensity, and some will strive to return to the idea.

This justification does not work, because polygamy implies a continued relationship with all of the partner that one chooses to have. Animals who mate with more than one partner are not polygamous; they're just whores.

Calling promiscuous animals whores is no better than calling homosexual ones faggots, because as we know, neither is by choice (because they're animals and therefore cannot choose to be gay or promiscuous).
Also, some animals are indeed polygamous, such as a type of beetle.

"Calling promiscuous animals whores is no better than calling homosexual ones faggots, because as we know, neither is by choice (because they're animals and therefore cannot choose to be gay or promiscuous)."

Hrm. Just as an aside...

"Whore" is a values judgement. As far as I know "Faggot" is a term for homosexual. Other terms for homosexuals are embraced by homosexuals themselves. What about this particular term is hurtful? I mean, if a term means gay, and you are gay, how is it any worse than "Fag", which is just a shortened version and gleefully adopted by many homosexuals themselves?

P.S. Just as a pre-buttal, the "n" word was derogatory before it was used to refer to black people.

So, these gay penguins have been around eggs before, or is this the first time they've ever been around female eggs,

As far as I know, they had never been around eggs, period.

I guess what I am saying is that "natural" isn't a clean bill of health to 90% of the people who oppose homosexuality, and the idea just reverts the whole thing to the level of "illness". A big factor in the medical establishment rejecting homosexuality as a mental illness was to prevent it from being "treated". Offer enough proof that homosexuals can't control the propensity, and some will strive to return to the idea.

I don't think trying to devise a genetic predisposition to homosexuality reverts it to an illness any more than genetic causes make brown hair or blue eyes an illness. Anything that is controlled by science, and which is examined by the medical establishment, could be qualified as an illness if this were the case. Skin pigmentation could be an illness, or the length of ones fingers, or the size of ones nose.

As far as the proof goes, I find myself totally convinced by the fact that as a straight male, I have always been attracted to women. My problem with the "homosexuality is a choice" position is that if homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality must be a choice as well, since a person could choose one or the other. However, I have never had to choose to be attracted to women; I just am.

I suppose technically, I do choose to be with women, and gay men choose to be with men, but it is really only a choice because there are two possible categories. If I was hungry and had a choice between a sandwich and a chair, I would choose to eat the sandwich. But how much of a choice was that?

how is it any worse than "Fag", which is just a shortened version and gleefully adopted by many homosexuals themselves?

I don't know of any homosexuals who "gleefully accept" the term. Either way, it is offensive for whatever reason, and instead of trying to beat the fact that "it's just a word" into the ground, I think it is far easier for us to refrain from using it in the offensive context. Otherwise, we're just looking for a fight.

Calling promiscuous animals whores is no better than calling homosexual ones faggots, because as we know, neither is by choice (because they're animals and therefore cannot choose to be gay or promiscuous).Also, some animals are indeed polygamous, such as a type of beetle.

I still believe this argument is about a different thing, which is not biologic, because polygamy does not affect what one is attracted to, just the number of the thing that one is attracted to. To use my previous example, if I'm hungry, and choose between a sandwich and a chair, there really is no choice as far as which I will eat. However, if I have two sandwiches and a chair, there is no choice about which I will eat; how many of the sandwiches I will eat, however, is a complete choice.

I still believe this argument is about a different thing, which is not biologic, because polygamy does not affect what one is attracted to, just the number of the thing that one is attracted to. To use my previous example, if I'm hungry, and choose between a sandwich and a chair, there really is no choice as far as which I will eat. However, if I have two sandwiches and a chair, there is no choice about which I will eat; how many of the sandwiches I will eat, however, is a complete choice.

So just because animals do it naturally does not mean that it isn't a choice, meaning that just because animals might be gay doesn't mean it isn't a choice? I don't see how we can differentiate between animals compelled to screw a multiple number of mates and animals compelled to screw a member of the same gender. I also don't see how it's "only a choice" when bark beetles have 60 or more mates.
One can't say: "Oh it's not a choice because animals do it (even though it might just insist that penguins are loyal to their current partner)" in one case and then "Oh, it's still a choice, even though animals do it" in another. Just because homosexuals have a better PR campaign does not mean that groups without good PR campaigns aren't just "whores."

As far as I know, they had never been around eggs, period.

whew! LOL

So what happens when the penguins come out to their families? Do they get thrown to the seals?

So what happens when the penguins come out to their families? Do they get thrown to the seals?

They do, but then the seals reject them because even seals don't want to eat something so "unnatural". ;~D

I really don't see it as desire. They just didn't know any better. When presented with the choice, they went for what they knew.