Gay Penguin couple adopts abandoned egg

[Correction]

The only reason we say these penguins are gay is because they are pairing up with other males, which is a category that lasts as long as they keep up the conduct, that is, until they leave for females.

So the fact that they haven't left yet for female partners means they're gay. For now. BUT WAIT GUYZ THAT DOESN'T MEAN FINESSE IS RIGHT LAWLZ.

Still sounds like a lot of

[Shenrien]

I wana see the court order about two gay penguins actually adopting an egg...

[Chezo]

This is the coolest thing ever.

[Kuya]

You give ONE example but your argument was "gay penguins have tended to go back to females," thanks for proving how full of it you are.

I've known gay men to break up with their boyfriend and fuck a girl or two before going back to men. ( haha oh lawd funny typo )

For some additional clarity: Roy and Silo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice try. Bad example is bad.

Homosexuality is the act or attraction to those of the same sex. Heterosexuality is the act or attraction to those of the opposite sex. This is 2 + 2 = 4, not complicated quantum theory.

This happens all over the animal kingdom including humans for reasons unknown, but highly studied from areas to social surrounding, psychology, genetics, and neuroscience. I'm happy for you that you have grand abstract theory that allows you to not feel guilty for being gay in a world society that largely looks down on that behavior by creating an identity to adhere by for it, but the issue is here are scientific answers and evidence for homosexuality that go well beyond a "gay gene" theory. Don't be so obtuse.

Again nice try copping out simply because I don't agree with your fluffed up bullshit.

And if me not being qualified to talk about homosexuality because I'm not gay is your entire argument, don't let me catch you post in any threads in which you can't directly identify with the topic, which is something you do all the time.

As a matter of fact, me and the other penguins want to know who the fuck gave you the right to talk about penguins? You know nothing about being penguins and don't understand where penguins are coming from. gtfo my thread






















That's how ludicrous you sound.

So the fact that they haven't left yet for female partners means they're gay. For now. BUT WAIT GUYZ THAT DOESN'T MEAN FINESSE IS RIGHT LAWLZ.

Still sounds like a lot of

Okay, let me simplify this.

They aren't gay nor are they straight nor are they bisexual. They're just animals.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Okay, let me simplify this.

They aren't gay nor are they straight nor are they bisexual. They're just animals.

Congratulations on having an uninformed opinion. This puts you in the same boat as creationists and holocaust deniers.

[Saga]

how are they just animals? isn't them picking one sex over the other in a mate a sexual preference? by that same logic, humans are neither gay, straight or bisexual.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

how are they just animals? isn't them picking one sex over the other in a mate a sexual preference? by that same logic, humans are neither gay, straight or bisexual.

No because to Kuya being gay is part of your spiritual identity. When the wolf god rises and rains sparkle miracle sauce all over the northern plain you shall arise and be free from the chains of your animal nature, the animal nature which animals do not have because they have neither spirits nor wolf gods.

Expect other contrarian abstract BS from Kuya to make himself sound thoughtful and objective.

[Zanz L. Barre The 3rd]

No because to Kuya being gay is part of your spiritual identity. When the wolf god rises and rains sparkle miracle sauce all over the northern plain you shall arise and be free from the chains of your animal nature, the animal nature which animals do not have because they have neither spirits nor wolf gods.

Expect other contrarian abstract BS from Kuya to make himself sound thoughtful and objective.

lol u gay

[Kuya]

Except that, if i saw a man with another man, i could say that he is gay, that is, until i see him with women. What does that mean? It means that i really had no idea whether he was gay or not and just assumed he was gay based on his conduct without realizing the full context. It means that there was no absolute qualifier, and i just made a deduction. The only certain way to know who is gay, straight or bisexual, is to ask them what they think they are, because i can't deduce it from their actions. Similarly why i can't say that prison inmates are gay because they engage into sexual activity with other men. It's because i don't know the context in which the activity is being engaged in.

This is why it's an identity, because a person has to tell you what he is or isn't, and they have to identify that way for you to be sure. We don't have a sure fire way to know what someone is without them telling you what they are. This is why it's meaningless. There are gay humans, straight humans, and bisexual humans because they can tell you that they are in fact that. There aren't gay animals, straight animals, or bisexual animals because they can't tell us what they are.

So, for example, if we have a male penguin engaging in sexual activity with another male penguin, you could say it is gay based on the observation of its conduct. It is not based on some absolute criteria, there is no way to know whether they are gay or not with some investigation of their genes, hormones, or brain. However, if it just so happens to change its conduct, suddenly you're left realizing that you're initial category was worthless, because it was only a name for a conduct and not some biological mechanism.

What is homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual is the conduct itself, and not the person or animal. Because in the case of the humans, the humans have to form an identity and associate it with their conduct. What sense is their in saying someone was gay and then later find out that he slept with a woman? Does that mean he's not gay anymore? Biologically, we don't know, but he can still think he's gay regardless of what he does.

[Plow]

actually

humans are neither gay, straight or bisexual.

is exactly what kuya was trying get someone to say

welcome to ugottrolledville, population: perm

[Chen]

how can there be drama in a gay penguin thread!

it's just not right

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Except that, if i saw a man with another man, i could say that he is gay, that is, until i see him with women. What does that mean? It means that i really had no idea whether he was gay or not and just assumed he was gay based on his conduct without realizing the full context. It means that there was no absolute qualifier, and i just made a deduction. The only certain way to know who is gay, straight or bisexual, is to ask them what they think they are, because i can't deduce it from their actions. Similarly why i can't say that prison inmates are gay because they engage into sexual activity with other men. It's because i don't know the context in which the activity is being engaged in.

This is why it's an identity, because a person has to tell you what he is or isn't, and they have to identify that way for you to be sure. We don't have a sure fire way to know what someone is without them telling you what they are. This is why it's meaningless. There are gay humans, straight humans, and bisexual humans because they can tell you that they are in fact that. There aren't gay animals, straight animals, or bisexual animals because they can't tell us what they are.

So, for example, if we have a male penguin engaging in sexual activity with another male penguin, you could say it is gay based on the observation of its conduct. It is not based on some absolute criteria, there is no way to know whether they are gay or not with some investigation of their genes, hormones, or brain. However, if it just so happens to change its conduct, suddenly you're left realizing that you're initial category was worthless, because it was only a name for a conduct and not some biological mechanism.

What is homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual is the conduct itself, and not the person or animal. Because in the case of the humans, the humans have to form an identity and associate it with their conduct. What sense is their in saying someone was gay and then later find out that he slept with a woman? Does that mean he's not gay anymore? Biologically, we don't know, but he can still think he's gay regardless of what he does.

I hate to say I told you so...

Hey Plato, if you have a sexual attraction to the same sex then you are homosexual. If you switch back and forth you are bisexual. You're giving one example of a penguin that fucked a dude penguin for 6 years, left him to fuck a broad penguin for a month and is now fucking no penguins and making your whole case around it.

You're approaching sexual preference like someone's preference for blonde, asian, fat, or cynical. Something in your body and brain gives you a sexual stimulus to a particular sex. There are studies in animals and humans that show how these conditions can be developed and how similar for example the gay males brain is to the straight females brain.

You have a nice spiritual abstract theory that sounds great and utopian, but it's based on the same level of saying people rode dinosaurs. Too bad you're throwing out years of scientific research and saying I don't get it because I'm not gay.

Your argument is on par with people saying homosexuality is purely a choice and not a natural thing, so these people are deviant and not deserving of equal rights. Why do you hate yourself?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

actually



is exactly what kuya was trying get someone to say

welcome to ugottrolledville, population: perm

Sup grudge, you hold it tight like my dick.

[Kuya]

Hey Plato, if you have a sexual attraction to the same sex then you are homosexual. If you switch back and forth you are bisexual.

So basically, a circular argument. They're gay because they have sex with the same sex, and they have sex with the same sex because they're gay. Until it happens to go for both sexes, in that case it's bisexual because it likes both, and it likes both because it is bisexual. There are a lot of people who have who wouldn't quite agree with you. There are women who consider themselves lesbians even if they, at times had sex with a man, take Beckwin's aunt for example. Or straight men who once or twice had relations with another man, and they still consider themselves straight. You could enter into an endless argument that will amount to:

I'm straight.

No, you're not.

Yes, i am.

No, you're not.

Pointless.

Something in your body and brain gives you a sexual stimulus to a particular sex. There are studies in animals and humans that show how these conditions can be developed and how similar for example the gay males brain is to the straight females brain.

This has not been proven. In fact i spent a thread arguing that the research is at a dead end. Furthermore, with this argument, you'd have to say that the greeks and romans were all bisexual. Nonsense.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

So basically, a circular argument. They're gay because they have sex with the same sex, and they have sex with the same sex because they're gay. Until it happens to go for both sexes, in that case it's bisexual because it likes both, and it likes both because it is bisexual. There are a lot of people who have who wouldn't quite agree with you. There are women who consider themselves lesbians even if they, at times had sex with a man, take Beckwin's aunt for example. Or straight men who once or twice had relations with another man, and they still consider themselves straight. You could enter into an endless argument that will amount to:

I'm straight.

No, you're not.

Yes, i am.

No, you're not.

Pointless.


This has not been proven. In fact i spent a thread arguing that the research is at a dead end. Furthermore, with this argument, you'd have to say that the greeks and romans were all bisexual. Nonsense.

This post I'm replying to exists because you either didn't read or entirely avoided what I said earlier regarding the complexity of the issue, and you're horrible at making arguments using broad statements and hope they stick.
( Roman and Greek soldiers took young boys to the battlefield, very effeminate ones I might add, because it was considered bad luck religiously to bring a woman onto the battlefield. Sometimes they would force them to wear wigs and makeup for their trysts. You make no point with this )

There are people and animals that are sexually attracted to the opposite sex due to chromosome structure and brain impulse, and there are people and animals who become homosexual due to their social situation. There are animals that can change sex in an overpopulated environment.

The dudes that fuck in prison generally find queens to begin with, but settle for less if needed. They still act like masculine, and when they leave prison go back to women. They're letting themselves be taken by animal instinct and use rape as a tool of control.

Philosophy is great, but it doesn't compare itself in any way to hard facts in an argument.

[Rhinox]

Wait..

Kuya are you saying that Animals can't be gay because they're animals....? did I read that right?

[Kuya]

This post I'm replying to exists because you either didn't read or entirely avoided what I said earlier regarding the complexity of the issue, and you're horrible at making arguments using broad statements and hope they stick.
( Roman and Greek soldiers took young boys to the battlefield, very effeminate ones I might add, because it was considered bad luck religiously to bring a woman onto the battlefield. Sometimes they would force them to wear wigs and makeup for their trysts. You make no point with this )

There are people and animals that are sexually attracted to the opposite sex due to chromosome structure and brain impulse, and there are people and animals who become homosexual due to their social situation. There are animals that can change sex in an overpopulated environment.

The dudes that fuck in prison generally find queens to begin with, but settle for less if needed. They still act like masculine, and when they leave prison go back to women. They're letting themselves be taken by animal instinct and use rape as a tool of control.

Philosophy is great, but it doesn't compare itself in any way to hard facts in an argument.

Actually no. Sex with other men was considered less of a problem if it was done with either slaves or boys. However, the Greeks considered it a great problem that boys, who are to become men, as free citizens, engaged in a passive relationship. That is why there was such a polemic over when it was the right time for a boy to cede to an older man's advances. And the relationship was advised to be based on love and love which leads to wisdom, over sexual activity. However, sexual activity among the same sexes was considered quite common because the Greeks considered that it was natural to be attracted to that which one considers beautiful. Whether it was a male or female was not the relevant criteria. So your insistence that they mostly took effeminate boys is actually incorrect. They took slaves and boys regardless of whether they were effeminate or not. And relationships between older males was also common, but not advised.

I'll repeat this again, there is no proof that sexuality is mostly determined by biological factors. It is complex, but not due to some innate mechanism, or very unlikely that it would be because of that.

The dudes that find queens in prisons, as you put it, is also a misrepresentation of the relationships that take place there. Queens are the most sought out, however, they are always a commodity. Most men have to engage with other masculine men, and these relationships are often done within the context of mutual benefit. In order to protect themselves against rape, they decide to preemptively seek out a relationship with a stronger male with more status to protect themselves. Rape also often happens as a form of gang warfare between groups in prisons or as a way to punish someone for whatever reason. The relationships are often as consensual as you're going to get, but it is true that rarely are the sexual relationships for the "takers" sexual satisfaction.

So now you're trying to spin it and say, that not all the greeks were really bisexual, because they only liked guys who looked like girls. Which is false. And that sex amongst men only takes place with queens or in the sense of rape, also a simplification. What they identity as has relative connection to the way they act if the context so deems it preferable. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, sex between men is common because of a lack of "Westernization" in the sense that sex acts between men do not yet constitute a categorization of the actors, except for those who play the passive role. So in that place, being the giver does not give one any change in identity or essence, but being the taker does, unless one is a teenager.

For someone who wants to talk about scientific facts, you sure do take license with using them as conjecture.

[Kuya]

Wait..

Kuya are you saying that Animals can't be gay because they're animals....? did I read that right?

Being gay is in itself a social construction. Animals do not partake in this. We don't know what animals think they are, and they probably don't have such thoughts, therefore they can't be categorized as gay or straight. Because gay/straight/bisexual is an issue of identity. We can say that an act is homosexual, but we can't call an animal homosexual because that is an issue of identity.

There is a significant difference between doing something homosexual and being homosexual. What some people insist on is that there exist some sort of mechanism or mechanisms in one's body which constitute this "being gay/straight or bisexual". However, they willingly ignore that none of these attempts at biological determinism have yet provided a viable answer, and they ignore the logical consequences of asserting that humans are gay/straight/bisexual due to some processes in the body. They ignore that this would make the greeks all biologically bisexual, which is absurd according to those who propose that the majority of humans are biologically heterosexual. Much less would one call the Zambia of Papua of New Guinea a bisexual race of human because of the acts they engage in, even if they enjoy it.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Actually no. Sex with other men was considered less of a problem if it was done with either slaves or boys. However, the Greeks considered it a great problem that boys, who are to become men, as free citizens, engaged in a passive relationship. That is why there was such a polemic over when it was the right time for a boy to cede to an older man's advances. And the relationship was advised to be based on love and love which leads to wisdom, over sexual activity. However, sexual activity among the same sexes was considered quite common because the Greeks considered that it was natural to be attracted to that which one considers beautiful. Whether it was a male or female was not the relevant criteria. So your insistence that they mostly took effeminate boys is actually incorrect. They took slaves and boys regardless of whether they were effeminate or not. And relationships between older males was also common, but not advised.

Which speaks to my earlier point that in a larger case it was a social thing, probably developed by those in power that were inherently homosexual. To throw your argument back at you, you aren't Greek nor grew up in that culture so you can't identify.

I'll repeat this again, there is no proof that sexuality is mostly determined by biological factors. It is complex, but not due to some innate mechanism, or very unlikely that it would be because of that.

Yes, there is, your choice to not believe it or your inability to understand it does not make it any less relevant.

The dudes that find queens in prisons, as you put it, is also a misrepresentation of the relationships that take place there. Queens are the most sought out, however, they are always a commodity. Most men have to engage with other masculine men, and these relationships are often done within the context of mutual benefit. In order to protect themselves against rape, they decide to preemptively seek out a relationship with a stronger male with more status to protect themselves. Rape also often happens as a form of gang warfare between groups in prisons or as a way to punish someone for whatever reason. The relationships are often as consensual as you're going to get, but it is true that rarely are the sexual relationships for the "takers" sexual satisfaction.

So now you're trying to spin it and say, that not all the greeks were really bisexual, because they only liked guys who looked like girls. Which is false. And that sex amongst men only takes place with queens or in the sense of rape, also a simplification. What they identity as has relative connection to the way they act if the context so deems it preferable. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, sex between men is common because of a lack of "Westernization" in the sense that sex acts between men do not yet constitute a categorization of the actors, except for those who play the passive role. So in that place, being the giver does not give one any change in identity or essence, but being the taker does, unless one is a teenager.

Man you really like to butcher facts and make shit up. Homosexual acts in Saudi Arabia is frowned upon in society and occurs again for more social reasons, such as polygamy ( lack of women ) and the second or third class citizenship of women, so men there tend to have more emotional relationships with other men. [/quote]

For someone who wants to talk about scientific facts, you sure do take license with using them as conjecture.

You're trying to lump everything into one LOLNOGAYGENE argument and pair it with this abstract nonsense about what is really gay? If I exist, do I exist, or does existence exist to exist for existing? Quit the existential game for the sake of your argument. There are homosexual animals and humans who are homosexual by natural neuropathic and genetics means. There are people and animals who are homosexual by societal and cultural means.

For everything in life there are exceptions to the rule, just because one exception exists doesn't mean everything else is wrong by default.

[Gryffes]

Pretty sure its the dramafags in here that are gay and not the penguins.