The following is from an article about homosexual penguins and their “gender-neutral” chick:
Two female penguins are set to raise the first “gender-neutral” chick, a London aquarium said on Wednesday, the latest same-sex penguin parents to take a furry baby under their wings.
Homosexuals have been able to convince many people that homosexual behavior is normal by some false analogies, bad science, and buckets of intimidation. Since most public schools do not teach students how to think, it’s no wonder that many young people fall for fallacious reasoning.
Did you hear that there are now more than 100 genders? “The BBC has released a collection of educational videos for tykes between 9 and 12 years old. As per the instructional [videos], there are not 2, not 3 not 10, but more than 100 ‘gender identities.’… In one installment titled ‘Understanding Sexual and Gender Identities,’ kids are informed that gender is whatever ‘you are inside.’” Please tell me who the real anti-science people are. I suspect that scientists must keep their mouths shut for fear of losing their jobs.
In any other time and place, this would be regarded as insanity. Remember when we were told that there was a “gay gene.” That’s long gone as an explanation for same-sex behavior. If a person can be whatever he or she is “inside,” then genetics and sexual organs be damned.
Homosexual penguins have been a big thing for some time. There’s the book And Tango Makes Three ((Cristina Cardoze, “They’re in love. They’re gay. They’re penguins…. And they’re not alone” (June 6, 2006).)), an illustrated children’s book about two male penguins that raise a baby penguin. It’s based on a true story of two male penguins in New York City’s Central Park Zoo that “adopt” a fertilized egg and raise the chick as their own.
Some concerned parents see the book as a homosexual propaganda piece and want it removed from the library’s regular shelves. A parent would have to consent before his or her child could check out the book. There’s no doubt that the book is being pushed as a homosexual primer to soften up young minds for the more scholarly propaganda that will come later.
In Biological Exuberance the author Bruce Bagemihl claims, “The world is, indeed, teeming with homosexual, bisexual and transgendered creatures of every stripe and feather…. From the Southeastern Blueberry Bee of the United States to more than 130 different bird species worldwide, the ‘birds and the bees,’ literally, are queer.” The world is also teeming with rape, murder, theft, tyranny, and a whole lot of other immoral stuff.
Here’s the premise: Whatever animals do in nature is natural. What’s natural is normal. What’s normal is moral. So, if penguins engage in homosexual behavior, then that behavior must be natural, normal, and moral.
How can we mere mortals impose our rules of sexual behavior on what’s natural in the animal kingdom? Homosexuals extrapolate that what animals do naturally in nature applies to what higher “animals” can do naturally without any moral judgments attached. But the lower animal/higher animal model breaks down when other so-called natural behaviors in animals are considered. For example, the Bible states, “It has happened to them according to the true proverb, ‘A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT’ [Prov. 26:11] and, ‘A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire’” (2 Pet. 2:22). It’s unlikely that animals can be used as moral examples when they are compared with human behavior. Gregory Koukl makes these striking points:
It’s not unusual, for example, to see male dogs mount each other in an erotic way. There are two problems with this view, however.
[T]he observation is flawed because it assumes that erotic behavior in other mammals is the same as homosexual desire in human beings. Male homosexuals engage in sodomy because of an attraction to a gender. They are male erotic, and sodomy is an expression of that desire.
Does the animal kingdom display this kind of same-gender eroticism? When a male dog mounts another male dog, is it because he’s attracted to the male gender of the other dog? I don’t think so. This same poor pooch will slavishly mount sofas or shrubs or anything else available, including the leg of your dinner guest. None of these things are the object of the canine’s sexual lust; they are merely the subject of it. The dog does not desire your unfortunate visitor. He simply desires to be stimulated. It doesn’t prove they have homosexual desire in any way parallel with humans. ((Gregory Koukl, “Just Doing What Comes Naturally: Mother Nature’s Way.”))
In reality, “Penguins are not gay, despite new evidence of homosexual behaviour in the wild, they are just ‘same-sex flirting’ until they find a mate, according to a new study…. the new study by the Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology in Montpellier, France found that the penguins are only pairing up with other males because they are ‘lonely.'” ((Louise Gray, “Penguins are not gay, they are just lonely,” The Telegraph (October 21, 2010).))
Consider the case of Timothy Treadwell depicted in the movie Grizzly Man. He lived among bears for 13 years and thought of them as his “family.” In 2003, Treadwell and his companion, Amie Huguenard, were mauled and mostly eaten by one of the Alaskan grizzlies he considered to be “All in the Family.” While he thought of the bears as his brothers and sisters, the bears thought of him and his girlfriend as lunch. Then there’s the case of Armin Meiwes who killed and ate 43-year-old Bernd-Jurgen Brandes. ((“German cannibal tells of fantasy,” BBC News (December 3, 2003).)) What did Mr. Meiwes do that was wrong given the premise that animal behavior is a normative model for human behavior? ((Theodore Dalrymple, “The Case for Cannibalism” (January 5, 2005). For a more detail telling of the story, see Nathan Constantine, “A German Revival,” A History of Cannibalism: From Ancient Cultures to Survival Stories and Modern Psychopaths (Edison, New Jersey: Chartwell Books, 2006), 186–191.)) If the bears that ate Treadwell were only doing what came naturally, then how can the cannibal nature of Meiwes be judged as abnormal given evolutionary assumptions?
Animals rape on a regular basis. Should we make the leap the homosexuals want to make regarding penguins? If homosexual behavior in penguins is a template for human sexuality, then why can’t a similar case be made for rape among humans? As hard as it might be to believe, the connection has been made.
Randy Thornhill, a biologist, and Craig T. Palmer, an anthropologist, attempt to demonstrate in their book A Natural History of Rape ((Randy Thornhill, and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).)) (also see here) that evolutionary principles explain rape as a “genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human life because it is a kind of sexual selection—a successful reproductive strategy.”
They go on to claim, however, that even though rape can be explained genetically in evolutionary terms, this does not make the behavior morally right. Of course, given Darwinian assumptions, there is no way to condemn rape on moral grounds. The same could be said for homosexual behavior, and everything else. If we are truly the products of evolution, then there can be no moral judgments about anything. So then, if the homosexuals want to use penguins as their moral model, then they need to take all animal behavior into consideration when they build their moral worldview.
If we should follow the animal world regarding homosexual penguins and thereby regard human homosexual behavior as normal, then we must be consistent and follow the animal world regarding rape, eating our young, and eating our neighbors and decriminalize these behaviors as well.