Gay penguins hatch rejected egg

With all this prevalence of like-sexual activity in the animal kingdom, and this activity being 'natural', how do the genes for this pass onto the next generation?

Originally posted by 5thElement

Originally posted by MajesticJax
And this proves what? Are we REALLY advocating same-sex marraige in this thread because two PENGUINS are acting strange?

That proves that gay penguins hatched rejected egg. Nothing more ...

I wonder how did these penguins choose to live their sinful lifestyle ?

Oh man... I feel so sad for these penguins, you know.

They'll never make it to heaven. They'll go straight to "penguinhell", where it's so unbearably warm and global warming is a reality...oooh, frightening, ain't it... and they play "Happy Feet" once every hour for 16 hours on a giant screen in front of a chicken pie pot.

I wonder how the others in the penguin community will try to "save" them? Maybe pass legislation to prevent them from getting together and raising a child? That will save them, but won't save the baby penguie...

Oh well, at least they won't get to watch Happy Feet on repeat, I guess.

reply to post by karl 12
my dogs took in pups and kittens/cats...never did I once suspect them of being gay because of it

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
With all this prevalence of like-sexual activity in the animal kingdom, and this activity being 'natural', how do the genes for this pass onto the next generation?

Biology 201:

The traits of an animal - US included - are determined through the chromosomal compatibility of the parent chromosomes.

For example, the only way an animal would be gay is:
xx, certainly gay and will pass on the gay chromosome to the offspring, should he have one (will address this below)

The other options would be:
XX, certainly straight and will not pass on the gay chromosome to the offspring
Xx, still straight but MAY pass on the gay chromosome to the offspring

Of course, you're wondering how parents can pass on the "gay gene" if they got married in the first place.

Complicated biological answer:
Both of them are Xx. Map it out using a simple genome cross-diagram, as though you're doing algebraic expansion (a+b)^2, and the result will be this:

XX Xx Xx xx

So there is a one-in-four-chance the child is gay.

If one of the parents is a closeted man/woman who decides to have sex just because of societal pressures, and ends up impregnating/being pregnant:

Xx - xx:

Xx xx Xx xx

So now there is a two-in-four, or 50% chance, the child is gay.

The ONLY way for a child to be 100% straight is:

XX - xx:

Xx Xx Xx Xx

There is no way he is gay, but he is 100% able to pass on the chromosome to his son/daughter.

But 'XX' people are rare, because there is a theory that says the longer the lineage, the more diluted the bloodline becomes. In that sense, 'XX' is the "pureblood" (Harry Potter fans here, anyone?) and as proven by the XX-xx matchup above, eventually EVERYONE will carry the regressive trait 'x' sooner or later. But it must be noted 'XX' is not the 'perfect' matchup, it just means they are both dominant. No one says if you're fully straight = you're perfect. You may have 'xx' for, say, cancer, or something.

(By the way, not even the Neanderthals had 'XX' genetic makeup for things like hair color and body size. This is one of the empirical proofs that denied the concept of Creation. Since there is no "perfect" gene matchup - Again, 'XX' does not imply perfection - there could not have been and will never be, perfect humans)

Why is 'x' a regressive and 'X' a dominant? Why can't 'X' be the gay dominant, you ask.

Well, 1) because it's scientific convention to use the trait of the minority as the regressive - another socioscientific mistake, methinks, and 2) because the gene CAN be repressed, like an earlier poster said. Dominant genes, last I read, are unable to be repressed, but gay genes can by accident, through hormonal imbalance in the womb, etc. Read the back issues of Psychology Today, they offer great scientific proof. Which means people can technically be "forced" to be straight, but they certainly were not "forced" into being gay.

Looks like being forced to be straight is a norm even in the natural world then.

Was that easy to understand? I'm a poor explanator.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by KarlG]

First off.... just because they hatched and are now rearing the young from this egg does not mean that they are "homosexual", the penguins are simply both taking place of a father penguin in the absence of a female.

Live your life the way you want to, I am not saying that people shouldn't! That being said two female primates/humans or two male primates/humans are not able to conceive a child....so in "my opinion" this does not mean that this life choice is "natural" although it may be the only appealing choice for some people.


Again I stress..... People should be free to choose the lifestyle they wish.... as some people are biologically dis-positioned toward that lifestyle and two male penguins should be able to choose to hatch and raise a chick without the homosexual stereotyping.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by nonnez]

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
With all this prevalence of like-sexual activity in the animal kingdom, and this activity being 'natural', how do the genes for this pass onto the next generation?

Here:

Study shows male homosexuality can be explained through a specific model of Darwinian evolution

Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality

Originally posted by KarlG

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
With all this prevalence of like-sexual activity in the animal kingdom, and this activity being 'natural', how do the genes for this pass onto the next generation?

Biology 201:

The traits of an animal - US included - are determined through the chromosomal compatibility of the parent chromosomes.

For example, the only way an animal would be gay is:
xx, certainly gay and will pass on the gay chromosome to the offspring, should he have one (will address this below)

The other options would be:
XX, certainly straight and will not pass on the gay chromosome to the offspring
Xx, still straight but MAY pass on the gay chromosome to the offspring

Of course, you're wondering how parents can pass on the "gay gene" if they got married in the first place.

Complicated biological answer:
Both of them are Xx. Map it out using a simple genome cross-diagram, as though you're doing algebraic expansion (a+b)^2, and the result will be this:

XX Xx Xx xx

So there is a one-in-four-chance the child is gay.

If one of the parents is a closeted man/woman who decides to have sex just because of societal pressures, and ends up impregnating/being pregnant:

Xx - xx:

Xx xx Xx xx

So now there is a two-in-four, or 50% chance, the child is gay.

The ONLY way for a child to be 100% straight is:

XX - xx:

Xx Xx Xx Xx

There is no way he is gay, but he is 100% able to pass on the chromosome to his son/daughter.

But 'XX' people are rare, because there is a theory that says the longer the lineage, the more diluted the bloodline becomes. In that sense, 'XX' is the "pureblood" (Harry Potter fans here, anyone?) and as proven by the XX-xx matchup above, eventually EVERYONE will carry the regressive trait 'x' sooner or later. But it must be noted 'XX' is not the 'perfect' matchup, it just means they are both dominant. No one says if you're fully straight = you're perfect. You may have 'xx' for, say, cancer, or something.

(By the way, not even the Neanderthals had 'XX' genetic makeup for things like hair color and body size. This is one of the empirical proofs that denied the concept of Creation. Since there is no "perfect" gene matchup - Again, 'XX' does not imply perfection - there could not have been and will never be, perfect humans)

Why is 'x' a regressive and 'X' a dominant? Why can't 'X' be the gay dominant, you ask.

Well, 1) because it's scientific convention to use the trait of the minority as the regressive - another socioscientific mistake, methinks, and 2) because the gene CAN be repressed, like an earlier poster said. Dominant genes, last I read, are unable to be repressed, but gay genes can by accident, through hormonal imbalance in the womb, etc. Read the back issues of Psychology Today, they offer great scientific proof. Which means people can technically be "forced" to be straight, but they certainly were not "forced" into being gay.

Looks like being forced to be straight is a norm even in the natural world then.

Was that easy to understand? I'm a poor explanator.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by KarlG]

reply to post by KarlG
what?! there are gay chromosomes now? X/Y for straight; x/y for gay? Did an advanced alien race teach you that?

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Gay penguins?

Awesome!

Donnie lol!

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by KarlG

 

what?! there are gay chromosomes now? X/Y for straight; x/y for gay? Did an advanced alien race teach you that?

Umm... no... biology class taught me that.

Taking "being gay" as a trait like, say, "having blue eyes", or "being blond", or "dwarfism", then, yes, this IS how it works.

Why are you "loL'-ing at me? I would think you are the person who needs to go outside and learn more.

Bewildering...

Originally posted by KarlG

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by '___'eviant
reply to post by MajesticJax

 

Seems more to me that this pokes holes in the 'theory' that nobody is born gay, and that homosexuality does not occur naturally. As, to the best of my knowledge, penguins don't have "stress issues" requiring them to do drugs with gay prostitues, nor have they been "indoctrinated to accept the homosexual lifestyle".

At least, I'VE never seen any penguin gay pride parades.

well id have to say lmao. . . . are you serious two penguins are both male and near each other so they are homosexuals. . . . all you gay is genetic advocates are seriously reaching here. . . .

Widen your eyes. Go google. Go read acclaimed research. NOT just penguins. The whole animal kingdom.

Humans are animals too. What applies to penguins, giraffes, dogs, applies to us. WE ARE ANIMALS TOO, WITH supposedly-more DEVELOPED MINDS. Don't try to make-yourself-holier-than-thou and say "just because we're human, we cannot be gay and being gay is a bad thing."

Maybe the penguins aren't gay, just two best friends raising another egg. But go do more research, and you'll find other examples, not just in the aviary kingdom, that are similar.

uhm what

whats all this about holier than thou stuff? i was just pointing out that i dont really see a huge correlation between what two penguins or dogs or apes or people or whatever and the science of homosexuality.

Ive read many articles about homosexuality in the animal kingdom that provide much better arguments for genetic or natural causes for homosexuality.

my only point was that this doesnt lend alot of support to the Yay-sayers here.

I said nothing about gay being good or bad or right or wrong, nor did i say anything about humans who are gay are bad. So im really not sure what i should take away from your post

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

With all this prevalence of like-sexual activity in the animal kingdom, and this activity being 'natural', how do the genes for this pass onto the next generation?

I do not claim to understand genetics. But why does it matter?

There is ample research to show that homosexuality is a population control measure.

Overall, the "gay gene" may help a species to survive.

Originally posted by KarlG

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by KarlG

 

what?! there are gay chromosomes now? X/Y for straight; x/y for gay? Did an advanced alien race teach you that?

Umm... no... biology class taught me that.

Taking "being gay" as a trait like, say, "having blue eyes", or "being blond", or "dwarfism", then, yes, this IS how it works.

Why are you "loL'-ing at me? I would think you are the person who needs to go outside and learn more.

Bewildering...

i believe he/she is "loling" at you because you present your evidence that gay is genetic as fact when infact there is no research that im aware that confirms your statement. Wether it is or isnt isnt the dispute, its the way you present your information

reply to post by constantwonder


Whoops. Misunderstanding.

*sheepish*



Errrrrm... no offense, but mayb try to write it a little clearer??

reply to post by constantwonder


So what are you saying cw, that likesexual and bisexual behavior in animals is nurtured?

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by constantwonder

 

So what are you saying cw, that likesexual and bisexual behavior in animals is nurtured?

SMACKDOWN!

Yes its either nature versus nuture...so which is it?

OK I am wondering are they claiming that these penguins are gay because they are taking care of a rejected egg and have unsuccessfully mated under enclosed conditions? Or are these male penguins actually sexual with other males? It sounds like the first to me, and if that being the case it just seems like another case of the media jamming this gay crap down our throat (no pun intended) every chance they get. Everything on TV and in the news is so gay this gay that lately. Unless these male penguins are actually pounding on each other I just don't see what's so gay about uncoupled adults naturally trying to make sure that there species survives by hatching and careing for a young chick.

reply to post by constantwonder


THERE IS RESEARCH to show that homosexuality is genetic.

I am not trying to "absolve" anything, like, just because it's genetic doesn't mean environmental factors didn't somehow come into play either.

Who knows, really? Chicken or egg?

Is it because a person is innately gay that he hangs out with other gay friends? Or is it because he has gay friends that he is gay himself?

Well, I'm all for scenario No. 1 because it sounds WAY more plausible. Just because I have a lot of friends who hate sports doesn't mean I do, too. I love water sports.

It doesn't excuse anything, but goes to show that...

You are misguided.

You have not read clearly and xtensively enough to know the necessary information before disproving earlier posts.

To your knowledge, there is no information, but I can find and post, if you wish.

Originally posted by MajesticJax
And this proves what? Are we REALLY advocating same-sex marraige in this thread because two PENGUINS are acting strange?

Apparently, the behavior is not "strange," but something that happens in nature all the time.

And frankly, I am all for marriage in any loving relationship, if that is the desire of the individuals involved.

Reaching a little, aren't we?

Not really. This is just one of a bazillion examples that homosexuality is NOT an aberration. The hateful behavior of people against those who found themselves within the smaller percentage of humans that are attracted to their own sex should be frowned upon by society.

Am I the only one who is cracking up hysterically over this and over some of your comments?

I haven't read past this post of yours, but maybe...

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by constantwonder

 

So what are you saying cw, that likesexual and bisexual behavior in animals is nurtured?

SMACKDOWN!

Yes its either nature versus nuture...so which is it?

No exclusivity here... It's the chicken or egg, or PENGUIN or egg question (lol)

Is it because a person has gay friends that he is gay, or is it because he is gay that he has gay friends?

Why not both at the same time?

reply to post by MajesticJax

And this proves what? Are we REALLY advocating same-sex marraige in this thread because two PENGUINS are acting strange?

I haven't heard anything about gay marriage in OP until your post. What it proves at most is that homosexuality is natural. And that homosexual couples can be very nurturing.

And WHY were they acting strange according to you?