1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

You're not going to believe the injustice.

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Shevanel, Nov 7, 2011.

  1. Shevanel

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,403
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Little Neck, NY
    Link

    [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyob3yHVOgs[/YOUTUBE]

    I'm utterly disgusted at how they could break up these obvious soul mates. It's ridiculous. I thought Canada was supposed to be supportive!
     
  2. Ridiculous

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,583
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I would like to think I'd do the same (voluntarily) if the human population was down to 60,000. But honestly I don't think I'd be able to perform.. maybe it'll be the same for the penguins.

    Can they employ artificial insemination with penguins?
     
  3. J Snow

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ames, Iowa
    I don't know on this one. If their species is really endangered, perhaps the needs of the many should out weigh the needs of the few. I would be offended if they split them up for no reason, but if it really is simply for the procreation of an endangered species I don't think I would call it an injustice.
     
  4. RaeofLite

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    I might have to go with Jon Snow on this one. I mean... if the human population was down, and I "HAD" to join the other females in carrying on the human species, I would due my share... I guess. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

    But in a world where a species is plentiful? I would definately follow my heart and my sexual orientation.
     
  5. starfish

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hippie Town, Alberta of the US
    I don't know, 60K is not exactly a small population. Plus since if homosexuality does have a genetic component, in a endangered species condition it would be better for them not to reproduce.

    Plus who know they may want to adopt a penguin some day. There was a case of two gay penguins who stole an egg from another penguin and hatched it.
     
  6. Mogget

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New England
    Okay guys, anthropomorphizing animals is always a risky business. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are social constructs, applying them to animals, especially animals as distantly related to us as penguins, is a bad idea. Penguins pair-bond, but we don't know whether it's at all analogous to human pair-bonding, let alone whether penguins have a sexual or romantic orientation (or even have something like romance at all).
     
  7. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    Thank you. However, homosexuality and heterosexuality arent social constructs. it is observable in nearly all speices... monogamy is more of a social construct... it is rarer in nature.

    the only social construct within sexuality is how people perceve it, not the 'it' of sexual attraction itself.
     
  8. Eric

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    1
    That's kidnapping! They're setting a bad example for other strong gay penguins who want to adopt! D:
     
  9. J Snow

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ames, Iowa
    Homosexuality and heterosexuality are socially constructed though. There was no concept for sexual orientation before that. There was certainly same sex encounters, but there was no concept of someone being a heterosexual or homosexual. For example, in and ancient Greece it was customary for a young man to court an older man. The younger man had to be the bottom, and to not be able to attract an older male was considered shameful.

    This was just behavior though. There were no homosexual, bisexuals, or heterosexuals. Through out the course of our history everyone had to have children to survive more or less. Your family was your means of survival. As such there was no concept of a homosexual. Certainly men had sex with men and women had sex with women, but it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that sexual orientation even existed.

    Which is really why its absurd when people make the claim that the bible is calling homosexuality an abomination. Homosexuality as we know it today didn't exist. There was just sexuality in its great complexity. What the Jewish people were really doing was establishing a cultural norm that separated their sexual practices from those of the Greeks.
     
  10. Ridiculous

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,583
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Backing up Emberstone here: sexuality definitely isn't a human-only social construct.

    I'm assuming what you are trying to say is that animals aren't exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, and just form bonds on an 'arbitrary' basis regardless of the sex of their partner. I would say this is true for a lot of animals, but there are pretty well documented cases for exclusively homosexual animals (e.g. it is well studied that about 8% of male sheep are exclusively homosexual and will never mount a female, only other males; physical differences in their brains compared to heterosexuals have been found).
     
  11. J Snow

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ames, Iowa
    Sexual orientation is social construction much like race is. We have this notion of "race," but its just something we made up. Its just stereotypes we associated with the way a culture of people looks or by lines we drew in the sand. Much like if humans never existed there would be no such thing as The United States of America. Its just some idea to explain and put phenomena we observe into binary categories.

    What these binary terms do is make us choose one of these binary labels and force it upon ourselves instead of embracing the complexity that is humanity. Most of the labels we put on ourselves are socially constructed, race, sexual orientation, gender (different from sex), class. These are all just things we use to define what we're not.

    Sorry, for that rant. We've been talking a lot about postmodernism and poststructuralism in my Introduction to Queer Studies class.
     
    #11 J Snow, Nov 7, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2011
  12. Mogget

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New England
    Homosexuality and heterosexuality as orientations are socially constructed. As behaviors they aren't.
     
  13. djt820

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SoCal
    Gender:
    Male
  14. J Snow

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ames, Iowa
    I am uncertain as to who you are calling a troll. As such I don't know whether to side for or against your cause. You have cause internal conflict in me, and as such I propose to you that you are the real troll, good sir.
     
  15. Ridiculous

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,583
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New Zealand
    If something only has homosexual partnerships and sex when other options are available then I think you can pretty clearly say that its orientation is homosexual.

    But if for some reason you don't want to give animals orientations, then you can say they only possess exclusive homosexual behaviour.. but it's just saying the same thing in different words.
     
  16. Shevanel

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,403
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Little Neck, NY
    Completely off topic. I just wanted to mention that everyone seems to forget that there is more than just straight and gay ...
     
  17. ArcaneVerse

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Honestly who gives a fuck if they could be called "homosexual" or not, the point is they are splitting apart penguins who clearly have a strong bond, which i think they have done in the past and the animals have ended up declining in health (i could be wrong though).

    anyway I don't think Zookeepers should really be forcing nature in this way, if they haven't bonded with a female its most likely because its not in their nature to do so or at least not at this point in time.

    Also if they are splitting them up because they are "gay", is it really right to force our human "social-constructs" onto them?
     
  18. Kidd

    Kidd Guest

    True. If I was going to give these penguins any orientation at all it would be bisexual. There have been a ton of other "gay" penguin pairs and after a few seasons with each other they broke it off and moved on to other partners, sometimes other males and sometimes a female.

    I really love this one. Poor Pepper... x_x

    Gay Penguins At San Francisco Zoo Have Split After Six Years After Harry Leaves Pepper For Linda | Strange News | Sky News
     
  19. Porphyrogenitus

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD
    ummm, yeah. Living in a zoo is totally natural.
     
  20. ArcaneVerse

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    ummm, yeah. didnt say it was. Troll someone else please.