Talk:Roy and Silo

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The notion that homosexuality is seen in the wild may be contrasted with the apparently homosexual behavior of some animals in captivity. This must be distinguished from the argument that whatever animals do is "natural" and therefore normal for human beings.

Please rewrite the article to reflect this. --Ed Poor Talk 12:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Personally, I think this is an unnecessary article. -DrSandstone 12:33, 25 November 2008 (EST)
I am agree that apparent homosexual behavior in animal is used as an excuse to justify homosexuality in humans, This need to be mentioned. --NicholasM 12:41, 25 November 2008 (EST)

This highly misleading entry is going to be deleted unless it is completely changed to emphasize and reflect:

  • the politicization of this issue
  • the absence in the animal kingdom of any display of the homosexual lifestyle
  • the rarity of even homosexual acts among animals

--Aschlafly 12:52, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Homosexual and lesbian acts are frequent among bonobos. I think scientists can reasonably claim that bonobos have a bisexual lifestyle. StanleyJ 13:06, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Ok, please give me a few minutes. I will try to address the issue. --NicholasM 12:54, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Isn't point two exactly opposite of the entire article...? HDCase 12:54, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Several here are either clueless about the very promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, or are aware of it and seek to mislead others. We're going to remain factual here and will not post deceptive information for the gay agenda.--Aschlafly 13:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Bonobos are also sexually very promiscuous. StanleyJ 13:13, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Regarding point two, the sources I have claim there are cases of homosexual behavior among animals. As HDCase pointed, it is opposite to the article also. I have no good source instantly available to mention that homosexuality is rare among animals. Off course it should be mentioned if a source can be found. But I have added the information to make it clear that zoologists politicize events like this by making attempt to justify homosexuality among humans. It is mentioned in the New York Times article. I wish collaboration of other editors to find sources so that the missing points can be mentioned. --NicholasM 13:15, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Please listen to the editor in chief, guys. I don't want to spend an hour helping you with this article, only to have it deleted. What we need to do is:

  1. Gather the facts
  2. Gather the claims that have been made about the facts
  3. Report and analyze the arguments about these

Clearly liberals and conservatives disagree on this. Let's bring out the reasons for the disagreement. No one is arguing whether cows ever mount each other. The argument is over whether this is a "homosexual act" and more importantly over whether this has any relevance to human behavior.

Perhaps it would help if we addressed the materialism vs. creationism aspect of the debate? --Ed Poor Talk 13:36, 25 November 2008 (EST)

To address point #2 made by Aschlalfly we need to know what we mean by homosexual lifestyle, because he is apparently talking about more than just homosexual acts. Perhaps we should have an article on that? AlbertW 13:38, 25 November 2008 (EST)
The term "lifestyle" is clear enough. Use a dictionary if you're not familiar with it.--Aschlafly 13:41, 25 November 2008 (EST)
I see Ed Poor has written an article on the subject. Good job. Yes, it is now clear that animals do not display the homosexual lifestyle. AlbertW 13:58, 25 November 2008 (EST)
I see no reason even for anti-homosexuals to be offended or threatened by the notion that animals may exhibit homosexual behavior. Since when is behavior among animals reason to recommend it for humans? Bonobos may fling fecal matter as well, but that does not necessarily lend credibility to the feces flinging agenda. Fishal 14:47, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Sorry, but I seriously doubt your facetious comments amuse anyone here. If you can't contribute intelligently perhaps you'd be better off a Wikipedia, where such childishness is encouraged. AlbertW 14:52, 25 November 2008 (EST)

It's not a matter of offense or threats. It's an issue of using the naturalness of animal behavior to evaluate the morality of human behavior. The black widow spider kills her mate; no one uses that to justify the battered woman defense. No one argues that if animals eat their young, then infanticide or cannibalism is justified.

God gives us rules to suppress our "nature" in many cases. It's natural to feel angry when offended or threatened, but God says not to commit murder. In point of fact, he told Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.'" --Genesis 4:6

Although theologians argue about whether sinful desires were implanted in human beings by our Maker, most agree that upon discovering that a particular desire is sinful, we are obliged to resist it. --Ed Poor Talk 15:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)


Not to belabor the point, but I don't really see this article being encyclopedic enough to warrant all of this work going into it. An article specifically about two "gay" penguins? I once again suggest deleting this article. -DrSandstone 14:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)


So far all the references have been one-sided. Here's something I found on Wikipedia:

Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the book is far from a “true story.” “It’s very misleading,” she said, “and it’s a very disingenuous, inaccurate way to promote a political agenda to little kids. What they’re not telling kids is that the supposedly gay penguin who is the star of this story later mated with a female penguin in real life. The penguin’s heterosexual behavior was widely reported in national news, including the Chicago Tribune. “Besides the point that it’s not even an accurate story, the bottom line is that elementary school libraries are not appropriate places to push political agendas.”[9]

Unfortunately, the NY Times link seems to have expired. --Ed Poor Talk 15:23, 25 November 2008 (EST)