Reply With Quote
Like two headed snakes, calves. Stuff like that. It happens. But it ant natural.
BUSTED!!!
Parents Complain About Book's Undertones
© 2006 The Associated Press
ChronicleSAVANNAH, Mo. — A children's book about two male penguins that raise a baby penguin has been moved to the nonfiction section of two public library branches after parents complained it had sexual undertones.
The illustrated book, "And Tango Makes Three," is based on a true story of two male penguins, named Roy and Silo, who adopted an abandoned egg at New York City's Central Park Zoo in the late 1990s.
The book, written by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, was moved from the children's section at two Rolling Hills' Consolidated Library's branches in Savannah and St. Joseph in northwest Missouri.
Two parents had expressed concerns about the book last month.
Barbara Read, the Rolling Hills' director, said experts report that adoptions aren't unusual in the penguin world. However, moving the book to the nonfiction section would decrease the chance that it would "blindside" readers, she said.
If it happens in nature, then by definition, doesn't that make it natural?
Gay marriage and gay adoption happening in nature...
Please, think about the children!!!
Like two headed snakes, calves. Stuff like that. It happens. But it ant natural.
If it's not natural, what is it?
I mean, it's two penguins caring for another penguin.
Do the penguins each other?
The article made no mention of the penguins engaging in sexual activities, it just said that parents were reading sexual activity into this children's book, which is based on the penguins.
So then how are they brokeback. I'm sure that one could quit the other at any time.
Another self-proclaimed expert....
"Do the penguins each other?"
why not? Repugs themselves.One thing that really pisses off the Repugs is that the Repug group having the most fun are the Log Cabin (Abe Lincoln) Repugs.
males ing males has been studied and do ented. Dominant monkeys do it as a sign of dominance, and non-dominant monkeys accept it as show of submission.
Oh my goodness, what if my child were to think that two men raising a child were okay...or worse yet sexuality. Some es need to take the big ass sticks out of there asses and let people live.
Two males... raising a child togeather... always dressed in black tie...
Sounds pretty gay to me...
75% chance...
lol
If you've seen the Movie March of the Penguins, males do most of the caring for the egg during the colder months, while mom, after marching 100's of miles in-land and giving birth, goes back to the Ocean to feed. It's a communal type of community, where everyone helps raise everyone else's kids. However, there have been previous reports of Penguins exhibiting ' sexual-type' behavior in the past.
I have yet to hear about a single mammal species with two genders that doesn't engage in sexual activity.
Even if this book did have a social agenda behind it, we had self-help books for children that recognized the changing face of the American family when it came to divorce. Why punish that child for having two parents of the same sex? It does happen. Are they to think their entire life of loving these two people is wrong?
Look for someone to read sexuality in a message about caring for one another.
Last edited by Darrin; 03-06-2006 at 01:42 PM.
And you've heard of a mammal species with fewer than two genders....or more than??
Do these mammals you speak of then ignore the female when she comes into season?
Just a guess, but I think that was his point....
Not all mammals have the social code we do. We place a moral, a sense of iden y, on monogamy.
For instance, do you jump your neighbor when she's "in season?" How does your girlfriend feel about that? Why do we market and sell products that try and hide when a woman is "in season?"
You think some male penguins enjoy watching female penguin lezbo action?
Monogamy is not a "natural" thing for humans.
It is socially driven.
I believe you missed my (sarcastic) point.
You made a statement about ALL mammalian species having sexual tendencies. I assume this was to make the argument that sexuality is somehow natural and normal.
My point was ALL members of ALL mamalian species (save sapiens) are MORE attracted to the opposite sex than they might be to there own gender. Evolution took care of this several million years ago, I assume.
And then you turned around and missed 101A's main point...
There are many behavioral idiosyncrasies in nature we weren't meant to emulate... for example (from that new Tim Allen movie...) I don't go around and sniff peoples' rear ends to greet them. Nor do I seek a whole 'herd' of females to form my 'harem' (some here like GiG do) -- (for those who will try to counter with biblical references of polygamy, these relationships caused the downfall of David and Solomon's kingdom and were generally frowned upon by GOD).
Furthermore, an overabundance of evidence, and statistical weight indicate the genetic 'male' / 'female' relationship is crucial to the survival of the species in the natural world. Thus those looking for sexual abnormalities in nature to justify their own aberrant behavior can do so if they want to be compared to those animals. But to each their own.
With regards to the penguins however, they show a great deal of compassion towards all their younglings, and hence it wouldn't surprise me to read that two males ended up taking care of a hatchling. The hatchling, however would more than likely end up producing its own offspring with a female penguin. In other words, having been raised by two males would have little if any bearing on that penguin's sexual tendencies.
Though the statistics would be hard to come by, the analoguous human example would probably indicate that a boy being raised by two men (in this case sexual partners) or a girl being raised by two women would have some sort of detrimental impact on the 'natural' tendencies and behaviors the children would otherwise normally display. There are exceptions to everything however.
In anycase I would probably find as much harm in this penguin book as I did in "Three Men and a Baby"... none. But because the book's target audience are children, who do not have an understanding of biological processess or a discernment of the behavioral ambiguities being presented (This is not your typical "Bearstein Bears" story or "Aesop's fable" where the 'human' characters are played out by animals)... I would would agree with the parents' concerns.
Last edited by hegamboa; 03-06-2006 at 03:41 PM.
Penguin sodomy. Wrong forum.....
I don't anyone is pointing to the penguins' behavior or any other animal's behavior and saying that it "justifies" human sexual behavior. The only context I have seen people mentioning the sexual activity of animals is in response to a comment like " sexual activity is unnatural." Then, examples are given showing that the statement is incorrect, because sexual activity does in fact occur in nature
And yet we can't allow ourselves to be this compassionate?
That's what the evidence demonstrates for humans as well.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...9&page=3&pp=26
The analogous human situations (see above) indicate that children raised by same-sex couples do not have any differences when compared to children raised by a male and a female.
In this case, a detrimental impact would be the "exception" and not the rule.
You acknowledge that this is a story about penguins, not penguins representing humans, but penguins, doing what penguins do in nature, which is caring for one another, and this has you concerned?
Then why even post the article... to poke fun of those parents??? Obviously someone (he who posted the article) wanted to show "quote unquote" that two male penguins raising a penguin in nature would somehow validate two men or two women raising children in society..... If that was not the underlying intent of posting the story, what was it??? To snicker at and condemn the parents??
My cousin was raised by two of my aunts... Two women (bound by fraternal love ... and not eros) raising a child!!! What a scandal!!!!
If you read my post instead of trying to dissect it you might have 'seen' that I found the penguins' behavior very admirable.
People who do studies for a living really ought to take a statistics course.... that is the great downfall in so called "scientific studies" that don't take these factors into consideration... and publish... well, Baloney. (It's not like a clean cut chemistry experiment where measured amounts will yield a set of expected results).
One of my classmates (for his Applied Mathematics thesis at M.I.T.) surveyed many national 'data gathering' services that conduct polls, studies, and surveys and found that over 80% of them don't properly apply statistical parameters and concepts to eliminate bias or error.
That is why on several occasions I have stated "though the statistics for something like this would be hard to come by".... precisely because I know that scenarios such as this one rarely yield a definitive statistical breakdown.... In fact representative data is difficult if not impossible to attain unless a significant chunk of the 'sample pool' were measured.
In this 'controversial' issue one of the biggest factors that introduces error into the study's data is that those trying to 'prove' that their lifestyle does not affect their children will more than be willing to participate whereas those who 'know' that they've somehow affected the normality of their children's sexual tendencies will stay away from prying surveyists, studies, or doctors.... as with most controversial topics, most studies trying to 'objectively' survey them will almost always be biased or erred.... Almost always.
Particularly if there is a personal agenda...
Something you weren't counting on, is that I happen to know Dr. Ellen C. Perrin (from Tufts School of Medicine) and that I was in Boston when she was looking for 'study subjects' (for this study or a similar study... that, I'm not sure of)... As I read her comments on that article, it reminded me just how determined she was to prove her detractors wrong. More importantly, it reminded me that she willingly ignores the cardinal rule of 'statistical surveys'... she TELLS the 'subjects' what the purpose of the study is.
And then she has the audacity to say this:
[Dr. Ellen C. Perrin] an expert on the development of children with gay or lesbian parents, said that few studies have focused on adolescents of same-sex parents. What data there is has been subject to attack. Critics complain that the studies reflect researcher bias and non-random participant selection.
"In this case, neither of those critiques are valid," Perrin said. The new study uses data from a broad population-based survey conducted for entirely different reasons. "That makes it very clean, so to speak; no one could argue that there was any bias involved."
Right..... Now I'll get a MaNuMaNiA post yelling his usual rant "THIS IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!!!! YOU CAN'T DENY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" ...
Some of us, look beyond the published reports, and look for the methods involved; while others blindly accept them. Oh yeah.. I almost forgot, and if the person happens to have any spiritual beliefs whatsoever I immediately blow off their work as Pseudo-science.... and scoff "you are no scientist!!"
Alright, sarcasm aside......
a few breaths.... OK....
I never stated it had ME concerned... I said I understood the parents' concerns, which is a different premise altogether.
I stated that the children had no way of discerning the differences between this 'do entary' type story from a 'fictional' story such as the 'Bearnstein Bears".
Last edited by hegamboa; 03-07-2006 at 05:06 PM.
No, but our culture recognizes a preferred form of greeting. A smile, direct eye contact, and extending ones limb to meet theirs we call "shaking hands." We do recognize the need for a greeting, it's just that with verbal forms of communication, we have people to introduce to someone new - we don't need to register their unique smell to know if we have met them before or not.
It is imperative to the survival of each species that male and female genders have sex - for procreation. Name me a person today who is marrying and having kids simply to re-populate the sapien species. We have these ideas about expression of love and emotion and fun and simply needing someone else in our lives.
So if sex is only about procreation, then you are right. If it's about those other more complicated matters in our social code, then there's room for sexuality - because the social code isn't 100% 'natural' or based on our instincts.
I'm a little concerned with this statement. Sexuality, in terms of its biology, doesn't develop until later in life. It is true that our sexual iden y is shaped within the first 3 years of existence, but I bathed with my brother - that didn't create an incestuous relationship. My best friend growing up was a girl, and I found that friendship invaluable later on in more intimate relationships with women. My father was absent and my mother was a dominating presence in the household. Wouldn't these things create a sexual?
We don't know the nature/nurture influences. We don't know what causes a sexual or a heterosexual. Censoring this story is cherry-picking the truth because our society is worried this is too close to being a taboo.
I've never said it was unnatural, just aberrant.
As long as you don't confuse compassion with acceptance, I'm okay with it. The gay, lesbian, transgender, etc... sect of society doesn't give a flip about compassion, they want their lifestyle choice to be normalized.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
