Their fear of this suggests they know the idea they promulgate that people are "born gay," genetically and irrevocably, is false.

If they really believed what they claimed, they would welcome this, because when it failed it would prove them right.

Always be suspicious of those that avoid emprirical evidence.

"empirical"

Sorry, my typing sucks.

I just read the full text. The word "fear" is used by the journalist, not the protesters, as is the word "outrage". The activists aren't even quoted. So, we really don't know their true reaction.

By reaction, I mean, we don't know what their position is at all. This is a totally crappy reporting on their part.

Well, you don't have to quote someone saying "outrage" to report there's outrage.

If people are picking up the phone and angrily denouncing the zoo, that's "outrage," and the reporter is within his rights to call it that.

This is poor journalism, it's one sided reporting. It's solacious, using words like fear and outrage. We don't even know what the so-called activists are objecting too. They didn't even say they tried to reach someone from the other side, or that an activist organization phoned the zoo or released a statement.

That protest is totally gay.

Perhaps, but I would have preferred if the reporter, you know, contacted some of the groups purportedly expressing outrage. Did the zoo receive protests from a well-established gay rights organization, or from a couple loons? I say this just because I've become familiar with how often the media creates a controversy out of nothing. Witness the use of empty phrases like "increasingly it appears" or "more and more it seems" in an attempt to give a story legs that has none.

It's all about the hypocrisy

My main objection is with the reporting. It's likely that many people phoned in angry. But we only hear the zoo official's comment. A gay group, unlike TallDave's opinion, may very well be interested in seeing what happens as a result of the introduction of the female penguins.

Points taken, and yes, we know the media hypes minor stories into major ones, and takes any three occurrences as "a trend."

So sure, we could be talking about three or four cranks.

The reporter does say the "phones lighted up" or something like that, but that could just be *technically* true, I suppose (i.e., yes, the phone lines lit up three or four times).

Look-- it's a silly story anyway.

Ace, I respectfully ask that you consider changing the "Activists Fear Conversion of Gay Penguins to Heterosexuality" title. The activists aren't quoted. It's your site, and I respect your decision.

Yes, but did any of these penguins ask "softball" questions to Bush?

THAT's the REAL story here!!!!11!!!1111!!onehundredeleven!1!!!!!

I think both the bible thumpers and the gay activists are wrong. Homosexual behavior is not entirely preordained, determined by genes at birth, in all instances. Nor is it like the bible-thumpers say - a sinful lust indulged by only weak, evil people that have strayed from the path of righteousness.

It depends. When you work with kids, you get a reasonably good idea (with the boys at least) - who will be the alpha male, who will be popular all their life, who some of the faggots will be. Some gays are obvious from early childhood.

Others acquire the bahavior, and some are just opportunistic - not gay, but stuck on a ship or in a prison - what the heck!!

And I think in this case, it's purely straight penguins forced into sodomy by barbaric penguin prison practices. I think they will jump the Swedish tuxedo'd Goddesses! And, isn't it cruel to abuse innocent animals by sex depravation?? I can see German animal rights activists waving signs "Let the Captive Penguins Fornicate Freely" clashing with German Homos waving signs saying "Penguin Buggery is Natural and Wonderful".

BTW - I saw this debated on a religious website and they actually were talking if the penguins were sinful, or since they were animals, without sin. And, that since mankind has a choice ----the religious swear ---they can choose whether or not to be straight or gay ------and anyone staying gay is of course sinful because the Good Book says it's so..

It's ironic that you seem to stand up for gays, while at the same time, you use derogatory language- like faggots and homos. And that you list faggots last- after the alphas and popular kids- as though they are neither capable of popularity or alpha behavior. Some "fags" make popular leaders after all.

"faggots"?

Cedarford, come on, clean up your act.

Chris,

What would I change 'activists' to? I can't say "Gays," even though that's less specific, because that suggests that gays generally are upset by this, which is something I take it you'd argue with. (So would I, btw; that's why I said "activists.")

So what would the word be?

Protestors? Seems to not quite fit.

To tell you the truth, Ace, I'd take the story down or put up a tag line about the one-sided reporting. And I wouldn't argue that gays wouldn't generally be upset with this sort of thing. They probably would. But the piece is just so poorly reported. Up to you. I can't think of a better title.

"Hi. My name is Chris and I can never be satisfied"

Chris, just drop it. It's a humorous story to those of us not toting the millstone of victimhood around our neck.

It's reported. That's not ace's fault.

And btw, I think cedartroll was being (gasp!) funny, but he's too bitter and myopic to pull it off.

And "Some "fags" make popular leaders after all"

Who?

And Lincoln doesn't count (since there's no proof whatsoever). Nor does Alexander, as he almost certainly was never a "fag" (as in poof) in the modern sense of the word. Pray tell.

I'll give you Gannon!, but that's it.

Cedarford,
When in doubt, use the term 'fairies,' or 'shrieking queens.'
Have a little sensitivity, man.

Nor is it like the bible-thumpers say - a sinful lust indulged by only weak, evil people that have strayed from the path of righteousness.

It's very clear that Cedarford doesn't even have a clue what Christianity is about. Christians do not look down upon sinners because Christians are sinners. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23). In fact, no one can be saved from judgement to come if he is NOT a sinner: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17).

And the only reason a Christian is accepted with God is because of the free gift of atonement: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph 2:8-9)

This idea that Christians look down on people who have sinned is simply false. Now, there are certainly people claiming to be Christians who might exhibit such behavior. But I wouldn't trust their claim if they don't have such rudiments firmly in hand.

lauraw, you are right. Faggots is too derogatory - though like with the derogatory word for blacks that is one of the most common words used by blacks in conversation - faggot is a regular part of the gay vernacular. I like lollypoppers better, and i'm sure Chris Grant does, too. Fairies is sensitive, though.

Sorry, Placid Pundit, but that is mealy-mouthed. Of course Christians look down on certain sinners....They have to. There must be some form of group or social censure for transgressors. Otherwise, you would have moral equivalency infect the faith.

Example: One Christian to Another - 1st Christian I found a child molester lurking in my kids chat room!. 2nd Christian - What did you do to the scum? Call the cops??? 1st Christian - Yes, I called the cops since it was against the law, but you are wrong to call the molester "scum", since we are all sinners too. Looking down on a molester would be judgemental. In fact, he could keep molesting as long as he takes Jesus into his heart accepts him as his personal Savior, and is saved through faith. My sect of Christianity believes good works like staying clear of kids, is irrelevant to salvation. 2nd Christian - Well, I guess that's why I am not an evangelical fundamentalist Christian!

CedarTroll,

I wanted to thank you for finally solving the mystery of who Jimmy Buffet wrote the I-95 song about. How does it feel to be famous?

Would "cocksuckers" be too derogatory?

Not if you are referring to Zionists, Zetetic.

No, Cedarford, you're wrong. And the silly straw man doesn't help you.

There is plenty of judgement to go around, I grant you. But that judgement is the purview of God himself. That is why Christians cannot judge. By our nature, we are all on the same plane. We are all vile. Only the substitutionary work of Christ can cover (though not remove) our vileness in a legal sense.

I was briefly inspired to make the all-penguin version of Far From Heaven, but then I realized I couldn't tell a black penguin from a white penguin. Does that mean I'm a penguin racist, or that I'm penguin colorblind?

Naw Joe, they all look alike to me too.

I believe that when Jesus addressed the sinners he would also say "Go and sin no more." Being a Christian does NOT mean that you can continue doing something that you-in your own heart- feel is sinful. If you know it is wrong and still do it, you are not really saved. If a person is gay and they feel that God made them that way, than-for them-being gay is not a sin. If, on the other hand, a person feels that they are gay and that being gay is sinful yet they continue being gay, for that person it is a sin.
God does not condemn us, God is love. W e condemn ourselves.

lauraw: as a Christian who has struggled with homosexuality, I have a slight quarrel with your comment. Someone who believes that "God made them that way" is being sorely deceived; God would not expressly forbid something (see Leviticus 18:22) if certain people were naturally inclined to do that thing.

Sorry, that last comment was to "j." not "lauraw".