Est. May 2008

21 February, 2013

Not Enough Gay Animals On TV

Yes, you read that title right, folks:
A university academic has criticised David Attenborough's wildlife shows not featuring enough gay animals.
The ‘university academic’ is Dr. Brett Mills of the University of East Anglia.  Now why does that name sound familiar?  Oh, yeah, now I remember.

Must be something in the water out there that makes these folks trump up and trot out junk science.

Anyway, after criticizing three of David Attenborough’s documentaries, D. Mills goes on to say:
'The central role in documentary stories of pairing, mating and raising offspring commonly rests on assumptions of heterosexuality within the animal kingdom.'
Well of course it does, Dr. Mills.  Most animals ‘pair’ in order to mate’ mating produces offspring, something ‘mating’ between homosexual anythings fails at in spectacular fashion.  ‘[A]ssumptions of heterosexuality within the animal kingdom’ are pretty good assumptions based on the fact that without heterosexuality reproducing those animals you wouldn’t even have an animal kingdom.

Oh, but not so, maintains Dr. Mills:
Dr Mills says this perception is created by the documentaries despite evidence that show animals have 'complex and changeable forms of sexual activity, with heterosexuality only one of many possible options.'
Okay, the first thing to do is determine what Dr. Mills means when he says ‘sexual activity’.  Considering the dictionary definition of it (‘activities associated with sexual intercourse’), I’m thinking that maybe Dr. Mills’ definition is a tad bit broader.  It would have to be, in fact: otherwise, Dr. Mills’ ‘possible options’ would all have to include sexual intercourse – which means penile penetration of an orifice (my apologies to my more sensitive readers).  If Dr. Mills has evidence that this is occurring, by all means, let him bring it forward.

Over at First Things, David Mills (no relation) posted on this same topic.  He quotes a previous post he did as follows:
Some animals are homosexual, said the young man, mentioning two male penguins who reportedly raised a chick together, though the one news story we saw did not say whether the two were, um, romantically involved.
Which goes directly to my statement above: if Dr. Mills has evidence of ‘romantic involvement’ between two same-sex wild animals, bring it out of the closet (no pun intended.  Really).  I think we’ve all witnessed (or perhaps experienced) a dog having, um, ‘romantic relations’ with our leg or someone else’s.  I’ve had friends tell me of personal experiences of their dogs and cats having ‘romantic relations’ with their legs, pillows, stuffed animals, boots, shoes, chair-legs, and a host of other inanimate objects.  Does that mean these animals are, well, legsexual or pillowsexual or teddysexual or footwearsexual?  Of course not; it means those animals were responding to a biological urge they could not control.

Of course, that kind of information doesn’t work out too well for the folks who are trying to normalize human homosexuality, does it?

Perhaps you’ve seen cows out in pastures mounting one another?  I mean cows – the female ones from which we get milk.  Or maybe you’ve seen shows on TV with male animals mounting other male animals?  As a biologist, I’m intrigued whenever I read about or hear of these tales, and in my own researches on it I’ve discovered that in the vast majority of cases of this behavior, it’s a social dominance behavior; the animals are setting up the pecking order in the herd or flock or pack.

Which is another thing the homosexual agenda-ists aren’t about to want to touch.

Going back to David Mills’ (no relation) article, he emphasizes the mistake homosexual agenda-ists make when they try to use animal behavior to legitimize human behavior:
“Duh,” noted our friend Gregory Laughlin of Samford University’s law school, who grew up on a farm. “I’ve seen two boars ‘together.’ So what? Animals also viciously kill one another, even their own kind. Does that make murder ‘natural’ and, therefore, licit among humans?

It gets worse: “Many animals have multiple sex partners, and the male is often uninvolved in caring for his offspring. Does that make adultery, promiscuity, and paternal abandonment ‘natural’ and, therefore, licit among humans?

“Animals go into a frenzy when fed, pushing others out of the way and even trampling others to get to the food. Does that make greed, gluttony, covetousness, and theft ‘natural’ and, therefore, licit among humans?”
Yet again another topic the agenda-ists wouldn’t want to touch on.

The long and the short of it?  Perhaps Mr. Attenborough and other nature documentarians don’t include scenes of animal homosexuality simply because that form of ‘sexual activity’ doesn’t truly exist – at least not as the dictionary defines it.

But, again, if Dr. Mills has evidence to the contrary, I’ll eagerly await his own documentary on it.

1 comment:

Right Truth said...

I was raised on a farm with acre after acre of land, woods, etc. I can honestly say I have never seen a "gay" animal, wild or domesticated. ha

Right Truth