When I heard the story about Buddy and Pedro, the gay penguins living at the Toronto zoo, I was immediately reminded of the quote:
Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?
And so, inspired by the above quote, I put together this gay penguin talky blog. Enjoy!
November 17, 2011 at 10:13 am
1st?
November 17, 2011 at 12:21 pm
wow…. indeed… homophobia is strictly reserved to humans…. makes it kinda special….
SO special in fact, that you would almost have to feel special….. NOT!
But on the other hand…. gayprides are also strictly reserved to humans…. Come one animals! You have boundaries to break!!!!!! Gayeth forward!!!!!!
November 17, 2011 at 1:07 pm
There were also some famous gay penguins named Roy and Silo in Central Park Zoo. The people working at the zoo actually gave Roy and Silo a discarded egg, which they raised together.
There’s a children’s book about Roy and Silo called “And Tango Makes Three” by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson.
This book has (hilariously) been at the top of the Top Banned Books of the Year list for four years. It has literally been banned from libraries, schools, etc. more often than far more controversial books such as “A Catcher in the Rye.” Yes, a children’s book about penguins is more controversial than “A Catcher in the Rye.” People are ridiculous.
November 17, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Ha, ha, ha. I love it.
November 17, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Hey, according to Glee, dolphins are just gay sharks….
November 17, 2011 at 3:27 pm
As a biologist who specializes in birds, I feel obligated to point out that “gay” may be somewhat misleading when applied to these animals. These penguins (as well as other penguins, albatrosses, swans, and several other species) have been observed successfully pair bonding and raising chicks with a partner of the same gender.
However, in many cases, these same individuals will also bond and produce offspring with birds of the opposite sex in other seasons. The key difference appears to be the sex ratio of available partners during pair formation. Birds which mate for life can stay with same-sex partners their whole lives, while birds which choose new mates every year may switch it up. Anyway, it’s all very interesting, and I recommend interested parties check out this paper: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l211457604334146/fulltext.html
Anyway, homophobia is definitely unique to humans as far as we know, and that merely serves to underscore its absurdity.
November 17, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Oh, Davey…sooo hilarious!!! Keep it real!!
=D
November 17, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Todd, I love that line! But yeah back to the point. My crush needs to embrace that quote. Scratch that. He needs to be f****d by this quote. Who loves someone they hate? Cause I do.
November 17, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Couple of talking points:
1) I think it’s probably more appropriate to label the penguins’ behaviour as homosexual rather than the penguins themselves. Humans are also the only species to define themselves based upon their sexual predilections.
2) By the same reasoning you’ve used to validate homosexuality and to tear down homophobia one could also justify eating feces, murder and violence, cleaning ourselves with our tongues and quite a few other things that could prove problematic.
3) You mentioned the gay dinosaur and omitted the lesbian dinosaur: the lickalotopus.
Seriously, though, our being gay requires no reason nor justification. We have a right to be however we are, period. Trying to justify it suggests that we need approval. Whether or not something happens in nature doesn’t matter – even to the people that disapprove of us. C’est la vie. Why let them rain on our Pride parade?
Cheers all
November 18, 2011 at 5:03 am
It is not a question of approval or of toleration. It is simply a question of acceptance. We accept the natural order of the universe as it is and we are part of that natural order, like it or not.
November 20, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Joel, define the term “natural order”. Anything that one person considers natural because he observes it in nature can be refuted by another person who sees another thing. If you look at swans you’ll see that they mate forever. Is this natural order? If so then moose are unnatural because they f**k all the other moose they can. Natural order means very little, especially in terms of humans who have come further than any other creature, intellectually. And yet we still lag behind animals who, frankly, don’t give a s**t about what the other animals do with their personal lives. As I mentioned before we don’t need to validate our lifestyles; just live them. When I came out to my family, my dad gave me some sage advice “Just be yourself and don’t worry about what anyone says. If they don’t like it then f**k them!” If people don’t accept it, too bad. That’s their problem. They may as well not accept moose because moose are promiscuous LOL!! Difference is the moose don’t give a damn and neither should we.
Keep your paws up and seek to understand
November 20, 2011 at 1:57 pm
@Mosaic Dave
By natural order of the universe I was simply referring to the universe as it exists, including all species of plants and animals. We humans are a very small subset of that universe. How you infer that my reference was to natural/unnatural sexual proclivities only is beyond me.
November 25, 2011 at 8:01 pm
I really didn’t infer that. I used them to illustrate the point that the term “natural order” is subjective and refutable.
November 17, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Damn you cracked me up Davey
MegaSoarAss? LOL! So the latin word could be Megasorus?
November 17, 2011 at 10:53 pm
This is a lie, animals do have homosexual sex occasionally but it is related to domination. It is very unlikely to find a homosexual couple living together among animals.
What is more, animal behavior is not a guideline to human morality. Animals also commit cannibalism and the killing of their own offspring.
Well, what kind of argument should we expect from a shirtless peace of meat?
November 18, 2011 at 10:29 am
Gustavo Joris you are absolutely right morals should be based on “Love” and “respect” for one another not on killing or eating your own species. on your other point how exactly do you know is for domination last I known animals can’t speak so we don’t really know what they are feeling, how do you know animals don’t behave as humans do and lie about their feelings I could act one way but feel another so again I ask how do you know what they are feeling unless they tell you and even then they could be lying or they are just kinky and like “BDSM” and on your last comment about the shirtless part why is it wrong to be shirtless?. that is one thing I don’t understand about religious people and I’m not saying you are a religious person but last I check if you go by what the bible says god actually wanted us to be naked it wasn’t until they committed sin after eating the apple that they didn’t wanted to be naked so if you go by that being not naked is a sin”lol” and all religious people should be naked, I guess it’s kind of like an artist that draws a painting and it’s the best thing in creation ” because that’s what we humans describe ourselfs as ” and then covering it up, I would assume the artist would feel like ” what was the point of me making the painting if no one is going to see it”. By the way I’m not a religious person I just like to point out the inconsistencies in their reasoning
November 18, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Gustavo: I agree with your assertion that the behavior of animals should not be used as a moral guideline for human behavior. However, homosexual pair-bonding between animals, up to and including parents of the same sex successfully raising young abandoned by others, is a well-documented occurrence. It is rare, relatively speaking, but there is no reason to believe that it is particularly any rarer than it is in humanity. Nor is there any reason to believe that it is, in all cases, related to social dominance, though I do not doubt that it is a factor in some cases.
I invite you to check out the research paper I linked to in my earlier comment, and am happy to furnish additional citations upon request.
November 18, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Matt: Your comments accurately summarize the research paper you cited. Is there any evidence that same sex copulatory behavior in bird species is based on erotic attraction, as with humans, as opposed to other social factors? As a viewer of PBS’ Nature series and other wildlife programs, I observe that some bird species enploy rather flamboyant tactics to attract a mate during mating season. I wonder if these displays are erotically attractive to some same sex individuals of the same species. If so, then……da,da’.
November 17, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Well I think we can all thank Gustavo joris for pooping on our gay penguin pride discussion
thanks homophobe!!! No H8
November 18, 2011 at 4:03 am
None of what is said is inherently hateful nor homophobic. Disagreement does not constitute hatred or fear. His tone lacked polish but he made some valid dissenting points that deserve as much consideration as any others.
November 17, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Voldemort! That’s not very nice. But he did put a damper on things. Either way that is a great quote and a great talky blog. Btw
DAVEY 
we’re still waiting for our blog post!!!!! 
November 18, 2011 at 1:09 am
Yet another awesome reason to love penguins! love the vid ^^
November 20, 2011 at 3:07 am
They’re not “all” funny and loveable (see http://youtu.be/BqIndw0KuDk). LOL! jk
November 18, 2011 at 8:33 am
i heard about this on the radio-just yesterday-what a hoot-but its so very true.
November 18, 2011 at 9:17 am
I dont think im the only one from Sweden and are reding your blog! But i have to say, i love your blog!
November 18, 2011 at 12:20 pm
@blog buddies
Excuse me for getting off topic this morning. Last night I watched once again the DVD movie Milk about the life and times of Harvey Milk in the 1970′s, the first openly gay SFO City Supervisor. As I watched the movie, it occured to me that many of you younger guys and gals were not around back then and may be unfamiliar with the condition of gays, even in a liberal city like SFO with its large gay population. The beatings and arrest of gays by the police was a routine event.
One of the last things Harvey did before he and Mayor Moscone were assassinated by Dan Whilte was to organize a statewide campaign to defeat the Briggs Amendment, which would have required every school district in the state to fire its gay teachers and anyone supporting them. Harvey realized early on that the only way to get the amendment defeated was to make every voter in the state realize he or she had a neighbor, a co-worker or a family member who was gay. He organized a statewide campaign within the gay community to come out. The amendment was defeated against overwhelming odds much to the chagrin of Briggs and Anita Bryant.
The event was especially significant to me because, in November 1978, I had just moved to California to start a new job in Silicone Valley south of SFO. As I was sitting at my desk that morning, my boss came in to announce that “they just killed that queer supervisor in SFO.” I was devastated, not only by the assassination of Harvey, but also by the knowledge that I had just started working with a rank homophobe from conservative Orange County.
Milk is a pretty good movie starring Sean Penn as Harvey, James Franco as his lover, and James Brolin as Dan White. I encourage anyone who hasn’t seen the movie to rent the DVD. The lesson of the movie is this: no government is going to grant us our equal rights because it is the right thing to do. We must organize and demand change. Coming out is part of the process. We’ve come a long way since 1978. There is much yet to do.
November 18, 2011 at 7:10 pm
I’m Swedish too Pontus
And Davey, that is a quote that could come in handy some time. Great post. Love.