A Polish politician has criticized his local zoo for acquiring a “gay” elephant named Ninio who prefers male companions and will probably not procreate.
“We didn’t pay 37 million zlotys ($11 million) for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there,” Michal Grzes, a conservative councilor in the city of Poznan in western Poland, was quoted as saying.
“We were supposed to have a herd, but as Ninio prefers male friends over females how will he produce offspring?” said Grzes, who is from the right-wing opposition Law and Justice party.
Any nutballs out there who aren’t hungup over everyone else’s sex life?
Anything that keeps the right wingnuts out of President Obama’s way fix the mess they leftthen this is fine with me.
If a gay elephant keeps these morons occupied with something to bitch about, then we should put together a gay Noah’s Arc.
#12 It’s obvious to me that this elephant simply CHOSE to be gay. So they can simply do an intervention and force him to CHOSE to be straight. It’s a choice, ya’ know. I certainly remember the day I woke up and suddenly decided that I was choosing “heterosexual!”
I can see why some are pissed off about spending $11 million on an elephant that won’t reproduce unless $11 million is some kind of deep elephant discount. However, we all know that used elephant dealers are crooks, so maybe we can cut the buyer some slack. I’m no so sure that one of his main questions to the dealer should have been, “Is it gay or straight?”
Thanks Angel, but people like ObamaSucks are usually a lost cause. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a closet case himself like lots of the homophobes. Their lives are their punishment.
Sorry dude but if you bought it to breed another generation gender confusion and cross species sex is out on the farm and in the zoo.
I don’t know about your personal life, didn’t ask about your personal life, and don’t need to know about your personal life.
That’s okay Phydeau, ObamaSucks is probably just another uneducated moron drinking the Michael Savage koolaid.
Does he pitch or catch?
#28 Bashing gays on a blog is a pretty creepy lifestyle IMHO, you deviated prevert.
Someone clearly need to remind this elephant that its behaviour is unnatural.
You just want to legislate his personal life.
#28 OS,
“What does religion have to do it? A creepy lifestyle is a creepy lifestyle.”
Religion has EVERYTHING to do about it. You want an example? Click on this link
http://tinyurl.com/3b9nhv
And see that what unites Jews, Christians and Muslims is not love and respect towards each other but the “Us Vs. Them” mentality that has plagued these three faiths since day one.
I actually work in a zoo (and sometimes post in this one), so I have a bit of perspective on this.
It’s sad that a guy who’s criticizing spending a bundle on an elephant unlikely to reproduce is being bashed. We have no idea whether he hates gays or not (a lot of conservatives are NOT moralistic Christians).
If you were running a breeding program, would you want to spend your resources on an animal that is unlikely to want to have sex with a female? Yes, it’s possible to use artificial insemination, but it’s far better to do it naturally, and leads to better parenting behavior in nearly all mammals.
Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection, he bats from both sides of the plate.
#40 Demon H. Wrong
Imagine that, the “Us Vs. Them” mentality sounds exactly like what you and FIDO are clamoring about. Just admit you’re a freak and let the healing begin.
You hetero freaks can keep your lifestyle to yourselves. I am tired of seeing you everywhere I go in society. Breeder!
fh, don’t mind alfred, he’s upset over losing the Easter Bonnet contest at Dolores Park yesterday.
#44 Actually not a bad try for a wingnut, Alfred, but you didn’t address what I helpfully put in italics for you, consenting adults. The reason why homosexuality is OK is that it is a harmless natural activity between consenting adults, whereas cannibalism, killing your children, etc., etc., are not harmless natural activity between consenting adults. Special pleading does not apply because the acts are not identical. Not a bad try, though. 🙂
Not that I expect you to understand or acknowledge this. You’re too far gone off the edge, clearly. But you showed some signs of intelligence, so maybe there’s hope for you yet.
Having said all that, though, if I bought an elephant for breeding and he turned out to be gay, I’d be pissed. 🙂
It reminds me of that scene in Gladiator where Oliver Reed grabs the slave trader by the balls and says “Those giraffes you sold me, they won’t mate. They just walk around, eating, and not mating. You sold me… queer giraffes. I want my money back. “
#48 You realise its an uphill battle arguing the ‘natural’ angle with someone who believes human being were magically created by a supernatural being, and that a highly edited and politically manipulated ancient text contains the meaning of life. He’ll prattle on about ‘design’, and excuse his own bigotry and ignorance because the bible said its OK to do so.
#50 Good to see that you accept homosexuality as being natural. You are a true religious progressive.
#45 – James Hill said. “You hetero freaks can keep your lifestyle to yourselves. I am tired of seeing you everywhere I go in society. Breeder!”
Aw come on James, lighten up!
#50 Yup, Alfred, about what I expected. Maybe someday you’ll either (a) come out of the closet, or (b) just accept other people and not try to push your morality on them. Logic is wasted on you.
And by the way, we do eat other animals. No matter how unnatural that is. 🙂
#50, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
Queenie,
The natural use of a cup is to drink from it…the natural use of a hammer is to drive nails…
It seems to me that you don’t understand the difference between natural and supernatural. Cups, hammers, and condoms are not found in nature, they are really supernatural. Eating young, eating the placenta, shitting on next years food supply, and homosexuality are all present in nature.
Civilized behavior is what sets humans apart from animals. If it is harmful to the existence of the human race, we don’t do it, therefore, we don’t eat our young. If it is not harmful, we allow it, such as our propensity to entertain others of our kind or fornicate for pleasure instead of just reproduction. If it is beneficial to the survival to our species, we promote it, such as tribal living.
#50:
“The natural use of a cup is to drink from it…the natural use of a hammer is to drive nails…the natural use of a male reproductive organs is in the realm of female reproductive organs…these are obviously designed to work together for the propagation of the species…”
And when the population of a species begins to explode, perhaps homosexuality is a natural defense for some kind of control.
Oh, and in a democracy, we also have the right to legalize gay marriages, whether an ancient book written on behalf of an imaginary man condones it or not. If you would really like a state controlled by religion, why dont you move to Iran?
#49 I remember that quote too, pretty funny! 🙂
First off, let me say I am opposed to state-sponsored gay marriages. I am ALSO opposed to state-sponsored hetero marriages. I don’t believe the government should be dictating who can and can’t be married.
Civil unions are another thing. There is nothing preventing heteros from entering into civil unions. I’ve got two buddies who’ve done it. They share everything, own everything together, and I believe they have a will saying each is the beneficiary of the other. They are as straight as the next guy (or as the next guy claims at a redneck BBQ). There is no reason two gays/lesbians can’t do the same thing. Reserve the “marriage” aspect of it to their religion of choice.
[Objective Mode=ON]
That being said, openly allowing gay “marriages” might indeed be harmful to society. We have no evidence one way or the other because we haven’t seen the long term effects of such an institution. The absence of evidence is not evidence itself. Just because someone may “feel” there is no danger doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
There might indeed be a reason why it hasn’t been a stable institution for the total of recorded history.
[Objective Mode=OFF]
Do I feel there is a danger? No. Does that mean there is no danger? No.
Relax. The elephant is probably just going through a homosexual phase like Anne Heche.
“Any nutballs out there who aren’t hungup over everyone else’s sex life?”
I suppose at least the nutballs who prosecute bestiality cases.
54 Mr. Fusion. Tools have been used in nature for multi-millions of years.
AIDS has been found to be quite harmful to the human race.
RBG
#57 The gay marriage opponents might have case if they could produce one heterosexual couple whose marriage has been harmed by two gay people getting married. They blather on about the terrible, terrible danger, but there is simply no evidence for what they assert. They wave their hands and say “marriage” has been harmed. Well, “marriage” is not an existing entity, it’s a concept. It can’t be “harmed”. If they want to claim that allowing gay marriage has caused more hetero divorces, or an increase in domestic violence in hetero marriages, or anything like that, let them present their evidence. But they haven’t because there is none.
How about our chief homophobe, Alfred. Hey Alfie, tell us how your heterosexual marriage has been harmed by those gays in Vermont, Iowa, California and Massachusetts getting married. Tell us all about the devastating effect. We’re all ears.
AIDS has been found to be quite harmful to the human race.
Oh wow, someone who still thinks AIDS is “the gay disease”. How quaint.
Do a little googling and you’ll find that millions of people in Africa (where it started) have AIDS, the vast majority of it spread by heterosexual intercourse.
#59, There probably isn’t any recorded case of a hetero marriage being damaged explicitly by this. But there are other ways society may be damaged. Until we have more evidence to support or refute the supposition that gay marriages are harmless to society, you have to consider the inherent reasons why it is considered taboo in so many cultures.
One thing to consider is whether it affects the morality of the society as a whole? Some believe the sexual revolution of the 60s was the start of a “Brave New World.”
http://tinyurl.com/cwxwxp
In order to understand why there is such a backlash against it, you must first understand where people get their phobias from. Not everybody against the idea is a homophobe. Some may actually be thinking about the bigger picture. You must consider and address those concerns first. Then you attack the rest.
#61 I think the religious taboo on it is pretty simple to explain… successful religions want to grow, grow, grow, which means big families, lots of children. Adults who insist on not procreating are a bad thing, so everyone is encouraged to marry and have kids, and anyone who doesn’t is frowned upon.
As far as the link… yawn… another attempt to link pedophilia to homosexuality. That has long been disproven. The vast majority of pedophiles are straight males. Should we ban heterosexuality to get rid of pedophilia? 🙂
OK, now I’m suspecting Alfred was sexually molested as a child, by a man… all that anger has got to come from somewhere… whatever it is, dude, get some therapy. Hating like that will eat you up inside. 🙁
60. Phydeau.
Oh wow, someone who still can’t read a reply. How quaint.
Let me assist: 54 Mr. Fusion.”If it is harmful to the existence of the human race, we don’t do it, therefore, we don’t eat our young. If it is not harmful, we allow it, such as our propensity to entertain others of our kind or fornicate for pleasure instead of just reproduction.”
RBG