Yet more gay penguins
Here’s one from the you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me box. Remember the infamous gay penguins? Turns out that zoos worldwide are dens of homosexual iniquity. Here’s another story from China, from a couple weeks ago:
A couple of gay penguins are attempting to steal eggs from straight birds in an effort to become “fathers”, it has been reported.
The two penguins have started placing stones at the feet of parents before waddling away with their eggs, in a bid to hide their theft.
But the deception has been noticed by other penguins at the zoo, who have ostracised the gay couple from their group.
Now keepers have decided to segregate the pair of three-year-old male birds to avoid disrupting the rest of the community during the hatching season. . . .
There are numerous examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but gay penguins have captured the public’s attention more than any other species.
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen appeals to animal behaviour as a moral justification for human homosexual behaviour. But I have yet to see anyone appeal to the animal kingdom to justify the ostracization of homosexuals. I wonder why?
My first thought reading this story was that this was going to result in some sort of protest. Yes indeed:
A pair of gay penguins thrown out of their zoo colony for repeatedly stealing eggs have been given some of their own to look after following a protest by animal rights groups.
Last month the birds were segregated after they were caught placing stones at the feet of parents before waddling away with their eggs.
But angry visitors to Polar Land in Harbin, northern China, complained it wasn’t fair to stop the couple from becoming surrogate fathers and urged zoo bosses to give them a chance.
In response, zookeepers gave the pair two eggs laid by an inexperienced first-time mother.
It’s not fair! Civil rights for gay penguins! No justice, no peace! Spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody!
Socialist penguins. You gotta laugh.
Then one foggy nondenominational winter solstice festival eve, a traditional cultural icon came to say
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the political correct front:
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was almost grounded at Murrayville Elementary School this week after a parent complained about the classic Christmas song’s inclusion in her daughter’s upcoming kindergarten concert.
The objecting parent was upset about the words “Christmas” and “Santa” in the song, feeling that they carried religious overtones.
That prompted the song to be pulled from the upcoming holiday concert, which in turn upset more parents.
I guess that if you’re miserable, the easiest thing to do is spread the misery around a bit.
I doubt there is a Christmas-themed song more secular than “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Well, maybe “Let It Snow.” Fortunately, it appears that “school administrators and lawyers” agree, reinstating the song, albeit for a stupid reason: “it signifies just a day in time, Dec. 25, not the promotion of a religious symbol.” Really. And just why is Dec. 25 special, anyway? How many festive songs are written in honour of June 23?
Anyway, this gets my vote for Happy Contradiction of the Day:
The mother, who is Jewish, said she was trying to have a Hanukkah song added to the musical lineup. . . .
“I don’t mind Christmas or anything Christmas-related at all, so long as you’re not imposing it on my child,” the objecting parent said Friday morning.
Apparently, however, imposing a Hanukkah song on the goyim is A-OK in her book.
They’re “holiday” lights, actually
And on the other side of the world, English culture continues to self-destruct:
A mum was told to take down her Christmas lights by a council worker in case they “offended” non-Christian neighbours.
Dorothy Glenn, 41, puts up hundreds of decorations, including a big tree and Santa, outside her home each year.
But she was “shocked and upset” when the housing official told her the festive display would offend Bengali and Chinese neighbours. . . .
South Tyneside Homes housing association apologised, insisting their worker’s request did not reflect policy.
Of course, that didn’t stop the council droid from coming round in the first place and harassing innocent women.
Personally, I’d be more offended by the “hundreds of decorations” on grounds of taste rather than religion. Go ahead and wish me Merry Christmas. I’m not offended. And I will do likewise, because I don’t care if it offends you. And to all a good night.