Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Leftism » Anti fun brigade » Poofter penguins, lesbian lions, gay gibbons and David Attenborough

Poofter penguins, lesbian lions, gay gibbons and David Attenborough

I have watched far too many nature documentaries during the course of my life and these days if I am clicking through the TV offerings and  land on any offerings from David Attenborough you would not see my finger hit the next button because it happens with out a seconds delay.  That said I do appreciate the quality of the footage and the insights into the natural world its just that I think there is only so much of that stuff that anyone can watch in their life time  before their brain explodes form shear boredom. Now we have a Gay activist whining that David Attenborough is “ignoring” instances of homosexuality in nature:

Click for link

Click for link

Obviously this stems from a desire by many homosexuals to argue against the description of their sexuality as “unnatural”. To this end they scour studies of animal behaviour to find instances of same sex couplings  and “gay” sexual activity.  Of course there are examples of  this aberrant behaviour in other species  but as it can not produce progeny it is biologically entirely pointless. That does not mean that we can, by extension, deride and dismiss human homosexuality. Such behaviour does seem to be in the nature of a small percentage of our species and I personally don’t see what all the fuss is about as long as we respect the rights of all of our individuals to share their genitalia with any other consenting adult regardless of their gender it does not matter to me how “natural” or ” unnatural” such behaviour is. Maybe its time for Gay  activists like Brett Mills to get over himself and stop trying to force all of society  to think the same way that he does about sexuality.

Cheers Comrades

Who cares about poofter penguins?

Who cares about poofter penguins?



  1. vidhidoshi91 says:

    Thanks for linking to my page. Don’t you think the hoards of evidence in the animal kingdom that does suggest that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom is overwhelming. This isn’t a conspiracy thought up by gay scientists trying to push a political agenda. It’s just simply true! I’m not gay, and I have no problem admitting that I, along with a Safari-load of people who will testify, witnessed two male giraffes copulating. Of course this evidence, which has been talked about in only whispers for years is finally coming out (pun intended). And Brett Mills is not trying to make you gay. He’s just trying to say that homosexual behaviour has been widely observed in nature and therefore being gay is not “unnatural.” This doesn’t mean he is ‘imposing’ his views on you – if you want to carry on in your heterosexuality, you’re not going to have to change anything about yourself. Just open your mind a little, that’s all!

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks for dropping by and leaving such a reasonable comment.

    I have had some experience in the dairy industry where I observed all female herds of cows within which individuals in the fertile period of their breeding cycle would be mounted by other cows infact they have a neat little dye bag that the they put on the backs of cows so that when they have been mounted by others in the herd the farmer can see who is ready for AI. I have also seen similar behaviour within flocks of chickens. Is this an example of homosexuality? The likes of Brett Mills would probably argue that it is, However I would observe that in social animals the behaviour is more about dominance within the hierarchy that it is about same sexual desire.

    The dominance/submission/social position dynamic is also at work in many primate examples.

    As I say in my piece I don’t think the “naturalness” of homosexuality matters at all as long as we are open to the concept that we may choose any consenting adult as a sexual partner.

  3. Craig says:

    It may not be dominance/submission at all Iian, instead as you said social dynamic and pure instinct for sexual reproduction and the continuity of the species. I’ve seen heifer weaners mount their mothers and they are certainly still on the bottom of the herd hierarchy. I’ve also witness the same with Bulls the non dominant bull was mounting the dominant bull, which unfortunately was costing money so the homosexual bull had to go.

    HHmmm this reminds me of whiteness studies, since whites are born racist isn’t it wrong to try to brainwash them to change their ethnic orientation? What is wrong with, er, homo-ethno-iality? Legalize same-race associations!

    Support Same-Race Marriage!

    We’re White, We’ll Fight – Get Used to It!\


  4. deknarf says:

    Disappointed that you’re bored with Attenborough’s great works but agree with your basic tenets with regard to sexual behaviour. Attenborough’s done a fantastic job in bring the beauty of nature to many thereby providing a greater awareness of the beauty and fragility of this planet.

  5. Iain Hall says:

    I am not so much bored with the topic of biology as much as with the “eye candy” approach to these programs which tends to be rather superficial about any individual species.

    That said I am glad that we share some common ground

  6. I like your comment – because it doesn’t produce progeny, it’s biologically pointless. I wonder if homosexual people who exploit poor people to produce children for them (e.g. in India) really believe that the child is theirs. Biologically it’s impossible but now that we live in the age of propaganda, we see this delusion everywhere e.g. Elton John and his homosexual partner and “their” children – not biologically possible. It’s kind of pathetic.

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    Some animals (eg dogs) eat the faeces of other animals. So eating shit is natural and we should not discriminate against restaurants that serve it?

  8. GD says:

    Ray 🙂

  9. GD says:

    Why are gay activists looking to the animal kingdom to justify their existence?

    Animals indulge in cannibalism and infanticide.

    That dolphin males f*ck each other does not explain why the marriage vow, of a man and a woman coming together with the potential to procreate, should be subverted to include the lust one man has for another, is both overreaching and offensive.

    There is something sacred about a man and a woman coming together as one to produce a child. The same cannot be said for one man sticking his penis into another man’s anus.

  10. Richard Ryan says:

    SO! One man’s meat is another man’s poison.

  11. Brian says:

    There is something sacred about a man and a woman coming together as one to produce a child. The same cannot be said for one man sticking his penis into another man’s anus.

    So you’re a homophobe as well as a xenophobe and an Islamophobe, “GD”. Why am I not surprised?
    Don’t worry, I’m sure your anus is quite safe. You can stop panicking.

  12. Richard Ryan says:

    Yeah Brian—–GD is multi skilled, snigger-snigger.

  13. Peter Dippl says:

    As a young man growing up in the sixties and seventies I was as homophobic as most of my peers. However as i got a bit older and wiser and lived with the fact some of my friends ( and a relative also) were gay I came to see how wrong I was. This was also reinforced ( and this comes to the subject of Iain’s post) when for some years we had a sheep stud where we bred Hampshire Downs sheep for the meat lamb sire trade. When I saw the considerable level of homosexual interaction between the younger rams I think a penny really dropped that male/male interaction in the animal kingdom was actually not that unusual. My opinion now is very strongly along the lines of “live and let live” and if people of the same gender want to get married then we should not let artificial and confected moral predjudice prevent this.

  14. Iain Hall says:

    Well my position on homosexuality is slightly different to yours Peter. I have always taken the attitude that the important thing about homosexuality is that all individuals are entitled to copulate with any other consenting adult of their choice and that no one should be victimised for their sexual desire. That said I think that Marriage is by its very nature a heterosexual institution socially intended for the propagation of the species, as homosexual pairing can not produce progeny without a third party another legal instrument is more suited to serving their needs. Which is why I prefer some sort of civil union rather than changing Marriage per se.
    With regard to “Gay” animals I have no problem acknowledging that they exist but don’t think it proves what activists like to think it does.

  15. Peter Dippl says:

    I think we only differ in our choice of words and I happily defer to yours .

    Cheers P

  16. Brian says:

    I couldn’t care less who or what people sleep with, provided they do no harm to the other party. And I think marriage is what we as a society say it is; there are no immutable laws of nature concerning marriage and anyone who tells you so is bluffing. I am not an advocate for gay marriage and do not cheer for it, however I believe it will be passed into law at some point in the future.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: