Brace Yourself, the Ducks are Coming
A homeschooled, New Zealand-based teen offered up a bizarre anti-gay rant in a local newspaper, claiming that "ducks could take over the world" if same-sex marriage is approved. In a letter to the editor of New Zealand’s Northern Outlook, the 14-year-old writes:
"If homosexuality spreads, it can cause human evolution to come to a standstill. It could threaten the human position on the evolutionary ladder, and say, ducks, could take over the world. Ducks always nest in pairs and we if allow same-sex marriage, then the ducks will have evolved further than we have. We will be in danger of all being equal, with ducks more equal than us."
Noting that children shouldn’t "have to compete with ducks," the kid adds: "If you believe in evolution, you can’t be in favor of homosexuality, or the ducks will get you in the end." Needless to say, the creative, if unintentionally hilarious, letter has prompted some fiery responses. Wrote PZ Myers of Science blogs: "Because you think ducks are all heterosexual, and your children will all be heterosexual (brace yourself, you might get a few surprises in 10 or 20 years there), and a policy of tolerance will turn every other human being homosexual, you’re afraid your kids will be competing for mates with ducks?"
Same-sex marriage has been a hot topic in New Zealand as of late. In August, local politicians overwhelmingly cast a first vote in favour of a marriage equality bill.
Personally I’m not convinced that this isn’t some creative trolling. Especially considering how the author of the letter felt the need to add the information about being homeschooled. Homeschooling is outlawed in quite a few countries to help kids dodge religious and all kind of other crazy brainwashing, but ducks? That just seems a bit over the top.
+2
about 7 months ago
re: His “quote” in the paper:
That pretty much shows his ignorance (and more importantly, his really stupid parents) of anything relating to science and sociology. In actual fact, homosexuality is one of the prime reasons that our human races/societies haven’t fucked and begatted themselves into oblivion much sooner than it would anyway because of one obvious reason: overpopulation.
That newspaper opinion/article/letter shows more about his parents stupidity (and quite obvious religious brainwashing passing on to their child[ren] ).
“Homeschooling is outlawed in quite a few countries to help kids dodging religious … ”
I don’t think you mean that exactly. They probably outlaw it because they get fed religious brainwashing, not “dodging religious.” Public schools/education would be “dodging [the] religious.”
about 7 months ago
“to help kids dodge” is what I meant, I’ll change it.
about 7 months ago
I’m afraid you’ve revealed you’re not much more knowledgeable than he is. I’m a biologist and can tell you that there is absolutely no credible scientific evidence indicating that homosexuality is an evolutionary adaptation for population control.
We don’t need to defend ourselves by making stuff up. The fact that we exist and that we aren’t harming others is more than enough.
about 7 months ago
For a “BioGuy” [with no other name],
“I’m a biologist and can tell you that there is absolutely no credible scientific evidence indicating that homosexuality is an evolutionary adaptation for population control.”
And you just showed your incredible stupidity. I didn’t say it was absolute, I said it was [logically, obviously] one of the prime reasons for homosexuality. Biologically and genetically, we have yet to positively identify homosexuality. That’s obvious, but, a huge part of scientific knowledge and theories are based on common sense and logic applied along with minute and real scientific discoveries.
A great example: Whether Earth is “flat” or not. Hmmmm, don’t you think that that is mostly logical? Especially when those that saw a ship off for its voyage actually came back to them and therefore, obviously didn’t “fall off” the Earth during their voyages.
If you’re a true science person, you use common sense and logic all the time (unless, of course, you’re one of those incredibly stupid and brainwashed religious nutcases).
Common sense and logic: Does the apple “fall” back up to the tree?
Stop showing your own stupidity by claiming “you’re a biologist” or some other “scientific” person.
What other specific purpose is there for homosexuality? Just so the same-sex/gender animals and later, humans can have some “sexual fun?” Get. Fucking. Real.
about 7 months ago
I think you need to calm down. You said:
“In actual fact, homosexuality is one of the prime reasons that our human races/societies haven’t fucked and begatted themselves into oblivion much sooner than it would anyway because of one obvious reason: overpopulation.”
This is not an actual fact. This is a hypothesis which has not been verified, and in fact makes very little sense considering that whatever genetic basis might exist for homosexuality could only be inherited if gay people reproduce. Sometimes they do, but in that case they certainly haven’t reduced overpopulation, which was your argument.
There are many possible explanations for the existence of homosexuality. Perhaps certain genes only cause homosexuality in conjunction with specific other genes (a phenomenon called epistasis). This would enable “gay genes” to be present in straight people, who could pass them on when they reproduce. There is some evidence to suggest that homosexuality is associated with elevated levels of testosterone during pregnancy, which would suggest a developmental, non-genetic explanation. Some have demonstrated that having a gay younger brother is associated with improved reproductive success for straight older brothers, for reasons not currently known. Other good hypotheses exist and are the subject of active research.
What we do know almost certainly is that it has nothing to do with population control, for reasons a basic understanding of genetics and evolutionary biology (e.g. what I said above) would make clear.
What milo below said is correct, and you may have held some notion of this yourself: We know that the existence of homosexuality hasn’t had any drastically negative effect on the evolutionary success of our species. That’s the most that can be said with respect to its role in human populations.
I really think the amount of outrage and insult in your post is frightening considering how benign my comment was. You clearly don’t have a strong background in evolutionary biology. That’s fine–no one knows everything. It’s okay to admit it when you’ve spoken out of your depth; no one is keeping score.
about 7 months ago
“This is not an actual fact. This is a hypothesis which has not been verified, …”
OK, I’ll concede this as long as you acknowlege the fact you offered no opposing “hypothesis” (verified or unverified).
Let’s get one thing straight (so to speak): What you “offered” were no more than unproven hypotheses of how a human homosexual begins in the womb — not one iota for why there are homosexuals to begin with. Splitting hairs? Sure, but I asked you a specific question of why which you totally failed to address (and you claim to have such a “strong background in evolutionary biology).”
I may need “to calm down,” but you certainly need to learn how to read posts properly.
And, while my “claim to actual fact” may indeed be an “unproven hypothesis” (and ultimately, I can’t argue that), likewise your “factual claims” are exactly the same, and just as well, unproven even for the answer of “how homosexuals become to be in the womb.”
And then you say, “… and in fact makes very little sense considering that whatever genetic basis might exist for homosexuality could only be inherited if gay people reproduce. Sometimes they do, but in that case they certainly haven’t reduced overpopulation, which was your argument.”
While I certainly do agree with milo that homosexuals haven’t reduced overpopulation and has no negative influence on humanity, that is not my argument.
So, I pose this question once again to you or anyone: “What other specific purpose is there for homosexuality?” That is a question of why, not how [the genes come together in the womb].
And because I’m damn sure you can’t answer that question of why there’s homosexuality to begin with (and please don’t show even more stupidity by bringing the total idiocy of “god” into this science discussion), I have every reason “in the book” to assume and assert my own “unproven hypothesis” of overpopulation control “as fact” as long as there are no known opposing logical and proven hypotheses otherwise.
And if there are, show me with logic and not religious hocus-pocus and stupidity. And, if you continually argue against [my/the] logic of overpopulation control, what else could there be as a logical reason for homosexuality? Stop with the how (and all your hypotheses are just as unproven) and offer up some why.
And your statement of “What we do know almost certainly is that it has nothing to do with population control, …” is a lie to make you sound more “intelligent” than me. If you had this overwhelming proof of why, you would have presented it. But you only offered up unproven hypotheses of how [possibly, only].
Again, splitting hairs? Probably — but knowing how the apple falls from the tree is not the same as knowing why it’s on the tree in the first place. After all, that’s why there are two separate questions (in this case) in science.
So, are you going to and when will you admit the same, “You clearly don’t have a strong background in evolutionary biology [if you can't differentiate between how and why]. That’s fine–no one knows everything. It’s okay to admit it when you’ve spoken out of your depth; no one is keeping score“?
about 7 months ago
I would like to answer everything you said but it’s just a little bit too much and I’ve strained my english speaking skills by writing a 5 page literatur review yesterday so please excuse if I stick to the point I’ most interested in.
Firstly I don’t think there necessarily has to be an answer to the question why homosexuality exists if one is actually asking for something like a purpose of homosexuality. There are other things that don’t necessarily serve a purpose like cancer, muscular dystrophy oder other diseases. However, all aforementioned genetic defects exist and continue to exist. Why? Do they have purposes? Perhaps. But more likely they are a sideproduct of other processes in the human body which hinders their extinction. So there is an answer to the question “why?” if you mean “why” as in “how has it come to their existence” but none if you mean “what purpose do they serve”.
It could be the same in homosexuality. Perhaps homosexuality hasn’t died out because the genes (which might be many since one hasn’t identified one specific gene) or the processes (the metioned explenation about testoterone might arise from a protective effect for the mother) serve other functions whose loss would be more severe than the existance of homosexuality is to our species.
On the other hands there might also be actual reasons. I once read something about birds(?) whos homosexual individuals help their siblings in the upbringing of their children. That way they would sort of help to preserve the genetic information which in part is also present in themselves therefor leading to an evolutionary advantage. This might be bullshit but I think it is at least as valid as your overpopulation hypothesis. (Compare ants – 99% percent of the individuals do not pass on their genetic information – why do they exist? – they help their mother in passing on her genetic code which partly matches their own > advantage)
In the end this is an interesting discussion but I think none of us has sufficient knowledge to give an actual fact as an answer to the qustion of why there is homosexuality.
about 7 months ago
Milo’s response was appropriate. I think your problem is an epistemological one: I don’t need to have an alternative explanation to show why yours is probably wrong, though I did provide several alternative hypotheses which are more reasonable than yours. The fact that these hypotheses are “unproven” (a word which a scientist would never use) is irrelevant, because I never claimed they were facts, just that they’re more reasonable.
Just like we can be almost certain that homosexuality isn’t a result of demonic possession because this doesn’t make sense in a scientific context, we can also be almost certain that it isn’t because it stems population control, because this also doesn’t make sense in a scientific context.
You seem to be asking the teleological question “why,” as if evolution has some kind of conscious intention. It doesn’t. All we know is that homosexuality exists and that it doesn’t necessarily have to serve any direct evolutionary purpose. This explanation has nothing to do with religion, as you seem to think.
Yet again, the rudeness and obvious injured pride in your response was uncalled for.
about 7 months ago
Perhaps it works the other way round. Homosexuality, since it occurs in different species around the globe obviously isn’t harmful enough to wipe out the corresponding species. Otherwise it probably would have died out long ago. (Unless it’s something even evolution can’t “fix”)
about 7 months ago
A rather funny thing occurred to me: how the ultra religious keep comparing human homosexuals and our activities to “low-level” animals (particularly marriage: “If we allow them to marry each other, then we will be allowing people to marry dogs [or other]“).
They’re trying to be insulting, of course. But, think about it — so many species of ducks must fly twice a year hundreds, if not sometimes thousands of miles for their nesting and breeding cycles. How “low-level” is that to have a natural “GPS” within them, yet these brainwashed religious can’t even understand the very basics of evolution and natural selection when taught it in school for several years (and yet the [ducks] don’t need any schooling even in the first year)?
about 7 months ago
I am sure this is a joke. I found it hilarious.
about 7 months ago
I think I am a little confused. Wasn’t the 14 year old’s letter meant to be a satirical comment? If so, it really is hilarious and very creative and I can imagine horselips smiling.
Thank you Penboy for clearing up that last sentence which I read numerous times and thought I was missing something.
about 7 months ago
Grinning from ear to ear!
about 7 months ago
Ducks, Mallards in particular, are some of the “gayest” animals on earth. “Mallards form male-female pairs only until the female lays eggs, at which time the male leaves the female. Mallards have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds, in some cases, as high as 19% of all pairs in a population” (Bagemihl, 1999)
about 7 months ago
I guess it was a very cleaver troll, a reductio-ad-absurdum if you willl!
about 7 months ago
Guess you can say the quacks have it :)
about 7 months ago
“I think I am a little confused. Wasn’t the 14 year old’s letter meant to be a satirical comment? If so, it really is hilarious and very creative…”
Could be, I was wondering the same thing. If not, then I feel sorry for this young girl who has been so badly educated at home. Her education is probably chock full of quackery. She should perhaps read up about what some penguins have done in zoos.
about 7 months ago
Love your word choice “quackery.”
about 7 months ago
Dang, now we have worry about duxuality.
What did the duck say to the pharmacist when buying a condom?
“Put it on my bill.”
I’m sorry, I don’t know what is the Mallard with me, I’ll go now.
about 7 months ago
“Evolve further”? Goddamn, that’s not how it works.
Also, I don’t like the implied support for a homeschooling ban. Entirely the wrong response.
about 7 months ago
You and your open minded parents are a glowing example of the benefits of home schooling which is not always the case. But I agree, home schooling per say is not the problem. Poor case monitoring by the school district and ignorant parenting can be a problem.
about 7 months ago
Sorry J as I think I may have confused you with Liam. I know that Liam is home schooled but I don’t recall you stating that you are home schooled.
about 7 months ago
Those perfect beady little black eyes… that awesomely cute yellow fuzz… the stubby little wings with so much enthusiasm and so much promise… the little webbed feet that you could just stroke… the unbalanced and frenetic waddle just exploding with love and enthusiasm… what can I say.
Yes we definitely need more animations like this one. How about Mallard Monday or Swan Saturday?
about 7 months ago
Of course it was satirical. Every sentence was ironic or sarcastic. It simply points out how ridiculous many of the counter-homosexuality arguments are.
about 7 months ago
You obviously have either never seen the writings of these god/religious nutcases or actually heard them speak. Believe me, many of them truly believe the garbage that is spewn from their mouths and ignorant minds. You don’t see/hear them in Europe primarily because the vast majority of Europe won’t tolerate them and they know that. That’s exactly why they travel to and emigrate to places like Australia and New Zealand. Apparently, neither country has wised up yet about this garbage they are importing into their country. And, yes, many of them come from the “good ol’ USA (mostly southern)” And their stupidity read and sound like that letter above (sometimes even worse). So, maybe it was satire, and maybe it isn’t …. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not.
about 7 months ago
Australia is often thought of as a gigantic Texas. If this really true then one could say that Australia is a SITTING DUCK for American Evangelists. Don’t know what to say about New Zealand. They are very provincial I hear. But neither country can out do Texas or the American South on ignorance.
about 7 months ago
I was pretty stupid when I was 14. But I did know that Ducks can’t operate remote controls, or I-phones, thus they could never take over anything.
about 7 months ago
I got out of this what many others did. I find it satyrical. it sounds that he is very for same sex marriage and making fun of those against it.
about 7 months ago
Well Penboy sure talks a lot and,this little 14 year old sure gave him the coal to fire up his stove. [stove being his mouth] I don’t believe that homosexual relationships well be the end of the human race. At the present rate I believe we homo/hetero beings well do this all on our own. As for this GPS that ducks have, can you tell me how they got this devise, of course from a purely scientific explanation. I wouldn’t want nothing less then that. Also this homeschooled thing. Here in Philadelphia the public schools suck. Not so much because you atheist have taken God out of the school,but because there is just plain poor education in the schools with very little respect for the teacher. The public schools in the suburban areas are much better. Parents do homeschooling because they want their children to get a better education,and this is their way of doing it. Some parents put their children in charter schools, some parents put their children in private schools. This cost money. The liberals and the atheist are pretty much on the BAN wagon. It comes easy for them. If mallards have a high rate of male-male sexual activity it proves nothing because they are still fertilizing the female. It’s called having your cake and eating it at the same time. Speaking of Mallards-ducks being the gayest animals on earth,the Wolf is just the opposite. The male wolf well take a mate for life. No playing around. The only way the wolf is going away is when humans go out to kill them. It seems that where ever humans tread they have a way of killing off what they tread on. It seems that humans believe that they and only they should come out on top. Homosexuality is part of life. Evolution isn’t about fixing it. There is nothing to fix. But some humans just can’t have something around that they just don’t understand. It has always been that way,and I don’t see it changing any time soon,Least not in my life time. All you have too do is read some of these comments,and you can see that I’am right.
about 7 months ago
could you please clarify your point? I didn’t really get what you were on about.
about 7 months ago
Thank you. Don’t worry, nobody else did either. But, it’s par for the course with him.
about 7 months ago
I’m just surprised to see that the kid acknowledges human evolution exists. I figured he would be against evolution. ;-)
about 7 months ago
The kid does acknowledge that evolution exists as a theory, but SHE states that she doesn’t believe it.
http://i.imgur.com/xRCJN.jpg
about 7 months ago
** fumbling around in the coat pocket for a letter ‘s’ to tuck up next to the letters ‘h’ ‘e’ **
;P
about 7 months ago
Oh well, as long as the storks continue to deliver human babies we won’t have to fear the ducks taking over.
about 7 months ago
Even if every single person in the world were gay (which is really big if!), there is no reason to suppose that homosexual males would not mate with (or artificially inseminate) their lesbian counterparts in order for either couple to have children. It’s something which happens all the time already!
And although I think evolution by artificial selection is capable of some pretty cool things, I hardly think that any government would be able to maintain and enforce a program which lasted over enough years to lead to a significant ‘evolution’ of the species.
No. I think that technology and machine intelligence is the only way that any entity within the realm of our solar-system is likely to attain any higher physical or intellectual state of being. The fact that the OP thinks rampant hetero sex will lead to an evolution of the species clearly shows that the OP doesn’t understand how ‘evolution’ works.
Anyway, good on him for posting his opinion. I just hope that one day he will be able to: a) change his views, or b) defend them rigorously.
about 7 months ago
And you’d always think that you’d see a letter like that on the Onion. I hope it is trolling like said on the bottom, or else it’d be more weird than anything.
about 7 months ago
Of course this article is satirical, this “14 year old” quotes from the book Animal Farm!
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”, but in this case, it’s ducks not pigs.
Yay for subtle New Zealand humour.
about 7 months ago
Not denying that this person would be too dumb to be interested in something like that, but I read Animal Farm when I was 11. I’d expect people on milkboys of all sites not to be ageist.
about 7 months ago
By the way – who would ever care about strange/dumb things a teenager said? I´m glad that I seem to have forgotten most of the “truths” that I was carrying along with me as a teen.
Life is some sort of process that makes you more and more able to see the differences between lies and truth.
about 7 months ago
Not if the windows of perception are fogged up by religion.
about 7 months ago
“Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values” (from Wikipedia). I guess everyone has a belief system of some sort – even if it’s a belief that there is no god. Fortunately not all spirituality is fucked up by “religion”.
about 7 months ago
I think spirituality is always fucked up. However, as opposed to religion I acknowledge that
1. I will never be able to prove spiritual stuff doesn’t exist
2. there are other beliefs even though I find that quite stupid
3. even my belief is possibly just as stupid as anyone elses belief
Actualy I don’t belive there is any correct belief since I’m not even sure there exists anything outside my consciousness so I don’t really have to care about anything except for what I like to care for (which is stuff like moral or science – I simply like them so I do them).
about 7 months ago
How do you decide what kind of moral code is appropriate then, when you aren’t sure things like happiness, harm, love, society, or human beings even exist? I’d be very interested to hear.
Would suicide, or writing funny articles about ducks be acceptable behaviors under that moral? Cuz if the universe is nothing and meaningless, what if some people actually believes that and are not blessed with a caring for moral and science, and as a result they do funny things? Should they be stopped even if their beliefs may be correct?
about 7 months ago
Milo can correct me if I’m wrong but I think he is basically saying that he is making an attempt to keep an open mind.
about 7 months ago
Kind of. Because I don’t see the possibility for a universal moral the only one I can follow is the one I choose. I do not see how my beliefs are better than others but since theirs aren’t betten than mine either and I can’t take everyones beliefs into consideration (contradictions) I choose to stick to mine. I haven’t actually thought about the cases you presetented and my flatmate is wating for me to watch a movie with him richt now so I dont have much time.
I think that if I think about it I’ll get to a stand on those issues that I’m happy with and until someone else shows me that I contradict myseld. Then I will have to rethink and I might even be unable to come up with a solution based on ma beliefs. In that case I either don’t decide or make the decision part of my beliefs as an exception.
Bruce is sort of right. I try to keep an open mind but not because I think this is universally better than being close minded but because I like openmindedness and like to do what I like in others so I try to be open minded.
Any clearer now?
about 7 months ago
this was all i could think of… :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EXPcBI4CJc8
about 7 months ago
If ever there was an argument against homeschooling… or perhaps drug use during pregnancy…
about 7 months ago
You forgot to include alcohol and/or smoking (nicotine) as well during pregnancy
about 7 months ago
I am only responding to this post, because of the absurdity of some of the responses to it.
First off, to the person who remarked about ducks, mallards in fact, only staying with a mate until the eggs are laid, well, that is not true. Ducks like wolves, mate for life, in fact that is one of their downfalls, because if one mate gets injured and cannot fly, the other will not leave it, causing the death of both.
Also I think most of you are taking this way to seriously and completely out of context.
I mean. c’mon, ducks taking over the world, this sounds like a bad Ed Wood movie, they don’t even have hands.
As far as I am concerned we have nothing to fear from our fine feathered friends, nah……it’s those freaking racoons we have to watch out for, y’know with those beady little masked eyes and those tiny fingers, and we know that they are all bisexual.
about 7 months ago
So, if a gay man weighs less than a duck, then he’s made out of wood?
And therefore…?
HE’S A WITCH!