Chris Broussard stands against Jason Collins beliefs

It started from me reading a bunch of posts and I posed a question. People bashing each other for believing differently. Bash away if it's belittling or demeaning but what gives people the right to say you are wrong for something you believe if there is no negativity towards a specific person. That's really all this is. I don't have a problem with people being gay, I just don't think it's right to be gay.

 

Having sex with a child is wrong because you are taking advantage of a human that has not entered proper age to make such decisions.
Having sex with a married women is wrong because you are causing emotional damage to another man.
Having sex with another consenting adult of the same sex is wrong because....

complete the sentence.

 

Ok, so if I say I believe it's a choice to be gay, that is that persons choice. They made a decision to have sex with another of the same sex, my morals tell me that's wrong. It's an individual concept, I'm not expecting anyone else to feel this way, that's just what I believe. In the state of Texas 17 years old can be adults, would you be ok with having sex with a consenting 17 year old if you were say 25. Some may say yes, I don't think that is right.

 

I figure people are taking your opinion further. For example, I'd wonder if you'd vote for laws that oppress gay people because it's wrong to you.

I'm not sure what value judgement makes being gay and consensual wrong. There are 6.5 billion people and still growing. We aren't living in the days of Leviticus where God's chosen people were forbidden to masturbate or boink other men to preserve their tribe.

 

The difference is that you and I both agree that having sex with children is wrong. The debate is at what age is a child considered an adult where they are mature enough to understand sex.

For everything I deem as morally wrong I can give you a reason. Give me a reason why two consenting adults of the same sex having sexual relations is morally wrong.

 

Those are not all completely true try the scenario in the above post, what if the married woman's husband is consenting would it still be ok? And I think it's wrong whether you do or not, that's been my whole point. I'm not asking you to try and prove different or think like me.

 

I'm pretty sure the guy is not the type to oppress gay people but I'm still curious of logic behind deeming the act "morally wrong".

 

I am interested in your personal experience with sexuality, not your idea of it in nature. Did you have a choice in your sexual orientation? It's a pretty simple question. If you didn't have a choice in being heterosexual, it is safe to assume that homosexuals had the same experience.

And the "you" I was referring to was...YOU! My comment was made in response to many of your posts.

 

Then of course it isn't wrong. Explain why it would be morally wrong?

 

You can give me easy reasons, that good people in general have. There are scenarios where it's convuluded. Be gay dude, I don't care if you are it's really ok, it shouldn't matter what I think. Be happy with who you are, I'm going to be. There are alot of things I don't agree or like with my loved ones but there still my loved ones. I never said anything bad about it, I just get tired of everyone telling people because they believe this way you're a bad person is all.

 

See that's the difference, I believe in marriage and I wouldn't want to have sex with someone that has taken a vow to be with one person even if they consented. That's morals. It's been a good discussion man, no ill feelings toward you.

 

I'm not gay if that is what you are implying. I'm just curious how some formulate their morality. My formula is basically "Treat others how you want to be treated".

 

I am a hetero man, I think I'm that way because that's what nature intends. I'm attracted to the opposite sex. You won't convince me that it isn't a choice, there is no science or fact behind it. And I'm not saying they can't have that choice, be gay I'm ok with the person being gay, I don't think being gay is right in my book that's it, no harm intended.
And you know as well as I do you were trying to blanket me in with hardcore anti-gay in that statement. I've had too many posts, not really a posting sort, I do try to answer everyone once I start though.

 

No I was saying in general, didn't mean to imply. That's exactly the same principles I live by, I don't treat anyone badly and if I do treat me the same. I don't expect everyone to agree with my actions, and if they feel strongly enough don't have anything to do with me, if it's something they can live with accept my actions and love me.
Never meant to be combative in these posts just talking.

 

I kind of see how you formulate your moral code. You base your moral code a good deal on customs and traditions. In my opinion using traditions as basis for moral code doesn't always work. Something like "treat others how you want to be treated" is more full proof. According that homosexuality is morally neutral.

 

I could see where you see that. I am probably more old fashioned than most my age, from how I was raised. I'm not an overly religous person though and I do form my own beliefs. I get where y'all are coming from, I really do and it's easy to get defensive on a sensitive subject, but I accept what you believe even if I don't agree with it.

 

I guess show some proof that it isn't. Every study seems to show that hormones are somehow related to sexual and gender orientation. Hormones would be biological. There are also experiments where scientists have been able to manipulate sexual orientation thru exposure to hormones. Secondly, show some proof that these animals are making consistent choices to become homosexual and live homosexual lives. Don't just try to dismiss it as being rare. It clearly is not rare in some species.

 

What annoys me about the phobes is that they think that being around a gay person means that the gay person is going to be attracted to them. even if the gay man is attracted, he is not going to go Adabesi on them.

 

Again read the article as it addresses what you are bringing up.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
[rquoter]When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.

"If a female has sex with a male one time, but thousands of times with another female, is she bisexual or homosexual? This is the same way to have children is not unknown among homosexual people."
[/rquoter]

Human homosexual couples will frequently still want to procreate and will either adopt, donate sperm to impregnate a surrogate, or become pregnant from a sperm donor. Apparently that behavior isn't much different from other species that show homosexuality. The point the article is making is while some of these animals may have sex a few times for procreation with the opposite gender for the most part they prefer sex and/or pair bonding with the same gender.

Whether you personally accept it is up to you. What I am specifically debating is whether there is a scientific basis for homosexuality. I agree that the science isn't absolutely definitive there is plenty of evidence to show that there is a scientific basis for homosexuality.

 

Once again it appears you didn't read the article I posted which shows that such cases are widespread. That the lack of prior documentation may actually be do to observer bias.

[rquoter]"To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

Petter Bockman regrets that there is too little research about homosexuality among animals.

"The theme has long been taboo. The problem is that researchers have not seen for themselves that the phenomenon exists or they have been confused when observing homosexual behaviour or that they are fearful of being ridiculed by their colleagues. Many therefore overlook the abundance of material that is found. Many researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles."

One example of overlooking behaviour noted by Petter Bockman is a description of mating among giraffes, when nine out of ten pairings occur between males.

"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings.[/rquoter]

If you are going to claim to have a scientific debate it would be helpful to at least read through the supporting evidence that is brought to the table.

If anything it seems like you are just ignoring the counter evidence that is brought and while yes this might be your own belief and thoughts it seems like a rather shallow and unexamined belief. For the record I don't think you are backwards or unintelligent but based on here it seems like you have not delved deeper into why you think this way and are just filtering out information that counters your view.