Chris Broussard stands against Jason Collins beliefs

Yeah, but gender is determined at the time of fertilization. Long before any of the reproductive organs actually develop.

 

This statement is so dumb. Not trying to attack you, just pointing out how dumb and convoluted this statement is.

First, you believe you are heterosexual because that's nature's intention
Conversely, you believe homosexuals are that way not because it was nature's intention, but by choice. Ok, sure.. whatever.
Then you go on to note how you just won't be convinced of it not being a choice.
Only to follow it up with noting how your position is in no way based on reality, only random feelings you have.

Do you also not believe the earth is round and circles the sun, or that evolution and gravity exist, or global warming is real?

Damn those facts! F'em... just believe whatever you want. Makes much much much much more sense!!!

 

I was coming in here to respond to that post, but you already did a perfect job.

And I wouldn't peg you as being hardcore anti-gay, cmoak1982, if you didn't already sound that way...

 

I gave a very logical and reasonable answer to the choice vs genes argument, I find it very telling he ignored that post and others pointing out the points I made.....while he managed to answer all the other ones.

very telling indeed.

 

I like the fact that it's almost always a different person going the distance and constantly posting.

A while ago it was bobmarle being hardcore religious and spamming anti gay posts, now it's this cmoak1982 dude.

They takin' turns.

 

I realize that part, what he was referring to was the time when genitals are formed. Hormones released have an affect on the sex during that time. Not all male sperm or female sperm become that sex.

 

It's really not like that, I'm not a big poster at all. I just read a bunch of posts and posed a question, really not trying to instigate anything. I said I am accepting of people being gay, I just don't agree with it. Doesn't mean I'm judging them or think they're going to hell or any of that stuff, it's just my opinion. To each it's own man, and I thought a healthy un-angry discussion was fine. That's what happened.

 

I didn't see a post of yours that had anything to do with genes. Your logic tells you it's biological, mine doesn't, it's still opinion. Once again I'm not bashing gay people, they have the right to be gay.

 

Science is just opinion, after all.

 

It's easy to pick a statement out of an entire post and make it what you want to make it. I've already explained my logic behind it, in nature all animals are here to reproduce or they die out. That's reality. Stop trying to bring other topics into a simple discussion. The original discussion was why must people who think one way (don't think being gay is moral or right) have to accept the other way of thinking, and that acceptance isn't reciprocated. I've never bashed gays, I've accepted friends/family that were gay I still don't think it's right.

 

Real science can be proven with substantial evidence to any query. Rare occurences of homosexuality in animals is not substantial evidence, it may turn out that there is a gay gene, right now with all the technology that we have that hasn't been proven. When or if it does I will accept that, until then I have the belief that it's choice.

 

Just like anything people are going to disagree. The truth is whether you want to admit it or not you can't know which is true, so it's belief or opinion. I've been polite to everyone and listened to their opinions or evidence to the contrary of mine. I didn't say they were stupid to think that way or feel that way. Been a good discussion. I won't peg anyone into a stereotype or group, just talking.

 

Ignoring facts doesn't make your position an opinion.

Provide anything that shows being homosexual is always a choice.

If you don't want to provide that at least respond to my post and say "I have nothing to show that states homosexuality is always a choice."

 

As has been pointed out, if being gay is a choice, then being heterosexual is also a choice. I never chose to be attracted to females, but that's what happened. My attraction, desire to mate with and touch is purely to females. I didn't in any way choose that.

You have kind of addressed it, but it never seemed to really explain your position that it isn't a choice to be heterosexual only to be homosexual. That doesn't logic doesn't make sense to me.

I will give you props because you've been sticking around trying to answer a lot of questions and it's all those still posting who have roughly the same opinion and you are the only one still posting with a different opinion.

 

I'm still unsure you know what you're talking about. Hormones released in the first trimester have absolutely no bearing on if someone is a male or female. Gender is determined at the time of fertilization - period. The zygote chromosomes are either XY or XX. This doesn't change based on some hormones that get released later in the pregnancy, so I really don't know what you're referring to.

 

Read up on it. Yes in the sense of chromosomes that is the case, but there are times when estrogen doesn't convert to testorsterone to produce male genitalia and produces hermaphrodites, that's the period when there are a lot of birth "defects" not really the right word but best I can come up with. That
s the period we were talking about, I realize what you're saying with chromosomes and zygotes being male or female, I do, I'm talking literally about the physiological transformation.

 

Not ignoring facts, ignoring speculation, just like I don't have proof you find logical or believe you don't believe my proof or line of thinking it's all speculation, I've already said this neither of the differing parties really has the truth only what you think is the truth.

 

It's a tricky subject, and I'm not near as divisive as most. I see y'alls line of thinking and it does make me think too, I still feel my way though. I hate posting, definitely more of a reader been that way for a long time, it's been good talking to most of you, the level headed types.

 

First of all, nothing is proven in science. That's not how science works.

Secondly, let's suppose you're right and being gay is merely a choice and has nothing to do with the person's physiology. If that's true, that would mean being not gay is also a choice. ...

Edit: OK, others have brought up the same point, so never mind.

OK, I'll make another point. Even straight men aren't attracted to the same thing. I'm attracted to certain types of women, and you may be attracted to different types of women. For some, big breasts are a major factor, for others it isn't. Are those differences in what we're attracted to "choices", or something that runs deeper? It may not be due to genetics, but characterizing it as a choice doesn't make sense. You can't choose to be attracted to anything.

 

This argument about nature is stupid. Can someone please explain why natural is automatically a "good" trait? I'd like to hear a justification. I simply don't accept the premise.