Naruto's Homosexuality - Page 58 - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums



Go Back   Fandom Forums > Anime & Manga > Naruto Series > Naruto Manga

Naruto Manga Talk about the manga series Naruto here! Remember, this is manga only. No anime!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-22-2010, 08:01 AM   #856
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

We're all nice guys.

We're just more selective in our niceness than most.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Miburo (06-22-2010), Tsuna (06-22-2010)


Old 06-22-2010, 02:18 PM   #857
Ero-Sage
Perverted Hermit
 
Ero-Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In a van down by the river.
Posts: 884
Thanks: 1,239
Thanked 379 Times in 215 Posts
Ero-Sage will become famous soon enoughEro-Sage will become famous soon enoughEro-Sage will become famous soon enough
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
From a strictly rational standpoint, saying your sexual preference is a choice is retarded. I know I didn't make a conscious decision to like chicks. I just get massive, city-destroying sized erections for hawt chicks. And my dong gets flaccid, while still being huge as fuck though, around fat chicks or dudes. It's not like I could say "Yo, I think fatties are hawt now. Boner time!" It doesn't work like that. You don't choose what you're attracted to.
It should be noted that I DO NOT agree with all of Scott's views (the hate gays movement is horrendous, that goes for that so called reverend phelps guy too.) but these simple logical arguments should be considered.

Excerpts from....

DEFEATING “GAY” ARGUMENTS WITH SIMPLE LOGIC
by Scott Lively

There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth.

The success of so-called “gay rights” is an amazing triumph of clever deception over simple logic. When it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely fall for arguments that just don’t hold up under scrutiny. “Gay” sympathizers aren’t necessarily more gullible than other people, they are simply tricked into accepting certain conclusions without first examining the underlying premises.

He who defines the terms controls the debate -- and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the “gay” movement. Sophistry, it must be noted, is the ancient Greek art of persuasion by subtly false reasoning. The key to overcoming sophistry is to simplify and clarify what the sophists have intentionally made complex and vague. That process begins by defining the terms and concepts being used in the arguments. One quickly discovers that most arguments advocating “gay rights” depend upon hidden false assumptions and deliberately ambiguous terms. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Among the most common terms and concepts in the “gay rights” debate are: homosexuality, sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and tolerance. These words and phrases are used by “gay” sophists to frame the question of homosexuality as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, “gay” arguments are easily refuted.

WHAT IS HOMOSEXUALITY?

Some people might be tempted to skip past this section because they think they understand this term. That is the first mistake made by every victim of “gay” sophistry. Failure to clarify the essential terms at the beginning allows one to be trapped by his or her own assumptions. It’s like signing a contract to buy a used car without clearly identifying the car.

The definition of homosexuality is not as settled as one might think.

Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct. The “gay” movement itself embraced this definition, in which the term “homosexuality” had meaning only in relation
to same-gender sexual behavior.

After 1986, the “gay” movement began to redefine homosexuality as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality, a state-of-being completely independent of conduct. Under the new definition, “straights” can choose same-gender sexual relations and “gays” can choose opposite-gender relations without any alteration of their true “sexual orientation.”

Why the change in strategy?

1986 was the year that the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld the right of states to criminalize homosexual conduct. The “gay” movement had argued that homosexual sodomy should be viewed by the court as a fundamental privacy right no different than marital sexual relations. The court firmly rejected that argument.

The constitutional right of states to regulate homosexual conduct remains the law of the land.

Thwarted in its goal to legitimize homosexual conduct as a fundamental right, the “gay” movement turned to the only other basis on which it could claim constitutional protection: minority status as a “suspect class.” The Supreme Court recognizes minority status only for those groups which 1) have suffered a history of discrimination, 2) are powerless to help themselves and 3) are defined by immutable characteristics.

This is the secret to understanding why the “gay” movement now denies that homosexuality is behavior based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. It is not science. It is a legal and political strategy.

The problem is that they can’t prove it.

There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is “gay.” We must depend entirely upon a person’s claim that his or her homosexuality is innate. The taint of political self-interest alone makes such evidence wholly untrustworthy. Self-declared homosexuals can’t even prove that they really believe that their homosexuality is innate. Instead, they argue that homosexuality must be innate because no one would choose to be “gay” and incur the resulting social stigma. This argument is invalid, since many people choose lifestyles that others condemn. Moreover, there are many homosexuals who freely admit that their lifestyle is a voluntary preference.

On the question of choice, it must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person’s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.

Since the “gay” movement can’t prove it, the assertion that homosexuals are “born that way” remains nothing but a hypothesis: one which provides no justification for abandoning long-standing, experiencetested social policies. Remember, society doesn’t have to prove that homosexuality is not innate. “Gay” activists are the ones attempting to change things and the burden of proof is theirs. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is not innate. There is a very considerable body of testimony from tens of thousands of men and women who once lived as homosexuals. These ex- “gays” have renounced their former lifestyles and many have become heterosexual in self-identification and desire, while others have stopped at the point of comfort with their own gender and freedom from same-sex
desires. The “gay” movement’s challenge to former homosexuals to, in essence, prove they aren’t still innately “gay” is the height of absurdity since homosexual immutability was never proven in the first place.

Why is the question of immutability so important? Because if homosexuality is not innate, it must be acquired. And if it can be acquired, we dare not allow homosexuality to be legitimized to our children. If there remains any shadow of doubt as to the cause of homosexuality, we must err on the side of protecting our children. Indeed we must actively discourage them from viewing homosexuality as safe and normal, when in fact it is demonstrably neither safe nor normal. It bears noting here that normalcy is functioning according to nature or design. Normalcy is not based on popular opinion.

To be cont.

Last edited by Ero-Sage; 06-22-2010 at 02:46 PM.
Ero-Sage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2010, 02:18 PM   #858
Ero-Sage
Perverted Hermit
 
Ero-Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In a van down by the river.
Posts: 884
Thanks: 1,239
Thanked 379 Times in 215 Posts
Ero-Sage will become famous soon enoughEro-Sage will become famous soon enoughEro-Sage will become famous soon enough
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

continued...

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

“Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.

An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc..

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why? Because to recognize other orientations -- pedophilia, for example -- would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.

This is most clearly seen in anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Government and corporate policy makers include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination policies in order to protect freedom of thought and speech on the basis of the claim that sexual orientation is nothing more than a state of mind. Americans rightfully cherish the First Amendment right to think and speak freely. The practical effect of
such policies, however, is to legitimize and protect any sexual conduct associated with an orientation. For example, under such policies a landlord is expected to rent to homosexuals even if they admit they intend to commit sodomy on the property and this is his sole reason for wanting to deny their application.

Why is this distinction between orientation and conduct so important? Because sexual conduct has serious public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate. In contrast, there are no public health implications to sexual orientation, properly defined. Even a pedophile’s orientation, abhorrent as it may be, is harmless to the public if he never acts upon it.

Policy makers could stop this end run around public health considerations by adding one sentence to existing anti-discrimination laws: “This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest.” The right to claim a sexual orientation should not automatically grant a license for sexual conduct.

Another purpose of sexual orientation theory is to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status. The notion of equivalency between homosexuality and heterosexuality is very important to “gay” arguments. For one thing it neutralizes health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality.
For example, it is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease. When reminded of this, “gay” sympathizers say, “Heterosexuals do the same things.” This isn’t a logical defense of homosexuality per se, since two wrongs don’t make a right. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not.

Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human. All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural. For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need to be rooted in its own homosexual physiology.

In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.

A second reason for espousing the premise of equivalency is that it allows “gay” activists to exploit the civil rights doctrines which otherwise would not apply. Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating equal parties unequally. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are assumed to be equal, then it is unfair to deny homosexuals all of the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy. “Gay” sophists have coined the term “heterosexism” to describe favoritism towards heterosexuals. To grasp the implications of heterosexism, simply think of it as “racism” toward homosexuals.

An anti-discrimination policy based upon sexual orientation is always the first step in the homosexual takeover of an organization because it locks in pro-“gay” assumptions. From the adoption of this policy, the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality is immutable, equivalent to heterosexuality, and deserving of special protections without regard to public health considerations. Criticism of these positions, or even failure to affirm them, can be considered violations of the policy. Where such a policy is enacted,
adoption of the rest of the homosexual political agenda is virtually inevitable. The conclusions are assured by the premises.

In summary, sexual orientation is a term that is used by “gay” activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexuality. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting “gay” presuppositions without challenge.
Ero-Sage is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ero-Sage For This Useful Post:
01purple (06-22-2010)
Old 06-22-2010, 02:19 PM   #859
Ero-Sage
Perverted Hermit
 
Ero-Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In a van down by the river.
Posts: 884
Thanks: 1,239
Thanked 379 Times in 215 Posts
Ero-Sage will become famous soon enoughEro-Sage will become famous soon enoughEro-Sage will become famous soon enough
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

DIVERSITY

Diversity is a code word for the political doctrine of multi-culturalism. By itself it means only “the variety of things,” but as used by the homosexual movement “diversity” is a moral statement about the way society ought to be: a harmonious social pluralism in which every culture is honored for its contribution to the whole. Thus feel-good emotionalism is harnessed to obscure deeply flawed reasoning.

Multi-culturalism, meaning the equality of cultures in a pluralistic society, is a valid concept if culture is defined by morally neutral criteria. Society should pursue civic equality based upon things like race, ethnic heritage and religion. But cultural practices are not morally neutral. Few of us would agree that the cultures of German Nazism, Soviet Communism, and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan are the equals of American culture. The “culture” of homosexuality – a way of life rooted in the practice of sodomy – is not equal to the inherited
family-based cultures of African-Americans, Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans.

The very inclusion of behavioral criteria in the definition of culture invalidates the premise of equality in multiculturalism.

DISCRIMINATION

Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. “Irrational” is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant
criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.

Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The “gay” movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.

In summary, discrimination has been useful to “gay” activists because the public is deeply conditioned to associate this term only with prejudice, especially racial prejudice.

TOLERANCE

Tolerance means putting up with someone or something you don’t like in order to serve the greater good of preserving civility. Tolerance is therefore an essential virtue in a diverse society. In the “gay” lexicon, however, tolerance means unconditional acceptance of homosexuality. Anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct is labeled intolerant, even those who treat self-defined “gays” with the utmost courtesy and respect.

Abuse of language is a dangerous thing. The misuse of the term tolerance is a good example. For every person that gives in to political correctness to avoid being considered intolerant, there is another whose strong disapproval of homosexuality makes him or her willing to be considered intolerant. The latter may even begin to see intolerance as a virtue, since it appears necessary to be intolerant to stop the legitimization of sexual perversion. This fosters a climate in which intolerance against legitimate minorities can be more
easily justified. As the “gays” have proved, many people just don’t think clearly enough to understand why intolerance of race and intolerance of perversion are different. This confusion serves the racists as easily as it serves the “gays.”

Some things deserve absolute tolerance and some things deserve zero tolerance but most fall somewhere in between. For example, our society should have high tolerance for freedom of speech (i.e. the right to say
“I’m gay”) but low tolerance for harmful behavior (i.e. sodomy). The tolerance a thing deserves is relative to the degree of benefit or harm that it will produce.

CONCLUSION

The heart of “gay” sophistry is the redefinition of homosexuality as a state-of-being and not a form of sexual behavior. This allows the “gay” movement to define homosexuals as a civil rights minority comparable to African-Americans and other groups whose minority status is based on truly immutable characteristics. In turn, this allows the “gay” movement to inherit and exploit all of the legal, political and social gains of the civil rights movement for its own ends.

Sexual orientation theory is the vehicle for “selling” the idea of homosexuality as normal and immutable. It creates a context in which sexuality can be divorced from physiology. Only by making the design and function of the human body irrelevant can “gay” strategists avoid otherwise self-evident truths about homosexuality.

All of the terms examined in this article, as applied to homosexuals, depend for their validity upon the theory of sexual orientation, which in turn depends upon the redefinition of homosexuality.
Ero-Sage is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ero-Sage For This Useful Post:
01purple (06-22-2010)
Old 06-22-2010, 02:34 PM   #860
kael03
Aspiring Physicist
 
Join Date: May 2010
Age: 28
Posts: 4,690
Thanks: 4,758
Thanked 8,712 Times in 3,841 Posts
kael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the rough
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ero-Sage View Post
Excerpts from....

DEFEATING “GAY” ARGUMENTS WITH SIMPLE LOGIC
by Scott Lively

There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth.
I stopped reading here.

Scott Lively is a Christian bigot that actually believes homosexuals formed the Nazis. He co-authored the book "The Pink Swastika" which has the preface "homosexuals are the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities." He and co-author Kevin E. Abrams had claims and very selective research that was criticized by numerous academic historians.

The group he founded, "Abiding Truth Ministries", has been regarded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In no way is his "logic" simple or neutral.
kael03 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to kael03 For This Useful Post:
AOTKorby (06-22-2010), Mal (06-22-2010), Miburo (06-22-2010), Numinous (06-22-2010), Servo (06-23-2010), T9F (06-23-2010), Tsuna (06-22-2010), Tzu Men (06-22-2010), Vengeance (06-23-2010)
Old 06-22-2010, 02:38 PM   #861
MajorStranger
I.Q. over 9000!!!!!!!!!!!
 
MajorStranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 479
Thanks: 40
Thanked 312 Times in 144 Posts
MajorStranger will become famous soon enoughMajorStranger will become famous soon enough
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

It must be the same guy who said Obama was a Nazi
__________________


Proof of NaruHina
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5496615/1/My_Naruhina_rant
MajorStranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2010, 02:38 PM   #862
Ero-Sage
Perverted Hermit
 
Ero-Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In a van down by the river.
Posts: 884
Thanks: 1,239
Thanked 379 Times in 215 Posts
Ero-Sage will become famous soon enoughEro-Sage will become famous soon enoughEro-Sage will become famous soon enough
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by kael03 View Post
I stopped reading here.

Scott Lively is a Christian bigot that actually believes homosexuals formed the Nazis. He co-authored the book "The Pink Swastika" which has the preface "homosexuals are the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities." He and co-author Kevin E. Abrams had claims and very selective research that was criticized by numerous academic historians.

The group he founded, "Abiding Truth Ministries", has been regarded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In no way is his "logic" simple or neutral.

I'm not condoning his hate group and I don't hate homosexuals. That is why I only took the most logical excerpts from this paper. People in here were screaming that no logical arguments existed. I'm merely presenting some. Fuck all that nazi bullshit.
Ero-Sage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2010, 02:41 PM   #863
Tsuna
♪S♥NE~소녀시대♪♪
 
Tsuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 22
Posts: 4,221
Thanks: 193
Thanked 2,470 Times in 1,137 Posts
Tsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

Wow, you're fucking retarded if you think that posting all that bullshit will make us believe you're right.


I could post just as much shit from scientific journals that prove homosexuality as something someone is born with - i.e., written in DNA, difference in brain chemistry between homosexuals and heterosexuals, etc etc. But posting all that shit doesn't automatically mean my argument is irrefutably correct.

Nice try though - posting someone else's shit to "argue" for you when you fail so hard at doing it yourself.

edit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ero-Sage
I'm not condoning his hate group and I don't hate homosexuals. That is why I only took the most logical excerpts from this paper. People in here were screaming that no logical arguments existed. I'm merely presenting some.
Wait, back up. Did you even READ all that shit you posted? Half of that shit wasn't logic, it was just slanted opinion with "proof" in the form of random incidents to back it up.

Last edited by Tsuna; 06-22-2010 at 02:43 PM.
Tsuna is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Tsuna For This Useful Post:
KatrinaKatt (06-22-2010), Mal (06-22-2010), Miburo (06-22-2010), Servo (06-23-2010), Vengeance (06-23-2010)
Old 06-22-2010, 02:48 PM   #864
kael03
Aspiring Physicist
 
Join Date: May 2010
Age: 28
Posts: 4,690
Thanks: 4,758
Thanked 8,712 Times in 3,841 Posts
kael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the rough
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ero-Sage View Post
I'm not condoning his hate group and I don't hate homosexuals.
If this is true, why are you arguing that homosexuality is a sin? You've been spouting hate in the form of a "religious" belief for several pages in this thread. Each time you've posted, someone has come in and shot you down. Mainly Tsuna, who is openly lesbian.

Quote:
That is why I only took the most logical excerpts from this paper.
I'll stop you right here. Again, in no way is Scott Lively "logical" in his writings. FFS he said homosexuals CREATED the Nazis. By the way... Nazis persecuted homosexuals just as badly as they persecuted the Jewish people. Hell, one of Hitler's generals stated, and I quote, "We must exterminate these people root and branch ... the homosexual must be eliminated." upon his promotion by Hitler. How in the hell is that logical in any form??

Quote:
People in here were screaming that no logical arguments existed.
Because they don't. There are no unbiased logical arguments against homosexuality.

Quote:
I'm merely presenting some.
Which are laughable at best.

Quote:
Fuck all that nazi bullshit.
While I agree with this statement, the fact that Lively associated the creation of the Nazis and you using one of his writings to create "logical arguments" discredits everything you've posted about the topic.

Last edited by kael03; 06-22-2010 at 03:37 PM.
kael03 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to kael03 For This Useful Post:
KatrinaKatt (06-22-2010), Miburo (06-22-2010), Numinous (06-22-2010), Servo (06-23-2010), T9F (06-24-2010), Tsuna (06-22-2010), Vengeance (06-23-2010)
Old 06-22-2010, 03:03 PM   #865
KatrinaKatt
▫◊▫ Uchiha Kitty ▫◊▫
 
KatrinaKatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 431
Thanks: 125
Thanked 106 Times in 51 Posts
KatrinaKatt is a jewel in the roughKatrinaKatt is a jewel in the roughKatrinaKatt is a jewel in the roughKatrinaKatt is a jewel in the roughKatrinaKatt is a jewel in the roughKatrinaKatt is a jewel in the rough
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

Ero, I'm just going to tell you right now that you probably either didn't read that or didn't bother to understand/question what any of it meant.

Do you KNOW who this guy is, or did you just type it in google?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia; Scott Lively
Scott Lively is the president of conservative Christian organization the "Abiding Truth Ministries" where he is described as "one of the most knowledgeable and articulate opponents of the homosexual agenda in America".

Along with Kevin E. Abrams, he co-authored the book The Pink Swastika, which states in the preface that "homosexuals the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities." Several academic historians have questioned the book's claims and selective use of research.

He has proposed criminalizing the "advocacy of homosexuality" and been linked to the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
I highlighted the important parts for you. This guy believes gay people are more or less the devil incarnate. Which is an absurd philosophy.

Quote:
Since the “gay” movement can’t prove it, the assertion that homosexuals are “born that way” remains nothing but a hypothesis: one which provides no justification for abandoning long-standing, experiencetested(sic) social policies.
You cannot prove God exists, but the effects through history are felt just the same. We cannot prove we were born that way, but we find that Homosexual behavior is present in almost all mammals, and is not dependent on time.

Quote:
...There is a very considerable body of testimony from tens of thousands of men and women who once lived as homosexuals. These ex-
“gays” have renounced their former lifestyles and many have become heterosexual in self-identification and desire, while others have stopped at the point of comfort with their own gender and freedom from same-sex
desires. The “gay” movement’s challenge to former homosexuals to, in essence, prove they aren’t still innately “gay” is the height of absurdity since homosexual immutability was never proven in the first place.
Let me tell you this right now. Life is hard enough, but even harder when you have to face negative views from society everyday. Lots of people wish they weren't gay, and some of those that wish so hard, get stuck living a lie. Did you know this same argument is used in courts today?

That quote says, EVERYONE is normal, if they choose to be. You can CHOOSE many things in life: What car you drive, what you eat, when you go to work out, who your friends are, etc... There is a double agenda at work here: Exploiting the nature of certain gay people who are so ashamed (usually by the ridicule of friends and family) at the way they are, try to become something they are not. Then, you have the Christians that are desperately seeking these people out, so that they can make this very same argument. People in general WANT TO FIT IN, or be accepted in society. If someone told me that Blue shoes are ugly, but I liked them, then ..|.., them; but gay people cannot just "take off" shoes like me, they love who they love.

Anyway, in short: If a guy holds a gun to my head, and asks me to pretend I'm a Pig and wallow in the mud, I just might do it. Same can be said about the Gay people who are ashamed with their way of life-- they're controlled and motivated by fear to become something that they are not, nor feel anything for.

-----

In short: I can't believe I actually read this load of crap. You're trying to make an argument here, but guess what? All you can do is post an "excerpt" which is more like an essay, instead of taking facts from that essay and making points YOURSELF.

...But, considering what kind of guy Scott Lively is, I'm more surprised that you even posted such a biased essay to try to justify some kind of point that you were trying to make, yet were unable to do yourself.

/fail
__________________

Uchiha Kitty ^.^
WARNING: Looking into her eyes MAY forcefully cause you to add to her Reputation
(And, receive some back as a result!... Make sure to leave your name!)


Mission: Deliver this Top Secret Scroll
Do not open!


Bzzzzzt!

As you open the scroll you realize it's a trap! A bright light flashes, and you feel the uncontrollable urge to pass Reputation to KatrinaKatt.

Hours later, after the scroll's power wears off on you, you realize what had happened. "Darn it!! That Uchiha Kitty got me again!"

Curiosity killed the Cat, after all.

Last edited by KatrinaKatt; 06-22-2010 at 03:05 PM.
KatrinaKatt is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KatrinaKatt For This Useful Post:
Miburo (06-22-2010), Numinous (06-22-2010), Tsuna (06-22-2010), Vengeance (06-23-2010)
Old 06-22-2010, 03:27 PM   #866
Numinous
Writing speed: snail
 
Numinous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

Wait, Scott Lively and logic applied in the name of a thesis? Let me laugh.

Oh wait, you think this thesis is valid enough to make a point? Let me laugh harder.

Let me see if I can pick a stupid excerpt that Tsuna, Katrinakatt and Kael03 didn't point out... oh I got one.

Quote:
All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural.
So wait, our organs can't be used for something else than what their meant for? Poor hair designers, tattooers, plastic surgeons and daredevils that pulls buses with their teeth, they'll run out of business! And not talking about all the evidence of gay relationships in the animal realm.
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3







Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
KatrinaKatt (06-22-2010), Miburo (06-22-2010), Servo (06-23-2010), Vengeance (06-23-2010)
Old 06-22-2010, 04:11 PM   #867
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

ITT: Everyone fails at logic. Mostly Ero-sage and the dumbshit guy he quoted, but also a few of you other guys. Doesn't matter if the guy is a moron. Even a total moron can get shit right sometimes. You can't dismiss an argument simply because of the person who made it. Fortunately, his argument isn't logical, so it all works out. But still.

Also, I'll move all these posts to a different thread later. For now, I'll ruin some shit. Not going to respond to every single thing, since most of it hinges on key points, which I'll address. Or it's just retarded and doesn't deal with the actual topic of homosexuality being morally wrong. If you want me to address a particular point that I skip, Ero, I'll be more than happy to destroy anything this tard said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ero-Sage View Post
On the question of choice, it must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person’s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.
This is correct. A person's preference isn't a conscious choice, but the choice to act on that preference is. And yes, the mere desire does not justify the act. The fact that homosexual intercourse is consensual and harms no one, however, does. Which this guy doesn't seem to get.

Not that it even matters if it's a choice or not, since choosing to do something is only wrong if someone can logically prove it's wrong. Which no one can do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ero-Sage View Post
Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human. All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural. For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need to be rooted in its own homosexual physiology.
For this to mean ANYTHING RELEVANT, one would have to prove that anything "abnormal and unnatural" is somehow wrong. Good luck with that. Organ transplants aren't natural. Surgery isn't natural. Flying in airplanes isn't natural. Birth control isn't natural. Etc.

And heterosexual sex for non-reproductive purposes is perfectly acceptable in society. There are people who get married that are unable to have children, or don't want children, etc.

And there are tons of documented cases of homosexuality in nature as well.
Quote:
In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.

No. Children and animals cannot consent to sex. Homosexuality is in no way morally equivalent. It's equivalent to heterosexual sex without intent to procreate. Period. If homosexual sex is wrong, then heterosexual sex with a form of birth control is wrong. Again, good luck arguing that case.


This guy is a moron, and he hasn't proven that homosexuality is morally wrong. Like I said, you can't prove it's wrong logically. No one can. Because it isn't.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Ero-Sage (06-22-2010), KatrinaKatt (06-22-2010), ninjalostboy95 (06-22-2010), Numinous (06-22-2010), Tsuna (06-22-2010), Vengeance (06-23-2010)
Old 06-22-2010, 06:51 PM   #868
Ero-Sage
Perverted Hermit
 
Ero-Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In a van down by the river.
Posts: 884
Thanks: 1,239
Thanked 379 Times in 215 Posts
Ero-Sage will become famous soon enoughEro-Sage will become famous soon enoughEro-Sage will become famous soon enough
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

^the only respectable response so far....thanks Mibz.....you make strong points.

Being that morality is relative from a secular point of view and absolute from a particular religions point of view the only chance we have at getting along and accepting each other is to accept each other as equal persons and ignore each others beliefs and practices. How about we leave it at that and carry on with how Naruto could possibly be gay.
Ero-Sage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2010, 07:15 PM   #869
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ero-Sage View Post
An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc.
I'd like to point out a huge fact which you missed here, Miburo:

Paedophilia is not an "orientation," and the same goes for sadomasochism. I won't bother with the exact psychological definitions, but they are in fact a philia and a fetish, respectively. Certainly having a foot fetish isn't a sexual orientation, so it's painfully obvious this guy is using the same "sophist" tactics he accuses homosexuals of using.



I actually kind of want to completely obliterate his arguments, but I don't have the time right now. Maybe later.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2010, 07:20 PM   #870
Tsuna
♪S♥NE~소녀시대♪♪
 
Tsuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 22
Posts: 4,221
Thanks: 193
Thanked 2,470 Times in 1,137 Posts
Tsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond reputeTsuna has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Naruto's Homosexuality

I'd pay to see that, Doug.
Tsuna is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tsuna For This Useful Post:
Miburo (06-22-2010), ninjalostboy95 (06-22-2010), Numinous (06-22-2010)
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
naruto's fate Grimmjow Naruto Manga 30 02-15-2010 07:16 PM
Naruto's Parents Naruto Uzumaki 12 Hall of Fail 6 01-11-2008 05:23 PM
Naruto's Key to Power The Special One Naruto Manga 14 12-18-2007 04:06 PM
Naruto's new jutsu: Adding wind element to rasengan. <DaNTe> Naruto Manga 94 09-19-2006 04:56 PM
Do you think that the forth Hokage is Naruto's Father? Black_Kyuubi Naruto Anime 94 02-10-2005 08:11 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.