Do you think conservatives will ever accept h*mosexuality?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]lol?

Pirate700

Wow I never knew you were gay Pirate. :o:P

Maybe you should let xaos know about this. :P

That was a pretty bad attempt. No Offense. Snipes_2

your capitalisation is a pretty bad attempt

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Wow I never knew you were gay Pirate. :o:P

chessmaster1989

Maybe you should let xaos know about this. :P

Man, I hope you have a flame shield for that link. Guaranteed someone claims bias within the first few responses. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]How is a system when straight and gay couples can have civil partnerships but only straight couples can marry 'equal'? It clearly establishes marriage as above civil partnership. You're no libertarian.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] That was a pretty bad attempt. No Offense. flordeceres

your capitalisation is a pretty bad attempt

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Man, I hope you have a flame shield for that link. Guaranteed someone claims bias within the first few responses. Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Man, I hope you have a flame shield for that link. Guaranteed someone claims bias within the first few responses. Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="flordeceres"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] That was a pretty bad attempt. No Offense. Snipes_2

your capitalization is a pretty bad attempt

Your spelling is a pretty bad attempt ;)

Snipes_2

i am aghast by the fact that an english speaking person doesn't acknowledge, let alone recognise the differentiating spelling variations present in his mother tongue

r u ok

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Your spelling is a pretty bad attempt ;)

flordeceres

i am aghast by the fact that an english speaking person doesn't acknowledge, let alone recognise the differentiating spelling variations present in his mother tongue

r u ok

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS354&q=Capitilisation&aq=f&aqi=g-s1g1g-s1g1g-s5g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=Cqs7ApzWRTJG5O6aQMrfN-bAOAAAAqgQFT9BDJPI

Correct. In the same way though that private companies can have separate restrooms for men and women, states can call a legal contract between two individuals a marriage if the individuals are of the opposite sex and a civil union if they're not.

I read it. Here is the paragraph in context. Highlighted is his secular alternative reason for being against homosexuality.

For the Christian, that authority is the God whose will is expressed through the Bible and the traditions of the Church - both of which expressly condemn homosexuality. Indeed, none of the world's major religions approve of homosexuality. For the nonreligious, the highest source of authority is the natural law. Homosexuality transgresses natural law by subverting the propagation of the species. The consequences of transgressing natural law are often obvious; if you touch fire, you will be burned. Surely, the long list of diseases associated with homosexuality is evidence of causation.

[QUOTE="flordeceres"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Your spelling is a pretty bad attempt ;)

Snipes_2

i am aghast by the fact that an english speaking person doesn't acknowledge, let alone recognise the differentiating spelling variations present in his mother tongue

r u ok

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Your spelling is a pretty bad attempt ;)

i am aghast by the fact that an english speaking person doesn't acknowledge, let alone recognise the differentiating spelling variations present in his mother tongue

r u ok

Capitalization is the only spelling I know of. Type it in. Recognize however can be spelled both ways.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS354&q=Capitilisation&aq=f&aqi=g-s1g1g-s1g1g-s5g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=Cqs7ApzWRTJG5O6aQMrfN-bAOAAAAqgQFT9BDJPI

Snipes_2

you misspelled capitalisation

i commend your evasive abilities

The consequences of transgressing natural law are often obvious; if you touch fire, you will be burned. Surely, the long list of diseases associated with homosexuality is evidence of causation.Site posted by Genetic_Code

Oh boy. Let me guess: AIDS is a member of that list?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="flordeceres"]

i am aghast by the fact that an english speaking person doesn't acknowledge, let alone recognise the differentiating spelling variations present in his mother tongue

r u ok

HAHAITHINKNOT

No, Actually.

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Capitalization is the only spelling I know of. Type it in. Recognize however can be spelled both ways.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS354&q=Capitilisation&aq=f&aqi=g-s1g1g-s1g1g-s5g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=Cqs7ApzWRTJG5O6aQMrfN-bAOAAAAqgQFT9BDJPI

flordeceres

you misspelled capitalisation

i commend your evasive abilities

You misspelt 'capitalisation'. Well done, really.super_mario_128

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="flordeceres"]

i am aghast by the fact that an english speaking person doesn't acknowledge, let alone recognise the differentiating spelling variations present in his mother tongue

r u ok

super_mario_128

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Capitalization is the only spelling I know of. Type it in. http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS354&q=Capitilisation&aq=f&aqi=g-s1g1g-s1g1g-s5g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=Cqs7ApzWRTJG5O6aQMrfN-bAOAAAAqgQFT9BDJPISnipes_2

No, Actually.

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp

OK guys, if you want to go argue about the spelling of "capitalization", please go do it somewhere else. :P

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]You misspelt 'capitalisation'. Well done, really.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]You misspelt 'capitalisation'. Well done, really.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]You misspelled capitalisation :lol:HAHAITHINKNOT

No, Actually.

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp

"The Oxford spelling (which can be indicated by the registered IANA language tag en-GB-oed), and thus -ize, is used in many British-based academic publications, such as Nature, the Biochemical Journal and The Times Literary Supplement." Spelled with "Ize" in America. GG.Snipes_2

No.

'British usage accepts both -ize and -ise'

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Capitalization is the only spelling I know of. Type it in. http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS354&q=Capitilisation&aq=f&aqi=g-s1g1g-s1g1g-s5g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=Cqs7ApzWRTJG5O6aQMrfN-bAOAAAAqgQFT9BDJPISnipes_2

flordeceres

OK, any more posts about spelling will be moderated for being off-topic. :P

Back on topic, please...

Yes, no one's denying that they have the legal authority to do so - the problem is over whether they SHOULD.HAHAITHINKNOT

Well, I resort to tradition in this case, because now you're talking about definitions and not legality nor morality and tradition is essential in defining terms. Marriage in the U.S. has predominantly been between a man and a woman in the same sense that a desk has been traditionally been defined as a table used to work on. If you want to redefine marriage: fine, so be it. You might as well throw the whole dictionary out. I believe that the purpose of a dictionary is to be descriptive as opposed to being prescriptive. Many dictionaries now define marriage as being between just two individuals. Some dictionaries make two different individuals, denoting a difference between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage. The point is that these dictionaries are being prescriptive and not descriptive in these cases, since same-sex marriage is predominantly illegal in the states.

Eh? Natural law has primarily been a religious thing - the Catholic Church, for example, is rather fond of invoking it. Natural law is little more than an entire system of morality elaborately constructed around the naturalistic fallacy.Genetic_Code

I don't think so, especially considering that it's called "natural law" and not "supernatural law". Perhaps the Catholic Church has invoked it, but only to base their teachings universally to appeal to everyone to lure them into the church. That's what I would think they would use it for.

Marriage in the U.S. has predominantly been between a man and a woman in the same sense that a desk has been traditionally been defined as a table used to work on. If you want to redefine marriage: fine, so be it. You might as well throw the whole dictionary out.Genetic_Code

For the majority of American history, marriage in the US has been defined to be between a man and a woman of the same race.

Just sayin'.

For the majority of American history, marriage in the US has been defined to be between a man and a woman of the same race.

Just sayin'.

GabuEx

From what I understand, they consider natural law to be ultimately linked to God because he created nature, and thus the unnatural is a perversion of God's creation. All of which, of course, falls apart for the atheist who realises that 'unnatural' need not mean 'immoral'.HAHAITHINKNOT

INCORRECT. There was no doubt that interracial marriages were marriages. The definition of those marriages weren't questioned, but the legality of it was. That's a huge step. That's like saying marijuana is not a drug, so we should legalize it.Genetic_Code

So then all we're doing is changing the legality of same-sex marriage. People can continue to define marriage however they like. If the legality of a form of marriage does not affect the definition of marriage, then you cannot claim that legalizing same-sex marriage changes the definition of marriage.

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]From what I understand, they consider natural law to be ultimately linked to God because he created nature, and thus the unnatural is a perversion of God's creation. All of which, of course, falls apart for the atheist who realises that 'unnatural' need not mean 'immoral'.Genetic_Code

Morality is subjective.

If you define 'accept homosexuality' as accepting it as something you have the right to do, then most conservatives already accept it. If you define 'accept homosexuality' as accepting it as being just as good as heterosexuality, then most conservatives will probably never accept it.

So then all we're doing is changing the legality of same-sex marriage. People can continue to define marriage however they like. If the legality of a form of marriage does not affect the definition of marriage, then you cannot claim that legalizing same-sex marriage changes the definition of marriage.

GabuEx

1. Prove that 'unnatural' implies 'immoral'. 2. Is it natural for humans to fly? If not, is it moral for humans to use airplanes?HAHAITHINKNOT

Well, I disagree, mainly because definitions are often set by tradition and in the U.S, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Race was never a factor. By the way, sorry I responded back "incorrect" in all caps. I was in the moment. I feel bad for having yelled at you. :PGenetic_Code

No problem. :P

But I don't see how that follows. You just established the absence of a link between the legality of a form of marriage and the definition of marriage. Before and after the legality of interracial marriage, the definition of marriage was the same, according to you. So then how exactly does legalizing same-sex marriage affect the definition of marriage? Either the legality of forms of marriage affects the definition of marriage, or it does not. You can't have it one way and then later another way just because it's convenient.

1. It's an anti-concept. You're acting against the man you should be. Being a man comes with responsibilities. These responsibilities are to succeed as an individual without causing injury to or accepting help from anyone else. They have to be your own accomplishments. 2. No. Using airplanes does not mean humans are granted the ability to fly by themselves. They are simply flying through the use of a plane. Humans are resourceful and as such, they can use their talents to achieve in the world.Genetic_Code

Whence does this "should" come?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

So then all we're doing is changing the legality of same-sex marriage. People can continue to define marriage however they like. If the legality of a form of marriage does not affect the definition of marriage, then you cannot claim that legalizing same-sex marriage changes the definition of marriage.

Genetic_Code

1. Prove that 'unnatural' implies 'immoral'. 2. Is it natural for humans to fly? If not, is it moral for humans to use airplanes?HAHAITHINKNOT

For what reasons do you call homosexuality 'unnatural'?