Gay Marriage and Gay Couples having children (through surrogate, adoption etc) (1 Viewer)

[Lolsmith]

I would go against as that child would get bullied and ridiculed at primary/ secondary school.

this is the dumbest argument ever made in this topic of discussion

Asian kids don't get bullied.

hahahahhahahahHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

No biologists have given a reasonable explanation for how homosexuality could have an evolutionary advantage and be selected for.

so what

this means literally nothing

 

[LANADELREY]

so what

this means literally nothing

it means it might be caused by something spread between people and we shouldn't let kids be exposed to it, since it's a mental disorder that decreases to a high level your chances of breeding (which is pretty much the whole point of living).

 

[Kiraken]

it means it might be caused by something spread between people and we shouldn't let kids be exposed to it, since it's a mental disorder that decreases to a high level your chances of breeding (which is pretty much the whole point of living).

I am not aware of homosexuality having some sort of genetic basis tbh. Either way, that is irrelevant. How is something being genetic even a problem lol? Almost everything is? Is it because its uncommon? Should we discriminate against blue-eyed people too?

Homosexuality was actually removed in 1977 or so iirc from the DSM, so no, it is not classified as a mental disorder because after extensive research scientists and doctors concluded it wasnt.

Defining the worth of your life solely by your capacity to have offspring, how sad. I dont mean to get all philosophical about the meaning of life, but the purpose of an individual's existence shouldn't just be the creation of other individuals

 

[Spiritual Being]

this is the dumbest argument ever made in this topic of discussion


hahahahhahahahHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

so what

this means literally nothing

In any such debate, regardless of the topic discussed, it is to be conducted with mutual fairness; an equaled ability for both sides to present their arguments and initiate a rebuttal-type response. If you are going to be dismissive of any opposing proposition, and purport opposing opinions as "the dumbest argument" or "this means nothing" in an attempt to falsely present their insubstantial nature, it only serves to highlight the weakness in your reasoning. Not only are you making a rush to judgment and dismissing valid opinions, your evident lack of justification for why it is "the dumbest argument" or "hahaha" or "this means literally nothing" is just as useful as you not contributing at all.

Building onto what Landadelrey was alluding to, you are neglecting the implications of same-sex marriage on the normative operation of society. In recent times, 'acceptance' (as such) of same-sex couples not only has driven statutory reform to accommodate for this premise, but has also created a 'culture of acceptance' surrounding the ideology. The general population are being inclined to sexually explore the same gender, and take it even further to a state of desiring to marry someone of the same gender and continue the progression of their lives on this referred premise. Of course, how wonderful? Anyone who opposes such is the 'inhibitor of freedom', the 'disaster of society', 'in love with an ancient book that stretches back thousands of years ago'.

With the aforementioned provided as a swift response to anyone who opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage (or the ideology itself), society has supported and advertently initiated the growth of the 'gay population'. This does not occur without implications of the operation of society. Gay marriage reduces the population base in society, and therefore continues to lessen the strength our normative operation. You cannot naturalistically have two individuals of the same gender and create a child without some form of external interference. It opposes naturalistic procreation. Ultimately, the population base that is produced will be out of civilized order, and this formulates a problematic series of arising circumstances pertaining to the lack of support from both parents. I am not going to quote any verse from the Bible or the Quran and try to formulate distant links in a contemporaneous matter that are instantaneously put into question by any Atheist which places no to little value on these 'ancient instructions' or 'ancient moral codes'. It is the fundamental observation from a psychological perspective. The support of both parents are critical to the raising of a child. Hypothetically, when a father passes away and leaves a young son, one is always to question "who is the masculine figure in his life?". The father and the mother have differing complementary roles, and no impersonation of either parent, can bring this impersonation to the authenticity of the original paradigm. By imposing statutory gay marriage, it is the encouragement and promotion of this premise to occur at an increased and lawful rate. One can argue that the divorce rate has increased profoundly in recent times, and therefore, is it not the identical presentation of the same premise with one parent, unable to effectively raise the child psychologically on their own? Such a proposition is flawed, on the basis of the legal interference that helps to helps to remedy the situation. The law strives to ensure that the child has a relationship with both parents (i.e. parenting plan, custodial arrangements or whatever may be implemented to satisfy the circumstance of a mutual relationship). Gay marriage inhibits any legal interference from occurring to ensure that the child has a relationship with both parents of the differing gender, because they are the same-sex; it is the irreversible destruction of the opportunity of the law to remedy the negative circumstance.

It opposes the laws of nature, it neglects the paradigm of which we are naturally designed to fulfill and it is the fundamental moralization of an immoral ideology. Of course, immoral?, are you out of your mind?, where do you get that from? I am not going to sit here and quote the Bible or the Qur'an and say that a specific Biblical or Qur'anic instruction should be forced onto the rest of the population, but rather, I will create a link that we can all relate to. With consideration given to what homosexuality is proposed as; a concept that does not affect anyone or society in general; only those 'religious extremists who want to force their beliefs onto the general population'. Accordingly, let's judge the morality of homosexuality on the way that it affects us. Hypothetically, with the given that homosexuality is legalized, I am renting a room in my house. A homosexual applies, and I deny him on a basis that is not pertaining to his sexuality; e.g. large pet and I did not want that in my house. The hypothetical statutory reform would allow him to fabricate a legal issue of 'discrimination on sexual basis'. This also does not include the circumstance that I may be religious but I have accepted that people exhibit different forms of sexuality, I still must go to court and ineluctably have financial and emotional strain posed onto me, even if I end up proving in fact that I did not deny him on a sexual basis. It is open for legal interpretation and argument. I also have the prospect of wrongly being found to discriminate on sexual means, even if it was authentically not on that basis; therefore inhibiting the administration of just outcomes. This cannot occur within present statutory bounds; in fact, the law itself is treated as discriminatory in the perspective of a homosexual (or an advocate thereof), as the law in Australia still holds that marriage is inseparable from its heterosexual institution. Let's also assume (for argumentative purposes) that I am religious and I did in fact 'sexually discriminate' on such an individual, and for me to be legally subject to repercussions inhibits the brimming expression of religion, thereby compromising a human right. This is because, religion sees homosexuality to be immoral, and if it were to be instated by the law, it amplifies in to the issue that the law is inhibiting my expression of religion.

 

[Lolsmith]

the ideology of homosexuality are you fucking kidding me

 

[Tasteless]

what in the fuck

 

[Lolsmith]

In any such debate, regardless of the topic discussed, it is to be conducted with mutual fairness; an equaled ability for both sides to present their arguments and initiate a rebuttal-type response. If you are going to be dismissive of any opposing proposition, and purport opposing opinions as "the dumbest argument" or "this means nothing" in an attempt to falsely present their insubstantial nature, it only serves to highlight the weakness in your reasoning. Not only are you making a rush to judgment and dismissing valid opinions, your evident lack of justification for why it is "the dumbest argument" or "hahaha" or "this means literally nothing" is just as useful as you not contributing at all.

Building onto what Landadelrey was alluding to, you are neglecting the implications of same-sex marriage on the normative operation of society[citation needed]. In recent times, 'acceptance' (as such) of same-sex couples not only has driven statutory reform to accommodate for this premise, but has also created a 'culture of acceptance' surrounding the ideology[citation needed]. The general population are being inclined to sexually explore the same gender[citation needed], and take it even further to a state of desiring to marry someone of the same gender[citation needed] and continue the progression of their lives on this referred premise[citation needed]. Of course, how wonderful? Anyone who opposes such is the 'inhibitor of freedom'[citation needed], the 'disaster of society'[citation needed], 'in love with an ancient book that stretches back thousands of years ago'[citation needed].

With the aforementioned provided as a swift response to anyone who opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage (or the ideology[citation needed] itself), society has supported and advertently initiated the growth of the 'gay population'[citation needed]. This does not occur without implications of the operation of society[citation needed]. Gay marriage reduces the population base in society[citation needed], and therefore continues to lessen the strength our normative operation[citation needed]. You cannot naturalistically have two individuals of the same gender and create a child without some form of external interference. It opposes naturalistic procreation[citation needed]. Ultimately, the population base that is produced will be out of civilized order[citation needed], and this formulates a problematic series of arising circumstances[citation needed] pertaining to the lack of support from both parents[citation needed]. I am not going to quote any verse from the Bible or the Quran and try to formulate distant links in a contemporaneous matter that are instantaneously put into question by any Atheist which places no to little value on these 'ancient instructions' or 'ancient moral codes'. It is the fundamental observation from a psychological perspective[citation needed]. The support of both parents are critical to the raising of a child[citation needed]. Hypothetically, when a father passes away and leaves a young son, one is always to question "who is the masculine figure in his life?"[citation needed]. The father and the mother have differing complementary roles[citation needed], and no impersonation of either parent[citation needed], can bring this impersonation to the authenticity of the original paradigm[citation needed]. By imposing statutory gay marriage, it is the encouragement and promotion of this premise[citation needed] to occur at an increased and lawful rate[citation needed]. One can argue that the divorce rate has increased profoundly in recent times[citation needed], and therefore, is it not the identical presentation of the same premise with one parent, unable to effectively raise the child psychologically on their own[citation needed]? Such a proposition is flawed, on the basis of the legal interference that helps to helps to remedy the situation[citation needed]. The law strives to ensure that the child has a relationship with both parents[citation needed] (i.e. parenting plan, custodial arrangements or whatever may be implemented to satisfy the circumstance of a mutual relationship). Gay marriage inhibits any legal interference[citation needed] from occurring to ensure that the child has a relationship with both parents of the differing gender[citation needed], because they are the same-sex; it is the irreversible destruction of the opportunity[citation needed] of the law to remedy the negative circumstance[citation needed].

It opposes the laws of nature[citation needed], it neglects the paradigm of which we are naturally designed to fulfill[citation needed] and it is the fundamental moralization of an immoral ideology[citation needed]. Of course, immoral?, are you out of your mind?, where do you get that from? I am not going to sit here and quote the Bible or the Qur'an and say that a specific Biblical or Qur'anic instruction should be forced onto the rest of the population, but rather, I will create a link that we can all relate to[citation needed]. With consideration given to what homosexuality is proposed as; a concept that does not affect anyone or society in general; only those 'religious extremists who want to force their beliefs onto the general population'. Accordingly, let's judge the morality of homosexuality on the way that it affects us[citation needed]. Hypothetically, with the given that homosexuality is legalized, I am renting a room in my house. A homosexual applies, and I deny him on a basis that is not pertaining to his sexuality; e.g. large pet and I did not want that in my house. The hypothetical statutory reform would allow him to fabricate a legal issue of 'discrimination on sexual basis'[citation needed]. This also does not include the circumstance that I may be religious but I have accepted that people exhibit different forms of sexuality[citation needed], I still must go to court and ineluctably have financial and emotional strain posed onto me[citation needed], even if I end up proving in fact that I did not deny him on a sexual basis[citation needed]. It is open for legal interpretation and argument[citation needed]. I also have the prospect of wrongly being found to discriminate on sexual means, even if it was authentically not on that basis; therefore inhibiting the administration of just outcomes[citation needed]. This cannot occur within present statutory bounds[citation needed]; in fact, the law itself is treated as discriminatory[citation needed] in the perspective of a homosexual[citation needed] (or an advocate thereof), as the law in Australia still holds that marriage is inseparable from its heterosexual institution[citation needed]. Let's also assume (for argumentative purposes) that I am religious and I did in fact 'sexually discriminate' on such an individual, and for me to be legally subject to repercussions inhibits the brimming expression of religion[citation needed], thereby compromising a human right[citation needed]. This is because, religion sees homosexuality to be immoral, and if it were to be instated by the law, it amplifies in to the issue that the law is inhibiting my expression of religion.

this whole thing

 

[classicjimbo]

inflating an argument with thesaurus.com does not make magically make it a good argument sb you idiot

 

[SylviaB]

fuck this whole thread

 

[Lolsmith]

Gays shouldn't have rights because it might negatively affect me

you are such a piece of shit

 

[Spiritual Being]

No thesaurus utilized in the process. I'm actually being serious.

 

[Spiritual Being]

If you're implying that I didn't write it, that is a great compliment.

I appreciate it, greatly.

 

[Lolsmith]

"I'm not going to quote the Bible or Quran because it will get dismissed by all those ignorant atheists11!!!11!!1!"

Not because your assertions are literally baseless and have no foundation in reasonable thought, but because we dun like der relijun

 

[Spiritual Being]

"I'm not going to quote the Bible or Quran because it will get dismissed by all those ignorant atheists11!!!11!!1!"

Not because your assertions are literally baseless and have no foundation in reasonable thought, but because we dun like der relijun

Again, generating a conclusion without logical reasoning or justification.

 

[Lolsmith]

Again, generating a conclusion without logical reasoning or justification.

Well being the gigantic fuckwit you are, this argument isn't going to go anywhere if any response I give about you being incredulously retarded isn't heeded

"it's against nature" is not a fucking argument you goddamn moron, I bet your glorious sky wizard or moon fairy thinks cars must be pretty natural, but god forbid a guy put his dick near another guy's dick because that's not natural

 

[Spiritual Being]

Well being the gigantic fuckwit you are, this argument isn't going to go anywhere if any response I give about you being incredulously retarded isn't heeded

"it's against nature" is not a fucking argument you goddamn moron, I bet your glorious sky wizard or moon fairy thinks cars must be pretty natural, but god forbid a guy put his dick near another guy's dick because that's not natural

 

[classicjimbo]

No thesaurus utilized in the process. I'm actually being serious.

hahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa
it's not that the words you used are impressive (they aren't)
your sentences don't flow and it's almost painful to dig out your [dumb] argument
you gonna suck as a lawyer br8

it's like you're putting a cucumber down your pants and we all know it's a cucumber and you're just drawing more attention to your inadequacy

 

[Spiritual Being]

hahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa
it's not that the words you used are impressive (they aren't)
your sentences don't flow and it's almost painful to dig out your [dumb] argument
you gonna suck as a lawyer br8

it's like you're putting a cucumber down your pants and we all know it's a cucumber and you're just drawing more attention to your inadequacy

 

[Spiritual Being]

hahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa
it's not that the words you used are impressive (they aren't)
your sentences don't flow and it's almost painful to dig out your [dumb] argument
you gonna suck as a lawyer br8

it's like you're putting a cucumber down your pants and we all know it's a cucumber and you're just drawing more attention to your inadequacy

> -statement fails incredibly-
> "oh forget that, your words are not even impressive anymore, even though they were striking enough for me to previously accuse you of using a thesaurus"
> "I have a small penis, so I hope you are the same" (you're very unlucky there buddy)

 

[Kiraken]

> -statement fails incredibly-
> "oh forget that, your words are not even impressive anymore, even though they were striking enough for me to previously accuse you of using a thesaurus"
> "I have a small penis, so I hope you are the same" (you're very unlucky there buddy)

way to assume that they are male lol

also lol i honestly cannot believe you bothered to type up like a page of stuff when all of it is quite literally bullshit veiled in big words (which actually makes it sound even more retarded cos it takes unnecessary effort to even understand wtf you are saying)