I'm down with this
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.
What about when someone is actually making the dumbest argument you've ever read, and everyone else can see this, and you just want to let that idiot know?It could be a useful contribution in bullying and belittling that idiot.
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'.
Yeah it's really the way to go imo.
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... 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.
Yeah the world's in a real population crisis.
It is the fundamental observation from a psychological perspective. The support of both parents are critical to the raising of a child.
No reputable scientific organisation, in psychology, mental health, pediatrics, opposes gay parenting, many have issued strongly supportive statements. So it's a fundamental observation that same sex parenting is basically equitable with heterosexual parenting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting
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.
orly
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'.
m8, if you rent your house with the condition "no pets", some cunt can not sue you when you evict them for keeping a large dog.
This scenario you propose has never happened, are you high right now?
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.
People can pursue frivolous legislation for any reason, why exactly are you singling out sexuality when there are a million fraudulent and frivolous reasons someone could take you to court?
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.
Why is that worse than being wrongly found guilty of other crimes or acts of discrimination? Why are you singling out sexuality? Should we abolish all crimes where there is the possibility of someone being wrongly found guilty?
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.
Discrimination on the basis of sexuality is presently illegal, I don't understand why you think a change to the marriage act will affect this, it 100% won't.
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.
What about religious edicts that command homosexuality/adultery/apostasy as grounds for killing someone, should this be legalised to avoid inhibiting the expression of religion?
Why do you draw the line on the reasonable expression of religion as ending at discrimination, and not other measures such as outright violence, imprisonment, etc? Should I be able to open a public register listing the names and addresses of known homosexuals so I can avoid offering services to them?