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.