Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.
1) gay = armless baby... Ok got it.
Both are naturally-occurring defects that are contrary to human nature.
2) No not obviously you wanker. Why on earth would someone choose to be gay with all of the bigotry and hate crimes directed toward them? There is not benefit thus no reason to choose it.
It is not a question of whether or not one chooses to "be" gay. Sexuality is a question of behavior, not ontology. One may not have control over one's impulses but one
does have control over one's behavior.
3) Why on earth would an animal need a legal contract? I don't believe they need to file joint tax returns or visit their loved one in a hospital. Your strawman is absurd.
The argument from the OP is that the idea of people marrying animals is absurd because animals cannot sign contracts. If you agree that such reasoning is absurd, you would do well to take it up with the OP.
I am asserting that the argument is absurd because the coupling of a human being and an animal would be contrary to natural law. To argue that it bestiality is wrong because animals can't sign contracts is, in fact, very flimsy reasoning intended to hide the fact that bestiality is the logical conclusion of an understanding of "marriage" unmoored from teleological considerations about human nature.
4) Really? How does this even follow logically? What do the divorce rates of heterosexual marriages have to do homosexual marriage?
The argument from the OP, again, was that marriage has changed to accommodate divorce, and that marriage can and should therefore also change to accommodate homosexuality.
My argument is that divorce has had catastrophic results for the integrity of the family.
Therefore, we should exercise caution about upsetting the marital institution further, given our poor experiences with doing so in the past.
5) You missed his point entirely.
Kindly clarify, then.
6) Yet another excuse for bigotry.
(a) That is an assertion, not an argument.
(b) I will thank you for not making insinuations about my character in the future. My position proceeds from a carefully-reasoned reading of classical and scholastic philosophy. As a fledgling Catholic, I do, wish, and think no one any harm.
(c) You clearly are not familiar the classical essentialist/scholasticist basis for morality. A good place to begin rectifying your ignorance might be the first half of Edward Feser's "Classical Natural Law Theory, Property Rights, and Taxation," which is available for download in HTML format
here. For a fuller treatment, Feser's "The Last Superstition" is also quite good, and written for a modern educated lay audience.
7) Actually quite common when they are talking about gay couples adopting. The religious nuts are afraid they might "gayify" them.
I am not familiar with the argument. To my mind, the chief consideration in adoption law is the well-being of the child. There is nothing like a "right" to adoption, much less one to which one is entitled by virtue of legal marriage.
8) Actually no morality and rights have nothing to do with each other. You have the right to free speech but free speech can be used in a way that is immoral.
Free speech is a civil right, not a natural one.
Actually it would perhaps be more appropriate to say that free speech as understood in the West today is a civil right, rather than a natural one. One is entitled to some reasonable degree of free speech merely by virtue of human nature.
But as I'm sure most leftists would agree, you never have a
moral right to speak ill of anyone, including hate speech or incitements to violence.
9) Really? Single family? Best move in with the neighbors.
My apologies; I clearly meant single-parent homes.
10) You missed the point again.
That is an assertion, not an argument. If I missed the point, please clarify it for me.
