Astoundingly bad argument against gay marriage

Well, who'd a'thunk it? Amidst the myriad of pathetic, illogical and downright silly arguments and excuses used to try and rationalize preventing same-sex couples to marry, I've finally come across an argument that's so utterly bad that I'm not even sure how to react to it – laughter? Indignation? Or exasperation at realizing how low human intelligence can sink to?

This new marvel comes from deacon Keith Fournier, who has written up an atrociously illogical article at Catholic Online, where he basically refers to homosexuality as a "disordered appetite" (what?), and even equates homosexuality to obesity.

No, I don't see what the hell that's supposed to mean, either.

Of course, once again, one needs not look any further than the very first sentence to indicate just how this article will run:

The news is filled with efforts through legislation or the use of the courts to undermine marriage by expanding its definition to somehow include homosexual partnerships.

Once again, that silly ol' argument that gay marriage will somehow undermine, taint or affect heterosexual marriage in any way. Is it any wonder that no-one – anywhere – has ever come up with even a tentative reason as to how this would work? Why allowing same-sex couples to marry under the law would somehow disrupt the marriages or straight couples?

Further down, we come across this logorrheic paragraph where he uses a fair number of tired and clichéd arguments, none of which hold the slightest of water under the slightest of scrutinies:

This does not change the truth. Homosexual sexual acts, even if engaged in with one partner for a long time, can never be the equivalent of a marriage, no matter what any court or legislature says^[1]. The reason that marriage and the family founded upon it has become the foundation of civil societies across ethnic, geographical, religious and racial communities^[2] is because it is an institution revealed by the Natural Law^[3]. It is not some social construct which can be discarded, redefined or ever replaced^[4]. Efforts of some within the homosexual movement to equate how one engages in non-marital sexual acts with a member of the same sex with being a member of a particular race, or gender and thereby a “protected class” for civil rights purposes is legally and socially dangerous.^[5] One is a status; the other involves behavior, a chosen behavior and a lifestyle.^[6]

Wow, it's a veritable orgy of pathetic and long-debunked arguments! Let's delve in:

1. Why do gay marriage opponents always equate homosexual relations or marriage to no more than suck & fuck? As far as I'm aware, homosexual marriage is no more defined by sex than heterosexual marriage is. Truly, a stupid and mindless argument.
2. Yes, because with his vast historical and anthropological knowledge and expertise, I'm certain he'd know exactly what he's talking about here. The fact remains that just because heterosexual marriages have been present through the past human societies that we know of, does not make them the founding cornerstone of human society in general. No more than is religion, or ethics, or using fire to cook our meals. We simply know far too little at this point in time to determine, with any real accuracy, just what brought along human society as we know (or knew) it, but personally, I'd posit it was a combined collection of qualities and aspects – family/marriage and religion being two among them – that worked together to define human society, aspects we've built on to this very day to define our present society, and ourselves. But again, I know no more than anyone else does – I can only guess, and so can Deacon Fournier.
3. Great, another idiot using "Natural Law" as an argument without even knowing what it means, obviously. Natural Law is a theory that postulates that whatever common behaviors or "laws" that are seen in nature, should be applied everywhere without criticism because they're natural and superior to human disapproval, or however you wish to phrase that. Seeing as marriage is in no way defined or even seen in nature other than in human traditions and societies, then I fail to see how Natural Law fits in any form of argument against gay marriage. Again, an epic fail.
4. Says him (and other adherents to this "Gay marriage is against Natural Law" guff). But considering that marriage in our modern world and society is quickly becoming purely socio-legal in nature, losing its "sanctity" (aka. church's relevance), and considering the pliable and very redefinable nature of legal law ... Then yes, it is perfectly redefinable at will, whenever something is shown to be wrong with it. Such as the exclusion of same-sex couples.
5. What the hell is he even talking about here? Since when have same-sex couples been seeking to define their status as a "protected class"? (What even is a "protected class" in Fournier's view?) Closest thing I can imagine he's referring to is the notorious anti-hate crimes bill of a while back, of which I really know precious few details. But, again: it's not about creating special "protected classes" of citizens, and I'd really wish idiots would stop using that argument. It's about punishing anyone who chooses to attack someone on the specific basis of them being a minority, whether from ethnicity, or religious beliefs, or sexuality, or whatever. As I said: a guy hitting a Black guy out of self-defense is innocent. A guy hitting a Black guy just because he's Black, falls guilty under the anti-hate crimes bill.
6. Ah, of course. The most tired, insulting and thoroughly debunked argument of them all – homosexuality is a choice. ... Um, no, it's not. It's genetic, as more and more scientific studies are becoming closer and closer each day to proving once and for all. Case closed.

And we're not even done yet! Wow, the masses of stupidity have converged into a single article. How fun!

Some maintain that same sex attraction is a genetic predisposition. This is disputed. Even if it were the case, that does not give homosexual activity any more of a claim to being given a special civil rights status. Should we really give disordered appetites civil rights status under the law? Let's consider an absurd example. I have struggled most of my life with fighting obesity. I am on the "winning end" lately, but just give me another Holiday! A very good argument can be made that obesity also has a genetic predisposition. However, I will fight it my whole life because it is unhealthy. It is a disordered appetite. Should we as a Nation decide that fat people have a civil right to be fat? Should those who insist that they resist that "genetic predisposition" to overeat be called Fata-phobic?

Holy hell. This has got to be one of the – no, scratch that. This IS the single stupidest, least logical and cohesive anti-gay-marriage analogy I've ever read. Ever. When this man is reduced to equating homosexuality with obesity, and saying that a possible genetic predisposition is no excuse for the behavior – wow. Just ... wow.

And, of course, can't forget to mention he refers to both homosexuality and obesity as "disordered appetites". ... I'm serious, folks, I can't even wrap my mind around what the hell he may mean by that. I'm at a loss here – which I suppose is a good thing, if it shows how utterly illogical and how large of a non-sequitur this entire article is. (But then, the fact that he continually praises the Church in referral to it possessing the "truth" about marriage, sorta points to that from early on.)