Anyhoo (yes "anyway" was already taken).

Remind me not to read screeds in the Telegraph.
[Briefly, because references are for dweebs]
- Context, m'dear.
- Yes, compared to single parent families; it's the number of enduring parents that counts, not the brand name. And if you're going to bring up the harm that comes to children from gay parents, do try to remember that that is foisted upon them by some parts of society, that it's the victim's fault for being provocative, which seems a tad Islamic (although being born flawed is terribly Catholic).
- Universal, from a very western-centric viewpoint (there are no other religions, no other cultures really, are there? Well, no worthwhile ones). Shall we just change "universal" to "in much of modern Christendom" now, or ought we try to redefine "universal"?
- Darling, it's not a label, it's a state. But yay you for the flawed attempt at belittling and negating the inevitable criticism.
- Actually, you are right; the death of marriage is a bloody good reason to embalm it.
- Deserve ≠ get, but awareness and pragmatism isn't exactly what the Catholic church is know for.
- Oh, yes, of course it'll spread to polygamy, just like miscegenation led to bestiality (although humans are better able to give consent than animals, so polygamy is more likely than bestiality to be acceptable).
- Quelle Horreur!
- If possibly no government has the right, then certainly no church has the right.
- Oh look, there's a man made entirely of straw, yet designed to scare us not crows; no wonder this argument appears to be remarkably ill thought-out.
- Redefining is bad? Well, what has Redefinition ever done for us? You do know that Christianity has redefined marriage itself fairly often, right? And it's hardly as though marriage equality is a new idea (it existed before Jesus and the church has intermittently condemned it ever since [although often that was just head office's view]).
- Seriously, you're bringing slavery into this? Surely there's an Godwin's law for that too. And, um, weren't the church, well, not wholly against such a thing, because, you know, they maybe in chains, but at least they're no longer ostentatiously pagan.
- And if you're going to quote a charter of ideals (written to be as widely acceptable as possible at a specific time, and so covering a mix of social contexts), do check that it doesn't render your argument moot:

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: ... “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.

And let's not go into the comments (I started, but the token sane one cant' use apostrophe's).

Anyhoo,