“Didn’t know that Cato supported gay marriage. Not good.”
Then, I received a comment post from Mr. Bryce Henderson on the same Cato website as follows:
“Oh, it’s very good. It’s nice to see people who will stand up for the equal rights of all. …Personally, I think homosexuality and gay marriage is disgusting. I think it’s terrible that two men would adopt a child. HOWEVER, I support the liberty of people to do as they choose. I will teach my children that homosexuality is wrong, but homosexuals have the right to be together if they want and receive the same benefits as other citizens.”
Here is my comment response:
“Dear Mr. Henderson,
Why do you teach your children that homosexuality is wrong, and then teach that homosexuals have the “right” to be together? (My quotes included.) Quick arguments to dispute since you teach your children that homosexuality is “morally wrong,” which is good for your family. I assume when you say “wrong,” you mean “morally wrong.” Then, for argument sake, let’s say one of your children become homosexual – which you already know hurts him – what do you say to him now?
Let’s go back to your original premise – when you teach your children that homosexuality is morally wrong, you presumed they had the liberty to sin or not. “Liberty” is your word that you used in “liberty of people to do as they choose.” But as your child becomes older and practices homosexuality, now you say he has the “liberty of people to do as they choose.” Have you not come full circle in what you believed, i.e., you believed in your premise, but ironically you didn’t believe in your premise?
Whether you have believed in your premise or not, either way you have switched from the first premise to the second premise to suit an end goal. But by way of consistently believing one premise, that had no real significance. Think this out, my friend, because the liberty is already very much presumed in almost everything we do or not do, as we become mortally immoral or morally immortal.”