Your reasoning for identifying the fallacies in the examples provided seems to be correct. Here is a breakdown of each fallacy:
2. Ad hominem (inconsistency): The author attacks Andrea Keene's selective morality by implying hypocrisy but does not directly address the argument against abortion.
3. Ad hominem (inconsistency): The writer dismisses the struggles of divorcees and labels them as "rejects" without addressing the content of their complaints.
5. Straw man: The writer misrepresents the argument by exaggerating it, suggesting that closing a road for joggers and bicyclists would result in inconvenience for everyone else in the park.
6. Begging the question: The author assumes that Christian groups protesting the display of a Jewish family would also object to the display of a secularized Gentile family, without providing evidence or reasoning to support this assumption.
8. Begging the question: The author assumes that additional sources of revenue are necessary and that demands will not be met without them, without providing evidence or reasoning to support these claims.
9. False dilemma: The representative of the Catholic Church presents a false choice between condoms being absolutely reliable in preventing AIDS or the Church supporting their use. This ignores the fact that condoms can reduce the risk of transmission and could still be supported by the Church as a preventive measure.
Overall, your analysis and identification of the fallacies in each example is on point. Keep in mind that fallacies can sometimes overlap, so it's important to consider the specific context and reasoning being presented in each statement. Great work!