A fastball down the middle

Since you want to post your thesis in my comments, I'll take that as your tacit approval to swing away at it.

Regarding arguments against gay marriage...

The argument that the minority status of a population is demanding equal rights and treatment as the majority of the population is rational cause for discriminating against is the very definition of prejudice, bigotry and oppression. This is the most twisted, silliest logic I've ever read to rationalise bigotry. As I've already stated, even a kindergartener would see this denial of marriage to gay men and lesbians as unfair and unjust.

No, the demands that we re-write a millenia-old definition of marriage to fit the political agenda of a minority of the population is completely skewed. And while I'm certain that a kindergartner would certainly agree with you that it's mean, a kindergartner cannot even describe what civilization is, much less give any dissertation about the roots of said civilization. Cry bigotry all you want, I'm used to it, as well as the charge of racism. It's the preferred epithet of someone who has nothing else on their side.

Granting marriage to a minority group doesn't make it a "special right" for them, it simply transforms this "special right" straight people enjoy into a "right" for all.

Destroying traditional marriage to fit the demands of a minority makes it a "special" right, Mr. Sellers. Not one proponent of gay marriage has come forward with anything resembling a true alternative. They have simply sought the destruction of the status quo.

Saying that gay men and women have a choice of marring the opposite sex is a moronic argument -- one option is the opposite of a choice.

No, you have the same right to marry that I do. You simply don't like the options. Again, that might be mean of me to put it in such a fashion, but it's also still the truth.

Same-sex marriage goes back centuries. Here's one example of an article online:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/

I'll be happy to provide others that go back even further than Biblical times. It's been millenia of oppression which have prevented gay men and lesbians from marrying for eons, not the lack of desire for such unions.

Did you even bother to read that article with anything resembling a scientific eye? "Can be interpreted", "if accurate"? You're going to have to offer up something more that a kinda-maybe-sorta article from a far-Left propaganda source.

Using the inherent bigotry of the world's top religions is hardly a viable argument to justify the current arguemnet. And these relitions themselves have changed their views on several issues over time. During the Middle Ages the Catholic church encouraged the burning of Jews and Gallileo spent the last days of his life under house arrest because he dared to say that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Ah, well then, let my discard my "bigoted" Christianity, and only use straight scientific evidence, much like Charles Darwin did.

Using Darwin's Theory of Evolution, gay men and women should NOT be allowed to marry in any fashion, because they are genetic abnormalities who, if allowed to follow their urges, would fail to pass on ANY genetic traits. Since the Theory of Evolution posits that successful species pass on the traits which help the species strengthen itself, and gays would not pass on their genes at all because they do not commit acts that lead to procreation, gays should be considered not only genetic abnormalities, but genetically inferior. Therefore, for the sake of evolution, gays should be segregated from the rest of the population who do not suffer from said genetic abnormalities.

There. That's pure, cold science for you. Aren't you glad I'm a Christian?

By the way, it was the Spanish church that encouraged the burning of Jews, and Galileo was was persecuted for political reasons rather than theological ones.

The argument that the purpose of marriage is for the procreation of children is completely mistaken. Millions of humn embryos are fertilize every day in the bellies of unmarried females. And there a millions of married men and women around the world who do not have, and doe not want, children. I have a cousin of my own who is a very kind woman who made it clear when she married over a decade ago that she loves children but she has no desire to be a mother herself.

Marriage is the institution that developed over thousands of years in order to raise a family in a secure, stable environment. Using modern statistics only secures the fact that the nuclear family in a traditional marriage is the best way to raise children. Children from a traditional nuclear family do better in school, do better in their social contact, are generally happier and healthier than children raised in a single parent home, and have less emotional and mental conflict than their counterparts in other than traditional homes.

Let me quote someone who has spoken/written extensively on the subject:

Marriage isn't an adventure or a form of recreation. It's about children, long-term planning, and striking roots into the soil of one's chosen locale. A community of any sort is always made up of families, never of individuals. The reason is the unique biological stability of the family, its ability to endure and prosper over time. A healthy community cannot be founded on the mobility and variability of unmated individuals, though an existing one may tolerate an aliquot of singles as long as they don't disturb the public order. There are more single adults than ever before, and they have more latitude than any singles have ever had in the history of Western civilization. So far, we've withstood the perturbations to which they've subjected our communities, but can we withstand the removal of all presumptions of permanence from the institution of marriage?

Marriage, as I've stated before, is one of the bedrocks of civilization. One of the founding pillars of civilization all over the world, which is why whenever you have found marriage, that marriage has been between a man and a woman. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions PROVE the rule, not void it.

Marriage is a legal union. If couples want to "tie the knot" in a religious ceremony, that's their choice, but religion plays absolutely no role in the legal union of a man and women. That's why there are millions of happily married atheist couples in the world, too.

And yet, when given the option of civil unions vs. marriage, the pro-gay marriage groups threw an absolute fit. If you wanted the legal protections you could have done what my wife and I did BEFORE WE EVER SPOKE OF MARRIAGE - go see a lawyer, and have paperwork drawn up to deal with issues such as property, wills, etc. When we bought our land, we weren't married, and yet the land legally belonged to the both of us.

Civil union are a legal union. Marriages, before they were co-opted by the state were RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS. Before the USA ever existed, marriage was a religious sacrament in Christianity, and held massive importance to other religions all over the globe.

And for anyone wringing their hands at night fretting over the lack of a definition of marriage, I offer one here:

Marriage is the legal union of two consenting adults.

There, now you don't have to worry about women marrying goats or men marrying sheep or adults marrying children anymore.

Now make it stick in court. Then maybe I'll believe you.

All rational arguments aside, the only reason anyone would oppose gay marriage is pure prejudice and bigotry. Any so-called "logical" arguments against it are petty and trite fabrications, just like the arguments agains allowing openly gay men and women in the military. Even the greatest military minds in history, Alexander the Great and Caesar, had male l

Now you're just spitting into the wind. Discarding thousands of years of traditional marriage to fit your political agenda is a petty, trite fabrication. Ignoring millennium of history in order to justify your demands is petty and trite. Name-calling because you can't refute an argument is petty and trite. Saying "So and so had male lovers" only highlights the fact that the EXCEPTIONS PROVE THE RULE.

Now, if you have any arguments that can't be disproved by anyone with five minutes and an internet connection, please feel free to post them in the comments. But I reserve the right to post any comments you do leave to be held up for logical critique.

Hell, maybe I'll even go over this post again this evening. Just for fun!