Majority rule is beside the point. Or, if it is, when do we get to vote on your civil rights?

The definition of marriage is two people who choose to legally combine their affairs and to let their friends and families know they are a unit. Rather than saying we are trying to redefine marriage, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you are trying to grab a word and a concept and make it yours, denying it to others?

Marriage being defined as a procreational proposition is a straw man; lots of heteros get married with no idea (or no possibility) of having children. Pulling that into the conversation is putting forth a baseless idea.

Of course there is lots of inequality in our culture. We could, if we had the will, pass laws making it illegal for any individual to have more than their share of our money. It is not, however, possible to pass laws that would change a person's race, gender, or sexual orientation. Since no one, not the individual and not society as a whole, can change those things, why should we not treat them all equally? Inequality exists in a race, where the better athlete will likely win. Your argument seems to be that we should also be able to tell the better athlete that he or she can't get married.

I know it's been said many times before, but I've never heard a good answer for it: Take all the comments about homosexuals and substitute the words "black person" or "woman". How do your arguments read now?

There is no logical argument that proposes limiting the civil rights of a group of people that doesn't end up at "I don't like it so it ought to be illegal." If you think otherwise, show me the logic and answer me when I poke holes in it.

I've made this offer before and I'll probably make it again: how about a moderated debate on the subject where all facts come from mainstream news sources, the logic has to stand up, you have to answer refutations of your arguments, and personal insults cause you to lose. Any takers?