"Deep thoughts" (about homosexual marriage)

I just came across this post at another blog, Vorticity, and I thought it was worth re-posting:
Thoughts on the Homosexual Marriage Debate

• Monogamous marriage between 1 male and 1 female has been the standard for western society for thousands of years. Those seeking to change the standard are the radicals not those seeking to preserve it.
• The Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong. The Bible also teaches that marriage was established by God to consist of one male and one female. There is no question as to what the Bible teaches on this issue. The only question is whether or not you believe it.
• Opponents of the marriage amendment argue that you should not legislate moral issues. This is silly since all law is based on moral judgments of right and wrong.
• An individual's views of proper marriage are influenced by their standard of morality. As there are different views on moral standards it is an inescapable conclusion that one view will be adopted into law over the exclusions of the others. In our country we have decided to settle such differences by a democratic vote. Advocates of gay marriage insist that prohibition of gay marriage constitutes forcing the view of the majority on the minority. They should admit that if they succeed they would be forcing the view of the minority on the majority.
• Many of the supporters of homosexual marriage take an atheistic, agnostic, or secular view of moral standards, namely that we are free to do what we decide is most fitting. Then they are surprised when theists do what they think is most fitting, insisting that they shouldn't do so.
• It is argued by some that marriage should be abolished as a government recognized contract and instead left merely as a personal religious observance. Yet this would require an establishment of private contracts to protect all the various legal rights and attributes now associated with marriage such as child custody, inheritance and survival benefits, etc. Since all of these items would still exist and would be adjudicated by government courts, marriage would still exist, but just under a different arrangement. The result is that instead of raising homosexual relationships to the level of heterosexual marriage, heterosexual marriage would be lowered to the level of all unmarried relationships. This is a lose-lose proposition for those of us who believe marriage confers significant benefits to couples, children, and society at large that are deserving of special recognition and protection by the government.
• The fact that civil unions which confer all the rights of marriage without calling it marriage is not acceptable to advocates of homosexual marriage is proof that the real issue is to force not acceptance but approval of homosexual behavior on those who believe what the bible says. (see above)
• Opponents of homosexual marriage are accused of being bigoted, intolerant, and attempting to write discrimination into the constitution. But opponents of religious beliefs of millions of Americans who believe the Bible are characterized as being tolerant, enlightened and open-minded.
• The constitution already contains discrimination. It specifies qualifications for various public offices thereby discriminating against those individuals who do not meet the qualifications. All Americans discriminate. Every time we choose to patronize a specific business, attend a certain church, join a civic organization, or go on a date we discriminate against those we did not choose. The question is not whether we discriminate, but rather upon what basis is discrimination justifiable?
• Since this is a democratic country (perhaps apart from the court system) the minority must convince the majority of their position. In light of this, the current strategy of gay marriage advocates to characterize the majority as ignorant, stupid, bigoted, religious, prejudiced hate-mongers seems ill-advised.