To your first point, It is not that there is no ‘empirical evidence’ that history is not exclusively linear. The burden of proof does not rest on history being exclusively linear, but ‘generally’ linear. And even that’s being generous. (I might point out, there is in fact PLENTY of evidence. What is lacking is historical consensus—which actually puts it in pretty good company). I get the sense from your posting that, if there is no proof that history is linear or cyclical, (or anything else) it is therefore in a state of chaos, and nothing can be interpreted one way or the other. A bit anarchistic for a religious man such as yourself, but that’s neither here nor there. Anyway, I still follow your argument (flawed though it may be). But I couldn’t quite make your next logical leap: because your clause is true (big assumption), therefore the Gay Marriage movement has no footing. i.e. because ‘tone’ they invoke in their writing hints at a claim to a linear history, progress in the direction of more rights for a greater number of people (for which, I say again, there is a WEALTH of evidence). Just because history does not follow an exact trajectory does not mean it is rudderless. History is ‘largely’ linear, with aberrations and anomalies. And, a great many argue that the gay marriage ban with Prop 8 was one such aberration, as Proposition 8 was the first ballot measure ever enacted to remove rights already granted a segment of the population.

Let’s look at this another way. Sure, history is not entirely linear. But civil rights history in democratized countries, for the most part, is; at least since the enlightenment. As stated above, Prop 8 was the first measure in history to REMOVE rights already granted a people. So, if we are in favour of this as a general principle, we could be equally excited about disenfranchising women, or African-Americans. Your arguments are not new. They were floated by segregationalist in the 1870s, defenders of “separate but equal” in the 1950s (our friend Strom Thurmond ran on this platform for president… there may be a future for you in politics), or, if there were any, it could have been used by those fighting for a repeal of interracial marriage bans effective in the United States until the late 1960s.

Fun as your first idea was, your final conclusion is utter nonsense. Because a select few resort to vandalism, the entire movement has joined the ranks of some of the “worst social movements in history”. Really? are we playing the NAZI card for people who broke a couple windows in a California church? Hyperbole doesn’t begin to describe your leap. But this is to be expected. Hendrick Hertzburg of the New Yorker said, “Like a polluted swamp, anti-gay bigotry is likely to get thicker and more toxic as it dries up. Viciousness meets viscousness.”

And that’s not even to say that I disagree with you entirely! I only, humbly, request a bit more rigor in the argumentation.