“And so, to assume that Tru's personal beliefs equate to ‘Christian beliefs’ and that therefore my opposition to them equates to opposition to Christianity in general is just plain false and utterly silly.”

I’ve been back over my posts a couple of times and haven’t found any evidence that you could use to make this statement. I never asserted that Tru’s beliefs were synonymous with Christian belief. Nor did I assert that by attacking them you were attacking Christianity. I think that you’re opposed to Christianity because you never pass up an opportunity to slip in “irrational”, “imaginary”, etc. when that would be an entirely separate argument. You force someone who might agree with you to either derail the argument by objecting to them, or to just let them stand in an effort to stay on topic. That is why I think you oppose religion. The unnecessary smearing of it. Which you go on to confirm, here.

“It is true that I feel kind of sorry for anyone who holds irrational beliefs, religious or otherwise, and I think they would be better off with an evidence based belief system.”
It is also why someone, who agrees with you on the political issue, has to go through the painstaking process of separating your anti-religious rhetoric from the actual issue at hand. If your argument is that religion is irrational, Great! Make that argument. I thought the argument here though was whether a University had the right to ban this guy. Which, I agreed they did. Then went on, to whether homosexuals had a right to marry, which I also agree they do. Then became, whether one member of the community was a bigot for holding an opposing view.
All the while, through two threads and a number of pages, only ghug asked him to clarify his views. In that answer, he acknowledged that “man could in fact redefine this term” and went on to talk about how he wouldn’t personally consider it to be valid (never stating that it wouldn’t be legally valid). Therefore he stated his disagreement with it (which everyone tried to acknowledge he had a right to do) but not his political opposition to the movement (which most assumed he’d stated and railed on him for). You, yourself, stated that he was for limiting the rights of homosexuals (that was your coupe de’ gras to show his bigotry) but never once asked him to clarify his position. When I actually asked him, the answer was very much different than you made it out to be. You assumed that because he had an opinion that you didn’t like, that he was actively opposed to a political issue you support. Nobody ever asked him “Would you politically oppose gay marriage?” You railroaded the guy & told him what a disgusting bigot he was because of your preconceived notions, not his. You went on to say you wouldn’t have a problem with him if he weren’t trying to limit the rights of others. I doubt the truthfulness of that statement given your behavior thus far.