Well, I'm only one person, with that in mind I'll try to address the arguments presented best I can...afterall Clausewitz is calling and as fun as this is, it isn't the art and science of war
There are no female priests in the One, Holy and Apostolic Church. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Those who are looking for one in the future are barking up the wrong tree.
Don't be too quick to prophesy...that which is static will die -- it's an evolutionary imperative.
This is a point I have been meaning to bring up for a while. While Hellenistic Jewish and Roman culture did have a comparatively low view of women, in so far as these societies generally excluded women from direct participation in politics and, with a few exceptions for wealthy nobility, granted women few legal rights per se, it was precisely in the realm of religion and cult practice that women enjoyed considerable leeway.
Two things to consider here; first, until the mid-second century the (overwhelmingly) primary cultural influence was Judaic, especially amongst the leadership of the Church (who were all circumcised Jews). By the mid-second century the norms and institutions were already established.
The second, and more significant, point is about the nature of female involvement in Roman Religion, while they were allowed an official presence in most cults by the end of the first century A.D., they were not given leadership roles (or anything close to it) in these cults which were almost entirely ruled by men (the one notable exception being Bona Dea, which was very suspect in Rome, and even there the leader was chosen by virtue of being the wife of the Flamen Dialis).
This pagan model that is here mentioned is the one the Church would eventually adopt, creating minor orders for women up through the deaconess (which, even though eventually an ordained posistion was still generally considered to be below a deacon), but depriving them from any higher (and therefore ruling) office in the Church.
The point is this: The legal and political rights of women were restricted, but their cultic, religious "rights" were most certainly not. In fact, orthodox Christianity's staunchly male priesthood was one of the ways in which Christianity stood in contrast to the typical cults of the time. Thus, it seems, GiC, that attributing Paul's words, St. John Chrysostom's homilies and the Church's practice to cultural bias may not be the easiest case to make.
But Christianity, while having a staunchly male priesthood, did adopt the customs of the pagans in allowing women to hold lower religious posistions, but the posistions of power were reserved for the men, as in the pagan cults.
As others have indicated, what does one do with St. Paul's theology of the family? Is this also "culturally driven"? If the family is the little Church, and the husband is always the spiritual head of the family, how can the spiritual head of the larger family, the parish, not also be taken from one of the already-leading men? (The same questions apply to many, many homilies by St. John Chrysostom, who spoke extensively on the position of women in the Church and family -- not just in the passage from One the Priesthood that you quoted. Cf. David Ford's book on St. John Chrysostom and women.)
The clearly culturally biased family structure mentioned by Paul aside, what of a celibate or widowed woman...would they not be the 'spiritual head' of their 'family,' while this 'family' may consist only of themselves this can also be said of the 'family' of the celibate male priests, who were the ones to hold the highest posistions in the Church (in the east the episcopacy, in the west ideally all sacerdotal posistions by the six century (it took several centuries to make this ideal universal, but it was the ideal before the sixth century)). Though a relationship between family leadership and Church leadership may have been envisioned by Paul, the fact that the leaders of the Church were generally (and are) celibate and not family men tends to undermine the analogy between one's family role and one's official ecclesiastical role.