DoorGunner: I don't know about the rest of the people, but I can say, without a doubt, that I am SICK of you people trying to form a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. On a side note: the average pedophile is a middle-aged married HETEROSEXUAL white male, who usually knows his victim. It's not the same thing; and just because I support 1 of them, does not automatically make me in support of the other. To prove this point further; I grew up in a sexually abusive home. I spent 4 years tolerating such abuses, and eventually had both my father and grandfather thrown in jail before my 8th birthday. Now on to your whole, lust vs love theory. You make it sound as if heterosexuals don't give in to carnal desires and: cheat on their spouses, abandon their children, prey on children etc etc. *rated a 5, because I obviously agree with my own opinions*

"...it suggests that somehow heterosexual love is superior or more important than homosexual love." Yep, that's the whole point. Heterosexual love produces children, and children keep the civilization going. As for homosexual "love," I think in the vast majority of cases you can substitute "lust" for "love." People support homosexual marriage for different reasons. First, they want to appear tolerant and accepting, and this puts them on a higher moral plane than a bigot and homophobe like me. Second, no one thinks twice about the ramifications of flushing the wisdom of previous generations idown the toilet. Third, the generations since the 1960's are self-indulgent and hedonistic. Generally speaking, they are not concerned with moral rectitude or doing what is in the best interests of society or future generations. Fourth, this is a society that in some ways despises children. For healthy development, kids need both a mommy and a daddy, not two of the same. We've already hurt millions of kids through divorce, not to mention washing foetuses down the sink. But who gives a rat's patootie about them? (I see a day when the age of consent is lowered to ten so pedophiles can have equal protection). The more homosexuality is accepted and condoned in society at large, the more it will metastasize. Heterosexual love is the ideal. Marriage between a man and a woman is what society should lift up as the paragon of human relationships to which all citizens should aspire. Homosexuality is not good for this country. Hell, it isn't even good for the homosexual. But marriage for homosexuals will happen. Once Pandora's box has been opened, there's no closing it. It's a natural part of decay and decline, so bring it on.

As silly as it may seem to some, I suppport Vudija in wanting equal protection for all tax paying Americans under the law. Even the gay ones. I would agree with EO on the mediocrity of our President, and would take it a step further to say that this presidency will prove to be disastrous on a number of fronts. The areas that jump out for me are 1) lack of any fiscal discipline; 2) lack of any progress in moving alternative energy forward; 3) damaging the integrity and reputation of our military through his moral weakness on the issue of torture. I only wish that GWB could run for President one more time so all of us that agree with Vudija could get some closure on this guy.

Well, I'm with you on this one Vudija, and I could care less what the "understanding" has been for thousands of years. Slavery was also a revered institution for thousands of years. Frankly, it should have been "redefined" by the 14th Amendment 140 years ago - equal protection clause specifically. Yes, civil unions accomplish the same thing in some respects, but "separate but equal" was rejected by Brown v. Board precisely because separate is inherently unequal - it suggests that somehow heterosexual love is superior or more important than homosexual love. And good for you for paying attention to politics. Most your age blow it off.

Yes, slightly amusing, even in the context of Djahuti's (the left-wing Ann Coulter of RIA) ridiculous mischaracterizations. Vu, I'm OK with your patronization of the silly cause of homosexual marriage, lots of people are emotionally misinformed on that issue. (If the legal interpretation of the definition of marriage can be altered, after thousands of years of universal understanding, to suddenly include two people of the same gender, rather than one from each gender, which I don't think it can, particularly when civil unions accomplish the same thing without the fundamental legal rift, how will polygamy continue to be illegal? Or, should it?) But the Bush thing sounds like kool-aid drinking. My continued support for Bush has been cornered into national security/anti-terror initiatives and little else (his most recent successful Supreme Court Justices notwithstanding) but I'm having more and more trouble defining him. He's certainly not a conservative. He's not a liberal, either. Maybe he's just a mediocre chief executive, which appears to be his life's pattern. But, being anti-Bush seems like being anti-wind or anti-automobile. He's a lame-duck, he's not going anywhere for the time being. Are you anti-conservative and using him for your pinata?

Me too.Funny how he "moralizes" about gay marriage yet defends his own lies and criminal actions.I guess it's fine to blow up innocent people but sinful to allow two people who love one another to make a formal committment and legal contract....