"How does the two compare?" You asked why it's still illegal if there's nothing wrong with it. I said it's because we have bigots in the country. I cited resistance to interracial marriage as evidence indicating the widespread presence of bigots in the country. Does that clarify the comparison?

"Then explain why most of the states and the country still oppose same sex marriage." Because there are lots of bigots in the country. Proof: we didn't legalize interracial marriage everywhere until the 1960s and it didn't have majority approval until the 1990s.

I'm not sure Satan deserves the blame for the strength of our biological desires. Satan didn't design our bodies.

Isn't the alternative to enshrine Christian morality into law, and thus violate the 1st Amendment in another way?

Conservatives being bullied, yes.

But I thought we were supposed to be resisting the steady encroachment of Islamism? That always seemed like the general Townhall sentiment. I hope I'm wrong - honestly, that could just be the general sentiment among the Townhallers who comment on Islam articles.

"Far, far more common for gays are anonymous or casual liaisons." Couldn't we say something similar about heterosexual sex? The single guys and single ladies who bring each other home from bars are not usually in it for love. "I have known many gays in my life, and I NEVER knew one that was in a committed, permanent, faith relationship with another." Good for you. Most of the gay people I know are in such relationships. So much for personal anecdotal evidence.

Yet if this were a workshop criticizing the Quran, you'd all be cheering - tell me I'm wrong.

You mean in the world of the right, right? That's what this whole article's about, isn't it? Liberals are disagreeing with the beliefs of conservatives, and in the conservative's sensitive view this amounts to bullying.

And yet the liberals aren't the ones who see a workshop on some other interpretation of scripture and wailing "OH! I'M BEING BULLIED! MY MAJORITY IS UNDER SIEGE BY BULLIES!"

"A homosexual pedophile is still a homosexual - the age of the partner / victim is irrelevent in that determination, and it's pretty moronic to attempt to create some imaginary wall of separation between the two paraphilias." Then why direct me to a study two doctors who concluded exactly that there is such a distinction? And how can you honestly call it "moronic" to draw a distinction between consensual adult sex, however perverse, and the rape of children?