Rewind: The Daily live blogs the Lacrosse NCAA Championship Game

Why is it nescasary to distinguish the sexualities of heroes in comic books. As a child i read comic books to hear about stories of fantastic heroes overcoming tremendous odds. Never was i interested in the love lives of the heroes i was reading about. While occasionally their love lives where mentioned it was never the focal point of the book. Making their sexuality the focal point or even a major point of the comic takes away what it was truly about. Also taking a hero and changing them robs them of their original purpose. Comics where never meant to be about relationships or anything like that. Also why do people need to do this. Wouldnt setting aside a character as specifically homosexual just prove that we dont accept homsexuals as a culture. This proves that we feel we need this. In addition there will allways be homophobes that will use these comics as another thing to hate on. While it is wrong to just allow people to walk over others it doesnt seem like this is an effective way to prove that america is accepting of homosexuals. Comic books should not be about the political or social issues of america. While in some cases they were in the past i allways remembered them as one of my favorite past times as a child. I just feel it robs the character and purpose away from a comic book to add this. Hope i dont come out as an idiot or insenitive.

Edit: The Second Anonymous has been removed, apparently.

Why should marriage be exclusively for heterosexual couples? When I get married, it will be because I am in love with my partner, she is in love with me, and we want to publicly celebrate that with our friends and family. I would want same-sex couples to be able to do the same thing.

To address the second Anonymous's bestiality argument (at least the second Anonymous has an argument, mind you, unlike his or her inarticulate predecessor), the reason that people are not permitted to marry dogs, donkeys, or other such animals is that those animals cannot provide consent that is recognized by the law as possessing the same level of complexity and consideration as an human's.

I am confused, though, by his or her assertion that the "moral values in the US" have "fallen so far," and that "America is better than this!" (I'm not going to put that in all caps), set beside a claim that he or she is "not against gay relationships." Why, then, would marriage equality constitute a decay of moral fiber, or be considered beneath America, if the issue is just an error in the interpretation of the institution of marriage, rather than being about whether or not homosexuality is "bad" or not?