Who gets the lubricants?

Your mom. (sorry, that was a Brad Lidge playoff pitch right there).

Since you can't marginalize the guy in the divorce like you do with heterosexuals, who gets the house?

The one thing I always find stupid is when the loonies say one justification for gay marriage is "Look at the divorce rate in this country! If two unhappy people can be married, why can't two happy homosexuals get married?". Guess this kinda shows you that excuse is worthless. Never was a very logical excuse in the first place though.

Which supporter of gay marriage said "No homosexual couple will ever split up"? Idiot.

What happened to all that conservative mumbo-jumbo about "individual responsibility"?

This story doesn't concern you at all - it doesn't concern anybody except these two people. I just don't understand you guys. I mean look, I get pretty grossed out myself if I see two guys kissing, or holding hands. But I tell myself that is just something I have to deal with, because who really cares if two consenting adults want to get married? Why is it any of your business --- it doesn't concern you in the least.

What ever happened to individual freedoms? Gay marriage, drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, prostitution --- these are all individual choices. And if they are chosen by adults, and if they cause no harm to anybody else, then please, please explain to me why you wish to limit these choices.

Stop imposing your twisted view of morality upon those who have no interest in obeying it.

bayside, it wasn't necessary to sign your post at the end.

Actually though - I (gagging sound) actually agree with maffy on this. I don't care that they wanted to get married. I don't care that they split up. Freedom and Liberty for All. Big words for a big country.

One gay couple splitting up after two years is not an argument against gay marriage. If every gay couple that ever got married or had a civil union split up, that should give pause to any gay couple to think about, will this work? There would be historical evidence that it would not. What frustrates me is that two people for selfish reasons forced their will to change law so that they could be together for two years! What about other states? Could two people force a state to change their laws so that they could be married and it also last a short time? It’s all selfishness. I know I may be over reacting but it's a scenario that could be repeated.

Your mom. (sorry, that was a Brad Lidge playoff pitch right there).

My mother died in 1976, why would she need lubricants?

"My mother died in 1976, why would she need lubricants?"

To keep her harp running smoothly?

To keep her harp running smoothly?

Nice. Is your mother still alive? Do you know who she is? Are you sure? How 'bout papa? And don't come back with "which one?"

Both present and accounted for. No harp playing for a while, hopefully.

I gave myself a stomach ache laughing when I saw this news blub. Priceless, just priceless.

Yeah, the last time I saw a couple of lesbos break up, knives were involved.

Okay, I've had a couple of glasses of wine so I am not necessarily responsible for my typos.

maf, the personal choices you refer to, and I mean ALL of them, have consequences for the society at large. Alcohol, marijuana, prostitution can all hurt people who do not choose to indulge in any of them. Think STD given to the spouse of the one who hires a prostitute, think of the person put in danger when someone who has had a little too much gets behind the wheel, or operates on a patient or tries to fix the electrical wires that fell down during that last nasty storm, or is watching the pool as kids splash around. On their face, none of these "choices" affect another, but the consequences are real.

Marriage is a social contract and a social institution with centuries of development. All types of modification to the institution including no fault divorce, polygamy or anything else impacts the greater society regardless of the two adults making the particular decision. A particular society might make the decision to accept the costs of a change in the social contract (ie gay marriage), but to say that it has no impact or that opposition to a change is somehow rooted in ignorance or some malfeasance, is just not accurate.

I see even Matt has fallen into the PC language police trap. Hey Matt, it ain't "gay" marriage. It's homosexual marriage.

Gay means happy. All marriages (real ones, not those homosexuals pretending they're married) should be gay.

Just to show you how screwy this PC crap can get, one of my friends who has children in grade school told me that the teachers have been ordered to stop using red pencils and pens when grading the students' work because it lowers the self-esteem of the student. All are ordered to use purple now. So Purple is the new red.

Who cares?

I sure don't.

Ronald Reagan was divorced, does that make him any less of a good person?

Rev...

But purple is so... gay...

Now's when the trouble starts. As I've always said, the problem isn't gay marriage. God doesn't care who you play hide the salami with. The problem is gay divorce. Just look at what happened to Ann Heche when she split up with Ellen DeGeneres. And they weren't even maried.

As I've been saying for a while, the problem isn't gay marriage. The Lord doesn't care who you play hide the salami with. The problem is gay divorce. We all saw what happened to Ann Heche when she split up with Ellen DeGeneres, and they weren't even married. Under no circumstances can we let these people divorce. It would be a threat to national security.

Yeah, becuase no straight couples have ever split up.

looks like gay marriage is just like regular marriage

looks like gay marriage is just like regular marriage

Except for all the fecal matter and AIDs in the homo-style "marriage." Yep they're perfectly identimagical. Don't you just like, "Careless Whisper?"