This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Visualizing The State-By-State Implications Of The DOMA Decision

Tyler Durden's picture




 

The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (as we noted here), leaving states to decide on the legality of same-sex marriage. As the infographic below from Bloomberg shows, laws ban same-sex-marriage in 35 states, with five of those allowing civil union or domestic partnerships.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:50 | 3697269 HelluvaEngineer
HelluvaEngineer's picture

Totally. Don't. Care.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:52 | 3697276 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

I'd rather Zerohedge be investigating the statement that Iceland isn't all its cracked up to be. You know... because it keeps being used by anybody and everybody that "its the model" yet Kyle Bass put that notion completely on its head.

I guess I'll have to wait for Yahoo news to cover that one...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:08 | 3697325 CH1
CH1's picture

I really don't care.

Let the gay guys do whatever they like, so long as they don't bother anyone. And I am not worried about "the family."

Tyler: I would recommend leaving time-wasting stories to the networks - they specialize in that shit.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:13 | 3697339 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

I mentioned yahoo news in the other post because I've seen yahoo news break financial stories before zerohedge on topics that are Zerohedge's bread and butter, only for Zerohedge a day later to post the same story.

(I love you Tyler, don't get me wrong, but a little constructive criticism I think is warranted)

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:19 | 3697362 knukles
knukles's picture

The gubamint has no business in the matter. 
Remember, there's that thingamajigiie about "Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?"

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:43 | 3697427 nmewn
nmewn's picture

On one level its a formal contract (recognized by the state), on another, its a religious union (recognized by the church). What the state says is a contract is one thing, what a church consecrates is another.

Personally, I don't care what the state says anymore.

At the risk of my Life & Liberty, I'm going to pursue my Happiness ;-)

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:47 | 3697445 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

they gave the power to the states.  good news so far

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:03 | 3697476 nmewn
nmewn's picture

From my perspective...its literally...no sweat off my balls...lol.

As Engineer says below, its a great wedge issue...only divorce lawyers gain from this one...the implication IS...monogamy...with the full force of the state behind it ;-)

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:18 | 3697507 strannick
strannick's picture

Does the repudiation of ''traditional'' mean I can now marry my aunt or cat or both?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:49 | 3697601 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Only to the state and they're working on it...socialist economics is (social engineering, no births/lower births=less future taxation, how does that work?) & societally (you can't bypass nature without consequence) they haven't thought through the implications, I think...unless its gonna be like a "pre-screened" sperm donor (instead of the hobo/addict looking for a buck) ala sperm jobs "saved or created"...lol...just wondering about post-DOMA mechanics.

But here we're talking about "legality"...soley in the purview of the state.

They wanted "change"...they got it...has no one ever heard of common law "wife"?...sui juris? Like I said elsewhere, more power to em...they ain't gonna like splitting their ass-ets and the lawyers getting half of the whole...BUTT...whatevah ;-)

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:42 | 3697786 SafelyGraze
SafelyGraze's picture

here is the primary source that the supreme court consulted as it deliberated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSGmchoDXZU

spoiler: it's just chapter 29

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:33 | 3697951 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

I'm surprised, (but probably shouldn't be), that so many of the very posters on ZH who are absolutely adamant on the issue of (lack of) morals within the banking industry don't care about the morals of society as a whole.

If there was one group of folks I would have thought had the capacity to put the dots together, it would be the crowd on this board.

The banking crooks are but a microcosm of society at large. Sodomites can be sodomites if they want, but they have no more right to force a redefinition of what constitutes marriage and family, than the fiat crooks have to redefine what is real money.

Do the same guys who are defending gold as real money with a 6,000 +/- year history, really think that it doesn't matter if a radical segment of the population want to redefine what makes a family and what constitutes marriage with an equally-long history?

You can't draw pure water from a stagnant well anymore than you can hope to draw 'good bankers / politicians, etc out of a moral cesspool of society.

History has plenty of examples to show that the demise and downfall of a society starts with its morals being diluted before its money is.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:34 | 3698077 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Dominus vobiscum, frater.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:55 | 3698212 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

In Russia, is no gayness, not even to talk about. Boris is not to understand Amerika pre-occupation for boy love. How do you say, "yuck"?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:56 | 3698122 Silver Bully
Silver Bully's picture

'If there was one group of folks I would have thought had the capacity to put the dots together, it would be the crowd on this board.'

 

Don't be surprised. Many here think they're part of the 'in' crowd by being contrarians, gold bugs, libertarians, Paul supporters, Randians, etc. But trying to be 'in' this way is no different than those who support gay marriage because it is also the 'in' thing to do. For these, intelligence has nothing to do with it. Being part of exclusive group is all it is for many people here.

This would be why so many don't connect the importance of personal morals with the decline in trust of our government, our money supply, and our country. It should be obvious (and perhaps for many, it used to be), but these days far too many have lost sight of it.

Turn yourselves around. Get right with God. Then you can get the money, the power, and the leadership turned around. Until then, the country will continue 'going down the wrong path.'

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:58 | 3698215 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

You are forget some are visit to ZH because extreme dislike of shrubbery.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:26 | 3698255 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

Men hate God for the same reason that men hate gold. Both are a restraint on their excesses.

One restrains them in the realm of morals. The other restrians them in the realm of money.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 09:02 | 3698687 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I think you may be reading me wrong.

Let me try and explain my position again, one of the principles of this nations founding (the federal-central government) is the separation of church & state.

That is to say, something can easily be legal...yet immoral. There are many examples, generation upon generation of public assistance is, immoral, it is bondage/slavery. Bailing out corporations with public monies is, immoral, it is theft...I could keep going but you get my drift.

Having said that, I have no desire to live in a theocracy just as I have no desire to live in a totalitarian state that will at some point say my pronouncement of someone (or something) as being immoral is hate speech, thereby a punishable offense. The act of marriage (as a moral institution, consecrated by the church, for the benefit of all society and future generations) was bastardized by the federal government long ago, not this week, by the preferential treatment of it in the tax code, instead of what it is.

And a prediction, this precedent will be used by the enemies of all religions via the federal tax code...another reason to abolish the current tax code. 

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:09 | 3699439 Lost Word
Lost Word's picture

Who gets to decide what shall be the Laws?  God? Kings? Legislators? People?

Majority or Minority?

It seems that the Supreme Court has voted for Legal Anarchy, in which any minority opinion is Legal, because a small number of Judges say so. A minority opinion becoming Legal soon becomes any individual opinion becoming Legal.

After there is Legal Anarchy, there will be Social Anarchy.

How will the Financial world function in Legal and Social Anarchy?

Thus the connection to ZH.

 

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 21:54 | 3701970 nmewn
nmewn's picture

It seems, we can't escape what we are...it will be settled again, for a generation or so perhaps...then the cycle will repeat.

As far as mans law, it invariably tracks popular opinion (usually manufactured popular opinion these days) instead of predicated on the wisdom of right & wrong.

Just realize when you step outside of "the consent to be governed by fools" you will be branded as a heretic & a criminal for that action.

But also realize, you'll be among friends ;-)

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:19 | 3698247 gwar5
gwar5's picture

Of course, especially if your cat is also your Aunt. The bigger the freakshow the more you'll be loved and admired.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:17 | 3698245 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Actually it's a cultural institution which most definitely exists in societies which have nothing westerners would call a religion, and has existed in western societies far longer than organized religions have.

Of course this is a straw-man. Marriage is actually just a type of semi-formal social relationship which furthers social stability/cohesion. It really doesn't even have anything to do with comparative advantage in reproductive outcomes, as one look at the kin structures and child-rearing practices of any so-called primitive culture shows.

But thanks for playing.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:40 | 3698264 gwar5
gwar5's picture

You're totally full of shit and it shows.

 

Vows of chastitiy and marriage have been very serious matters in society over 5 mellenia because of the risk of venereal diseases for which there was no known cause or cure until the last 150 and 100 years, respectively. Gonorrhea and Syphilis were the equivalent of AIDS for thousands of years until recently with antibiotics. Women were damaged goods if she was not a virgin because of the risk of disease and the uncertain paternity of children.

As ever, the best looking women got the men who proved clever or strong enough to have the biggest house and the most shit, potentially supporting the most children, same as it ever was. Just like the alpa males in a wolf pack, or males of a lion pride that control more territory over the neighboring prides.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:56 | 3699411 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

while I get the "uncertain paternity" idea, surely men were / are at "risk of disease" as well, through sexual exploits?  women would get the diseases via having sex with a carrier, no?  promiscuity swings both ways - but apparently the "vows of chastity" don't. . . wonder why that is.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:54 | 3697438 G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

Indeed, knuckles. They concocted a brand new right under the 5th Amendment, kinda like Justice Roberts inventing a new tax for Obamacare.

Justice Kennedy actually assumed that those who opposed the decision are bigots. What they have done, in reality, is change the nature of marriage while doing nothing more than perverting the Constitution. Federalism has risen to a beast beyond anyone could have imagined, especially in America.

Like the so called Immigration reform, Obamacare, etc...is a power grab by the liberals on the court. These are activists justices, whom are just 5 people shaping state policy while demeaning the rights of the people in each State to decide for themselves.  They have forsaken the rule of law that the Constitution and Bill of Rights provide the individual. As time goes on all three branches will legally criminalize more and more of it's citizens, creating economic slaves to feed their bureaucratic beast. Since we have a cabal turning against it's own citizens and the NSA data mining, not for terrorism, as the naive and ignorant believe, they will have all the information needed to confiscate wealth, which is it's primary motive to stay in power and control. If you expect change, it aint going to happen. As private cash runs out to pay taxes they will confiscate your assets. Multitudes of economic disasters will bring American to it's knees, recognizing that Statism end result is dictatorship and destruction. There has to be enough economic pain manufactured by these idiot politicians, justices and the executive to the people in order to effect change.

We don't have a government that is “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”-Lincoln

What we morphed into is a government that does things to it's people!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:59 | 3697467 CheapBastard
CheapBastard's picture

The justices are saying we all should be treated "equally" does this mean they will eliminate those boxes, "Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, and so on," for college admissions?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:19 | 3698050 Midas
Midas's picture

Some animals are more equal than others.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:02 | 3697475 pods
pods's picture

If you can kindly show me where in the constitution we gave the federal government the power to legislate on this topic I would be satisfied.

As for "they concocted a brand new right under the 5th amendment,"  they did no such thing.

Probably the greatest flaw in the constitution is the whole idea of enumerated rights.  

We should have stuck with it simply being a framework for the federal government to function, and have kept out the whole idea of declaring rights on paper.

There were even arguments in the federalist papers, as I recall by Hamilton (delicious irony), that having a bill of rights would allow the government to infer rights not declared did not exist.

Hence we have the 9th and 10th amendments.

Further, since so many are brainwashed into thinking priviledges are in fact rights (ex. right to vote) I say we collapse the whole thing and rethink the entire idea of positive government.

pods

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:15 | 3697591 G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

Pods....Do you really think after this ruling that the 9th and 10th Amendment will have a wave of precedence as States become more and more beholden to Federalism?  Look at Proposition 8 in Kalifornia, if the left doesn't like the decision the people made they will litigate all the way to the Supreme Court and the activists got their way. You see if the left doesn't like what isn't in their best interest they will get activists judges to pervert law. The Feds have imposed their will upon the greater interests of the people.

The way Statism has infiltrated all 3 branches and with Democrats bribing their people with benefits, entiltements and other goodies, I don't see their is much hope

Marriage for the purpose of federal law, enough said.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:29 | 3698069 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Indeed. How does the GOP compete with Satan Claus?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:20 | 3698248 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

I'd suggest the GOP put together a hostile takeover of the North Pole, all properties affixed thereto as well as the livestock (reindeer). Whether those pesky elves are property or citizens would rightly be decided in a different jurisdiction.

With that kind of business climate, old Satan Claus would soon snap into line or find himself making all his toys for the new Chinese overlords.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:08 | 3698017 McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

All I know is that the reaction among many self-professed "limited government" folks to this DOMA shit is disturbing to say the least. It has me wondering if the only thing holding them back from having sex with their dogs/cats/moms/sisters/couches/etc. was a fucking law. Why do I say this?

Because their immediate response has been to suggest that a single supreme court ruling will unleash upon this land a flood of bestiality and incest. As such, I'm forced to wonder about their own personal sexual proclivities as well as their commitment to limited government.

People either want liberty or they don't. There isn't really an in-between. I've taught my kids from an early age that they're not going to agree with everyone they meet, but as long as they're not being harmed, they have no right to impose their will upon others — especially through government force.

This is one of those issues that the people behind the scenes relish because it diverts the public's attention from the truly important matters. As I see it, too many people are unwittingly playing right into their oppressors' hands.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:39 | 3698058 G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

"Because their immediate response has been to suggest that a single supreme court ruling will unleash upon this land a flood of bestiality and incest."

I would be very suspicious the next time you bend over McMolotov, because all three branches are sticking their Statist agenda up every average individual, liberty, privacy and freedom loving American ars.

Behold the image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqNMjZpSbnU

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:34 | 3698079 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

for the sole purpose of outing statist fucks posing as "conservatives" or "libertarians" I am glad these articles came out.
Some I've been unsure of from less pushy comments but now I know for sure who's an asshole bible banger, an asshole statist or just a plain asshole and for any other topic felt a need to hide it - but not on this.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:22 | 3698252 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Put me down as just a plain asshole. Although I sometimes like to roll in powdered sugar and those little candy things.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 08:18 | 3698611 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

I'm disturbed that I find that image arousing...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:45 | 3699356 SmackDaddy
SmackDaddy's picture

They have the liberty to do whatever the fuck they want.  But two faggots playing house does not a marriage make.  This is just a way for working faggots to get their non-working faggot boyfriend benefits.... Oh and Christians, hold you applause.  I fucking hate you too.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:38 | 3698262 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Really? You'd be ethically satisfied if a piece of paper written by slave owning aristocrats-turned-oligarchs, over 200 years ago, said it was okay for the state, via the government, by way of legislation, to infringe on the natural, inalienable rights of some subpopulation over which it claims sovereignty?

That's some seriously perverted moral logic. Individual liberty counts for nothing if it exists in a society where morality is dictated, coerced, and enforced.

If we are to believe the quasi-mythological hagiography that passes for the official history of this country's political founding, the founders attempted to give a brutally conformist, openly authoritarian, deeply religious society individual liberty. Why would anyone do something so futile? It was self-contradictory then as Chinese democracy is now.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:24 | 3697527 G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

Just a follow up comment to my previous comment. What they have done is further adulterate our Nation, pun intended!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:37 | 3697965 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

them and yajooo are pretty much the same these days if you haven't noticed

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 08:54 | 3698678 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

"but a little constructive criticism I think is warranted" - TheTmFreak

I'm glad you feel that way.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-18/kyle-bass-next-18-months-will-redefine-economic-orthodoxy-west

""You have a roach motel of a country; the New York Times and Krugman saying it's "The Model"; but they still haven't addressed the problem of their debt."

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:47 | 3697443 Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

Depending- Bullish on wedding gowns or anal tightening surgery.

FORWARD SOVIET!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:25 | 3697529 Room 101
Room 101's picture

Exactly TMFREAK.  Why would I give even half a shit whether people who want to buttfuck each other can get a marriage license or not?  Please Tyler: leave this garbage to the corporate media shills.  

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:01 | 3698004 noless
noless's picture

The only logical reason for gays to marry has to do with life decisions in hospital, or during estate proceedings, or that of child custody. So that the will of those involved is respected by the law instead of their family who may or may not have disowned them, only to later reap the profit of their lifes work.

I don't personally support any state sanctioned or mandated marriage, but from a documentation and will perspective, as the state mandates, it is a significant issue.

Can you imagine a parent or relative you were on bad terms with since you were a child suddenly coming into your life when you were on your death bed, or gone, demanding that what you left to your wife and children was theirs, because your relationship was illegitimate?

I know this is a thorny issue, but seriously, people have the right to determine for themselves what they deem appropriate for themselves their partners and their heirs.

I am generally in the traditional camp when it comes to issues like this, but i feel the argument should be heard. People deserve the right to live their lives as they see fit as long as they aren't harming others., end of story.

And yes ladies, still single as fuck.

Personally, i think this is all a bullshit smoke screen, and the fed gov should stay the fuck out of it, but theoretically and philosophically i have to err on the side of gays on this one, even though i view it as entirely counter productive.

It's cool though, soon enough i won't offend anyone by calling thus cursory in comparison to issues we as a nation face.. Right?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:22 | 3698057 Midas
Midas's picture

I do know BHOBama is more than happy to have everyone talking about homos, abortions, sandra fluke, ed snowden, or anything else, as long as they don't talk about the ecomony. It's broke and it ain't getting fixed while Barry is in office.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 09:08 | 3698706 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Exactly. If it weren't for the current tax scheme, this shit would be irrelevent.  The govt would have no reason to be involved.  The gays who really cared about it, would come up with their own name for their commited relationships. There would be no politicians to shove this nonsense down our throats as a diversion/fund raising tactic because there would be no money or power attached to it.

Perfect example of what happens when the govt gets involved...  

 

How did all this start?  the govt gave tax advantages to married couples?   Now look what it turned into...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:51 | 3698110 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Let me explain it for the Gammas. I promise to write slowly, so you can keep up:

The real purpose is so that the dildo wearers and fudge packers can ADOPT. Savvy?

And TPTB don't really care about you, as long as you Animals -- which is what you are to them -- can be bred, sheared and slaughtered. They want a strong Elite, not a strong nation.

Shag on, sheep shaggers. /s

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:35 | 3697766 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Yeah, what the hell happened with that? Who cares about this supreme court circus?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:59 | 3697303 Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

 

 

Debased currency? Check.

Politics is road to personal wealth? Check.

Endemic political corruption? Check.

Continuous war? Check.

Collapse of the middle class?

Rampant sexual deviancy/homosexuality? Check.

 

We. Are. Ancient. Rome...

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:05 | 3697315 HelluvaEngineer
HelluvaEngineer's picture

You do realize...even if they don't get married, they will still have teh butsecks?  So while I agree with you, this has no impact on your comment, and ZH'ers should band together and ignore these wedge issues. 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:46 | 3697440 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Agree.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:29 | 3697541 Room 101
Room 101's picture

+1.  Rugmunching and buttfucking are not issues worth discussing on ZH.  Just go to a porn site if that's your thing.  

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:33 | 3697758 Spaceman Spiff
Spaceman Spiff's picture

I sincerely disagree, if those topics get some SEC guys to pay attention to key financial stories, then so be it.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:29 | 3698072 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

O M G.

I hadn't even thought of that.

MIDGET TRANNY BUTTSEX

blah...blah...blah...

and then the this insider trading (see charts) was exposed by (etc, etc) ...

I can just picture Big Jim on the 10am shift pulling up zh articles by accident and showing it to his boss. "Hey Larry, I was just trackin' down sum o' dat hot midget hamster tranny porn and look what I found - INSIDER TRADING! kin ya belieeeev it!"

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:00 | 3698125 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

That's a HelluvaAnalysis, HelluvaEngineer. /s

In a word: ADOPTION.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:38 | 3697410 Freddie
Freddie's picture

The only thing this has any ****ing thing to do with ZH is that douchebag Paul Krugman can now legally (sic) marry The Ben Bernank.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:33 | 3697550 Room 101
Room 101's picture

Why the asterisks, Freddie?  We're allowed to say "fuck" here.  Even "cocksucker" and "cunt."  You're just not allowed to say anything that might offend the delicate sensibilities of select ethnic and religious groups. 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:05 | 3697658 spdrdr
spdrdr's picture

I, for one, have no problem at all with gay marriage - after all, why should the poofters spend their lives in relative bliss? 

Get married, you fuckers!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:57 | 3697844 Zymurguy
Zymurguy's picture

Meh, this is just a conspiracy to get all the gays to get all excited about marriage... run out and get married, then find out how much it fucks up your life so you want a divorce.

The fucking blood sucking lawyers had this all planned out!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:27 | 3697935 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Wedding planners too. The gay couple at my work were ecstatic today inviting us all to their impending nuptials! Called it Their Big Fat Gay Greek Wedding. Whole thing seems a bit silly to me but I guess I might as well enjoy all this idiocy if I get some free food and entertainment.

Miffed;-)

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:41 | 3697420 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

As to you evangelicals (proxy-bullies) that like to use government proxies for your hate and violence so you can walk around all righteous: ha, ha, ha! The gays out paid-off those of government and the jokes on you--they milked you AND them.

More proof that government always accomplishes the opposite of the STATED goal, always.

And no I am not gay, don't care if someone is, but just don't like shitheads using and empowering government to more heights of evil just to so they can push their own insecurity assuaging agenda.

And I also don't think that, based on what we know of the US government's evil, gay marriage should really be high on the priority list. Things like fraud, theft, murder, oppression and treason top my list; but then that may just be me.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:27 | 3698256 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Apparently you have confused ZH 2013 with ZH 2010.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:27 | 3698354 Insignificunt
Insignificunt's picture

Yep

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:44 | 3698254 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Don't care? Really? Let me re-frame what I no longer care about:

GLBT (Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites) ADOPTING children. Are you fully retarded, or just a Sodomized Asshole? This country is totally and utterly 'fucked'.

We got endless wars and 22 military suicides per day, endless deficits and debt, endless spying, social engineering, confiscation by taxation and regulation, fraudulent money, rigged markets, TBTF, TBTJ, GLBT adopting children, GMO foods, drones, drugs, crime, prison nation, horribly low rankings in international student competitions, highest medical costs in the world, highest infant death rates and lowest life expectancy of Top10 industrialized countries, more weapons than 90% of the planet, not trusted by 99% of the planet, etc, etc.

And yet we still got Bubba's chanting or proclaiming...

   "USA, USA, USA!"

   "Best country on earth!"

   "I think others should pay more taxes, so I won't have to"

   "I need slave labor/wages, cause otherwise my shitty business model collapses like a cheap tent.  And I need tax subsidizes too."

   "I don't care what experts (Black, Casey) say about the need for 2nd passport or foreign residency (just ask Ed Snowden), I refuse to have a Plan B that gets me beyond the easy reach of my Elite Masters. Masters, I'd happily bleed and die for."

  "I'd happily bleed, die, pay endless taxes for those who won't, for all those welfare cases, Wall St saints and DC politicians."

   "Where else can you get all this and more? Is this a great country, or what?"

   "Hopium?  Nah, not me.  I'm a Con-ser-va-tive.  Hopium is just the other guys!  USA, USA, USA!"

I'm SO fucking DONE with the latter-day cesspool this country has become!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:52 | 3697273 lordbyroniv
lordbyroniv's picture

Satan must be lol'ing his head off  :(

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:57 | 3697294 drink or die
drink or die's picture

Yeah, because God judges you based on what's legal in your country, not what you do.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:02 | 3697310 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

I'm also always find it surprising that the same God who presumably created the universe - Sun, stars, planets, black holes, the whole fucking lot of it, is such a giant homophobe.  Guess that's part of those 'mysterious ways' he works in.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:11 | 3697323 IllusionOfChoice
IllusionOfChoice's picture

Can't you see God at his giant table just running a few calc problems for fun, then he yells "Damnit!" and sits there flabergasted realizing the otherwise amazing DNA he just spun up leads people to want to bang others of the same sex?

Man, I'll bet he was pissed.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:15 | 3697346 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

He might be more concerned with all the killing and other cruelty.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:20 | 3697366 12ToothAssassin
12ToothAssassin's picture

The next time two people of the same sex decide to get married *JUST* because its legal will be the first.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:26 | 3697385 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

All's fair in love and war.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:44 | 3697790 IllusionOfChoice
IllusionOfChoice's picture

Guess I forgot the </sarc> tag.

Still wondering why everyone thinks we're so important that He would give a shit.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:48 | 3697805 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

A sarc tag won't help you on this topic.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:21 | 3697368 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

Ignorant comment. 

Why does the percentage of homosexuals change throughout history?  What was the percentage of homosexuals in colonial America?  During the Civil War?  Thirty years ago?

If it were genetic the percentage would be decreasing, not increasing, as the "gay gene" cannot be passed on by homosexuals.  Evolution would weed out dead-end nonbreeders, no?  By the way, since we can map the human genome, can you point out this so-called "gay gene"?  Maybe it's just a behavioral choice, like theft or charity or knitting.  Let's not rewrite history (anthropological or natural).

I say this as one who thinks you should be free to sodomize your fellow consenting man if that's your fetish.  I'm a libertarian.  But we don't have to lionize it or redefine words like "marriage" to authenticate it.  Newspeak and logical fallacies are the weapons of TPTB

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:43 | 3697429 fourZero
fourZero's picture

Homosexual activity was considered much more taboo, even in recent history.  Whatever data you could find to support your assertion that there were less homosexuals historically would clearly be skewed by underreporting. What do you think the reported percentage of homosexuals is in a country like Iran, where you can die for such activity?  

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:48 | 3697448 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

That's a logical fallacy: "Absence of proof is proof itself." 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:44 | 3697435 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

the journals of cabaza de vaca, coronado and castillo talk of the effeminate tribes they encountered in mexico and texas/lousiana/arizona in the 1500's.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:52 | 3697458 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

krugman?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:53 | 3697459 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

Quite vague and subjective.  Effeminate because they were thin and beardless (i.e. of Asian ancestry)?  Were they sodomites?  How did they reproduce?  Where are those tribes now?  Not being disrespectful, but I would require more facts before embracing this as a legitimate argument for either side of the debate.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:04 | 3697474 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture
"diabolical practices [...] a man married to another man, amarionados or effeminate, impotent men that dressed like women and performed women's duties, nevertheless, they fired the bow and the arrow and could carry heavy loads on their persons. We saw many amarionados, although taller and sturdier than the other men. Many of these men practiced the sin against nature." —Núñez Cabeza de Vaca[18]   not my fucking job to do your research.  try it yourself.  it's enlightening
Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:08 | 3697489 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

I'm not following you.  I could go to Key West and write the same description of certain men.  Does this mean they are that way genetically?   Does it mean I must embrace their behavior?  If so, what standard of behavior is my reference?  Does it mean I have to redefine societal institutions in their favor?  One anecdote does not constitute a universal truth.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:07 | 3697487 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

Nevertheless, De las Casas could not stop giving news about homosexual acts in contemporary Indian societies, as the custom of the fathers buying young boys for their children "to be used for the pleasure of sodomy", the existence of "infamous public places known as efebías where lewd and shameless young men practiced the abominable sin with all those who came into the house" or the two-spirits, "impotent, effeminate men dressed as women and carrying out their work". Also Fray Gregoria García gave news of that kind, such as "some men dressed as women and some father had five sons [... the younger] dressed him as a woman, and instructed him in his work and married him as a girl, although even in New Spain they scorned the effeminate and womanly Indians". The mentions of sodomy continued for a long time, even in 1666, in Cristóbal de Agüero and in 1697, in Fray Ángel Serra.[18]

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:17 | 3697517 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

I'm not denying that homosexuals existed in history.  I'm arguing that the actual percentage is greater today due to the general moral depravity of our society.  The percentage was also high at the end of the Greek and Roman Empires.  The percentage was low during eras of increased industry and individual responsibility.  This is an undeniable historic fact. 

How many homosexuals did your great-grandparents know?  How many do you know?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:36 | 3697768 IllusionOfChoice
IllusionOfChoice's picture

Calling homosexuals morally depraved is a subjective moral judgement. But if you're God, I guess that's your right. It's just not your right to speak for Him if you're not.

Faggot. :)

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:45 | 3699076 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

If God calls them morally depraved then one is on pretty safe ground to repeat the comment.

And everyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ is also commanded to speak for Him. The bible uses the term "ambassador" as a description of a Christian.

When God encoded the moral law for mankind in the ten commandments He gave an objective standard by which morals may be judged. In the New Testament sin is defined as any transgression of the law (ten commandments), and so for the Christian there is no subjectivity in the matter.

However, for those who reject God's moral authority, I do agree, all moral judgments are subjective as they reject the objective standard. When you say, "Calling homosexuals morally depraved is a subjective moral judgement" you are making a subjective moral judgment yourself as you are using YOUR standard to pass judgment on another.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:21 | 3698054 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Your supposition that homosexuality is a conscious choice is nonsense.
Clearly many gays have made it clear they are born that way, make no choice.
Also clearly the only CHOICE is to fight for rights & liberty, to be permitted to live rather than be beat down, to be permitted to live rather than to be self-hating in the name of a hateful society, which has frequently led to suicide.
How it is you keep coming out on the wrong end of the morality spectrum is your problem.
When you interfere with the liberties of others then it's everyone's problem because now you're the wildcard.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:39 | 3698084 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

You imply genetics. What gene is responsible please?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:50 | 3698105 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I imply no such thing. I made mention of endocrine disruption, DNA and epigenetics. I mentioned them all at the same time.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:26 | 3698065 Midas
Midas's picture

¿Menudo?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:41 | 3697779 IllusionOfChoice
IllusionOfChoice's picture

Quick google search for you reveals 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/22/ST20080622...

I'm sure some gay / bi people do so as a behavioral choice, but many are "born that way". Read anywhere, they feel compelled to like who they like, even when it causes them social trauma that they would otherwise love to avoid.

PS - What makes you think gays would not have had children? What makes you think some of that activity isn't cultural?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:03 | 3697868 samsara
samsara's picture

Prop. defense mechanism #37
"Personalize your attack, take focus off subject move it to personalities."

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 09:02 | 3698692 IllusionOfChoice
IllusionOfChoice's picture

I think maybe you meant this response to the one where I call Op a faggot. :)

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:53 | 3697993 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

"were genetic the percentage would be decreasing, not increasing, as the "gay gene" cannot be passed on by homosexuals."

RETARD.

Gays can make babies.

They just need to pair up MALE to FEMALE to do so, which is not blocked by being gay.

Think about it.

If you can knock up a girl you wish you hadn't,

if a girl can have sex with a man for money out of desperate need for money,

if a boy who's NOT GAY but very poor / in debt and desperate can have sex with a man with money FOR MONEY,

then why can't a man who only likes men go find a WOMAN to make a baby with?

I'm pretty sure it's happened many times.

And that's not even beginning to approach the hormonal conditions that can affect the embryo during development, which is NOT strictly from DNA, and from there we branch also to endocrine disruption from pollution & medication, and we can also alternatively look at epigenetics where even the DIET of 2-5 generations back will change segments of DNA in offspring all the way down the line.

Evolution can never weed out homosexuals. The reason is obvious: even those who have a preference for the same gender do eventually figure out how babies are made and if they really want a baby they'll go make one.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:42 | 3698091 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

"They just need to pair up MALE to FEMALE to do so, which is not blocked by being gay."

This is no longer a homosexual relationship, and doesn't necessarily pass on the "gay gene"

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:47 | 3698101 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

wrong.

A man who only likes sex & love with men is GAY.

A woman who only likes sex & love with women is GAY.

Either one is still potentially FERTILE, able to MAKE BABIES for the purpose of REPRODUCTION, not to defy their gayness.

The RELATIONSHIP is the GAY relationship. The FERTILITY requires NO relationship whatsoever except the initiation (maybe sex, maybe in vitro) and the delivery.

Again, you could screw some girl at a bar, never know her name, never give yours, never see each other again and voila - there's a baby, perhaps, if you were both so careless. No relationship is required to make the baby. No commitment to each other.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:31 | 3698358 Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

Should be noted here that since in the past there has been such a social stigma attached to being gay, many homosexuls "hid" in a straight relationship.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_marriage

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/27217/large/Marcus_Bachmann...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 08:03 | 3698575 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

I am all for freedom and liberty, let'em marry, live together what ever, but there is humor in this whole homosexual marriage side show, a man living with a man is a marriage....surrrr rrriiiight LOL. call a cow a dog sure right. words along with the dollar have lost any value when you change the basic meaning.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:22 | 3698056 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Lets see . . . can a guy marry a woman's shoe that he has a thing for ?

Can the guy and his shoe spouse adopt a child ?

Why should there be a prejudice regarding marriages between human adults and the 'living challenged' at all ?

That just doesnt seem 'fair' .

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:00 | 3697860 Zymurguy
Zymurguy's picture

Theory:  He does this to challenge us into solving problems in a moral and loving way.

 

He loves everyone and he doesn't make mistakes - so there's another agenda here.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:54 | 3697457 Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

I'm also always find it surprising that the same God who presumably created the universe - Sun, stars, planets, black holes, the whole fucking lot of it, is such a giant homophobe.  Guess that's part of those 'mysterious ways' he works in.

Al, he seems to be anti several things, like murder, robbery, etc.  Shouldn't you be bitching about that righteousness?  People are stupid, they do stupid things, but civilization only lasted these past thousands of years by doing the things that work, discarding what doesn't. If buggery is such a successful social more, how's them Romans and Greeks doing?  Ass fuckers deluxe, they are nothing but footnotes.

 

FORWARD SOVIET!

 

Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.

 

 

~ Thomas Sowell 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:57 | 3697622 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

I'm not advocating it (or opposing it), I just have a hard time imagining that whatever God there might be, who created an infinite universe, and is supposedly all-loving, omniscient and omnipotent, give a fuck about a few peoples' sexual orientation.  But I know, it's a sensitive topic for a lot of people (again, I have no idea why people feel so compelled to take such an active and judgemental interest in who's fucking who, as long as its consensual and in relative privacy).

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:36 | 3697771 Spaceman Spiff
Spaceman Spiff's picture

In terms of general creator policy, he'd probably want his creations to propagate.  Not getting religious, just saying if I were God, encouraging more hetero sex would move your creations forward.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:11 | 3698146 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

and yet his "only begotten son" - born of a virgin - was a celibate.

who professed love for everyone.

no, this isn't about religion at all, it's about old skool control, held in tight fists, dying out.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 14:08 | 3699982 Chaos_Theory
Chaos_Theory's picture

Nah, now we'll just evolve into another dimension of control.  In the near dystopian future, I can easily see the "See something-say something" crowd instructing the 'lil chilren' that if their parents say anything other than the Divirsity-State's approved message on sexual orientation, they are guilty of child abuse.  In will swoop the CPS SWAT teams to double-tap the Bigot child endagering parents, and the children will be whisked away to Fun Camp for some intensive re-education to erase the non-approved teachings from their thought-criminal parents.

Next will come the "if you aren't willing to s-ck a d-ck" (for boys) or "lick a v-jay-jay (for girls) you're a potential thought-criminal bigot and guilty of pre-Hate crimes.  Off to Fun Camp for you too.  

Oh sweet Darwin...this one has a copy of a Bible/Quran/Tora in his home within 200 meters of a child...that's Child Endagerment!!!!!! Too late for Fun Camp, only DHS can stop this crime. 

BTW (serious question):  If Evolution (and I believe it is) is fact, why after millions of years of Homo Sapiens existing, and assuming homosexuality has existed from the beginning, why hasn't Evolutionary Biology forced changes into homosexual beings to allow for homosexual reproduction?  I mean we've seen Evolution change fish scales to feathers to allow flight, frogs develope secretions that are poisonous to their predators, and many other examples of nature evolving to allow a species to continue to live.  Why no dudes with ovaries or ladies with frank and beans?  I'm not being sarcastic or ironic...I hope a Biologist can give me some leads.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 18:07 | 3701169 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

to answer your question, if indeed you are serious, are you aware of the term "intersex"?  or anything about "sexual assignment" surgeries performed by physicians who can't fit newborns into the sexual binary without surgery & subsequent hormone supplements, often for life?

Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life.

or that this has been going on for as long as the "medical profession" has had control over women's birthing?

here's a great book to get you started, and a list of others as well - that is, IF you are truly serious.

Fri, 06/28/2013 - 10:16 | 3703178 Chaos_Theory
Chaos_Theory's picture

Thanks for the links.  I was being serious and I will read them.  I honestly can't understand why we haven't evolved to the point were such assignment surgeries aren't necessary (either with dual genitalia being common, or genetic markers leading to men predisposed to homosexuality being born naturally with the ability to produce and carry eggs in a womb after fertilization).

Fri, 06/28/2013 - 12:04 | 3703508 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

if you think about how control of the populations, via religion / culture, etc. require a strict dual sexual presentation, so as to be controlled in minds - either you are a MAN or you are a WOMAN, and there are specific roles within religion and culture to be played out. . . and cultural policing done by bullying, supported by these supposed "truths" - and even laws to penalise, keep people in line, via fear and shaming.

these supposed truths are merely constructed beliefs, and they are being challenged more and more - though those who have benefited from the untruths are putting up major resistance, they will fail over time - as more and more begin to speak out about their own personal truths, tell of their own personal bodies, and the horrors of the medical professions performed on them.

as always, the question to ask is, who benefits from the control over whole populations?  to what end?

thanks for the exchange!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:19 | 3697360 Royal Fleming
Royal Fleming's picture

yup....all the way to Africa...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:18 | 3697521 Promethus
Promethus's picture

If Obama wanted to do Satan's work - what would he do different than what he is doing now ?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:04 | 3697875 Zymurguy
Zymurguy's picture

He's doing exactly what he's been instructed to do... engage in multiple activities aimed at overwhelming their explicit systems in an attempt to completely collapse the fabric of this country.  By doing so he or the next appointed puppet can introduce a completely new means of salvation for the suffering people who will welcome it with open arms.  Seems to be going as planned.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 14:35 | 3700150 Chaos_Theory
Chaos_Theory's picture

Why he'd be a Republican of course!  D good, R bad...D good, R bad

Oops. Sorry; I was watching CNN this morning and now I can't stop being a parrot (and I keep repeating the strangest phrase..."white Hispanic").

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:53 | 3697275 max2205
max2205's picture

r....checking out to another country

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:53 | 3697277 DaddyO
DaddyO's picture

When will we ever stop trying to legislate morality?

What two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business.

As to this issue, let the states decide and if you live in a state that isn't to your liking, then vote with your feet.

DaddyO

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:54 | 3697284 drink or die
drink or die's picture

+1

 

I'm willing to bet most people who frequent this site, being libertarians, don't care much at all about this story.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:59 | 3697302 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

You would think that would be the case, but wait til you see the number of comments.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:02 | 3697311 Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

 

 

Actually, every time a law is passed, a moral decision is being taken.

Every law declares something to be "wrong," and seeks to prevent/limit some activity which is perceived as 'harmful' to the public "good."

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:11 | 3697331 CH1
CH1's picture

Actually, every time a law is passed, a moral decision is being taken.

Yes, by the most immoral people that can be found - politicians.

Forsake the system.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:15 | 3697349 pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

Exactly! To make a blanket statement like the above poster, "when will government stop trying to legislate morality" is quite naive. Why is stealing against the law? Why is murder against the law? Any law passed is based on moral judgment.

Sociology 101. Philosophy 101

The question is what or who's moral code do we use to base our laws on?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:25 | 3697380 knukles
knukles's picture

Upon what moral codes?
All considerations of morality, ethics and the very foundation of character is derived from philosophical and religious/spiritual principles.
I'm not talking about frothing in the aisles, but the foundations of Natural Law....
Which by the way are directly referred to in our very own Declaration of Independence with the phrase "Nature and Nature's God entitle them.."

It is far past 101 for most folks....

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:05 | 3697479 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

Is it natural for one man to stick his erect dick into another's fecal-laden colon?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:08 | 3697674 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Women don't shit?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:50 | 3697817 forwardho
forwardho's picture

Any port in a storm.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 15:12 | 3700387 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Yeah, but it doesn't stink. Ask 'em.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:07 | 3697666 DaddyO
DaddyO's picture

Hey Pazm better go check your quotes there skippy...

I don't recall saying anything about government!

DaddyO

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:30 | 3697751 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Who did you mean by the "they" that legislates?  The general population has voted it down everytime it's on the ballot. 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:03 | 3697312 IndicaTive
IndicaTive's picture

Exactly. Sometimes it all Yahoo! all the time...FFS

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:29 | 3697390 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Entertainment whilst waiting for the Wall Street Street Lamp Decoration Committee appointments.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:10 | 3697330 whatthecurtains
whatthecurtains's picture

Libertarians care.   None of us want the Gov to legislate this shit.

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:16 | 3697351 inevitablecollapse
inevitablecollapse's picture

bingo - we have a winner! and what does our lovely contestant win jack??? a giant bag of who gives a fuck! the less gov involvement in the day to day lives if everyone, the better.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:18 | 3697519 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

I'm sick of gov't across the board. They do absolutely nothing while the country is burnt to the ground by the FED and Wall St Banksters.

Gay marriage or civil unions. Really, that's the problem here?

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:11 | 3697683 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

They hate us for our "condoms"...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:27 | 3697532 Cheeseus Sonofdog
Cheeseus Sonofdog's picture

But we also don't want to subsidize anothers spouse(at least i don't). This ruling just swelled government goodies for millions. 

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:41 | 3698082 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Many of us don't give a damn what other people choose to do in this regard.

What we do care about is that money come out of our pockets because of this (survivor and other benefits, etc)

We care that our kids are propagandized about this choice in public 'schools'.

We care that the definition of an institution that goes back centuries be redefined by a very small pressure group.

In other words, . . . they can do whatever they want (civil unions) but Just Leave Us Out of It (redefinition of marriage).

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:45 | 3697436 Northeaster
Northeaster's picture

"I'm willing to bet most people who frequent this site, being libertarians, don't care much at all about this story."

Libertarians don't care, but ZH clearly is not solely comprised of that demographic.

A lot of the hardcore "Doomers" of yesteryear are gone because their "predictions" didn't exactly pan out (we should have a new government now with silver/gold currencies & lot of GUNS!). As ZH gained semi-popularity, we have an entirely different demographic across the spectrum here today. I'm guessing quite a few still "lurk", but the experts in their respective fields don't post much anymore, which sucks. 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:42 | 3697785 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

There are too many "caring" libertarians who are really confused caring liberals.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:19 | 3698159 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I think last year's "election threads" illustrated quite explicitly that the "libertarian" label has a spectrum of definitions, and many "conservative christian" types feel quite entitled to use the tag.

might want to define your usage of the word, as it's not a one-size-fits-all term, merely the latest trend for voting types to misuse whilst hiding behind their agenda(s).

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:34 | 3699312 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

Some people feel as strongly about the definition of the word 'marriage' as you do about 'libertarian'. If a word can mean anything, then it means nothing.

To use your own quote (if your words mean anything), with regards to marriage, you "might want to define your usage of the word, as it's not a one-size-fits-all term, merely the latest trend for voting types to misuse whilst hiding behind their agenda(s).

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:12 | 3699465 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I'm not invested in the word "libertarian" beyond getting people to define their particular beliefs behind it when using it - it's a happy buzzword that has been stretched well beyond the original usage, and obfuscates the agenda when being used now.  particularly when used in a "voting" context.

I'm also not invested in the word "marriage" as I don't subscribe to that label any more than I do libertarian - but as long as the government is handing out prizes to those who "get married" then I believe the privilege should be extended to those taxed-payers who seek it.

full disclosure:  I don't vote, and I don't marry.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:02 | 3697472 samsara
samsara's picture

Dividing people and getting people to debate/argue on the completely meaningless sexual preferences basis wasn't good enough, and the Left vs Right thing is getting old.  Lets try getting to argue what a Libertarian is or isn't

Thanks,  Let's argue over another meaningless categorization for half the thread.

Libertarian?,  WTFCs

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:56 | 3697293 seek
seek's picture

Exactly, the government shouldn't even be in the marriage business... and it wasn't until the 1900s.

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 20:11 | 3697334 CH1
CH1's picture

You nailed it, seek. It's none of their damned business.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:23 | 3698168 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

when you look very carefully at how the government(s) benefit from "the marriage business" you'll see why they started poking their noses into peoples partnering, circa the 1900s as you rightly note.

cultural engineering, cui bono?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 08:58 | 3698683 JP McManus
JP McManus's picture

If you look closely, they're not fighting for marriage. They're fighting over Federal benefits and taxes.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:53 | 3697279 One And Only
One And Only's picture

I'm in love with my mom and we want to get married. Our liberties are being infringed upon. I also want to marry my daughter and my brother. This is America, I shouldn't have my liberties trampled on. It's unconstitutional.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:55 | 3697287 max2205
max2205's picture

Still cant have more than one gay spouse...or can you?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:15 | 3697686 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I'm my own grandpa...

~~~

Now, many many years ago
When I was twenty three
I was married to a widow
Who was pretty as could be

This widow had a grown-up daughter
Had hair of red
My father fell in love with her
And soon the two were wed

This made my dad my son-in-law
And changed my very life
My daughter was my mother
'Cause she was my father's wife

To complicate the matters
Even though it brought me joy
I soon became the father
Of a bouncing baby boy

My little baby then became
A brother-in-law to dad
And so became my uncle
Though it made me very sad

For if he was my uncle
That also made him the brother
Of the widow's grown-up daughter
Who, of course, was my step-mother

I'm my own grandpa
I'm my own grandpa
It sounds funny I know
But it really is so
I'm my own grandpa

My father's wife then had a son
That kept them on the run
And he became my grandchild
For he was my daughter's son

My wife is now my mother's mother
And it makes me blue
Because, she is my wife
She's my grandmother too

I'm my own grandpa
I'm my own grandpa
It sounds funny I know
But it really is so
I'm my own grandpa

Now, if my wife is my grandmother
Then, I am her grandchild
And every time I think of it
It nearly drives me wild

For now I have become
The strangest case you ever saw
As the husband of my grandmother
I am my own grandpa

I'm my own grandpa
I'm my own grandpa
It sounds funny I know
But it really is so
I'm my own grandpa

I'm my own grandpa
I'm my own grandpa
It sounds funny I know
But it really is so
I'm my own grandpa

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:46 | 3697795 forwardho
forwardho's picture

Francis, since you always give credit where credit is due, Bravo on the poetry, if the poet was indeed you!

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 06:18 | 3698439 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Naw man... That's an old one... Sorry ~ should have given credit, but I thought everyone knew that one... Mainly ~ I didn't credit it because I don't even really know who wrote it... It's been covered by just about everyone...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!