Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

[Phatscotty]

Are the following different issues, that aren't quite related?

(1) State-granted benefits of marriage
(2) State-recognized marital status for gays

These two are different issues. I understand that (1) can be used for/against (2); however, regardless of the arguments for/against (1), a libertarian approach makes (2) impervious to the arguments for (1).


From a libertarian perspective, you can engage in any voluntary exchange with a consenting adult as long as you aren't initiating violence against someone or violating someone else's property rights. For example,

1. A marital contract can be made voluntarily between consenting adults--regardless of their sexual orientation
2. Since a human being owns himself, he/she holds the requisite property rights for making this contract legitimate.
3. A marital contract covers obligations from both parties and their property (namely, each other).
4. If no violence is initiated against anyone and
5. If no property rights are violated,
6. Then, marital status for gays (i.e. "gay marriage") is acceptable, thus should be implemented and legally recognized.


Conclusion, any arguments for/against (1) have no bearing on (2) from a libertarian perspective.

What about from the reality that, if you are getting married solely for the benefits (ie other people's money, in our system as it is). Other people's money is their property. I know you said property "rights" and I know more and more benefit seekers are claiming benefits providers money as "their rights", but a person's money is their property is it not? Is it really principled to vote to infringe on other people's money, albeit legally? Or is money I earn not my property?

How does it work when it comes to money as property? Also, do you recognize that political law would trump natural law in this instance? Is that a good idea?

[thegreekdog]

TGD's argument is against same sex marriage is the only one I've seen that doesn't smack of homophobia. Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem sound.

I've thought about it a fair bit, but I can't see how it would work. It seems like a libertarian argument (get the government out of "x") applied carelessly to marriage.

It's a fun point, and of course it's one of those nice libertarian points where you can argue it righteously, safe in the knowledge that it will never actually reach a point where people will argue over how it could be implemented.

It's safe rhetoric, and a bit of an easy way to say that you oppose gay marriage, while suggesting that you equally oppose straight marriage.

I guess, TGD, the question is can you expand on your point? What would society look like if all straight marriages were legally annulled?

"Carelessly to marriage?" What does that mean?

Well, what benefits from the state do you get for being married? Here are some I can think of off the cuff:

(1) Certain estate rights on the death of a spouse --> Easily solved by wills.
(2) Certain tax benefits --> Take away the tax benefits.
(3) Benefits of being a "family member" for purposes of hospital visits and the like --> I don't know if this is something mandated by government or by hospitals. I need to think about this one some more.
(4) Getting a license from the state to be married --> Who cares?

Please let me know if there are any other benefits or items that the government recognition of a marriage provides. I'll see if I can explain how society would look.

[thegreekdog]

TGD's argument is against same sex marriage is the only one I've seen that doesn't smack of homophobia. Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem sound.

I've thought about it a fair bit, but I can't see how it would work. It seems like a libertarian argument (get the government out of "x") applied carelessly to marriage.

It's a fun point, and of course it's one of those nice libertarian points where you can argue it righteously, safe in the knowledge that it will never actually reach a point where people will argue over how it could be implemented.

It's safe rhetoric, and a bit of an easy way to say that you oppose gay marriage, while suggesting that you equally oppose straight marriage.

I guess, TGD, the question is can you expand on your point? What would society look like if all straight marriages were legally annulled?

They wouldn't need to be annulled. Quite simply, the "benefits package" that goes with being married would be annulled.

I guess I don't see this as a particularly strong argument against gay marriage, more a safe way of opposing it based on the sheer impossibility of the heterosexual side of it ever happening. Hence my skepticism.

Yeah, I'm not really making an argument against gay marriage. As I said, my preference is that the government steps out of the realm of marriage completely. My second preference is that the government recognizes gay marriage and provides all the benefits and legal indices of straight marriage to gay marriages.

I suspect you either don't understand the concept of government licensure of marriages or you are assuming that I'm against state recognition of gay marriage (for whatever reason you've cooked up).

[BigBallinStalin]

Are the following different issues, that aren't quite related?

(1) State-granted benefits of marriage
(2) State-recognized marital status for gays

These two are different issues. I understand that (1) can be used for/against (2); however, regardless of the arguments for/against (1), a libertarian approach makes (2) impervious to the arguments for (1).


From a libertarian perspective, you can engage in any voluntary exchange with a consenting adult as long as you aren't initiating violence against someone or violating someone else's property rights. For example,

1. A marital contract can be made voluntarily between consenting adults--regardless of their sexual orientation
2. Since a human being owns himself, he/she holds the requisite property rights for making this contract legitimate.
3. A marital contract covers obligations from both parties and their property (namely, each other).
4. If no violence is initiated against anyone and
5. If no property rights are violated,
6. Then, marital status for gays (i.e. "gay marriage") is acceptable, thus should be implemented and legally recognized.


Conclusion, any arguments for/against (1) have no bearing on (2) from a libertarian perspective.

What about from the reality that, if you are getting married solely for the benefits (ie other people's money, in our system as it is). Other people's money is their property. I know you said property "rights" and I know more and more benefit seekers are claiming benefits providers money as "their rights", but a person's money is their property is it not? Is it really principled to vote to infringe on other people's money, albeit legally? Or is money I earn not my property?

That concern is legitimate, but it's only in regard to (1) State-granted benefits of marriage.

Of course, as you highlight, implementing #2 would lead to #1, which may(?) result in a violation of one's property rights. But used in that sense, then this is true for all libertarians. I drive on the highways which are funded by taxpayers, but does my use of the roads constitute as violating other people's property rights? How about my consumption of high fructose corn syrup, which is subsidized indirectly by the government? Does my consumption of this also violate other people's property rights?

I'm not the violator. The US government is. Furthermore, it is impossible for me not to consume/use goods and services which are derived from involuntary exchanges of people's property. Nevertheless, this does not deny me the ability to advocate for a more libertarian government, and that's the #2 issue which I'm supporting. Already, the government is violating people's property rights regarding gay marriage (for reasons already explained in that 1-6 argument).

And, when the implementation of #2 leads to #1, my libertarian criticism is still leveled against the State for violating people's property rights.


(To another one of your questions: If a person is advocating for gay marriage solely for the state-granted benefits, then that's called "rent-seeking," which is a fundamental aspect of crony capitalism that is enabled by the expanded scope of authority of the government. Thank the well-intended progressives for that. Note: you don't need to be a corporation in order to rent-seek).

How does it work when it comes to money as property? Also, do you recognize that political law would trump natural law in this instance? Is that a good idea?

Money is your property, and yes, legislation (i.e. government-created law) violates one's property rights--e.g. involuntarily taking one's money. It never follows that the initiation of violence (use/threat of force) in order to engage in involuntary exchanges (taxation) is a good idea---unless of course you are acting in self-defense. But that's the "natural rights" perspective.

If one held a "moral consequentalist" perspective, then the theft of citizens' income could be justified in relation to the ends, which I don't view as worth the costs--for nearly all public policy; therefore, under this perspective, legislation which steals people's money would still not be a good idea. (caveat: a particular type of national defense).

[crispybits]

TGD's argument is against same sex marriage is the only one I've seen that doesn't smack of homophobia. Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem sound.

I've thought about it a fair bit, but I can't see how it would work. It seems like a libertarian argument (get the government out of "x") applied carelessly to marriage.

It's a fun point, and of course it's one of those nice libertarian points where you can argue it righteously, safe in the knowledge that it will never actually reach a point where people will argue over how it could be implemented.

It's safe rhetoric, and a bit of an easy way to say that you oppose gay marriage, while suggesting that you equally oppose straight marriage.

I guess, TGD, the question is can you expand on your point? What would society look like if all straight marriages were legally annulled?

"Carelessly to marriage?" What does that mean?

Well, what benefits from the state do you get for being married? Here are some I can think of off the cuff:

(1) Certain estate rights on the death of a spouse --> Easily solved by wills.
(2) Certain tax benefits --> Take away the tax benefits.
(3) Benefits of being a "family member" for purposes of hospital visits and the like --> I don't know if this is something mandated by government or by hospitals. I need to think about this one some more.
(4) Getting a license from the state to be married --> Who cares?

Please let me know if there are any other benefits or items that the government recognition of a marriage provides. I'll see if I can explain how society would look.

(speaking from a UK perspective here)

(5) In event of a medical emergency you are able to give consent for treatment for your partner, rather than having to find a family member to be the legal next of kin (possibly more important for homosexuals as the proportion still in contact with their families will be lower due to social stigma)
(6) Not only do you count as next of kin in the event there isn't a will, but there are also tax breaks on this inheritance when it passes between married people when one of them dies
(7) If you have not worked enough for a state pension yourself but your partner has you can claim based on their contributions, even after their death
(8) It makes it much easier to get through the process to adopt children
(9) Immigration / residency rights
(10) Gaining compassionate leave and/or carers allowances when your partner is very ill
(11) Joint housing when elderly if you need more specialised care
(12) Right to choose disposal method for partner's body after death in absence of instructions in a will

There's more, but I'll stop there for now as the rest are mostly tax breaks or financial protections on things like private pensions etc.

[Woodruff]

Here Phatscotty, I'm looking out for you...

Just in case you overlooked it...

Here, maybe this will help you, Phatscotty:

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief?

I have two questions, which will make the point I have:

1. Is "murder is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
2. Is "homosexuality is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?

[thegreekdog]

TGD's argument is against same sex marriage is the only one I've seen that doesn't smack of homophobia. Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem sound.

I've thought about it a fair bit, but I can't see how it would work. It seems like a libertarian argument (get the government out of "x") applied carelessly to marriage.

It's a fun point, and of course it's one of those nice libertarian points where you can argue it righteously, safe in the knowledge that it will never actually reach a point where people will argue over how it could be implemented.

It's safe rhetoric, and a bit of an easy way to say that you oppose gay marriage, while suggesting that you equally oppose straight marriage.

I guess, TGD, the question is can you expand on your point? What would society look like if all straight marriages were legally annulled?

"Carelessly to marriage?" What does that mean?

Well, what benefits from the state do you get for being married? Here are some I can think of off the cuff:

(1) Certain estate rights on the death of a spouse --> Easily solved by wills.
(2) Certain tax benefits --> Take away the tax benefits.
(3) Benefits of being a "family member" for purposes of hospital visits and the like --> I don't know if this is something mandated by government or by hospitals. I need to think about this one some more.
(4) Getting a license from the state to be married --> Who cares?

Please let me know if there are any other benefits or items that the government recognition of a marriage provides. I'll see if I can explain how society would look.

(speaking from a UK perspective here)

(5) In event of a medical emergency you are able to give consent for treatment for your partner, rather than having to find a family member to be the legal next of kin (possibly more important for homosexuals as the proportion still in contact with their families will be lower due to social stigma) This is one I admittedly did not think about. Is this hospital policy or law? In any event, I'm sure a contract or similar document could be drafted that, in the event of an emergency, will permit one person to consent for treatment for the other. In the event that such a document is not drafted, I suspect whomever indicates "I'm the patient's wife/husband" would be an appropriate explanation. I've been to the hospital for my wife multiple times and have not been asked to produce a marriage license.
(6) Not only do you count as next of kin in the event there isn't a will, but there are also tax breaks on this inheritance when it passes between married people when one of them dies Yes, removes the tax breaks.
(7) If you have not worked enough for a state pension yourself but your partner has you can claim based on their contributions, even after their death I should have thought of this one, but did not. I may have to think about this some more. However, off the cuff, I would say someone that dies with a pension can designate someone or someones to receive the pension.
(8) It makes it much easier to get through the process to adopt children I was not aware of this. I'm not sure how adoption works, so I do not feel qualified to comment.
(9) Immigration / residency rights Another good one. I'm tempted to say that I'm in favor of legalizing all immigration, but that seems to be a ridiculous assertion. I'll think of something else.
(10) Gaining compassionate leave and/or carers allowances when your partner is very ill In the US this is a private company issue. I believe something like 475 of the Fortune 500 permit leave for gay and straight couples.
(11) Joint housing when elderly if you need more specialised care I don't really know what this is.
(12) Right to choose disposal method for partner's body after death in absence of instructions in a will See above re: hospital.

There's more, but I'll stop there for now as the rest are mostly tax breaks or financial protections on things like private pensions etc.

See above in bold. These are off the top of my head, so they are not final answers.

[crispybits]

To explain on the questions you asked:

(5) I think it's law that the hospital must make reasonable attempts to get NOK permission before any major treatment (or, for example, before turning off the machine that's breathing for someone), but I don't state this based on particular legal knowledge, just bits and bobs I've seen on both fictional and non-fictional TV programmes about hospitals.

(7) I don't think you can just hand your pension to anyone you like if you're single and heterosexual. You can hand on anything left in the fund, but it's just a cash sum and ceases to be a pension benefit. Married people can hand it to each other as a pension on the basis that the pensions they have each built they did so as a partnership (especially true 20-30 years ago when stay-at-home wives/mothers who relied on the man as the bread winner so the pension was all in his name, but there's still a signifcant proportion of families set up this way even if they are now the minority)

(8) To adopt you have to prove you're a stable, committed couple. What better way to do that than to get married?

(11) In the UK, if you need state care in your old age because of dementia or whatever, then your spouse has certain rights to be allowed to stay with you within reason, and the NHS has to work with that to keep the couple together for as long as possible if it's decided the best thing for the sick person is to be put into residential care.

Marriage as a secular institution (how many straight couples who get married in registry offices or other secular services are told "you're not really married") is so in-built into so many aspects of society that to change around all the rights and benefits would cause massive upheaval and a lot of laws would have to be redrafted and passed through government. The process could take decades to properly fine tune and get it to the point where it's working as well as it does now. Or, we could simply say that gay couples are allowed to marry, and ignore the unfounded religious claims on an institution that predates them and is used in every single culture around the world and have the change done in one very simple, very easy change of law.

[thegreekdog]

To explain on the questions you asked:

(5) I think it's law that the hospital must make reasonable attempts to get NOK permission before any major treatment (or, for example, before turning off the machine that's breathing for someone), but I don't state this based on particular legal knowledge, just bits and bobs I've seen on both fictional and non-fictional TV programmes about hospitals.

(7) I don't think you can just hand your pension to anyone you like if you're single and heterosexual. You can hand on anything left in the fund, but it's just a cash sum and ceases to be a pension benefit. Married people can hand it to each other as a pension on the basis that the pensions they have each built they did so as a partnership (especially true 20-30 years ago when stay-at-home wives/mothers who relied on the man as the bread winner so the pension was all in his name, but there's still a signifcant proportion of families set up this way even if they are now the minority)

(8) To adopt you have to prove you're a stable, committed couple. What better way to do that than to get married?

(11) In the UK, if you need state care in your old age because of dementia or whatever, then your spouse has certain rights to be allowed to stay with you within reason, and the NHS has to work with that to keep the couple together for as long as possible if it's decided the best thing for the sick person is to be put into residential care.

Marriage as a secular institution (how many straight couples who get married in registry offices or other secular services are told "you're not really married") is so in-built into so many aspects of society that to change around all the rights and benefits would cause massive upheaval and a lot of laws would have to be redrafted and passed through government. The process could take decades to properly fine tune and get it to the point where it's working as well as it does now. Or, we could simply say that gay couples are allowed to marry, and ignore the unfounded religious claims on an institution that predates them and is used in every single culture around the world and have the change done in one very simple, very easy change of law.

Yeah, but then the government is still involved with determining items involving interpersonal relationships (yes, I have an ulterior motive other than permitting gay marriage).

[crispybits]

If you want to unravel all that then go for it, but at last count there were over 1000 legal benefits and advantages to being married in all sorts of different kinds of laws in the USA (picked the USA for this post because that's the one I have seen the figure for)

[Phatscotty]

Government is way too involved and way too large and way too greedy, and it should be recognized as one reason marriage seems to have become so debased, statistically anyways.

I think if marriage gets redefined, then the government gets bigger and we further cement our dependence inducing system of specialized benefits and privileges based on redistributing the wealth. It also works against the flat tax people or the consumption tax people, or anyone who thinks the tax code as we know it should be abolished or severely reformed, as redefining marriage will add more leverage to strengthening the redistributive system we have now. (more people will be connected to the benefit web)

video

show

[Frigidus]

Government is way too involved and way too large and way too greedy, and it should be recognized as one reason marriage seems to have become so debased, statistically anyways.

I think if marriage gets redefined, then the government gets bigger and we further cement our dependence inducing system of specialized benefits and privileges based on redistributing the wealth. It also works against the flat tax people or the consumption tax people, or anyone who thinks the tax code as we know it should be abolished or severely reformed, as redefining marriage will add more leverage to strengthening the redistributive system we have now. (more people will be connected to the benefit web)

If you were given two choices, the current system we have or the current system we have including gay marriage, which would you say is preferable?

[Phatscotty]

When Good bigotry turns bad

A law enforcement official said the gunman carried a bag containing a Chick-Fil-A bag;

District of Columbia police are investigating a shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council that injured a security guard Wednesday morning.

The alleged shooter, whose name was not released to media by mid-afternoon, entered the conservative group’s downtown Washington building and opened fire. D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier called the guard a hero for subduing the shooter who allegedly expressed disagreement with FRC’s views. Investigators have not determined a motive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/und ... _blog.html

The suspect, identified by law enforcement sources as Floyd Corkins of Herndon, Va., is alleged to have entered the offices of The Family Research Council and yelled at the guard about the organization's policies.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/15/secu ... dquarters/

after guard took away his gun, the suspect said, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”

The suspect, a 28-year-old male from Virginia named Floyd Corkins, “made statements regarding their policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard,” a source told Fox News.

AP later confirmed that Corkins is a liberal activist who volunteers with a left-wing group in the D.C. area.

While the White House has yet to respond, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney commented on the shooting, saying: “I am appalled by the shooting today at the offices of the Family Research Council in our nation’s capital. There is no place for such violence in our society. My prayers go out to the wounded security guard and his family, as well as all the people at the Family Research Council whose sense of security has been shattered by today’s horrific events.”

UPDATE: Not until after 6:30 p.m. ET did the White House respond. Obama finally commented, saying “this type of violence has no place in our society.” But a CNN tweet indicated, “WH says Pres. Obama was notified at 1:18pm of the Family Research Council shooting by national sec. adviser John Brennan.”

[Maugena]

I doubt he was going to go on a shooting spree with a pistol.
Shooting someone in the arm almost sounds deliberate. If he was going to go on a spree, he would've shot the guard dead.
Seems like he was just trying to get through but got his cover blown so he overreacted, perhaps? Or perhaps he had bad intentions all along...
I'm not sure what his motives were, but it most definitely seemed like something related to harming the company in some way... maybe a specific person, I don't know.
This, of course, isn't the right way to go about change. He was out of line in the extreme.

[Nola_Lifer]

Who said what he was doing was good bigotry? What does this have to do with Chik-we-still-don't-give-afuka?

[Phatscotty]

Who said what he was doing was good bigotry? What does this have to do with Chik-we-still-don't-give-afuka?

The shooter was carrying a chik-fil-a bag with him in his bag of guns.

[Woodruff]

Who said what he was doing was good bigotry? What does this have to do with Chik-we-still-don't-give-afuka?

The shooter was carrying a chik-fil-a bag with him in his bag of guns.

I knew all those people that went to buy sandwiches there during the outcry were crazy...

[Phatscotty]

Who said what he was doing was good bigotry? What does this have to do with Chik-we-still-don't-give-afuka?

The shooter was carrying a chik-fil-a bag with him in his bag of guns.

I knew all those people that went to buy sandwiches there during the outcry were crazy...

You didn't read the story...shocker! The guy is a chik-fil-a protester. He felt justified in his shooting, because hating religious organizations is "good bigotry"

[Woodruff]

Who said what he was doing was good bigotry? What does this have to do with Chik-we-still-don't-give-afuka?

The shooter was carrying a chik-fil-a bag with him in his bag of guns.

I knew all those people that went to buy sandwiches there during the outcry were crazy...

You didn't read the story...shocker!

No, I didn't, that's true...I was simply being snarky about what you said (because he was carrying a Chick-Fil-A bag! <gasp>).

He felt justified in his shooting, because hating religious organizations is "good bigotry"

Did he actually say that or are you just being an idiot again?

[Phatscotty]

He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

[Woodruff]

He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

I didn't call you an idiot, idiot.

I notice you didn't answer my question, either.

[Nola_Lifer]

Who said what he was doing was good bigotry? What does this have to do with Chik-we-still-don't-give-afuka?

The shooter was carrying a chik-fil-a bag with him in his bag of guns.

Who said what he was doing was good bigotry?

[Phatscotty]

He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

I didn't call you an idiot, idiot.

I notice you didn't answer my question, either.

Oh, I promise to get right on it, with the utmost of interest and expediency!

I told you I don't have any interest in anything you say, and thatI wasn't talking to you anymore or reading your posts anymore until you clean up your act. So if you are asking yourself right now "what would an idiot do?" I hope you realize that answer is that the idiot would continue asking questions and calling names and trolling anyways

You are on probation. If I notice that you have cleaned up your act or you give me an actual reason to read your posts or respond to them, or you have some specific questions.....I will talk to you again. But you already screwed up your chances for my attention today. Maybe if you mind you manners, attend a couple of BallinStalin's therapies, and set aside your vision quest of trollery, I might give you a chance this weekend. Now go ruin someone else's thread.

Good day

[Lootifer]

He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

Very phattist post here.

Yes we all agree the guy is an idiot.

However it in no way relates to the wider debate. Every side has its bad apples.

[Phatscotty]

He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

Very phattist post here.

Yes we all agree the guy is an idiot.

However it in no way relates to the wider debate. Every side has its bad apples.

I can't apologize for sharing the facts, but I will for allowing Woodruff to troll me and make me talk that way. The source of most Phatism is Woodruffism