Search This Blog

Friday, October 19, 2012

A series of logical steps leading inevitably to absurdity

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

Point 1.) The government may not compel Americans to commit acts which are antithetical to their own religious beliefs.

This concept based on the First Amendment has a long history and strong legal precedent: United States v. Seeger (1965), and Welsh v. United States (1970), and Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971).

You may have heard that ObamaCare was 2700 pages long, and as such, none of the Democrats—by the way not one Republican voted for the ACA—who voted for the bill had read much more than an outline of what was in it. Nancy Pelosi famously stated, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

And pass it they did! Now the courts are deciding whether practicing Catholics can be compelled to pay for birth control and sterilization, which is in the Catholic view a sin and goes very much against their core religious beliefs. Most people understand by this point that far from being a guardian of constitutional rights, the Supreme Court is mired in the same partisan quagmire that the rest of the country is neck deep in.

Usually we can expect the Supreme Court to rule in a narrow 5/4 split along strictly partisan lines, and those opinions the justices write—both the majority and the minority opinions—pick and choose selectively among all the related cases in the past. They pick this phrase here and that one there, much like a persnickety vegan grazing at a Chinese buffet.

Recently the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate. In this decision the court decided that you can be taxed not only for what you do, but for what you don't do. This is of course a capitation tax—aka head tax or direct tax—and is therefore unconstitutional unless taken in proportion to the census or explicitly enumerated within the Constitution itself—which ObamaCare definitely is not. The individual mandate wasn't the only thing that has conservatives angry, there's also the Birth Control Mandate:
The Obama administration, in creating specific rules to implement Obamacare, will require all employers (with a very narrow exemption discussed below) to offer their employees health insurance that provides FDA-approved contraception, female sterilization, and other “reproductive” services free of charge — even if the employer is a religious organization and doing so violates its doctrine.
The Supreme court will probably broaden the birth-control coverage exemption to all employers with a conscientious religious objection. However the central objection of the Catholic church—and many others—is this: regardless of whether it is explicitly stated, if the Federal Government imposes a greater burden upon insurance companies by way of forcing them to cover the entire cost of birth-control, the insurance companies will quite necessarily pass along that additional cost to their customers, i.e. the conscientious objectors who are footing the bill for the insurance coverage. For this reason regardless of whether they admit it or not, if the birth control coverage is provided at all, the Catholic church will necessarily be paying for it. This concept is so self-evident that only a mendacious jackass would dispute it. Which brings me right along to my next point and the highly relevant example:

Point 2.) All businesses, institutions, and governments pass the cost of operation along to their clientele.

Example: Obama has famously demagogued the big oil companies who he says are being subsidized by the Federal Government for billions of dollars every year. What he means of course, is that they're depreciating their oil wells in accordance with current tax law. They have an asset—the oil well—which quite obviously has less and less oil actually left in it every year as the oil is pumped out. So the oil companies are allowed to reduce the value of this asset [the oil well] accordingly. There is no subsidy; it's a tax credit.

Now then, who ultimately foots the bill for the taxes that the big oil companies pay? Where-oh-where do those big oil companies get all that money to pay the billions and billions of dollars in taxes they hand over to Uncle Sam every year? You and me bub. Therefore, if for instance Obama successfully managed to raise taxes on big oil, who would ultimately pay for all this extra taxation? You and me bub.

Point 3.) The government subsidizes marriage.

You disagree? Whether it's widow/widower's benefits from social security, or the income-tax benefits married couples get from the IRS, or health insurance benefits or life insurance benefits or estate tax benefits—as is the case in today's news—married couples are subsidized by the state for their marriage:
Windsor v. United States is the case of Edith Windsor. She and Thea Spyer had been together 42 years when they legally married in Canada in 2007. But when Spyer died in 2009, Windsor had to pay federal estate taxes totaling $363,053 because DOMA prevents the Internal Revenue Service from recognizing Windsor as a surviving spouse. Windsor sued to get her money back.
Point 4.) The only purpose of the marriage subsidy is for making new people.

The only legitimate secular reason for the government to subsidize marriage is because it is encouraging a man and a woman to join together in a formal legal relationship for the sole purpose of bearing and raising children. New citizens replacing old citizens being in the manifest interest of the state.

Before the advent of agriculture the man hunted and the woman—with child in tow—foraged. Once we discovered farming the woman usually stayed at home and raised the children and kept the home neat and clean and in her spare time made handicrafts, clothing, blankets, curtains, even furniture. By the way I'm not a male chauvinist; this really is how it used to be. Times have changed though and because of the amazing innovation that we've achieved since the industrial revolution, male brute force is no longer such a necessity in accomplishing the required work. The state still needs those children though. We still need women to have those babies. Perhaps one day we'll be able to grow them up in some kind of plastic womb and when they're done tip them out on a conveyor belt, but that day isn't today.

Face facts, marriage is meant for making more people. Naysayers will invariably point out the infertility, artificial insemination, and adoption arguments. It has only been in the last hundred years that we've been able to discover for a fact that someone actually is infertile. But even more importantly, in that same hundred years we've also been able to discover many ways to either cure or get around that problem. So even though a man and a woman may not be able to have babies together, that's the exception not the rule and their problem could well be solved tomorrow.

Artificial insemination only works for women, so at a minimum there's no reason at all for the state to subsidize the marriage of two men. Unfortunately for lesbians, it now seems nearly certain that the age-old taboos against homosexuality are not just atavistic howling at the moon barbarism and caveman ignorance. It now seems more and more clear that being raised by homosexual parents is very damaging to the children.

By the way, this study caused a great deal of controversy because it contradicted the false narrative espoused by the liberal agenda. The huge size of the study group alone defies the snap-judgements and reflexive rushing-to-contradict by alarmed liberals. Earlier studies with different results invariably used very small non-representational study groups. This is sometimes known as cherry-picking the desired results. As you might expect, gay people reacted to this study like six-year-olds learning that there wasn't really a Santa-Claus after all.

Adoption is important but it doesn't create new people. It's nice that a couple is helping the state babysit someone else's kids but face it, net new people = zero. The number of children available for adoption is very limited and there's already plenty of heterosexual couples waiting on a baby. When you add in the poor outcome of children raised by gay couples, it really doesn't seem fair that heterosexual couples might have to compete with homosexual couples in the adoption process.

Point 5.) Forcing conscientious objectors to pay income tax and Social Security which would go towards subsidizing gay marriage is unconstitutional.

This is outlined in the cases referenced above, and is certainly the position of the Catholic church. If the Supreme court finds for the Catholics on the birth control mandate, then it must equally find the same holds true for those who refuse to fund gay marriage because of their religious beliefs.

If the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA or perhaps goes further and actually "legalizes" gay marriage—like it did with abortion—then marriage itself will no longer benefit the state. At that time, when it's a net liability to the state, when the outcome for children raised by gay couples is negative, when these unions cause population decrease instead of increase, I would expect the state to strip away one-by-one all the subsidies which go hand-in-hand with marriage, and instead begin to impose sanctions in much the same way as they've already done with cigarettes. At some point I wouldn't be surprised to see a surgeon generals warning on a marriage certificate.


  • Marriage can kill
  • Marriage seriously harms you and others around you
  • Married People die younger
  • Marriage can cause a slow and painful death

No comments:

Post a Comment