The Cellar - How's this for Bullshit?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - How's this for Bullshit? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20305)

How's this for Bullshit?

This is such crap. If all of the gay people married heterosexually, this wouldn't be a problem? This kind of thinking is beyond stupid.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/..._republicans_4

Quote:

RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele speaks during the National AP – Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele speaks during the National Rifle Association's …

SAVANNAH, Ga. – Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."

As Steele talked about ways the party could position itself, he also poked fun at his previous pledge to give the GOP a "hip-hop makeover."

"You don't have to wear your pants cut down here or the big bling," he said.

Vermont and Iowa have legalized gay marriage in recent weeks, and a Quinnipiac University poll released in April found that 57 percent of people questioned support civil unions that provide marriage-like rights. Although 55 percent said they opposed gay marriage, the poll indicated a shift toward more acceptance.

The chief of the Republican National Committee has been criticized by some social conservatives in recent weeks after GQ magazine quoted him as saying he opposed gay marriage but wasn't going to "beat people upside the head about it."

Steele, a Catholic and former Maryland lieutenant governor, was elected chairman of the committee earlier this year.

As if most spouses are paid for by the employer anyway... they may be covered, but the cost of comes out of the employees paycheck.

If that argument had any weight at all, it would be grounds for outlawing heterosexual marriage too. Idiots.

Yup, that smells like BS.

The guy should have just said "We think that maintaining the status quo of irrational prejudice towards gay people is a fiscally responsible position to take. After all, they need to be punished."

Fuck stick.

If gay people married heterosexually, they wouldn't be gay....

Mr. Steele is simply reminding everybody of the unequal status of gay partnership, and the list of rights not granted to them.

Also, he has created here an argument that isn't affected by the whole "civil union" matter, and reminds us that when they say it's just the term "marriage" that they're alarmed by, that's a lie.

I'm considered J's civil partner and get health insurance through her employer. I think many employers have such programs.

The retooled message is still a message from a tool.

Michael Steele...

Wasn't she the bassist in "The Bangles"?

I tire of these right wing social warrior assholes, can't the GOP stand for something positive? Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree in this economy but he misses the point that employees are supposed to be a valuble asset and compensation is part of what keeps them on the job. hmmm... maybe gay marrage is a hetero plot to make homosexual employees less attractive.:yelgreedy

I don't know what Steele is trying to do. What I do know is that the whole argument is fallacious. I mean, why didn't he just say, "Gee, its a good thing there are queers out there who can't legally be married. Otherwise, it would cost businesses gazillions of dollars in additional benefits." It makes as much sense - which is to say, no sense at all.

"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.", said Steele. *Anyone* who holds a job and is not married, then gets married, causes such costs to be incurred.

Mr. Steele is merely attempting to add yet another log of prejudice to an already overflowing woodpile. The fact remains that, if gay people were not gay, and married into a heterosexual union, then those same alleged "additional costs" would be incurred, therefore, it is utter crap. The net financial effect of gay people marrying as opposed to them marrying if they were not gay is zero, period, end of story. Sexual orientation doesn't enter into the total number of people who may or may not get married, fer cryin' out loud.

I can't believe this guy is head of the Republican Party. This is the smartest guy they've got? Scary.

All the clever, competant, effective and (usually) ruthless people have gathered too many enemies to be able to get to the top. The ones who can get to the top in that milieu ... well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspode (Post 566313)

snip~ The net financial effect of gay people marrying as opposed to them marrying if they were not gay is zero, period, end of story.

What about the lesbian employee that get "married" and they both get pregnant? :haha:

Well at the very least one of them ought to suspect the other wasn't faithful...

They could have been sharing the baster. ;)

The offspring comment is (yet another) good point.

If employers have to pay for fmailies health care costs, they should prefer gay workers who might ahve a spouse but are less likely to have children. Hiring breeders - especially religious types who breed in large numbers - is going to cost them.