Because Exposing all of your Property for a Few Benefits is SO Worth it?
Via the Marietta Daily Journal:
One woman who has not “gone red” is Georgia GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart of east Cobb, although she’s aware of the movement.
“Lord, I’m going to get in trouble over this, but it is not natural for two women or two men to be married,” Everhart said. “If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship.”
“You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” Everhart said. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”
This is not a new assertion, to be sure, but it is worth noting only because it really is a ridiculous position because it is a terrible argument for at least two reasons:
1. If this is an argument against gay marriage it is likewise an argument against heterosexual marriage because, after all a male and a female could do exactly what she is so concerned the same-sex couple could do. (Unless, of course, free riding is ok as long as the right equipment is involved).
2. Getting legally married means joint ownership of property and creates a serious of potential liabilities that are one thing when shared with a life partner, yet another when shared with a friend. It would be rather foolish, for example, to put yourself in the position in which one was liable for the debts of one’s “spouse” just for the sake of good benefits at work.
Indeed, lots of Republicans get in trouble these days for saying stupid things…as for the bit about equipment, obviously the poor dear has no clue what she is talking about…
Boy, that outreach plan is just going splendidly, isn’t it?
Of course it is. When it comes to bigots like Everhart, any debasement of “marriage” is perfectly fine as long as icky gay people aren’t doing it.
Also, vanishingly few people, if any, would want to sign up for the status of “roommate for life.”
You people are sooooo judgemental. Sweet Sue is the GOP Chairwoman for the state of GEORGIA, you know, where Newt Gingrich is from. She knows first hand how sacred marriage is, after all, she attended three of Newt’s weddings (so far).
Yes, Love Conservative Style.
No icky gay stuff. An older, fat, (rich) white man bending a younger, subservient woman over his desk, while his wife is occupied elsewhere.
Truer than the red, white, and blue…
She’s absolutely right on one point: homosexuality is, in many ways, NOT natural.
But then again, a lot of things aren’t natural. I have a medical condition that should have killed me, and in a quite natural way. But thanks to genetically-altered microorganisms, I do a certain unnatural thing fairly regularly and go along living. Hell, most of medicine is about thwarting Nature.
Drinking the lactic fluids of another species is not natural, but almost all of us drink milk.
No, homosexuality is not “natural.” It’s also not “normal” — even the most generous estimates place the gay populace at around 10%.
But neither argument means a damned thing. The proper response to those who bring it up is “so?”
I don’t see the problem. To not permit same-gender heterosexuals to marry would be discriminatory if SSM is permitted. Perhaps few heterosexuals will marry but some might for the same benefits homosexuals seek if they have a close, intertwined relationship.
@Jenos Idanian #13: I actually agree it’s not ‘normal’, in the same way that being left-handed is not normal. But seeing as how homosexual behavior (and sometimes full orientation) has been observed in hundreds of species besides humans, it would easily qualify as natural.
Steven, I agree with your assessment of her comments on the marriage issue. I’m just thinking that , based on your first sentence, you are positing that her position has no merit based on her argument as opposed to having no merit whatsoever.
@Franklin: But seeing as how homosexual behavior (and sometimes full orientation) has been observed in hundreds of species besides humans, it would easily qualify as natural.
True or false, it’s irrelevant. Nature has her own laws, and enforces them as She sees fit. Our laws shouldn’t presume to do Her work.
“…She’s absolutely right on one point: homosexuality is, in many ways, NOT natural…”
Correct me if I’m wrong…but didn’t Ted Haggard and Larry Craig and Mark Foley make similar protestations…just before we all found out they were hypocrits?
Come on Jenos…let your freak flag fly!!!!
Now I’m going to shed a few words on the ignorance I see inherent in some of these posts in the comment section. From the top.
” lots of Republicans get in trouble these days for saying stupid things”
You must be a Republican then. For every stupid comment Repubs make I can find an equally stupid comment from a Dem.
“She knows first hand how sacred marriage is, after all, she attended three of Newt’s weddings (so far).”
Bill Clinton knew it too, while he was walking around the Whitehouse with his pants around his ankles, married to a woman who sacrificed her dignity to worship at the altar of political expediancy.
“Yes, Love Conservative Style.
No icky gay stuff. An older, fat, (rich) white man bending a younger, subservient woman over his desk, while his wife is occupied elsewhere.”
Ya, not at all like Anthony Weiner, Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Gary Condit, Eric Massa, David Patterson, oh and lets not forget Ted Kennedy.
No, you wouldn’t, would you? But, of course, you also don’t see the problem with your convoluted, bogus argument…
So you are in favor of instituting a “Gay Test” to ensure no heterosexuals marry where SSM is permitted? Seems awful convoluted. We could just remove the gender diversity requirement for a State issued marriage license? Isn’t the goal to keep the government out of the bedroom?
@C. Clavin: OK, now it becomes clear: your fixation on me is actually a homoerotic attraction.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m devoutly heterosexual. “Straight, but not narrow,” I believe the phrase is. Which is fortunate for you, because that means that instead of reacting hostilely to advances from another man, I just politely demur, thank you for the compliment, and shrug it off.
@Jim N: Let’s also add in Jesse Jackson, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, David Wu, Antonio Villagairosa, Jim McGreevy, Gavin Newsom…
I think the difference is, Republicans claim to believe in and stand for morality, so there’s an element of hypocrisy there. With Democrats, they make no such pretensions, so it’s safe to assume that they’re all scumbags — that way, we’re less disappointed. After all, they never promised to not be scumbags.
That’s almost word for word what Ted Haggard and Larry Craig and Mark Foley claimed as well.
What you miss in your effort to tattoo Democrats with the same hypocrisy Republicans practice…is that Republicans go out of their way to regulate the lives of others…when in fact they are practicing the behavior they wish to legislate away. If republicans in fact believed in small Government…and keeping Government out of the lives of individuals…then it would be different. But they do not believe in any of those things. They believe that they belong in the lives and the bedrooms of all. There is no comparison to Democrats. No matter what delusions you are under.
@C. Clavin: Here’s where your “thinking” falls apart: I have no interest in controlling — or even hearing about — others’ sex lives.
But you seem quite interested in mine. I thought it might be a bit of interest in me, but by your logic it’s all about controlling me. I think I find it even less appealing than you might be romantically/sexually interested in me…
Again…that’s what all Republicans say…actions speak louder than words, however.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Don’t let him get you down. The Progs are always obsessing about sex. Whether it be guns as phallic symbols or compensation or the current accusing someone of being gay.
Really, in this day and age, with homosexuality out in the open, should the Progs be using accusations of homosexuality as bullying? It’s like they’ve not grown in the last 30 years since jr. high school.
Really, the Progs sure do like their little cubbyholes for people. I’d be curious if they actually see people. Perhaps their world is just filled with labels and assault is when they mislabel someone.
Do you think they ever try to get to know the person they’ve labeled or do they just use their stereotypes?
@C. Clavin: So, you stereotype, too?
Be sure to list “shallow” and “vapid” to your CV, chump.
And get your mind out of my pants.
@JKB: The obsession really, really shines through when the concept of “choice” is brought up. Only in areas of sex are we allowed to choose. In pretty much every other area, we must be protected from making what they consider bad choices.
It’s fun to ask them where else, besides sex, we are allowed to make choices. They insist that it isn’t true, but when you present specific examples — smoking, schools for your kids, health insurance, owning guns, and so on — you get intense arguments about how that isn’t a matter for “choice.”
Oh, and pot. That’s a big one where you should be free to choose. Almost forgot that one.
How about for a change of pace you come up with an anagram for WIDE STANCE and start posting under that psuedonym?
Anyone else have any suggestions???
@C. Clavin: Well, that convinces me. You really don’t have an obsession with sex and Republicans, after all…
Awwww…some conservatives are just so darn cute when they attempt pushback…because we hear about some stupid Republican in Georgia and the logical link is made to serial adulterer Newt Gingrich, we must also be reminded of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy…then we are presented with the ridiculous argument that SSM is somehow discriminatory against heterosexuals…then we find out that even if some Republicans are total hypocrites because they talk a good game about morals while being immoral, Democrats are worse because they are scumbags who supposedly don’t talk about morals…you fellas should of just typed “I know you are but what am I?” and been done with it…
Yes, liberals want to suppress freedom.
I don’t want guys changing the oil in their cars and dumping the old oil into storm drains, where it runs directly into creeks, rivers, bays, the ocean and so on, the way guys did when I was a kid.
Call me Joe Stalin…
@An Interested Party: Sorry to harsh your mellow, but I support SSM. And I support, more strongly, the way it’s being handled in most places — popular vote. When the supporters attempt to bypass that, they get pushback — to the point where, in California, they pushed through a state Constitutional amendment to block it.
In most states where it’s come up through the legislature, it’s passed with little fuss. And it will likely continue to do so.
What you seem to want isn’t to win the issue, but to beat your opponents. The cause is irrelevant to beating them. I dunno if that’s uglier than it is stupid or stupider than it is ugly, but it definitely is both ugly and stupid.
@anjin-san: After I went to all the bother of listing a bunch of areas where “choice” isn’t allowed, you had to go and make up a new one? I gave you your choice of nice, hanging curveballs to swat out of the park, and instead you swing for a ball I never pitched?
And, besides, who the hell changes their own oil nowadays? Been there, done that, threw away the T-shirt.
You continue to hold onto the delusion that people think discussing an issue with you is worth the effort.
Pretty much everyone here has the same message for you – Your are an idiot, we don’t respect you, please go away and annoy someone else.
Yes, we all know you live large. But a lot of people in poorer areas still change their own oil. Just what we needed, another example of your raging cluelessness…
@anjin-san: Pretty much everyone here has the same message for you – Your are an idiot, we don’t respect you, please go away and annoy someone else.
I was unaware that someone had died and put you in charge of the guest list. Where should I send the condolences card?
And my response was a flippant way of pointing out you were using a straw man argument — I never mentioned “the right to dump pollutants into public sewers,” you pulled that out of your ass and then acted like you’d performed some kind of wonderful feat. Sorry, like so many things that emerge that way, it stinks.
And it looks less like “I’m not worth responding to,” but “you’re not capable of responding intelligently” with this example.
Jenos Idanian #13
Ah, so someone died and put you in charge of what other comments people throw into the mix?
I don’t care if you mentioned dumping pollutants, or not. It’s a legitimate argument – there are many instances where the government regulates behavior, and it is necessary and beneficial. Are there excesses and even abuses? Sure. Welcome to the human race, where everything is imperfect.
You don’t like regulating soda sizes or forcing restaurant to provide information on calories & such? Fine. Please don’t come crying to us when the obesity epidemic in this country makes it necessary to raise taxes to pay for the health care disaster that is coming at us as a result of mass consumption of garbage at fast food joints and restaurants that serve up massive servings of calories and fat.
BTW, you are free to show how we would all be better off if there were no regulations restricting what people dump into storm drains. Or you could prove your claim that no one changes their own oil anymore. It kind of makes me wonder why there are millions of cans of oil and oil filters stocked on shelve of auto parts stores across America.
@anjin-san: If you’re trying to get me to make an argument in favor of dumping used oil down sewers, you’re even dumber than I thought. You’ll have to find another straw man to abuse.
I would repeat my challenge, though: just where do you consider it appropriate to exercise free choice in their lives? I believe you’ve made it clear that you oppose insurance choice, gun choice, food/drink choice, and I’ll go further and say you oppose school choice.
And just how does your “epidemic” metaphor apply to unprotected sex? Especially unprotected male/male sex? The costs to society have been HUGE, especially for the last 30 years. Why shouldn’t we regulate that? I’d say that AIDS, hepatitis, and other STDs have cost us more than Big Gulps and unsaturated fats.
@anjin-san: BTW, gonna be AFK for the next 5-6 hours. So give yourself plenty of time to find some areas (besides sex and drugs) where you would allow people to exercise free choice.
I’m sure you can think of at least one…
That didn’t work with anti-miscegenation laws and that won’t work with SSM…rights aren’t something that should be decided by public opinion…if that were the case, some parts of the South might still have Jim Crow laws…
Forget ugly and stupid, that statement is delusional and incorrect…well, your two adjectives would also apply…
Thank you for proving, one again that you are an idiot.
I do oppose giving people the option to forego health insurance and then bill the public when they end up in the ER. I believe in personal responsibility. I also think people who drive should be required to have insurance. Where do you stand on that? Should drivers that may destroy your car or injure you have to right to decline insurance?
I believe restaurants should be required to make a reasonable amount of information available to their customers about what they are serving them. Calories for example. I was pretty blown away when Starbucks first started doing this and I say how many calories are in something like bannana bread (which I no longer eat).
I think we should have background checks for anyone in this country who wants to buy a gun, accompanied by a 10 day waiting period. (I own several guns, and I am a good shot) Beyond that, I have not taken a position on gun control.
A lot of my friends have their kids in private schools, why would I have a problem with that?
Feel free to keep making things up about how liberals want to control your life, though giving the level that you have taken this little obsession of yours too, some quality time with a shrink might be worth considering.
There is no doubt that there are millions in this country who want to restrict equal protection under the law for those they view as second class citizens. Cases like this are one of the reasons we have a court system with the power to intervene and strike down unconstitutional laws.
Gays and lesbians do not enjoy the same constitutional protections that straight people do when enough of their fellow citizens say they do. They are entitled to them at birth. Any denial of their rights is an injustice, and it is the responsibility and duty of the courts to intervene.
Prove it. You also said earlier no one still changes their own oil. Waiting for proof on that as well. Sorry, you are not entitled to your own facts.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Unfortunately, that argument doesn’t quite work. Loving vs. Virginia was decided long before approval of interracial marriage became a majority.
And if it’s really a human rights issue, why should it be up to a vote?
@anjin-san: Here’s a couple of free tips, chum — tips you could seriously stand to listen to.
1) I never had any doubt that you could rationalize your tyrannical impulses — that’s why I didn’t ask you to justify your positions. You really don’t help yourself when you overexplain how it’s really for the best for all concerned if you make all our decisions for us.
2) When someone challenges you to cite an area where you don’t let your dictatorial impulses rein, it doesn’t help your case when you invent a whole new area where you also want to control others. It really, really doesn’t help.
@anjin-san: “Prove it?” I didn’t declare it as an absolute fact, I just said that “I’d say.”
And that’s based on about 30 years of hearing, over and over and over, just how expensive the AIDS epidemic is, how much it’s costing us as a society, and how many great people we’ve been deprived of because of this horrible affliction.
Personally, I still mourn a little over the passing of Freddie Mercury, Isaac Asimov, Merritt Butrick, and a host of others. I read two of Randy Shilts’ books — “And The Band Played On” and “Conduct Unbecoming.” I am not inclined to pooh-pooh AIDS.
Niether is anyone else, but feel free to keep making things up.
Interesting that you bring Asimov up. His fiction, unlike yours, was compelling, well written, and thought provoking.
I’m curious Jaynos, were you the drowning man that Romney saved?
@anjin-san: I’m curious, too, anus-san — do you keep a file of my comments, or are you obsessive enough that you can recall them all?
I’m thinking the latter — it would explain why you go so ad hominem when challenged. If you are as obsessed with me as you seem, that wouldn’t leave much room for other thoughts.
@anjin-san: Interesting that you bring Asimov up. His fiction, unlike yours, was compelling, well written, and thought provoking.
But apparently almost everything I write is incredibly memorable to you. Looking for an autographed photo or something?
@anjin-san: And yet you still can’t bring up areas where you would deign to allow people to exercise their “right” to choose, apart from sex. Can it be that there aren’t any such areas?
No I just have a good memory.
A shrink might be able to help you with your delusions that people are obsessed with you.
I guess you really don’t realize that comments like this are nothing but babble…
Now that is funny.
Notice how Jay Tea ignores the comments pointing out that “the people” have voted for all sorts of terrible injustices that the courts have rightly overturned, choosing instead to focus on the important topic of whether Shogun can answer his pointless and muddled question.
Tell me Jay, when did you decide to spend all of your time trolling? Is it all you thought it would be?
Seriously Jenos – Todays performance is pretty sad even by your standards. Go for a walk. Get some sun. Find a restaurant and have Kung Pao chicken. Talk to some girls.
Unless you are deliberately putting yourself forth as an object of pity, you need to modify your act.