Skip to main content

To one Pennsylvania lawmaker, giving same-sex couples benefits is akin to giving pets benefits

Another day and another dumb gay-marriage remark made by a die-hard conservative - this time by none other than Lehigh County (Pennsylvania) Commissioner Tom Creighton, who said the following:

"The state has a ban on same-sex marriage, so why should the county be offering benefits for same-sex marriage? I don't feel the county should be looking for new ways to give away taxpayer money. Next it could be giving money out to people's pets or whatever. No, it probably won't go that far."

Yes, Mr. Creighton just compared same-sex couples getting benefits via the taxpayers to pets receiving benefits. Yes, gay couples receiving equal benefits as straight couples is the same thing as a 65-year old's pet goldfish receiving such benefits. Excuse me for a moment while I attempt to unroll my eyes, which hadn't been rolled up so high since I auditioned for Linda Blair's part in The Exorcist.

What is it with Republicans comparing gay marriage to animals?

"If we legalize gay marriage, what will be next? Marrying an animal you love?"

"If we legalize gay marriage, then what? Polygamy? Bestiality?"

"If we give same-sex couples benefits, next thing we know, we'll be giving people's pets benefits!"

Continuing with this strange and utterly ridiculous theme, I imagine Republicans will utter the following such comparisons in the future:

- "We can't let gay couples adopt children. Then what? Will we then let elephants and asses adopt children?"

- "We cannot allow gay couples to have sex. If we allow that, then what might happen? Will there be a line at the zoo to have sex with gorillas and pandas?"

- "We cannot allow gay couples to be on one another's healthcare plans. If we do that and wed a couple of chimpanzees, will we have to give them a special plan too? I mean, when will it end?"

Yes, when will the absurdity end indeed?

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/10/03/2726041/pennsylvania-official-compares-same-sex-marriage-benefits-to-giving-money-out-to-peoples-pets/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more