Keith Olbermann has a message for the RNC's latest anti-gay idiocy: "WTF?"

Steele continues his downward spiral into absurdity here. It's not any great surprise. But I am left wondering if he has bothered to compare notes with the official conservative line on this one.

The (mostly religious) Right wingf of his movement has long argued that homosexuality is a simple psychological disorder which can be "cured" through therapy, prayer or both. The loud proponents of this argument, such as Focus on the Family, claim that it fully possible for homosexuals to "change" and become "normal" heterosexuals, get married (to a member of the opposite sex) and have families. Just like God intended.

Steele seems to be weighing in with an argument that is not only counter to that of LGBT rights activists, but also with that of the Right of his own party. In essence the argument he is (unthinkingly) making is that it is actually preferrable, from the point of view of businesses, for people to be homosexual, and subject to legally-enforced singlehood. After all, single homosexuals are cheaper than married ones according to the proposed logic.

But if a gay guy were to decide to take up James Dobson on his assurances that they can be "cured", and went out, joined an "ex-gay" group and married some  woman (an "ex-lesbian" perhaps?) then wouldn't the business be obligated to provide benefits coverage for the resulting "heterosexual" marriage by law anyway? The financial cost would still be there, to be borne by the employer.

Of course, taking up the "slippery slope" argument (something conservatives are fond of doing) this argument ultimately leads to the suggestion that people being single in general is better for businesses, as it reduces their legal liabilities in terms of benefits such as insurance.  After all, a "traditional family values" employee with a spouse and lots of kids can be a heavy burden for a small business, what with the cost of insuring the spouse and children. 

Perhaps this is part of some new "pro-business" angle Mr Steele is promoting? After all, forcing companies to care for the families of their workers smacks of "socialism". Maybe Steele is one of those extreme "personal responsibility" conservatives and the gay argument is just a prelude to a larger stance that everyone should be responsible for their own insurance?

Or maybe he's just an idiot who doesn't think through anything he says any more than Dubya did?

I'm trying to understand the logic of this argument:

let's say you have two employees who are both unmarried.

one gets married to member of the opposite sex.

one gets married to a member of the same sex.

this costs more for the employer because he has to provide health benefits to two spouses instead of one.

whereas, if there are two employees, both unmarried, and...

one marries a member of the opposite sex.

the other ALSO marries a member of the opposite sex.

this costs the employer more money because he has to provide health benefits for two spouses instead of one.

so the"gay" variable has no effect on the outcome.

Something tells me Steele might not be the sharpest shovel in the sand.

Keith needs to be on mainstream TV not cable. NBC needs to have him to a Sunday morning show (following Meet the Press) that takes the absurd statements by the Republicans and reveals them for the absurdity they are.

Fell out of the stupid tree, hit every branch on the way down, and no one in the GOP man enough to break his fall.

When he talks he sometimes gives the impression he has someone behind him, poking him in the back with a big stick and saying, 'for chrissakes get out there and say something, you keep quiet and it makes us look bad.'

The irony.  And he can't do sums either?  Basic economy and basic common sense getting away from the opposition.  This must be a very confusing time for you over there, watching this idiot puppet show and not knowing whether to sit there, jaw hitting the carpet in disbelief, or laughing hysterically like you ate the whole plate of special cookies.