[Freakinoldguy]

Caelon Caelon:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

You folks can continue to deny the obvious but the article was completely specific about eliminating the terms Husband and Wife and replacing them with Spouse or Couple. So if I was an American I'd just be a spouse not a husband.

IN LEGISLATION ONLY. It allows the legislation to include husband, wife, partner, rocking chair or whatever you choose to partner with under the term spouse. Call yourself a husband, that bas**#$d or whatever you want. there is no mention of daily usage.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I guess Churches will no longer have ceremonies stating do you take XXXXX to be your lawfully wedded Husband because that term will no longer exist. Now it'll be do you take XXXXX" to be your lawfully wedded spouse and since the term is gender neutral it'll make everyone happy happy happy except the people who still believe in the institution of marriage and the terms husband and wife.

Although it'll be interesting to see what would happen if some churches decided to defy the changes and continue to use the terms on their paperwork.

Absolutely nothing. Do not make a mountain out of a mole hill. The church and you can continue to do as you please. There will be one law to divorce your spouse. Not separate wording for husband, wife or same sex partner.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

More than two dozen Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the words "husband" and "wife" from federal law.

Those "gendered terms" would be replaced by "gender-neutral" words like "spouse" or "married couple," according to the bill from Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.

Exactly. So no issue. Refer to above.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I'm sorry but changing everything to try and fix what you personally perceive to be past wrongs doesn't work and only tends alienates everyone who disagrees with you especially if your proposals are ridiculous in the extreme.

But then again attaching this piece of idiotic legislation to ending racism and homophobia isn't much better.

I do not find them ridiculous. I see that the proposal adds clarity. If you see it as homophobic then it from your frame of reference seeing it as an attack on the status quo.

`

It is a an attack on the status quo but that`s not where I have an issue. This legislation shouldn't have anything to do with homosexuality and all they had to do was amend the wording of their proposed legislation to allow people who wished be it gay or straight to refer to themselves as spouse only rather than attempt to remove a long standing identity that some people hold sacred.

To be honest the whole thing smacks of retribution for what some of these social justice warriors perceive as past slights against a group they champion.

[Brenda]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Yup, I am a spouse. But by introducing this legislation the question still remains. Why if everyone who's married is already a spouse gay or straight do they need to remove the term Husband and Wife from the Federal Government lexicon.

Is it some form of addition by subtraction used for self gratification or is it designed to denigrate and disassociate those people who still prefer to refer to themselves by those terms?

Not gotten married in North America, so I am not sure, but... When you get married, don't they say (and I'm not sure if that's a church thing ot not, or maybe just a Hollywood thing...') "I now pronounce you Man and Wife"?

Personally, i dont really care. Spouse, partner, wife, husband... Just Boy friend and girl friend sounds weird ti me for an adult couple. But that's just me nitpicking.

[sandorski]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Yup, I am a spouse. But by introducing this legislation the question still remains. Why if everyone who's married is already a spouse gay or straight do they need to remove the term Husband and Wife from the Federal Government lexicon.

Is it some form of addition by subtraction used for self gratification or is it designed to denigrate and disassociate those people who still prefer to refer to themselves by those terms?

It doesn't denigrate anyone. It simplifies the Legal Language.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

$1:

The claim that Eskimo languages have an unusually large number of words for snow is a widespread idea first voiced by Franz Boas and has become a cliché; it is often used to illustrate the way in which language embodies different local concerns in different parts of the world. In fact, the Eskimo–Aleut languages have about the same number of distinct word roots referring to snow as English does, but the structure of these languages tends to allow more variety as to how those roots can be modified in forming a single word.[1][2] A good deal of the ongoing debate thus depends on how one defines "word", and perhaps even "word root"...
There is no one Eskimo language. A number of cultures are referred to as Eskimo, and a number of different languages are termed Eskimo–Aleut languages. These languages may have more or fewer words for "snow", or perhaps more importantly, more or fewer words that are commonly applied to snow, depending on which language is considered.
Three distinct word roots with the meaning "snow" are reconstructed for the Proto-Eskimo language[15] *qaniɣ 'falling snow', *aniɣu 'fallen snow', and *apun 'snow on the ground'. These three stems are found in all Inuit languages and dialects—except for West Greenlandic, which lacks aniɣu.[16] The Alaskan and Siberian Yupik people (among others) however, are not Inuit peoples, nor are their languages Inuit or Inupiaq, but all are classifiable as Eskimos, lending further ambiguity to the "Eskimo Words for Snow" debate.

wiki

Eskimo is a derogatory term from, I believe from the Cree or Ojibway but don't quote me on that part. The term is intended to identify the Arctic peoples as savages because they ate raw meat.

The Alaskan and Siberian Yupik peoples are actually called "Aleuts".

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

So, what's next?

A Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. That's what's next.

[Zipperfish]

Caelon Caelon:

Absolutely nothing. Do not make a mountain out of a mole hill. The church and you can continue to do as you please. There will be one law to divorce your spouse. Not separate wording for husband, wife or same sex partner.

While I generally support gay rights, I don't think this is true. Churches are not free to do as they will. They will have to marry same sex couples or it would be a clear case of discrimination. A church cannot refuse to marry, say, an interracial couple. Same thing for same-sex marriage.

[andyt]

He's talking about the church being able to continue to use the terms husband and wife. If the churches don't want to have to marry gays, all they have to do is petition the government that church weddings are no longer civilly recognized, and they could marry or not marry whomever they wanted. That's the way it should be anyway - separation of church and state.

Also:

$1:

Last week’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide raised questions about how the decision will affect religious groups – especially those that continue to oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed. The court’s ruling makes clear that clergy and religious organizations are not obliged to perform same-sex marriages, but some groups have expressed concerns about their tax-exempt status.

[OnTheIce]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

raydan raydan:

So, what's next?

A Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. That's what's next.

Good luck with that. Trying to "ban" gay marriage after all that's happened will clearly define the knuckle-draggers.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Caelon Caelon:

Absolutely nothing. Do not make a mountain out of a mole hill. The church and you can continue to do as you please. There will be one law to divorce your spouse. Not separate wording for husband, wife or same sex partner.

While I generally support gay rights, I don't think this is true. Churches are not free to do as they will. They will have to marry same sex couples or it would be a clear case of discrimination. A church cannot refuse to marry, say, an interracial couple. Same thing for same-sex marriage.

Perhaps in Canada. Down here there's no reason why a church has to marry anyone outside of their membership. Many churches refuse to marry non-members because to many congregations a church is a place of worship and not just a pretty place to have a wedding.

Oh, and if anyone wants to force a church to marry gays I'd suggest starting with a predominantly Mexican Catholic parish.

Yep, that'll work out just fine.

[Zipperfish]

$1:

Last week’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide raised questions about how the decision will affect religious groups – especially those that continue to oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed. The court’s ruling makes clear that clergy and religious organizations are not obliged to perform same-sex marriages, but some groups have expressed concerns about their tax-exempt status.

I think this is correct. I was under the impression that a church couldn't refuse marriage to an interracial couple, but in fact they can, at least in the US.

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

raydan raydan:

So, what's next?

A Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. That's what's next.

Good luck with that. Trying to "ban" gay marriage after all that's happened will clearly define the knuckle-draggers.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/santor ... id/654706/

Ray asked what was next and I replied.

I'd prefer a Constitutional Amendment to address the issue instead of waiting for some court to order a church to conduct a gay marriage and then watch as a religious war erupts.

If you idiots think for one second that the blacks and Hispanics will sit idly by while their pastors are jailed for refusing to conduct gay marriages then you're absolutely tone deaf.

[OnTheIce]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/santor ... id/654706/

Ray asked what was next and I replied.

Who gives a shit what Rick Santorum thinks, besides himself and fellow knuckle-draggers?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'd prefer a Constitutional Amendment to address the issue instead of waiting for some court to order a church to conduct a gay marriage and then watch as a religious war erupts.

With Toronto being one of the most multi-cultural Cities in the World with a massive gay population and legalized marriage for the last 10 years, we've yet to see a religious war.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If you idiots think for one second that the blacks and Hispanics will sit idly by while their pastors are jailed for refusing to conduct gay marriages then you're absolutely tone deaf.

Just fearmongering.

You're not worried about peace or a religious war. It's just a diversion to mask to homophobia.

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

With Toronto being one of the most multi-cultural Cities in the World with a massive gay population and legalized marriage for the last 10 years, we've yet to see a religious war.

Mostly because Canada doesn't have very many devout believers in Christ to begin with. Add to this that I am unable to find even one single case of where a Canadian mosque was forced to conduct a gay marriage. I imagine that as soon you folks try that one out you'll have your religious war.

In the US our demographics are somewhat different and we have Hispanic Catholics who will kill you for putting graffiti on an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe.

They take their religion and their culture deathly serious.

In Sacramento we also have about 30,000 Russians who are principally Pentecostals and they make the Westboro Church look like a bunch of amateurs. They've successfully beaten back numerous attempts to force gay-friendly curriculum into the public schools their kids attend and when they hold protests around town the local gay mafia has learned to avoid them because the Russians will beat-on-sight. I've seen one of these instances about five or six years ago and was content to enjoy the entertainment as it unfolded.

If a judge orders the Russians to hold a gay marriage the Russians will certainly kill the judge, his family, and probably a few other people just to make sure they're clearly understood.

So now the other side of a Constitutional Amendment is that if the amendment fails to be ratified after it's proposed then at least gay marriage will have been accepted via a democratic process and this will help prevent violence.

But to just order it into existence and then to force it into places where it isn't welcome is asking for trouble and if that's what you support then you're an asshole.

I hope that's not the case.

[Freakinoldguy]

sandorski sandorski:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Yup, I am a spouse. But by introducing this legislation the question still remains. Why if everyone who's married is already a spouse gay or straight do they need to remove the term Husband and Wife from the Federal Government lexicon.

Is it some form of addition by subtraction used for self gratification or is it designed to denigrate and disassociate those people who still prefer to refer to themselves by those terms?

It doesn't denigrate anyone. It simplifies the Legal Language.

Sure, because the terms husband and wife have complicated life unbearably for Gov'ts, despots, dictators, royalty, chiefs and tribal councils for millenniums.

Say what you will but you'll never convince me that this isn't another form of hetrosexism couched in terms to make it look like they're actually doing something positive when the reality is something completely different.

[ShepherdsDog]

Whenever I hear some twit going on using the term 'hubby' that drives me up the wall.