Democrats Declare War On Words 'Husband,' 'Wife'

originally posted by: intrepid
OK, we're at page 10. It may have already been said. Lesbians call their spouses "wife". Gay men call their partner "husband". I've seen it over and over. So..... WTF IS THE PROBLEM.

I said it a couple times, and I was told to get over myself.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: intrepid
OK, we're at page 10. It may have already been said. Lesbians call their spouses "wife". Gay men call their partner "husband". I've seen it over and over. So..... WTF IS THE PROBLEM.

So, why should their be forms that they must fill out that require that the husband AND the wife are designated?

Exactly...why? Nothing wrong with wife/wife, etc.

Should there be special forms for hetero couples, lesbian couples and gay couples? Isn't it just easier to say "spouse"?

Sounds kinda like gays got the right to marry, against the wishes of many and this is to disallow them from the same titles as straight people have. Petty and childish. That said, this is new so there's bound to be growing pains.

So explain why the Democrats are going it in the name of equality for gays.

I think we should keep the titles but that offends people here because apparently I am demeaning myself by liking to be a wife?

Of course, I was also told I could get back in the kitchen and make sammiches to which was hateful. My husband would laugh his @ss off if he saw that given that he does most of the stove top cooking while I do the baking. He likes it; it reminds him of his lab days now that he's a desk jockey.

But in general, who gets to be spouse 1 and spouse 2? That would have to be legally decided.



Yeah, that's sort of how I feel about it.

So consider Historical laws and see what ancient societies referred to as husband and wife. all instances in the code of Laws of Hammurabi show a husband as a man and a wife as a woman designating them as he/him and she/her. Some of the oldest laws known to man

128. If a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage contract, that woman is not a wife.

129. If a man's wife be caught lying with another, they shall be strangled and cast into the water. If the wife's husband would save his wife, the king can save his servant.

130. If a man has ravished another's betrothed wife, who is a virgin, while still living in her father's house, and has been caught in the act, that man shall be put to death; the woman shall go free.

131. If a man's wife has been accused by her husband, and has not been caught lying with another, she shall swear her innocence, and return to her house.

132. If a man's wife has the finger pointed at her on account of another, but has not been caught lying with him, for her husband's sake she shall plunge into the sacred river.

133. If a man has been taken captive, and there was maintenance in his house, but his wife has left her house and entered another man's house; because that woman has not preserved her body, and has entered into the house of another, that woman shall be prosecuted and shall be drowned.

134. If a man has been taken captive, but there was not maintenance in his house, and his wife has entered into the house of another, that woman has no blame.

135. If a man has been taken captive, but there was no maintenance in his house for his wife, and she has entered into the house of another, and has borne him children, if in the future her [first] husband shall return and regain his city, that woman shall return to her first husband, but the children shall follow their own father.

136. If a man has left his city and fled, and, after he has gone, his wife has entered into the house of another; if the man return and seize his wife, the wife of the fugitive shall not return to her husband, because he hated his city and fled.

137. If a man has determined to divorce a concubine who has borne him children, or a votary who has granted him children, he shall return to that woman her marriage-portion, and shall give her the usufruct of field, garden, and goods, to bring up her children. After her children have grown up, out of whatever is given to her children, they shall give her one son's share, and the husband of her choice shall marry her.

138. If a man has divorced his wife, who has not borne him children, he shall pay over to her as much money as was given for her bride-price and the marriage-portion which she brought from her father's house, and so shall divorce her.

139. If there was no bride-price, he shall give her one mina of silver, as a price of divorce.

140. If he be a plebeian, he shall give her one-third of a mina of silver.

141. If a man's wife, living in her husband's house, has persisted in going out, has acted the fool, has wasted her house, has belittled her husband, he shall prosecute her. If her husband has said, "I divorce her," she shall go her way; he shall give her nothing as her price of divorce. If her husband has said, "I will not divorce her," he may take another woman to wife; the wife shall live as a slave in her husband's house.

142. If a woman has hated her husband and has said, "You shall not possess me," her past shall be inquired into, as to what she lacks. If she has been discreet, and has no vice, and her husband has gone out, and has greatly belittled her, that woman has no blame, she shall take her marriage-portion and go off to her father's house.

143. If she has not been discreet, has gone out, ruined her house, belittled her husband, she shall be drowned.

144. If a man has married a votary, and that votary has given a maid to her husband, and so caused him to have children, and, if that man is inclined to marry a concubine, that man shall not be allowed to do so, he shall not marry a concubine.

145. If a man has married a votary, and she has not granted him children, and he is determined to marry a concubine, that man shall marry the concubine, and bring her into his house, but the concubine shall not place herself on an equality with the votary.

146. If a man has married a votary, and she has given a maid to her husband, and the maid has borne children, and if afterward that maid has placed herself on an equality with her mistress, because she has borne children, her mistress shall not sell her, she shall place a slave-mark upon her, and reckon her with the slave-girls.

147. If she has not borne children, her mistress shall sell her.

148. If a man has married a wife and a disease has seized her, if he is determined to marry a second wife, he shall marry her. He shall not divorce the wife whom the disease has seized. In the home they made together she shall dwell, and he shall maintain her as long as she lives.

149. If that woman was not pleased to stay in her husband's house, he shall pay over to her the marriage-portion which she brought from her father's house, and she shall go away.

150. If a man has presented field, garden, house, or goods to his wife, has granted her a deed of gift, her children, after her husband's death, shall not dispute her right; the mother shall leave it after her death to that one of her children whom she loves best. She shall not leave it to her kindred.

151. If a woman, who is living in a man's house, has persuaded her husband to bind himself, and grant her a deed to the effect that she shall not be held for debt by a creditor of her husband's; if that man had a debt upon him before he married that woman, his creditor shall not take his wife for it. Also, if that woman had a debt upon her before she entered that man's house, her creditor shall not take her husband for it.

152. From the time that the woman entered into the man's house they together shall be liable for all debts subsequently incurred.

153. If a man's wife, for the sake of another, has caused her husband to be killed, that woman shall be impaled.

154. If a man has committed incest with his daughter, that man shall be banished from the city.

155. If a man has betrothed a maiden to his son and his son has known her, and afterward the man has lain in her bosom, and been caught, that man shall be strangled and she shall be cast into the water.

156. If a man has betrothed a maiden to his son, and his son has not known her, and that man has lain in her bosom, he shall pay her half a mina of silver, and shall pay over to her whatever she brought from her father's house, and the husband of her choice shall marry her.

157. If a man, after his father's death, has lain in the bosom of his mother, they shall both of them be burnt together.

158. If a man, after his father's death, be caught in the bosom of his step-mother, who has borne children, that man shall be cut off from his father's house.

159. If a man, who has presented a gift to the house of his prospective father-in-law and has given the bride-price, has afterward looked upon another woman and has said to his father-in-law, "I will not marry your daughter"; the father of the girl shall keep whatever he has brought as a present.

Did someone declare that an aspect of "PC" was pointless whining concerning one word choice over another?

Lotta PC here.

Just sayin'

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You have your own thread for that, please don't spam that tripe.

a reply to: Sremmos80

yep but it fits here just as well.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The Code of Hammurabi (as well as the Mosaic law borrowed from it, based on it, with which it shares an uncanny number of exact similarities) also allows for slavery, bodily mutilation for misdemeanors, enforced a strict class code separating the rich from the poor, etc. etc. ... so you're okay with that as well?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Did someone declare that an aspect of "PC" was pointless whining concerning one word choice over another?

Lotta PC here.

Just sayin'

So it offends you that I want to be a wife, not a spouse?

I am not demanding, btw, that you must be a wife or a husband. You can call yourself the Supreme Poobah for all I care and demand they add that option, but I am upset they are stripping me of the legal right to be a wife and replacing it with spouse.

If you can't see the difference, that's not my problem. If they want to add gender neutral options, fine. But stripping the option to be not gender neutral is what is ticking me off.

Heck if Facebook can have 50 some gender options, so can the Feds.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion about something that doesn't concern you.

In like kind, I'd like to share mine.

The Constitutional correction we're calling marriage equality is just that. It is an adjustment to law and practice that should have been accomplished years ago. Much like the legislative efforts that were required to transform Blacks into legal human beings first, and then into citizens. Much like the legislative efforts that gave women the right to vote, gave them authority over their own affairs, etc.

The title of wife has not been stripped away from you. Much like the rabid fears you've expressed about having your religion defiled by invading gays, changes in the law do not change what you call yourself or what you are. I assume you have a marriage license. What does it say on it? Are you listed as Wife?

Then Wife you are. And like the Scarecrow with his Diploma, the Woodsman with his Clockwork Heart, and the Lion with his Medal of Courage ... you can claim in perpetuum the title of Wife.

I know you absolutely detest the very idea of marriage equality. But the logical pretzels you're tying yourself into trying to find something wrong with it are both embarrassing and excruciating to watch.

I feel sympathy for you. I'm sorry that my equal standing with you causes you such pain.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Did someone declare that an aspect of "PC" was pointless whining concerning one word choice over another?

Lotta PC here.

Just sayin'

So it offends you that I want to be a wife, not a spouse?

I am not demanding, btw, that you must be a wife or a husband. You can call yourself the Supreme Poobah for all I care and demand they add that option, but I am upset they are stripping me of the legal right to be a wife and replacing it with spouse.

If you can't see the difference, that's not my problem. If they want to add gender neutral options, fine. But stripping the option to be not gender neutral is what is ticking me off.

Heck if Facebook can have 50 some gender options, so can the Feds.

See post just above.

Also, proving my point that you're not a little obsessed on this topic ... the post was addressed in general, not to you.

I promise, if I have something to direct at you, I know how to do it.

Perhaps you should realize that the law, as you've said so many times, doesn't exist to make you feel good about yourself.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

See post just above.

Also, proving my point that you're not a little obsessed on this topic ... the post was addressed in general, not to you.

I promise, if I have something to direct at you, I know how to do it.

Perhaps you should realize that the law, as you've said so many times, doesn't exist to make you feel good about yourself.

Then there is no need to change it. Since, as you say, it doesn't exist to make anyone feel good about themselves.

a reply to: ketsuko

By the same logic, there is no need NOT to change it either.

The idea discussed in the OP is to bring greater legal accuracy and equity. As you say, words have meaning.

So, your insistence on one word over another, one that you prefer, one that you like better ... is simply the height of PC thinking, and you want to earn your PC Police badge.

Which is only notable because it exposes the hypocrisy of your usual positions.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

By the same logic, there is no need NOT to change it either.

The idea discussed in the OP is to bring greater legal accuracy and equity. As you say, words have meaning.

So, your insistence on one word over another, one that you prefer, one that you like better ... is simply the height of PC thinking, and you want to earn your PC Police badge.

Which is only notable because it exposes the hypocrisy of your usual positions.

Not really, as I already said - I could care less if you want to call yourself Grand Poobah. Add it, and if there is a real outcry for spouse - ADD IT. But what I see is a stripping of legal identity in the name of political correctness/fairness. Spouse is not inclusive; it's exclusive. It's like claiming that we should all wear white because white is inclusive, the presence of all colors so none are left out. Well, that may be true, but there are also no colors to be seen. So it's just as exclusive in its own right.

I also see it happening in a climate where NO ONE was asking for it.

I've asked at least twice for evidence of it. The pols putting this forward claim it's being done in the name of equality for gay marriage, but where are the gay marriage advocates agitating for it? I haven't heard them; have you? We all know they're certainly loud enough when they want to be. Someone else up thread already pointed out that in Canada gay men call their spouse husband and gay women call theirs wife ... just like the rest of us tend to.

So it seems this is a solution to non-problem.

a reply to: ketsuko

Fine. What you see is a stripping of your identity. I know just how that feels. I would fight back against that too!

Start a movement. Speak your mind. Contact your Representatives and Senators. Write blogs. Start "agitating."

You see the word "spouse" in one way. Many people, if not most, see it differently, as evidenced by responses in this thread.

As to the reasons behind it, the OP explained that, several people in the thread have explained that; you don't like or accept the answers, and that's fine. As I said, start a movement. Living like a second-class citizen is soul-killing; trust me.

The changes are not being considered "in the name of gay marriage" but to insure that the law is equitable for all American citizens. I know it burns your biscuits that "me and my kind" are now your legal equals, that we can marry, be given in marriage, can call each other husband or wife as appropriate ... it is a coal burning through your heart. It's sad.

I'll look for your movement to start anytime now. Of course, the laws haven't been changed yet ... so you may have to wait for that to happen, you know, not to look foolish ...


... but remember, you are asking for special treatment and for certain words to be used that you like, that don't make you feel bad, that help sustain your sense of self as a person. I'll be glad to remind you of that the next time you are wailing about the PC Police.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Constitution is Constantly Attacked by the Far Left on a Daily Basis , but when it Suits their Warped Progressive Liberal Agenda of supporting their Aim of Destroying Traditional American Values , then they are the First to wrap themselves in Old Glory and Cry Persecution . Therefore the Constitution has become Nothing More than a Piece of Paper Written by Idealistic Men over 200 Years Ago that Today is used for nothing more than Propaganda purposes . You can now proceed to have a " Hissy Fit " over my response here while i go watch the Wet Paint on my wall dry.....

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Constitution is Constantly Attacked by the Far Left on a Daily Basis , but when it Suits their Warped Progressive Liberal Agenda of supporting their Aim of Destroying Traditional American Values , . . .

Oh please, I get so tired of this attitude.

I was a Republican. I spent 6 years in a no holds barred political discussion forum. What I discovered is the Left tries to talk it out. To negotiate. The Right are aggressive no-it-all dictators.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Interesting use of capitals. I bet you think you're imitating Ben Franklin or something. Cute.

You remind me of Glenn Beck.

No, the Constitution is not attacked by the far left or the near left or the middle left on a daily basis.

The "Warped Progressive Liberal Communist Atheist Stinky Icky-Poo Agenda"? See, I'm a liberal, and I'm pretty progressive, and I've never heard of such BS from anyone except certain conservative Republicans. Logic says that since you're the only ones who know about it, or talk about it, it is in fact YOUR agenda! Duh duh duhn!

If I didn't know better, I'd say it's just a string of words put together to try to condemn any people or any ideas that don't tow the Right Wing line ...

Are you kidding??? You think liberals wrap themselves in the Flag and Cry persecution? Do you watch Fox News, that's the whole theme of their show!

The only people I ever hear the words "the Constitution is only a piece of paper" from are conservatives and Republicans, and I hear that a lot.

Dude, If you can't take the hissy, stay out of my kitchen, Misfit.

I'm sure that watching that paint will take most of your attention, anyway.

As I was having a few IPAs and reading over this thread it dawned on me that everything will be okay.

You see, as stated previously on this site by folk more intelligent than me, wars on anything always seem to create more of what they're against. Like the war on terror actually created more terrorists! War on drugs equals more drugs. Heck, I believe I remember a war on gays being declared and we all know what happened there!

So a war on husbands and wives should make more of them, right? Those know it all liberal jerks royally screwed the pooch on this one!

That neo guy really tried to say the 1800s were a swell time filled with equality and rainbows. That's how I know right wingers are out of their minds.

Well, at least they're not making up new words yet like here in Sweden. Oh they are? Right, making up new words and changing definitions is the bread and butter of liberals.