Quote:But men and women ARE different. That's why men are called men (or boys or male) and women are called women (or girls or female). If you're for true 'equality' then you would have to do away with everything that identifies people as different be it gender or race/ethnicity for the purpose of this discussion. But in general fat or skinny, athletic or not, tall or short..... The list goes on. If we were all supposed to be the same then God or whatever you believe in would have made it so.
That doesn't mean they should be seen in the eyes of the law as different.
Quote:Apparently the people (or lawmakers) of California found those words offensive because last year they passed a bill that did this very thing on the state level.
Making a law inclusive does not mean it's because it's offensive to someone. There are a lot of rules and laws on the books pertaining to married people no? If the law of a state says "man and wife" somewhere, say about right of survivorship or something...when two same sex couples are married and one dies, you know a family member will get some lawyer somewhere to fight against the other spouse getting what is rightfully theirs just because a law is on the books written with the words "man and wife".
Protecting everyone with the same rights under the law does not lessen the rights you already have as husband and wife.
Quote:But men and women ARE different. That's why men are called men (or boys or male) and women are called women (or girls or female). If you're for true 'equality' then you would have to do away with everything that identifies people as different be it gender or race/ethnicity for the purpose of this discussion. But in general fat or skinny, athletic or not, tall or short..... The list goes on. If we were all supposed to be the same then God or whatever you believe in would have made it so.
Hitler thought everyone should be blonde haired and blue eyed white folks and we all know how that worked out. My point is we are different and should embrace it. Why would we want to be like everyone else whether in flesh or on a piece of paper? I personally like my uniqueness.
So because men and women are different, do you think we should have different laws? We woman are the weaker sex, and supposedly more emotional, but I bet your head would explode if they started making laws with that in mind!
Quote:It's not that they are considered offensive, it's that in this day and age when we are trying to treat people as equals regardless of sex, the laws should not be written in a way that treats men and women differently. Why does it matter to the law if a person is a husband and not a wife or vice versa? It shouldn't. Hence the need to refer to "spouse" and not "husband" or "wife."
Because no matter what you think guess what? Women and men are different.
Quote:So because men and women are different, do you think we should have different laws? We woman are the weaker sex, and supposedly more emotional, but I bet your head would explode if they started making laws with that in mind!
I think you misunderstood the bill. A Dem wrote a bill to have the words husband and wife removed from all Federal stuff and replace it with spouse or something else. How is that making anyone a weaker sex? And where did I imply that?
Quote:Making a law inclusive does not mean it's because it's offensive to someone. There are a lot of rules and laws on the books pertaining to married people no? If the law of a state says "man and wife" somewhere, say about right of survivorship or something...when two same sex couples are married and one dies, you know a family member will get some lawyer somewhere to fight against the other spouse getting what is rightfully theirs just because a law is on the books written with the words "man and wife".
Protecting everyone with the same rights under the law does not lessen the rights you already have as husband and wife.
I didn't say it was offensive. The people who wrote these bills did. Did you read the article? Also, why should 'husband' and 'wife' be changed? That's what a married man and woman are. And I've heard lesbian and gay men couples call each other husbands and wives. If there needs to be another word they wish to be called, such as spouse, then let them be called that. I don't see the point in changing the language to gender neutral words.
Quote:That doesn't mean they should be seen in the eyes of the law as different.
Okay, so do we change all distinguishing characteristic words so no one is different in the eyes of the law such as gender and race/ethnicity? I don't like the idea of the government telling me who I am for any reason. Why do we accept all of these labels? All they do is divide us. We're all HUMAN at the end of the day regardless of who the law says we are.
Quote:It's not that they are considered offensive, it's that in this day and age when we are trying to treat people as equals regardless of sex, the laws should not be written in a way that treats men and women differently. Why does it matter to the law if a person is a husband and not a wife or vice versa? It shouldn't. Hence the need to refer to "spouse" and not "husband" or "wife."
Also, ask any military spouse, especially the wives, if they like to be called 'dependents' instead of spouses. I know when I was one I hated being called a dependent. I was a military spouse. So what you label someone or call someone, even on paper, matters. I am not some gender neutral spouse. I am a woman and a wife and that's what I prefer to be called. Even if it is just on a piece of paper.
Quote:I didn't say it was offensive. The people who wrote these bills did. Did you read the article? Also, why should 'husband' and 'wife' be changed? That's what a married man and woman are. And I've heard lesbian and gay men couples call each other husbands and wives. If there needs to be another word they wish to be called, such as spouse, then let them be called that. I don't see the point in changing the language to gender neutral words.
Are you really telling me that you don't understand why it should be changed, or have you just dug your heels in on the issue because you don't agree with why it would be necessary in the first place? I'm not trying to be facetious with my question either, I'm just trying to understand what your issue is with it being changed is, other than "because it's always been that way".
Quote:Also, ask any military spouse, especially the wives, if they like to be called 'dependents' instead of spouses. I know when I was one I hated being called a dependent. I was a military spouse. So what you label someone or call someone, even on paper, matters. I am not some gender neutral spouse. I am a woman and a wife and that's what I prefer to be called. Even if it is just on a piece of paper.
You are right, what you label someone matters. It matters to the two gay men that are married and don't consider either of them to be a "wife" and it matters to the two lesbians that don't consider either one of them to be the "husband".
Quote:I think you misunderstood the bill. A Dem wrote a bill to have the words husband and wife removed from all Federal stuff and replace it with spouse or something else. How is that making anyone a weaker sex? And where did I imply that?
I didn't say that you said anything about woman being the weaker sex. I said it in reference to you saying men and woman are different. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point in this topic, but you seem to have issue with them changing the terms husband and wife because men and woman are different. I was pointing out to you that in any other circumstance you would go postal if you were treated differently than a man under the law.
Quote:You are right, what you label someone matters. It matters to the two gay men that are married and don't consider either of them to be a "wife" and it matters to the two lesbians that don't consider either one of them to be the "husband".
I always thought it was referred to as husband and husband
Quote:I always thought it was referred to as husband and husband
That's how I've always thought of it too. Husband and wife, husband and husband or wife and wife.
Quote:Also, ask any military spouse, especially the wives, if they like to be called 'dependents' instead of spouses. I know when I was one I hated being called a dependent. I was a military spouse. So what you label someone or call someone, even on paper, matters. I am not some gender neutral spouse. I am a woman and a wife and that's what I prefer to be called. Even if it is just on a piece of paper.
Sometimes a military spouse is not a wife; it's a husband. So why should the law refer to "husband" or "wife" when under the law there is no difference? This is the whole point of writing the laws in a gender-neutral way. If the law refers to the "wife" what if the person is a husband and not a wife? What then? Is he out of luck because the law doesn't refer to husbands, only wives? Why not call both husbands and wives "spouse?"
Doesn't this country have enough problems to worry about, other than piddly crap?
Once again, the governments "priorities" are dead to rights. Idiots..
Quote:Doesn't this country have enough problems to worry about, other than piddly crap?
Once again, the governments "priorities" are dead to rights. Idiots..
That's pretty much my take on this as well as far too many other "battles" for political correctness.
This doesn't strike me as "political correctness". I think that term is used far too often now anytime a change is made or proposed simply to get with modern times. Sometimes it's just about making old outdated rules current. It appears the problem with people having issues with "political correctness" is really just having a problem with change. This probably won't even fly, but panties immediately wad at the very notion of creating more non gender specific rules. It has a feel to it like "YOU GOT MARRIAGE, ISN'T THAT ENOUGH".
If gender is irrelevant when issuing marriage licenses, there is no longer relevance to the terms husband and wife. Both parties are spouses. This isn't a war on anything, nor is it a blow for political correctness. It's merely a paperwork matter, replacing outdated terminology with words that make sense.
^^^ Ok, that's basically what I wanted to say, but couldn't state it that pointedly or clearly.
Quote:If gender is irrelevant when issuing marriage licenses, there is no longer relevance to the terms husband and wife. Both parties are spouses. This isn't a war on anything, nor is it a blow for political correctness. It's merely a paperwork matter, replacing outdated terminology with words that make sense.
Perhaps there is confusion. In a gay marriage, is there a "husband and wife"? Serious question.
I worked with a lesbian that I would consider to be clearly the "husband" in that relationship. She was more masculine than some of the guys that worked there. She had short hair (almost like a crew cut), wore more masculine attire and her actions were more like that of a male. Her partner on the other hand was clearly more feminine. She is a very pretty girl, wears makeup, wears dresses/skirts (and is actually kind of hot). Would she not be considered to be a "wife"?
Another example that I'll share is my brother. Though he sometimes acts a bit like what I would call feminine, he dresses like any modern businessman would dress, that being conservative suits and ties for work, and casual men's dress in social situations. His partner acts quite a bit more feminine, and wears dresses more like what most heterosexual men would call "gay". I guess my point is, you wouldn't really know that my brother is gay, but his partner leaves no question in your mind. So wouldn't you consider my brother to be the "husband" and his partner to be the "wife" in that relationship?
Once again, this is a serious question, not meant to be offensive in any way.