Democrats want to eliminate terms "husband" and "wife."

T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

Serial Thread Killer
In their latest woke, sexual fetish, world of insanity, the Democrats are now trying to eliminate the terms "husband" and "wife." How utterly, obliviously, stupid can they get?

Democratic California Rep. Julia Brownley introduced the Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act on July 14, seeking to eliminate the terms "husband" and "wife" from a number of existing laws. The proposed legislation would replace those terms with gender-neutral words like "spouse" or "married person."
https://news.yahoo.com/terms-husband-wife-could-canceled-161631092.html

It isn't the first time. Back in 2021, they tried this same shit, so the delusion is not only real, but widespread, and long lasting...

The Democratic majority in the House has proposed sweeping changes to language used in the chamber, eliminating gendered terms including "mother" and "husband."

The proposed rule package seeks to “honor all gender identities” by striking words including “seaman,” “chairman,” “father,” “mother,” “sister,” “husband,” and “wife” from use and replacing them with gender-neutral terms including “seafarer,” “chair,” “parent,” “child,” and “sibling.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gender-house-pelosi-rules-chairman
 
From the wording of laws you fucking ass flap


You religious people get to keep those words for your use


No one will be banned from using the terms


So no its not eliminating the words


How stupid and dishonest a level can you seek to achieve?

You always outdo your own levels daily


A really lame assed life choice
 
Always humorous how the right wing media finds some Democrat or left leaning person somewhere in the country who might say or do something eccentric or out of the norm and then generalizes it to imply all Democrats and left leaning people think the same.

Common trait on all of Murdoch’s entities
 
It’s actually not that bad an idea


They are inefficient terms for the reality of current and future realities of matrimony bonds


It simplifies the construction of the laws current use
 
archives said:
Always humorous how the right wing media finds some Democrat or left leaning person somewhere in the country who might say or do something eccentric or out of the norm and then generalizes it to imply all Democrats and left leaning people think the same.

Common trait on all of Murdoch’s entities
Click to expand...

This only applies to what words are used in laws!

If you have gay marriages in your state, you have to be able to word the laws so that they make sense.
 
Marriage should be regarded as a social convention outside the law.

The law need only recognize civil unions between any two people who choose to enter one.
They could only be a part of one civil union at a given time, of course.

People therein would be subject to any benefits that we associate with marriage in terms of fiscal arrangements and the like,
but sex or gender need not be a factor.

We should be getting further ahead with the separation of church and state,
but conservatives seem to wish to regress toward more theocracy.

The vast majority of civil unions would still be what we think of as marriages and the family concept would scarcely be affected.

Most, albeit perhaps not all, people
would want their civil partner to be the same person as their bed partner,
regardless of sexual orientation,
and the default mode for most humans is heterosexual.

I suspect homosexual is no larger a demographic than is asexual
which is not uncommon but rarely mentioned.
Some people are simply not libidinous.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Men and women no longer exist in the democrats world.
Click to expand...

You are as bad as Gardner. A Dem person said something and now all Dems believe it. Are you able to understand why that does not fly? Then you say men and women do not exist in our world? You are flat-out dishonest. But then that is your job.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In their latest woke, sexual fetish, world of insanity, the Democrats are now trying to eliminate the terms "husband" and "wife." How utterly, obliviously, stupid can they get?

Democratic California Rep. Julia Brownley introduced the Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act on July 14, seeking to eliminate the terms "husband" and "wife" from a number of existing laws. The proposed legislation would replace those terms with gender-neutral words like "spouse" or "married person."
https://news.yahoo.com/terms-husband-wife-could-canceled-161631092.html

It isn't the first time. Back in 2021, they tried this same shit, so the delusion is not only real, but widespread, and long lasting...

The Democratic majority in the House has proposed sweeping changes to language used in the chamber, eliminating gendered terms including "mother" and "husband."

The proposed rule package seeks to “honor all gender identities” by striking words including “seaman,” “chairman,” “father,” “mother,” “sister,” “husband,” and “wife” from use and replacing them with gender-neutral terms including “seafarer,” “chair,” “parent,” “child,” and “sibling.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gender-house-pelosi-rules-chairman
Click to expand...

Is this the aggrievement of the day?
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Marriage should be regarded as a social convention outside the law.

The law need only recognize civil unions between any two people who choose to enter one.
They could only be a part of one civil union at a given time, of course.

People therein would be subject to any benefits that we associate with marriage in terms of fiscal arrangements and the like,
but sex or gender need not be a factor.

We should be getting further ahead with the separation of church and state,
but conservatives seem to wish to regress toward more theocracy.

The vast majority of civil unions would still be what we think of as marriages and the family concept would scarcely be affected.

Most, albeit perhaps not all, people
would want their civil partner to be the same person as their bed partner,
regardless of sexual orientation,
and the default mode for most humans is heterosexual.

I suspect homosexual is no larger a demographic than is asexual
which is not uncommon but rarely mentioned.
Some people are simply not libidinous.
Click to expand...

That's not possible. A marriage is a contract between two people. That means it comes with obligations and responsibilities. If two people are married and they get a divorce, then it becomes a matter of who gets what as a result of dissolving the contract. That usually means the courts get involved.

Child support
Death of one partner
Changes in economic status

There are all sorts of things that require the law to get involved in a marriage.

Living together is another form of this contract, only it's verbal not legal (written down), and that too results in potential legal issues when it ends.
 
Nordberg said:
You are as bad as Gardner. A Dem person said something and now all Dems believe it. Are you able to understand why that does not fly? Then you say men and women do not exist in our world? You are flat-out dishonest. But then that is your job.
Click to expand...

I thought my job was a Russian agent?

Make up your mind.
 
Nordberg said:
Quit being so stupid. The left does not believe that.
Click to expand...

The Left believes all sorts of weird things.

For example, the call a trans person a trans-woman or a trans-man while telling us there's no difference between one and a biological man or woman. So, why the difference? Shouldn't a trans-whatever be just a man or woman? But they make the distinction apparently because there's political value on the Left to noting someone is "trans" versus biologically a particular gender.

Thus, one more example arises of the Left politicizing everything to fit their dogma....
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In their latest woke, sexual fetish, world of insanity, the Democrats are now trying to eliminate the terms "husband" and "wife." How utterly, obliviously, stupid can they get?

Democratic California Rep. Julia Brownley introduced the Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act on July 14, seeking to eliminate the terms "husband" and "wife" from a number of existing laws. The proposed legislation would replace those terms with gender-neutral words like "spouse" or "married person."
https://news.yahoo.com/terms-husband-wife-could-canceled-161631092.html

It isn't the first time. Back in 2021, they tried this same shit, so the delusion is not only real, but widespread, and long lasting...

The Democratic majority in the House has proposed sweeping changes to language used in the chamber, eliminating gendered terms including "mother" and "husband."

The proposed rule package seeks to “honor all gender identities” by striking words including “seaman,” “chairman,” “father,” “mother,” “sister,” “husband,” and “wife” from use and replacing them with gender-neutral terms including “seafarer,” “chair,” “parent,” “child,” and “sibling.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gender-house-pelosi-rules-chairman
Click to expand...

You act like the GOP is helpless. Why do you do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top