War on words? Democrats propose ban on 'husband and wife'

[Jeff]

Now the words Husband and wife is going to be wrong, yup the fags don't like it. But I have met gays that refer to themselves as the opposite sex that they are, Example... I use to work with a guy named Richie and when he would show pictures of himself and His friends he would say my Momma says those Girls are crazy.If they refer to themselves as the opposite sex then why can't the male ( the feminine one, the receiver ) be the wife, and the male ( the manly fag :laugh: ) be the husband, same works with two dykes. My God this is so confusing, maybe they should just be what they where born to be. :eek:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4349570788001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

[Noir]

This is a non-story, as is stated in the video it only changes the legal script from a generic 'husband and wife' to an appropriate title. It does not on any way affect marriage ceremonies etc.

[jimnyc]

This "non story" is yet another power reach by the Dems. Soon there will be 58 designations for such things. And imagine joining the Marines and having a choice of 58 different genders to choose from? Just more shit being forced on normal people.

I wonder how long before bakeries will be fined for making cakes that say husband and wife?

And yet still no acceptance, which is what they want, which is won't happen. They can demand forever, it simply won't change. No different than "chicks with dicks". No matter what you wear, what you cut off, what you glue on, what claims you make - you're STILL a guy. Deal with it.

[Noir]

Jim, whenever a law is passed in your state, do you care if the language of that law is gendered or gender neutral?

[jimnyc]

Jim, whenever a law is passed in your state, do you care if the language of that law is gendered or gender neutral?

If it's a law that always/normally had "husband/wife" or "male/female", I would prefer it remain the same. Trying to be "gender neutral" to appease or be politically correct is a bunch of crap. If a law has NOTHING to do with gender or sex or marriage - then of course I don't mind it being gender neutral if no gender is addressed in the law.

[Noir]

If it's a law that always/normally had "husband/wife" or "male/female", I would prefer it remain the same. Trying to be "gender neutral" to appease or be politically correct is a bunch of crap. If a law has NOTHING to do with gender or sex or marriage - then of course I don't mind it being gender neutral if no gender is addressed in the law.

So would you rather a law referenced 'husband and wife, or husband and husband, or wife and wife?'
Seems convoluted.

[jimnyc]

So would you rather a law referenced 'husband and wife, or husband and husband, or wife and wife?'
Seems convoluted.

Quite frankly, it's a HELLUVA lot better than the 58 genders that FB instituted, and won't be long before other "gender identities" start screaming to be recognized. Then the politically correct bunch start screaming, and then stupid changes are made for stupid reasons.

And it's not convoluted - it's just that the gays don't want to see "husband/husband" or "wife/wife". Tough crap on them. It's "how they are born", and so it should be recognized, no?

Either that or make duplicate forms. Leave the old ones the same, and if anyone is offended, make gender neutral forms for those idiots. I don't want to take MY gender away because of them. And yes, I'm aware I'll still be a male regardless, but I'm sure as hell not going to keep changing things for others.

[Noir]

I don't want to take MY gender away because of them.

Then rejoice, your gender is not being taken away.

[namvet]

So would you rather a law referenced 'husband and wife, or husband and husband, or wife and wife?'
Seems convoluted.

ill take husband and wife. ok with you???

[jimnyc]

Then rejoice, your gender is not being taken away.

Why not simply rejoice and leave things as they are? Is ANYONE else having their genders or identities taken away "as is"? We both know the answer is NO. So WE should change to make them happy? I don't think so.

[Gunny]

This is a non-story, as is stated in the video it only changes the legal script from a generic 'husband and wife' to an appropriate title. It does not on any way affect marriage ceremonies etc.

Slippery slope. Husband and wife is fine for normal people. Everyone's seen this trainwreck coming, sat back and done nothing. While you leftist idiots swear to the God you don't believe in it isn't happening.

I just can't believe people can be so f-ing stupid.

[Gunny]

Jim, whenever a law is passed in your state, do you care if the language of that law is gendered or gender neutral?

I care when we cater to the unnatural minority. Unfortunately, the majority are too busy working to pay tax dollars to support those minoritys' worthless asses to have time to run around caucusing.

[Olivia]

So would you rather a law referenced 'husband and wife, or husband and husband, or wife and wife?'
Seems convoluted.



Since gay marriage is legal I see no problem with husband and husband. You wanted it. Now you got it. My husband will always be my husband and I his wife. And I don't care what a shrill Democrat says. Stop being rediculous.

[Olivia]

It is laughable that they fought so hard for SAME SEX marriage and now they don't wish to acknowledge it on their documents.

[Solo]

There comes a point when any good thing turns very bad. Gay marriage is the law of the land ok we all have to live with that.

But to change the entire working and makeup of marriage just to suit 3% of the population is ridiculous.

Everyone even gay marriage supporters realize marriage has always been a man and woman with the intent to have a mate for life to proliferate life.

Gays need to rejoice their gains and marriage equality and now leave the rest of humanity ALONE. Or the worm might turn on you.

[Gunny]

There comes a point when any good thing turns very bad. Gay marriage is the law of the land ok we all have to live with that.

But to change the entire working and makeup of marriage just to suit 3% of the population is ridiculous.

Everyone even gay marriage supporters realize marriage has always been a man and woman with the intent to have a mate for life to proliferate life.

Gays need to rejoice their gains and marriage equality and now leave the rest of humanity ALONE. Or the worm might turn on you.

They won't do that. They're a proliferation of the left. They just keep pushing for more.

[namvet]

AIDS or HIV is their gift to us. could it be a new strain is on the way???

[Solo]

They won't do that. They're a proliferation of the left. They just keep pushing for more.

There are those on the left and especially the middle that are weary of all the demands and in your face crap. Most of the country is for gay marriage all the polls show that. Ok you have it. Now lets have a poll on gays demanding marriage be shredded as we know it and a having a tranny in every womans bathroom. Lets see how those polls go

[jimnyc]

Welcome, Solo! You wouldn't happen to be a famous soccer player, would you? :poke: Or maybe someone we all saw in the movies in a sci-fi movie? :poke:

Either way, welcome to ya! There's an intro thread, I think it's in the announcements section at the top of the board. :salute:

[Gunny]

There are those on the left and especially the middle that are weary of all the demands and in your face crap. Most of the country is for gay marriage all the polls show that. Ok you have it. Now lets have a poll on gays demanding marriage be shredded as we know it and a having a tranny in every womans bathroom. Lets see how those polls go

I disagree. It's time for some in your face crap.

I'm more than middle aged and still not done defending what's right. But I'll give you an avenue ....

WHAT has Obama done that is Constitutional?

Tyranny is when less than 15% of the population gets to dictate to the rest.

[indago]

It is laughable that they fought so hard for SAME SEX marriage and now they don't wish to acknowledge it on their documents.

The faggots want everyone to believe that they are normal...

[indago]

There comes a point when any good thing turns very bad. Gay marriage is the law of the land ok we all have to live with that.

But to change the entire working and makeup of marriage just to suit 3% of the population is ridiculous.

Everyone even gay marriage supporters realize marriage has always been a man and woman with the intent to have a mate for life to proliferate life.

Gays need to rejoice their gains and marriage equality and now leave the rest of humanity ALONE. Or the worm might turn on you.

All that would be required is for the normal folks to get organized and the faggots will have to run for cover, back into the closet. Faggotry got organized with the help of ACLU...

From the New York Times...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2001

Civil Liberties Union Chooses New Executive

By TAMAR LEWIN

Anthony D. Romero, a 35-year-old lawyer who has been an executive at the Ford Foundation for the last nine years, will become executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in September.

He will succeed Ira Glasser, who announced his plans to retire last August, after 23 years as head of the organization.

"It's the thrill of my life," said Mr. Romero, who will be the first gay and the first Hispanic man to head the organization.

"The A.C.L.U. is the nation's premier civil rights-civil liberties organization in the nation," he added. "It's the only one that defends the whole range of civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans."

http://i61.tinypic.com/291jdwg.jpg

[Drummond]

The faggots want everyone to believe that they are normal...

The Left want you to believe that everything is normal. The more debased and twisted it is, or becomes, the more 'normal' it is, by their 'philosophy'.:gay:

And they require everyone to agree. If you don't, oh wow, they'll label you with a bad name !! .... :eek::eek::eek::uhoh:

[aboutime]

All of those who support, or created this BS can.. KISS MY ASS. This is just another attempt at making faith of a God...they must deny; to allow them to ignore, and break all of the Rules of Man. Namely...the Ten Commandments.

If they can get rid of the language, they can ignore all laws, rules, and morals that Intelligent Human beings use.

[tailfins]

Jim, whenever a law is passed in your state, do you care if the language of that law is gendered or gender neutral?

Yes, I care and want gendered language.

[aboutime]

Yes, I care and want gendered language.


Noir. So you would be happy if you were gender identified as Simply IDIOT? No gender needed for that, huh?

[tailfins]

Noir. So you would be happy if you were gender identified as Simply IDIOT? No gender needed for that, huh?

Yeah, Noir! :laugh: Mr. Magoo strikes again.

[namvet]

The Left want you to believe that everything is normal. The more debased and twisted it is, or becomes, the more 'normal' it is, by their 'philosophy'.:gay:

And they require everyone to agree. If you don't, oh wow, they'll label you with a bad name !! .... :eek::eek::eek::uhoh:


sticks and stones

[Noir]

Noir. So you would be happy if you were gender identified as Simply IDIOT? No gender needed for that, huh?

I think it would be in poor taste for a law to reference a person as "idiot" - Despite its gender neutral application.

[Noir]

Since gay marriage is legal I see no problem with husband and husband. You wanted it. Now you got it. My husband will always be my husband and I his wife. And I don't care what a shrill Democrat says. Stop being rediculous.

The point of this (as is explained in the OP video) is not to stop, change, or in any way affect the way in which your husband is you husband.

[namvet]

http://i58.tinypic.com/169kkkj.jpg

wonder where they got this idea from??

[namvet]

http://i60.tinypic.com/2hzirva.jpg

[Solo]

Welcome, Solo! You wouldn't happen to be a famous soccer player, would you? :poke: Or maybe someone we all saw in the movies in a sci-fi movie? :poke:

Either way, welcome to ya! There's an intro thread, I think it's in the announcements section at the top of the board. :salute:


NO sir, Solo refers to I can stand on my own when I need too :) I can solo it :)
Other than that I suck at picking nicks

[jimnyc]

http://i58.tinypic.com/169kkkj.jpg

wonder where they got this idea from??

The person who created this should die. How sickening, and many supported this idea and said "they had to fight" as well. Fricking idiots.

[Solo]

I disagree. It's time for some in your face crap.

I'm more than middle aged and still not done defending what's right. But I'll give you an avenue ....

WHAT has Obama done that is Constitutional?

Tyranny is when less than 15% of the population gets to dictate to the rest.


Obama is not my friend, I think hes the worst president since carter.

Let me clarify me Gunny, I dont march to either sides tune. I am a registered independent. Theres things about both parties I cant stand. I choose what issue I am for an against by what I believe not by party.

That usually makes me a pariah to the left and right.

[indago]

All that would be required is for the normal folks to get organized and the faggots will have to run for cover, back into the closet. Faggotry got organized with the help of ACLU...

From the New York Times...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2001

Civil Liberties Union Chooses New Executive

By TAMAR LEWIN

Anthony D. Romero, a 35-year-old lawyer who has been an executive at the Ford Foundation for the last nine years, will become executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in September.

He will succeed Ira Glasser, who announced his plans to retire last August, after 23 years as head of the organization.

"It's the thrill of my life," said Mr. Romero, who will be the first gay and the first Hispanic man to head the organization.

"The A.C.L.U. is the nation's premier civil rights-civil liberties organization in the nation," he added. "It's the only one that defends the whole range of civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans."

"The A.C.L.U. is the nation's premier civil rights-civil liberties organization in the nation," he added. "It's the only one that defends the whole range of civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans." — Anthony D. Romero

But not when it comes to the Second Amendment...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU POSITION — Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The ACLU argument:

"The Supreme Court has flatly held that the individual's right to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution." In the four cases in which the high court has addressed the issue, it has consistently held that the Second Amendment does not confer a blanket right of individual gun ownership. The most important Supreme Court Second Amendment case, U.S. v Miller, was decided in 1939. It involved two men who illegally shipped a sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, then claimed the Second Amendment prohibited the federal government from prosecuting them. The court emphatically disagreed, ruling that the Second Amendment had the "obvious purpose" of creating state militias, not of authorizing individual gun ownership."

And this is certainly deceptive, at best. Concerning "The Supreme Court has flatly held that the individual's right to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution."", the Court was speaking of the 2nd Amendment, and declared: "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government...". What they were saying is that the right pre-existed the Constitution, and was not to be infringed by government.

Concerning what the ACLU has declared about Miller, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were apprehended carrying a sawed-off shotgun from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam, Arkansas. They were brought, under indictment, to the federal district court in Arkansas. The indictment filed against them charged, in part, that they "did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length...", in violation of the Federal Firearms Act, 26 USC Section 1132, a felony crime. Their response to the indictment reads, in part, that the National Firearms Act "offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment", infringing upon their right to keep and bear arms. The federal court agreed, quashed the indictment, and they were discharged from custody.

The prosecutor filed a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court. There was no brief filed by Jack Miller or Frank Layton. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court, not having fought in WW1, and not having any idea of the military value of a "double barrel 12-gauge shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length", could not give judicial notice that such would be the case. The indictment had been quashed, and there was no trial in which to present evidence or to obtain any facts in the case. The Court wrote: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." So, in order to have a more rounded and factual presentation before them, they "unquashed" the indictment, and sent the case back to the district court for a trial on the issues for evidence to be presented, and facts to be developed.

There was no trial. The sawed-off shotgun was not "illegally shipped", it was their personal weapon of choice. They were a couple of gangsters.

Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...

[Drummond]

I think it would be in poor taste for a law to reference a person as "idiot" - Despite its gender neutral application.

This strays from the point somewhat. But the obvious answer to you is that the law DOES care (under certain circumstances) about whether a person is 'mentally capable'.

Perhaps those coming to such judgments do so as a display of 'poor taste' .. ?

[fj1200]

I've been told by some that they would have supported 'civil unions' that have the same benefits as traditional marriage or that all marriages merely need to be 'civil unions'; that being said wouldn't the logical outcome of such a policy merely have a 'marriage' form list party 1 and party 2?

[jimnyc]

I've been told by some that they would have supported 'civil unions' that have the same benefits as traditional marriage or that all marriages merely need to be 'civil unions'; that being said wouldn't the logical outcome of such a policy merely have a 'marriage' form list party 1 and party 2?

Well, the abnormal folks turned that down, now didn't they? :)

And no, one would have assumed there would have been a marriage form - and a civil union form. You know, since the civil union WOULD NOT have been a marriage.

[fj1200]

Well, the abnormal folks turned that down, now didn't they? :)

And no, one would have assumed there would have been a marriage form - and a civil union form. You know, since the civil union WOULD NOT have been a marriage.

Fallacy 1; civil unions as proposed did not equal marriage.
Fallacy 2; if all "marriages" were civil unions.

:)

[jimnyc]

Fallacy 1; civil unions as proposed did not equal marriage.
Fallacy 2; if all "marriages" were civil unions.

:)

Truth - when folks start with "logical fallacy - "strawman" and other terms, they are evading the actual arguments and trying to be fancy.

I'll stand by my last post. You said "some that they would have supported 'civil unions' that have the same benefits as traditional marriage". Didn't like my reply to your post so now you change it?

If I were "LAME" I would call that "moving the goal posts".

[fj1200]

Truth - when folks start with "logical fallacy - "strawman" and other terms, they are evading the actual arguments and trying to be fancy.

I'll stand by my last post. You said "some that they would have supported 'civil unions' that have the same benefits as traditional marriage". Didn't like my reply to your post so now you change it?

If I were "LAME" I would call that "moving the goal posts".

I didn't move the goal posts, you tried to kick where no one was trying to block. :poke: That was exactly what I said and it was not an option that was presented to any gay who wanted to get 'civil unioned.' Even in a civil union state they did not have the same benefits at the Federal level. I have no issue with your reply except that your premise was not valid.

Since when have you had this issue with Darin's posting style? :poke:

[jimnyc]

I didn't move the goal posts, you tried to kick where no one was trying to block. :poke: That was exactly what I said and it was not an option that was presented to any gay who wanted to get 'civil unioned.' Even in a civil union state they did not have the same benefits at the Federal level. I have no issue with your reply except that your premise was not valid.

Since when have you had this issue with Darin's posting style? :poke:

I hate all of those terms, ALL OF THEM! :)

Sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't. What matters is whether or not what I write makes sense, and it did.

So you're saying that since the gays couldn't get what they wanted via civil union, they then went for full on marriage? But that's not the debate anyway. It stemmed from forms. And if they did get civil unions (with all of the benefits, just as you originally posted), then there would be a form for civil unions and one for marriages.

I think you tried to make it sound like we were then cool with unions, and it would then have changed forms that we would now complain about. But that's not true as written.

[fj1200]

I hate all of those terms, ALL OF THEM! :)

Sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't. What matters is whether or not what I write makes sense, and it did.

So you're saying that since the gays couldn't get what they wanted via civil union, they then went for full on marriage? But that's not the debate anyway. It stemmed from forms. And if they did get civil unions (with all of the benefits, just as you originally posted), then there would be a form for civil unions and one for marriages.

I think you tried to make it sound like we were then cool with unions, and it would then have changed forms that we would now complain about. But that's not true as written.

I only made it sound as if SOME were cool with unions; I was also included in that as I think that any marriage should be a 'union' in the eyes of the State. If you were cool with that then it would have been directed at you, if not then it was not. I'm also only saying that civil unions did not equal marriage so to equate them would not be accurate. My question was based on the debate of the forms and how they may reflect a different viewpoint.

[tailfins]

I only made it sound as if SOME were cool with unions; I was also included in that as I think that any marriage should be a 'union' in the eyes of the State. If you were cool with that then it would have been directed at you, if not then it was not. I'm also only saying that civil unions did not equal marriage so to equate them would not be accurate. My question was based on the debate of the forms and how they may reflect a different viewpoint.


We shouldn't be giving "Godspeed" to something God considers an abomination. Our nation will suffer God's judgement. It is already experiencing some of it.

[jimnyc]

I only made it sound as if SOME were cool with unions; I was also included in that as I think that any marriage should be a 'union' in the eyes of the State. If you were cool with that then it would have been directed at you, if not then it was not. I'm also only saying that civil unions did not equal marriage so to equate them would not be accurate. My question was based on the debate of the forms and how they may reflect a different viewpoint.

I just find it funny that they wanted "marriage" - and then want to run like deer away from "husband/husband or wife/wife". First do away with "traditional" marriage. Now do away with "traditional" names.

They don't want to be looked upon as the queers they are, they are demanding to be seen as the same - and they simply aren't.

[fj1200]

We shouldn't be giving "Godspeed" to something God considers an abomination. Our nation will suffer God's judgement. It is already experiencing some of it.

I thought we were just suffering from busy body liberals and their ill-thought out policies. :unsure:


I just find it funny that they wanted "marriage" - and then want to run like deer away from "husband/husband or wife/wife". First do away with "traditional" marriage. Now do away with "traditional" names.

They don't want to be looked upon as the queers they are, they are demanding to be seen as the same - and they simply aren't.

I thought they just wanted the form to represent their husband/husband or wife/wife categorization. :dunno:

[jimnyc]

I thought they just wanted the form to represent their husband/husband or wife/wife categorization. :dunno:

I could be wrong, based on debating with Noir - but wasn't this a ban on those terms, or that they were supposed to be changed to "gender neutral"?

[fj1200]

I could be wrong, based on debating with Noir - but wasn't this a ban on those terms, or that they were supposed to be changed to "gender neutral"?

I'm not entirely sure. I detest watching video stories. :scared:

[fj1200]

Here's the dillio.


Now that same-sex marriage is legal throughout the country, House lawmakers want the federal code to reflect marriage equality with gender-neutral terms.Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) introduced a bill on Wednesday that would replace the terms “husband” and “wife” in the U.S. code with “spouse” and “married couple.”
“The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts,” Capps said in a statement. “Our values as a country are reflected in our laws. I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages.”The bill, which has 23 co-sponsors, aims to both acknowledge the court's ruling on marriage equality and correct areas where gender discrimination has been written into federal law.
For example, it is now illegal to threaten the president’s wife under U.S. code, but not the president’s husband. Capps said her bill would update the code to make it illegal to threaten the president’s spouse.
http://thehill.com/regulation/247273-house-bill-would-rewrite-federal-laws-with-gender-neutral-terms

[jimnyc]

House lawmakers want the federal code to reflect marriage equality with gender-neutral terms.Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) introduced a bill on Wednesday that would replace the terms “husband” and “wife” in the U.S. code with “spouse” and “married couple.”

I still fail to see how using the terms wife/wife or husband/husband would not by equality? Why does everyone need to go to neutral? In no way does that reflect discrimination, or prejudice.

[aboutime]

House lawmakers want the federal code to reflect marriage equality with gender-neutral terms.Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) introduced a bill on Wednesday that would replace the terms “husband” and “wife” in the U.S. code with “spouse” and “married couple.”

I still fail to see how using the terms wife/wife or husband/husband would not by equality? Why does everyone need to go to neutral? In no way does that reflect discrimination, or prejudice.


Jim. That's how LIBERALISM, PROGRESSIVISM, LEFTISM, SOCIALISM, AND COMMUNISM ARE SUPPOSED TO BE!

Socialist idea's demand that EVERYONE be equal, the same, silent, and under the control of government from CRADLE to GRAVE. Remember???

[fj1200]

I still fail to see how using the terms wife/wife or husband/husband would not by equality? Why does everyone need to go to neutral? In no way does that reflect discrimination, or prejudice.

An example:


For example, it is now illegal to threaten the president’s wife under U.S. code, but not the president’s husband. Capps said her bill would update the code to make it illegal to threaten the president’s spouse.

But it's a dumb thing to get worked up over, on either side.

[jimnyc]

An example:



But it's a dumb thing to get worked up over, on either side.

More like - But it's a dumb thing to spend a lot of money on, to fix forms to appease others.

[fj1200]

More like - But it's a dumb thing to spend a lot of money on, to fix forms to appease others.

You just wait until someone threatens the president's husband, :eek: then you'll change your tune. :poke:

[Jeff]

Here's the dillio.


http://thehill.com/regulation/247273-house-bill-would-rewrite-federal-laws-with-gender-neutral-terms

OK so they want gender-neutral terms, another words gay terms, so are we now suppose to talking about ass munching, playing hide the salami and so on.

[jimnyc]

You just wait until someone threatens the president's husband, :eek: then you'll change your tune. :poke:

I don't believe it anyway. So you mean to say, that if 2 queer women called the cops, and one states her "wife" threatened her, they wouldn't do anything about it?

Or if it's LITERALLY just the presidential scenario, then change the code for just that one thing. I see no reason to update tons of government forms.

[fj1200]

OK so they want gender-neutral terms, another words gay terms...

I don't think "spouse" is a gay term. :dunno:

[Jeff]

I don't think "spouse" is a gay term. :dunno:

Either is Husband and wife but they want to do away with that.

Personally I think we should call then fudge packer and fudge packy. :salute:

[fj1200]

I don't believe it anyway. So you mean to say, that if 2 queer women called the cops, and one states her "wife" threatened her, they wouldn't do anything about it?

Or if it's LITERALLY just the presidential scenario, then change the code for just that one thing. I see no reason to update tons of government forms.

1. I don't think battery requires a wife definition.
2. I'm sure it's not LITERALLY but that will be the decision of 536 people who have been duly elected.

[jimnyc]

I don't think "spouse" is a gay term. :dunno:

What's the difference between "spouse" or "wife/wife or husband/husband" - Sounds neutral to me, and certainly not worthy of spending a lot of money on.

[fj1200]

Either is Husband and wife but they want to do away with that.

I'm pretty sure they are quite happy with those words given that they use them.

[fj1200]

What's the difference between "spouse" or "wife/wife or husband/husband" - Sounds neutral to me, and certainly not worthy of spending a lot of money on.

Certainly.

[indago]

They can change the terms to

Faggot 1

Faggot 2

[aboutime]

They can change the terms to

Faggot 1

Faggot 2


Or, as Marines used to say it.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqa5CPLlw-U