If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Americablog)   The AP bans using the words "Husband", "Wife" and "Fellow Human" when referring to married same-sex couples. Yes, some people have a problem with this   (americablog.com) divider line 158
    More: Stupid, U.S. state abbreviations, same-sex couples, John Aravosis, AMERICAblog, Reliable Sources, U.S. Senate, same-sex marriages, cohabitations  
•       •       •

5898 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2013 at 2:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-13 04:05:10 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

Clever, monsieur Le Trôle. Somebody's gonna fall for this one.


Heterosexual marriage is a means to an end: Men trade money and affection for sex, women trade sex and servitude for children and love. For the conservatives, it is solely a means to produce children, which is why  Roman Catholics often separated and went to his and her religious orders, just as some couples from India do to this day. No children, no marriage. In fact, a marriage could be dissolved for sterility or failure to perform the marital duties (including intercourse).

Homosexual marriage is an end in itself. It does not exist to produce children and very often neither partner enters into it for sex or economic support services. Like immigrants who freely choose a nationality, homosexuals are not essentially born into the state of couplehood. They are free agents. It is the native born who have no choice of being of x nationality by birth.

Many science fiction writers describe a future in which people live so long that marriage becomes obsolete. In the Victorian period, it made sense to stay married because the average marriage only lasted 11 years before death did you part. Tolerable even under unhappy conditions.

Eternal marriage is such a horrendous prospect that even Christians dissolve marriages at death. There is no marriage or giving in marriage in Heaven, as Scriptures put it. And Mormans apparently have the option of not bringing the old baggage to their future paradise at all, while Muslims and some others have traditionally believed that women do not have proper souls. So they have no more chance of Heaven than your dog has.

I believe that marriage is a contract, not a sacrament. God is only involved as a guarantor of oaths and a promoter of the collective good. All children are his children. Contracts are flexible instruments. They all have a purpose, but the purpose need not be the same in all contracts, nor do the parties have to be exactly the same, nor do the aims of the parties to the contract have to be the same, nor the interest of the state or other non-parties the same.

I'm theoretically OK with polygamy for this reason, although I think it is generally an injustice to women and to other men for a man to have more than his share of the wives, or to treat them like a Patriarch, which is to say, like cattle and property.

In summation, my attitude to the marital contract, with or without the blessings and curses of God as guarantor of the contract, is, to paraphrase a wiley Canadian politician on the subject of military conscription, "marriage if necessary, but not necessarily marriage"

Also, contracts are made to be broken if they fail in their purposes, so obviously straight couples who choose to not have children should logically be forced to divorce if having children is the true, primary or sole purpose of the marriage contract.

If a woman is barren, divorce. If a man is sterile, divorce. If they choose to be childless, divorce. If a man is castrated or impotent, divorce. If the couple is too old to have children safely, divorce. If one party is insane, brutal, unsafe to leave with the children, divorce. Instant, no fault divorce for everybody! Yaaaaaay!

Logic. Is there anything it can't do?
 
2013-02-13 04:05:16 PM
Liberals are funny
 
2013-02-13 04:06:13 PM

Theaetetus: meanmutton: Theaetetus: mike_d85: I got robbed.  I expected that I would grow up and people would call me "Mr. D" instead the neighborhood children call me Mike.  The best I've gotten is Mr. Mike.  I don't even call my boss by his last name.  This is crap.  Where's the respect? Where's the dignity?

If you need to force other people to use an honorific when they speak to you, then you have no dignity and will receive no respect.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.  He obviously ISN'T forcing anyone to do anything.

But he feels a need to. It's an unrealized need.

/don't throw around "durr ur reading comprehension is lacking" if you don't understand the difference between finite and infinitive verbs


I would actually call it a desire. If it were a need he would be forcing people to use the honorific, which he clearly isn't.
 
2013-02-13 04:08:31 PM
Re-reading my previous post, I note that I failed to point out that women sometimes trade sex for money. A major oversight. I correct the factual error now, but don't necessarily endorse the practice, seeing as marriage is bad enough without cupidity.
 
2013-02-13 04:09:25 PM
And men.

Let's not forget the men who marry for money. Still common despite the decline in the giving of doweries in the West.
 
2013-02-13 04:10:59 PM

Theaetetus: It's amazing. That's twice you failed to fully read and understand the sentence. The first time, you skipped right to the fifth word. This time you skipped the first one. Is it some odd variety of ADHD that prevents you from reading a sentence from the beginning?


I think your gender transition therapist should adjust your testosterone levels. It seems to be stuck on "asshole".
 
2013-02-13 04:12:55 PM
bryen:I agree - but I also think there is an evolution on things. There's the 'new gay' and then the old legion of gays who think they blazed trails and made the world a great place for the next generation. I'm of the school that they made it worse and established all of the stereotypes. AOL was what blazed trails for us to be more out, not some old queen who is desperate to hold on to the separatist ideas of their early days. They can take their lifemate/ friend / partner / roomate and skip the marriage thing if they think calling it what the rest of society calls it isn't good enough for them.

Jesus, bitter much?  Ever occur to you that "some old queen" actually lived through decades of oppression and secrecy that caused this "separartist" idea you're knocking?  The stereotypes you refer to were in place long before Stonewall, and one of the major things that gay people had to contend with was the idea they weren't some perverted subculture and breaking that mold.  But you're right -- they can decide to skip the marriage thing, just like you can.  The difference is now you have that choice, thanks to those "old queens."
 
2013-02-13 04:14:21 PM

Mikey1969: PsiChick: GreenAdder: Let me get this straight. The Associated Press is attempting to ask people what they prefer to be called, so they are able to print things as accurately as possible. If they are unsure, they're to use the generic term "partner." If the couple uses the terms "husband" or "wife," then they're okay to print.

It sounds to me like they don't want to go printing things without verifying first. What's the problem?

Because it's a bit bizzare to say 'these two are married; therefore we will  not call them husband and wife\husband and husband\wife and wife'.

Kind of like how if I'm referring to a pair of siblings, it would be weird to say 'these two are siblings; therefore I will  not call them brother and sister, instead I will call them 'descendants of the same parentage'".

Except fro when they DON'T WANT TO be called "husband/wife", but husband and husband or wife and wife. Then THEY would get all pissed off at the AP for not bothering to take into account their personal preferences before writing the story. Plenty here who have already chimed in that have their own preferences, their own pet peeves, or know someone who does. AP isn't staffed with psychics, what else are they supposed to do?


That's not what people are commenting on. Society teaches you certain reflexive reactions; 'husband' or 'wife' is one of those reactions. It's one thing to say 'we aren't doing this because of complaints', but it's just weird to stop doing it without any reason.
 
2013-02-13 04:15:12 PM

xen0blue: well, they are being factually-correct since the actual definition of marriage is only between a male and female


You probably haven't been paying attention to the news for the past 5 or 10 years, but history is leaving you behind.
 
2013-02-13 04:18:25 PM

redmid17: Theaetetus: meanmutton: Theaetetus: mike_d85: I got robbed.  I expected that I would grow up and people would call me "Mr. D" instead the neighborhood children call me Mike.  The best I've gotten is Mr. Mike.  I don't even call my boss by his last name.  This is crap.  Where's the respect? Where's the dignity?

If you need to force other people to use an honorific when they speak to you, then you have no dignity and will receive no respect.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.  He obviously ISN'T forcing anyone to do anything.

But he feels a need to. It's an unrealized need.

/don't throw around "durr ur reading comprehension is lacking" if you don't understand the difference between finite and infinitive verbs

I would actually call it a desire. If it were a need he would be forcing people to use the honorific, which he clearly isn't.


See above - it's an unrealized need. He can feel a need to have a million dollars and two chicks at the same time, but that doesn't mean he's going to rob a bank or kidnap twins. I'd say that in this context, need, desire, and want are all equally applicable.
 
2013-02-13 04:21:26 PM
I don't get it, either.  What's wrong with the words "husband" and "wife"?  If your spouse is male, he's your husband.

Lately, I've been hearing some heterosexual people I know call their significant other "partner".
 
2013-02-13 04:24:16 PM
Beelzebubbles:

Jesus, bitter much?  Ever occur to you that "some old queen" actually lived through decades of oppression and secrecy that caused this "separartist" idea you're knocking?  The stereotypes you refer to were in place long before Stonewall, and one of the major things that gay people had to contend with was the idea they weren't some perverted subculture and breaking that mold.  But you're right -- they can decide to skip the marriage thing, just like you can.  The difference is now you have that choice, thanks to those "old queens."

Actually, not bitter, just able to recognize revisionist BS and manipulation. I don't follow the twisted and exaggerated rhetoric of old queens and egomaniacs like Michelangelo Signorile.

Did / do people suffer with repression? Sure. But liberation - it would have happened long ago if not for those old queens. They made things worse. They are doing their best now to retain control over their faux community and revising history to make themselves out to be heros. They did nothing to break the mold - instead they kept using that mold. Technology led to people being more out and being themselves and thus showed that we are just like everyone else. Sorry - not going to buy in to what some old queen wants me to believe.
 
2013-02-13 04:26:25 PM

meanmutton: seems to me that if a guy is married to a guy, they're each other's husband.


Ah, but can they be their own grandpas?
 
2013-02-13 04:26:30 PM

Mikey1969: kid_icarus: I'm confused...I didn't read the AP memos to mean what the angry blogger seemed to think they meant...but I couldn't quite decide what they  actuallymeant.

I think they actually meant that in this new enlightened age, different couples take on different traditional roles, and identify themselves in the relationships in different ways, and the AP is not going to jump to conclusions unless that is what the couple uses in their own description. In other words, I think the AP is trying NOT to offend anyone, and the blogger just wants to be offended.


Ok, yeah, that's the impression I had of it, too. It just seemed incredibly vague...they never seemed to come out and actually  saythat.

Having said that, I know a few same-sex married couples who don't like to use the 'husband' or 'wife' terms. I haven't heard them explain exactly why, but I would imagine some feel that those terms are too specific to gender roles in a traditional heterosexual marriage and don't fit their relationship.
 
2013-02-13 04:26:45 PM

Myria: I don't get it, either.  What's wrong with the words "husband" and "wife"?  If your spouse is male, he's your husband.

Lately, I've been hearing some heterosexual people I know call their significant other "partner".


Whenever I meet a new group of people (new job, etc.) I refer to my wife as my "life-partner".
When they finally meet her, there minds are totally blown because she's not a gay guy.
That's the nights I have to sleep on the couch.
 
2013-02-13 04:27:35 PM
Come live with me and be my love,
And we will some new pleasures prove
Of golden sands and crystal brooks
With silken lines, and silver hooks.
There's nothing that I wouldn't do
If you would be my POSSLQ.
You live with me, and I with you,
And you will be my POSSLQ.
I'll be your friend and so much more;
That's what a POSSLQ is for.
And everything we will confess;
Yes, even to the IRS.
Some day on what we both may earn,
Perhaps we'll file a joint return.
You'll share my pad, my taxes, joint;
You'll share my life - up to a point!
And that you'll be so glad to do,
Because you'll be my POSSLQ.


/props to Charles Osgood, and yeah, John Donne too
 
2013-02-13 04:31:07 PM

PsiChick: Mikey1969: PsiChick: GreenAdder: Let me get this straight. The Associated Press is attempting to ask people what they prefer to be called, so they are able to print things as accurately as possible. If they are unsure, they're to use the generic term "partner." If the couple uses the terms "husband" or "wife," then they're okay to print.

It sounds to me like they don't want to go printing things without verifying first. What's the problem?

Because it's a bit bizzare to say 'these two are married; therefore we will  not call them husband and wife\husband and husband\wife and wife'.

Kind of like how if I'm referring to a pair of siblings, it would be weird to say 'these two are siblings; therefore I will  not call them brother and sister, instead I will call them 'descendants of the same parentage'".

Except fro when they DON'T WANT TO be called "husband/wife", but husband and husband or wife and wife. Then THEY would get all pissed off at the AP for not bothering to take into account their personal preferences before writing the story. Plenty here who have already chimed in that have their own preferences, their own pet peeves, or know someone who does. AP isn't staffed with psychics, what else are they supposed to do?

That's not what people are commenting on. Society teaches you certain reflexive reactions; 'husband' or 'wife' is one of those reactions. It's one thing to say 'we aren't doing this because of complaints', but it's just weird to stop doing it without any reason.


You don't think there's a reason? Seriously, read just this board where people batch about being called "partners", "wives", a "couple", and then get back to me. Not every man in a relationship wants to be called the husband, not every woman wants to be called the wife, not every couple has a person who wants to be called the 'wife' simply because their spouse already claimed the title of 'husband'. If you think there is no complaining, you need to install cable TV in the rock you live under.
 
2013-02-13 04:31:59 PM

Fano


The plural of spouse is spice


OMG... That means the SPICE GIRLS WERE ALL MARRIED TO EACH OTHER! This changes everything!

Wait. No, it doesn't. NM.
 
2013-02-13 04:35:18 PM

Theaetetus: redmid17: Theaetetus: meanmutton: Theaetetus: mike_d85: I got robbed.  I expected that I would grow up and people would call me "Mr. D" instead the neighborhood children call me Mike.  The best I've gotten is Mr. Mike.  I don't even call my boss by his last name.  This is crap.  Where's the respect? Where's the dignity?

If you need to force other people to use an honorific when they speak to you, then you have no dignity and will receive no respect.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.  He obviously ISN'T forcing anyone to do anything.

But he feels a need to. It's an unrealized need.

/don't throw around "durr ur reading comprehension is lacking" if you don't understand the difference between finite and infinitive verbs

I would actually call it a desire. If it were a need he would be forcing people to use the honorific, which he clearly isn't.

See above - it's an unrealized need. He can feel a need to have a million dollars and two chicks at the same time, but that doesn't mean he's going to rob a bank or kidnap twins. I'd say that in this context, need, desire, and want are all equally applicable.


I don't think all those words are applicable unless you want to insert "unrealized" in before need, in which case you're basically saying want or desire. He clearly doesn't need it. It's not killing him and he's not forcing anyone to do it. You're reading too much into it, far too much.
 
2013-02-13 04:37:00 PM

Onkel Buck: Can we just start wearing plain gray Snuggies and have everything taste like plain vanilla already? That way no one will ever be offended again


as a child i was repeatedly raped by vanilla, and severely beaten with snuggies filled with rocks

this is the most offensive post i have ever read, i'm going to sue you blind!
 
2013-02-13 04:40:56 PM
Storm, meet teacup.
 
2013-02-13 04:44:28 PM

FirstNationalBastard: ZAZ: I nominate "penis receptor" if the other spouse is male.

I thought that was already the AP approved term for women.


OK How about Pokiedmon?
 
2013-02-13 04:44:31 PM

Hickory-smoked: xen0blue: well, they are being factually-correct since the actual definition of marriage is only between a male and female

You probably haven't been paying attention to the news for the past 5 or 10 years, but history is leaving you behind.


100treatises.com
you are going to look so stupid 40 years from now, LOL

the new progressive world is going to be so much better with out racist bigots like xen0blue :D

Myria: I don't get it, either.  What's wrong with the words "husband" and "wife"?  If your spouse is male, he's your husband.


not if that male is really a woman trapped in a transgendered man's body, i think your post is very offensive
 
2013-02-13 04:47:01 PM

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.


p.twimg.com

take your racist bigotry somewhere else pal
 
2013-02-13 04:56:24 PM
I don't agree with you completely, bryen.I agree that technology was key to evolving public opinion, but I think you're generalizing when you refer to "old queens."  Sure, there some bitter folks out there that have some a**hole-ish notions that are clinging to the past, but not everyone over the age of, say, 50 (no idea what age you become an "old queen"), is that close-minded.  In fact, I haven't met anyone espousing that value system since the 70s.  Obviously you've had a different experience.  I will say that in my experience I've had several exchanges with younger gay folks that recoil at the sight of anyone over 30 (don't get any "old" on me!) and find them to be pretty closed-minded in their own right, but I feel that's a "person by person" thing and not a generalization of gay youth.
 
2013-02-13 05:11:27 PM

redmid17: I don't think all those words are applicable unless you want to insert "unrealized" in before need, in which case you're basically saying want or desire. He clearly doesn't need it. It's not killing him and he's not forcing anyone to do it. You're reading too much into it, far too much.


It's enough that he felt the need to launch into a rant about it. A realized need, even. ;)

Myria: What's wrong with the words "husband" and "wife"?


It may be the etymology of the terms. "Husband" comes from a root of "house holder" or "master of the house", while "wife" comes from a root of "woman." As in, all women, married or unmarried, which is why there's terms like midwife, housewife, etc.
 
2013-02-13 05:15:19 PM
Problem Solved ...

cdn.bleacherreport.net
 
2013-02-13 05:21:13 PM
we need to ban words
 
2013-02-13 05:21:16 PM

kronicfeld: Breathless pearl-clutching like this isn't helping.


Language is about power. The more banal the language...the more power at stake.
 
2013-02-13 05:24:23 PM

Theaetetus: Myria: What's wrong with the words "husband" and "wife"?

It may be the etymology of the terms. "Husband" comes from a root of "house holder" or "master of the house", while "wife" comes from a root of "woman." As in, all women, married or unmarried, which is why there's terms like midwife, housewife, etc.


Since when does etymology trump common usage?
 
2013-02-13 05:28:53 PM
pitcher, catcher

fister, fistee

whatever, not really much of a story.
 
2013-02-13 05:33:32 PM
Illegal alien is still good, right
 
2013-02-13 05:39:14 PM
There's a reason papers are dropping the AP as it races toward oblivion.
 
2013-02-13 06:25:20 PM

GreenAdder: Let me get this straight. The Associated Press is attempting to ask people what they prefer to be called, so they are able to print things as accurately as possible. If they are unsure, they're to use the generic term "partner." If the couple uses the terms "husband" or "wife," then they're okay to print.

It sounds to me like they don't want to go printing things without verifying first. What's the problem?


Let me get this gay.

Actually no i don't know hot.  baby mastgurbate
 
2013-02-13 06:27:49 PM
Hmmm, last month AP banned the word homophobia. Now this. Did some fundie become the new CEO?
 
2013-02-13 06:33:00 PM
All they did was dis-assume what married LGBT wanted to be called and opted for a neutral variant unless clearly told otherwise. I'm not seeing the problem AT ALL.

Like, I'm having a hard time understanding what is happening. I feel like several extremely important contextualizing paragraphs were left out but everyone else got a chance to read them first. It's like watching a Terence Malick film with the first 30 minutes and the last 15 minutes cut off. Am I taking crazy pills?
 
2013-02-13 06:45:05 PM

cman: I dont think that they are trying to be dicks.

They are trying to be "politically correct" because they dont want to upset readers.

We havent had this kind of national discourse yet as we have been more worried about getting it legalized than going into absolute detail.


Yeah, cut them some slack. A lot of gay couples wouldn't use the terms 'husband' or 'wife', and might be offended at the assumption. On the other hand, few married straight couples would think twice about it. AP has to evolve with the culture, and there's not always a perfect word for every given situation, sometimes the best one isn't always obvious.
 
2013-02-13 06:56:09 PM
What about "Butt-Buddies"? That would work.
 
2013-02-13 07:05:26 PM

Krieghund: From TFA: Now AP has a ban on the terms husband and wife for gay couples unless the couples use the term about themselves.

I'm ok with this. As a matter of fact, I think they should expand this policy to straight couples, not force homosexual couples to identify as "husband" and "wife".

Though the best option, as said above, would be to just get rid of the terms.


If I was married, I'd use "my husband" when describing my husband to others. Spouse would also be acceptable, but partner wouldn't be. Partner was when we weren't equal.
 
2013-02-13 07:11:01 PM

chatikh: Krieghund: From TFA: Now AP has a ban on the terms husband and wife for gay couples unless the couples use the term about themselves.

I'm ok with this. As a matter of fact, I think they should expand this policy to straight couples, not force homosexual couples to identify as "husband" and "wife".

Though the best option, as said above, would be to just get rid of the terms.

If I was married, I'd use "my husband" when describing my husband to others. Spouse would also be acceptable, but partner wouldn't be. Partner was when we weren't equal.


Of course, I'm in Texas. Where gays still have absolutely no rights.
 
2013-02-13 07:18:40 PM

I drunk what: letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.



take your racist bigotry somewhere else pal


Mmm, some Chick-fil-A sounds good right about now
 
2013-02-13 08:14:56 PM

jim32rr: I drunk what: letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

take your racist bigotry somewhere else pal

Mmm, some Chick-fil-A sounds good right about now


that's because we've been farking that chicken for eons now, makes it extra tender
 
2013-02-13 08:35:33 PM

victrin: I'm gay, and frankly I hate the term 'partner'. I am not in a business relationship with my boyfriend. If we wind up married we will be husband and husband (we live in New York, so it is possible).


Would that mean no engagement ring or two engagement rings?

/not trying to be mean, just silly
//also not in jewelry sales
///virgules
 
2013-02-13 09:14:37 PM
Find out what people you are writing about prefer. If you can't for any reason ... have thick skin, you will never please them all.

Nothing new or outrageous about any of this.
 
2013-02-13 09:15:32 PM
None of those terms seem offensive. What would they prefer? Butt Buddy? Peter Pumper? Rump Ranger?
 
2013-02-13 09:22:52 PM

GreenAdder: Let me get this straight. The Associated Press is attempting to ask people what they prefer to be called, so they are able to print things as accurately as possible. If they are unsure, they're to use the generic term "partner." If the couple uses the terms "husband" or "wife," then they're okay to print.

It sounds to me like they don't want to go printing things without verifying first. What's the problem?


There isn't a problem, or to be precise, there's a very, very small one.

firstworlproblems.jpg
 
2013-02-13 09:39:32 PM

Hickory-smoked: xen0blue: well, they are being factually-correct since the actual definition of marriage is only between a male and female

You probably haven't been paying attention to the news for the past 5 or 10 years, but history is leaving you behind.


And even the male-female definition of marriage was never the only definition.
 
2013-02-13 10:22:36 PM
Fark off with the PC stuff. If you want to be all gay and get married and call eachother "spouse" or whatever, that's fine, just don't impose your gay marriage titles on me and the wife.

/likes being called husband
 
2013-02-13 10:22:56 PM
"Pervert" and "Pervert" work?

/ducks
 
2013-02-13 10:32:30 PM
Good for the AP.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report