California outlaws Husband and Wife

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I covered that- and he targeted your argument to begin with. You're the one that targeted him as a person.

My argument was not racist, or sexist or stupid.

I targeted him as a person because he's being a hypocrite.

You may not think it is but it seems like a fair comment (substituting homophobic for racist). I'd rather it was not lingered on but you left yourself open to the accusation.

You then bringing in irrelevant subject to attack him personally is not the same sort of thing at all- don't do it again.

Fine

Originally posted by NemeBro
Both solutions are equally easy.

You're crying about nothing.

I don't see how I'm crying. Merely wondering why this is necessary. You say they are equally easy, how? The old system seemed to be referring to men as husbands and women as wives. How is not changing anything(besides letting gay people get married) easier then..well, changing something, even minor?

So I don't see that as crying, I did not create this topic. I don't care what they call themselves, but I am curious on why the obvious solution wasn't just to apply terms like "husband" and "wife" to gay and lesbian couples too.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't see how I'm crying. Merely wondering why this is necessary. You say they are equally easy, how? The old system seemed to be referring to men as husbands and women as wives. How is not changing anything(besides letting gay people get married) easier then..well, changing something, even minor?

So I don't see that as crying, I did not create this topic. I don't care what they call themselves, but I am curious on why the obvious solution wasn't just to apply terms like "husband" and "wife" to gay and lesbian couples too.

If you change the law you have to change the text to reflect these changes. You have to remember we are only talking about the language of the family code. So consider a potential sentence in the code:

"...the husband and wife are required to..."

In the system you favor, you'd have to change this to

"...the husband and wife, or husband and husband, or wife and wife are required to..."

In the system California decided to use they would say

"...the spouses are required to..."

So while your system is perfectly fine as well, it is actually more complicated than the system that was decided on.

This outrage seems inappropriate TI. Seriously most legal government forms I've ever seen already ask for spouse's name.

Changing it so their is no official language for Husband and Wife in the law seems okay with me. It's how it should have been from the beginning.

Originally posted by Newjak
This outrage seems inappropriate TI. Seriously most legal government forms I've ever seen already ask for spouse's name.

Changing it so their is no official language for Husband and Wife in the law seems okay with me. It's how it should have been from the beginning.

Who are you again? There was no outrage. It was a debate, unless you have something to add to the general topic, singling me out makes you look weak. I'm not the only one who raised a flag of caution.

You are the thread starter. And you talked about slippery slopes and degradation of society. You've been extremely alarmist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are the thread starter. And you talked about slippery slopes and degradation of society. You've been extremely alarmist.

And? Things you do in real life might alarm others. Like me. So what.

So it makes sense that newjak would single you out regarding this topic, because you have been behaving very outraged by this good, and very small, change.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So it makes sense that newjak would single you out regarding this topic, because you have been behaving very outraged by this good, and very small, change.

And?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
And?

You asked why you were singled out, I explained to you why.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You asked why you were singled out, I explained to you why.

Your a liar, I didn't ask you anything.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Your a liar, I didn't ask you anything.

I didn't say that you asked me specifically. You accused Newjak of being weak for singling you out, so I explained to you why it's perfectly reasonable to address you. You are behaving very childishly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't say that you asked me specifically. You accused Newjak of being weak for singling you out, so I explained to you why it's perfectly reasonable to address you. You are behaving very childishly.

Again. I wasn't talking to you. Is your name Newjak?

There are many things I think are childish like teenage girls but you don't see me playing with them.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Again. I wasn't talking to you. Is your name Newjak?

There are many things I think are childish like teenage girls but you don't see me playing with them.

You are posting on a public forum, you'll have to deal with people addressing your points.

Not anymore. Like I said I don't want to associate with sexual predators. Ignored.

why teenage girls specifically tho.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you saying that homosexuality is a "degradation of society"?

Humans should be more ethical and socially advanced then animals.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
why teenage girls specifically tho.

I dunno ask the SP. He's on ignore now. Don't want to be known to associate with someone like that.