Democrats allegedly want to get rid of "husband" and "wife"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ush didn't single you out. The tone in the GDF has been pretty aggressively lately generally.

But maybe back on topic, your initial posts makes it seem like you think this idea is idiotic, could you elaborate on that and explain why you think so?

You want me to tell you why removing those two words from federal law is idoitic? If I have to ask "wtf", I assume it's automatically idiotic unless there is a legitimate explanation (there isn't). I didn't think I had to elaborate on why it is idiotic. At the same time as Q99 said, it's not a major issue, just plain stupid.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You want me to tell you why removing those two words from federal law is idoitic? If I have to ask "wtf", I assume it's automatically idiotic unless there is a legitimate explanation (there isn't). I didn't think I had to elaborate on why it is idiotic. At the same time as Q99 said, it's not a major issue, just plain stupid.

I think there are valid reasons for why this is a good implementation of writing laws. Q99 provided some, I did as well, and the other thread I linked discussed it further.

Oh true, I did not see the legal loopholes, nor your post. Ok I suppose that's one, at least in terms of semantics. I still feel a little weird about THAT being written into federal law, even if it doesn't really mean anything.

Progressives will never stop until they subjugate anyone who disagrees.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Why do people care so much about what words are used by lawyers in their legal jargon?

Because once they start. They don't stop.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh true, I did not see the legal loopholes, nor your post. Ok I suppose that's one, at least in terms of semantics. I still feel a little weird about THAT being written into federal law, even if it doesn't really mean anything.

Legal semantics are boring and finicky.

And... 'that'? Is the word spouse so weird a word? ^^;;

Btw, when you think about it, this should've been done back in, like '07. Back when it looked like it was going to be Hillary vs McCain/Palin, because if it had been that, then no matter who won it'd have come into play.

One of the Republican primary candidates is a woman this time too, so there is a slim chance (she's not a very strong candidate, she's something of a failed CEO) that it'll end up with a 'first husband' who needs coverage no matter who wins the election.

Time-Immemorial
Progressives will never stop until they subjugate anyone who disagrees.

Are you projecting? 🙂

It's funny how you make progressives up into a big boggieman, when all you're doing is complaining about a simple legal fix, and how it tends to be the Republicans who push hardest for the limitation of freedoms on civil rights / spend their greatest effort fighting on things that aren't subjugating anyone (see: Gay marriage).

There's precisely zero subjugation here. This is for the purpose of making sure people who should logically be covered by laws, are covered, even if people didn't foresee there being a 'First Husband' back when the laws were written.

Like it's been covered, you're panicking over the closing of a legal loophole. You are freaking out and calling subjugation over the use of a slightly broader synonym.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Because once they start. They don't stop. [/B]

You're gonna have to prove the government would make any serious effort to get people to stop calling their spouses husbands and wives in everyday talk, because that is a bold assertion.

This thread is a hilarious example of conservatives overreacting over something they don't understand.

I see you have been worked up

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This thread is a hilarious example of conservatives overreacting over something they don't understand.

Originally posted by Q99
Ugh, you're missing the point.

Right now, there's several laws that say husband or wife, but not both (i.e. the law only include a single word in that slot, like, just-wife, it doesn't say 'wife or husband'😉, even when the situation can apply to either, so right now, the other spouse would be uncovered by the law if the entered the situation. A first husband would not have the protections of a first lady at the moment.

Laws that say 'husband and wife' or 'husband or wife' are no problem whatsoever, but they want to change the ones that only mention one of those to cover both.

And there's an existing english word for that: Spouse.

If we didn't have the word spouse, it'd be 'husband and wife/wife and husband,' but since we do have the word spouse, is there a particular reason to expand the word count and use the whole phrase? Not that I can see. I doubt it even occurred to them because it's simply smoother english, but the phrase and 'spouse' are, legally speaking, interchangeable, they just happened to use one rather than the other, but the important thing is it covers both.

Short version: This is a legal semantic change which is neither encouraging nor discouraging the usage of any word in any day to day sense, but purely to close loopholes that could make for problems.

Is everyone done panicking now?

But this is utter bunk. HOW did I miss the point? The point, as you just friggin explained ad nauseam is that the laws specify either "wife" or "husband" but not both. So how is me saying "can't we just include both words" missing the point?

I never said it was encouraging not using the words. I was asking why, if this is about law wording, they can't just add an extra word. Like "presidents wife cant be hurt" becomes "presidents wife/husband can't be hurt" or if a slash isn't clear enough "the presidents wife or husband can't be hurt".

So if this is all about semantics, why stir the pot at all? Seems just making it apply to husband or wife would be fine, didn't even need to be a friggin story. I ask again: when we write these laws are we paying for them by the word, like a newspaper ad or something?

Go click the link, read the title of that article. Notice anything? How it says democrats declared "war" on these words? Yeah, so misleading or not: do you feel this was a predictable response? If so, I ask again: why stir the pot, why not just put both terms husband and wife into the law? We have vastly more important things to worry about in this country, why give people an excuse to focus on something stupid?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This thread is a hilarious example of conservatives overreacting over something they don't understand.

👆

"They changed marriage and now they want to take our words away!"

"They changed marriage and now they want to take out words away!"

Really? Now you're editing in? You and your silly games. Let the butthurt go and move on.

Originally posted by Robtard
Really? Now you're editing in? You and your silly games. Let the butthurt go and move on.

Poor guy. Has to desperately edit his listing, and then pretend it didn't happen. Amusing to the rest of us 😂

You do realize that this site uses edit markers right?

Originally posted by Robtard
You do realize that this site using edit markers right?

Sure Rob. You don't have to convince me. Can't tell what's sadder, your inability to spell properly, your constant denial after editing, or your incredibly fast responses. 😂

What did I misspell now? Because you changed my "our" to "out" when playing your little games and both words are spelled correctly. Failed again, keep trying though, your butthurt is hilarious.

edit: "Fast responses", you're replying just as fast to me, see the time-makers. Another fail? 😂

Originally posted by Robtard
What did I misspell now? Because you changed my "our" to "out" when playing your little games and both words are spelled correctly. LoL, failed again, keep trying though, your butthurt is hilarious

edit: "Fast responses", you're replying just as fast to me. Another fail? 😂

Poor guy. Has to desperately edit his listing, and then pretend it didn't happen. Amusing to the rest of us

Just be aware that edit makers exist when trying your silly games.