Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AP To Use ‘Husband, Wife’ Regardless Of Sexual Orientation
TPM ^ | Thursday February 21, 2013 | Pema Levy

Posted on 02/21/2013 2:40:27 PM PST by Salman

Edited on 02/21/2013 2:43:33 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

The Associated Press on Thursday updated its stylebook so that married individuals will be referred to as husband and wife, regardless of whether they are in a same-sex marriage. The change comes a week after the AP received criticism for an internal memo designating the word "partners" for individuals in same-sex marriages.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amendment; ap; braking; constitution; crosspolygamy; definition; discrimination; homosexual; homosexualagenda; husband; implicit; liberal; marriage; marriagedefinition; meaning; media; moralabsolutes; partner; polyamory; polygamy; progressive; redefinition; samesexmarriage; scotus; stupid; unconstitutional; wife; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: NKP_Vet

I am ashamed that it has sunk to this low, but there are still good people who haven’t compromised their morals, and I take comfort in that. God will prevail in the end...though it might be after a bath of fire first.

21 posted on 02/21/2013 4:17:13 PM PST by LUV W (All my heroes wear camos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
Ahhhh? Isn’t ‘spouse’ a perfectly good non sexual specific word?

and how does that help bring down society? They have to corrupt the language and everything else.

They have a plan

1. Destroy Society

2. ???

3. Utopia

22 posted on 02/21/2013 4:18:48 PM PST by GeronL (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Now the sodomite-in-chief is trying to strongarm the Supreme Court to rule against real marriage and say anything goes. If they do, we are done as a nation and will surely go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah and Rome, and it’s not going to be very long. The nuclear family is the bedrock of civilization and a man having anal sex with another man is nothing in the world but an abomination and sin against God. A crime against nation and a sin against God.

23 posted on 02/21/2013 4:24:20 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
So, who’s the “husband” and who’s the “wife?”

I believe it will work like this:
hetero: husband and wife
homo: husband and husband
lesbian: wife and wife

This has the benefit of working for threesomes and higher numbers as society continues to decay.

24 posted on 02/21/2013 4:34:48 PM PST by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salman

This reminds me of an old PLAYBOY cartoon from 46 years ago.

A black student goes home to introduce his wife to the parents. The mother is crying on the dad’s shoulders.

The black son says, “But-Mom, I told you my wife was white!”

The “wife” was a simpering little white boy.

25 posted on 02/21/2013 4:46:41 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Too old to cut the mustard any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD; Salman
If, by its very definition, the marriage is not a union of one man and one woman, why is the "marriage" of man to a man or a "marriage" of woman to a woman isn't a discrimination against "marriage" of several people who may or may not be all "married" to each other or persons outside of any given "marriage"?

Marriage has not been defined in Constitution only because for thousands of years it meant only one thing and it would be too stupid to try and define it [as anything other than a union between a man and a woman]. Just because the definition of marriage is not in the Constitution, it's only for a reason that it couldn't be defined as anything else.

If the "marriage" is to be redefined (by Supreme Court and/or legislators) as "constitutional," why then should it be redefined to only include two people, regardless of sex? That is not "progressive" - that is descendence into the stone age.

If "marriage" doesn't mean "one man and one woman" then it doesn't mean "two people" either. In fact, it then means nothing at all except a legal arrangement for getting special benefits from the government - something that government can grant regardless of marriage status to one, two or a group of people, e.g., corporations, business partners, or other legal civic entities.

To define the institution of marriage be anything else than what it meant up to now means discrimination against the groups of people who want to be "married" to each other and/or several other partners (of either sex).

Certainly gives a new meaning of "extended family." Somebody or organizations should file civil rights discrimination lawsuits in those states where the homosexual "marriage" has been declared legal. Maybe then the people who have been confused by the "same-sex marriage" campaigns and now feel that it's "compassionate" or that there is nothing wrong with redefinition of marriage, start thinking through the consequences and the logical end-game of such developments, and cheapening or the meaningless of their own marriage in the future.

26 posted on 02/21/2013 5:20:11 PM PST by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Salman

How do they know which guy bends over. Or conversely how do they know which woman is nicknamed Butch? Orwell was perhaps the most prescient man that ever lived.

27 posted on 02/21/2013 5:28:15 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
How do they know which guy bends over. ...

They don't. It's really just a question of following the ad hoc usage of any given homo couple AP might be reporting on.

This is not a story about what homos do with each other.

It's a story about a news agency attempting psychological manipulation of the public.

28 posted on 02/21/2013 6:31:41 PM PST by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

So the leftist MSM are underpants gnomes. Bout right.

29 posted on 02/21/2013 6:40:44 PM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Salman

It was said in jest. Evidently, Red Skelton I’m not.

30 posted on 02/21/2013 6:52:49 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Salman

I make it easy on myself and refer to each as the husbian. It’s sort of all-encompassing, yes?

31 posted on 02/21/2013 8:58:18 PM PST by TXBlair (We will not forget Benghazi, Mister Prez.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman
husband/wife = pitcher/catcher. It probably depends on the day of the week. Look for the one with the smile.
32 posted on 02/22/2013 4:33:33 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“They have a plan”

You forgot the first step:

0.5: Seize the guns.

33 posted on 02/22/2013 4:38:02 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy; Salman

Excellent and thoughtful commentary. Consequences are something liberals leave up to others. They’re bumper-sticker thinkers and their intellectuals lie.

Every homosexual activist knows that the next step is transexuals, transvestites and pedophiles recognized as “normal”. I love your line linking this thinking with its counterpart in the history of human civilization - it is truly a return to the Stone Age.

Your point about government benefits being granted outside of a redefinition of marriage is spot on, but that’s not their goal. It was supposed to be solved with civil unions, which we have here in Illinois. Civil unions were just a step in their war against Nature and Nature’s Law - they want homosexuality to be normal.

They’re deeply psychological and they feel flawed. This drives them to try to be “normal” and claim all that normalcy brings. It won’t bring them peace. They aren’t feeling crazy because society won’t accept them. They’re simply feeling crazy because their lifestyle is crazy and mentally unhealthy.

34 posted on 02/22/2013 5:33:19 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: matginzac

It’s like a garden hose...
You can’t connect two male end fittings or two female end fittings and not have a leak......’s exceedingly simple, really...we’ll just start referring to garden hose fittings as partners...there, problem solved, no more leaks...

35 posted on 02/22/2013 5:48:25 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

When you consider it’s ALL about plumbing....yes, you are right.

36 posted on 02/22/2013 6:48:00 AM PST by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Salman
I block TPM so I didn't see the whole article.

I think what AP has decided is they'll write, for example, Ellen DeGeneres' wife is Portia de Rossi and Portia de Rossi's wife is Ellen DeGeneres.

37 posted on 02/22/2013 9:45:37 AM PST by newzjunkey (bah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

So who is going to let the AP into the bedroom to make sure they are reporting accurately?

38 posted on 02/22/2013 10:11:04 AM PST by stayathomemom (Beware of kittens modifying your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salman

Well, this fits with Clive Davis’s book. He likes to pitch no matter what sex of the catcher. So he’s the husband. (sarcasm)

39 posted on 02/22/2013 1:00:06 PM PST by AmericaUnite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I guess "Thing 1" and "Thing 2" was already trademarked.

If a true marriage isn't valid until it's consumated, then... How are homosexual "marriages" consumated? Yeesh.

40 posted on 02/22/2013 2:55:07 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson