Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   wife or husband?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 52 (167286)
12-11-2004 11:04 PM


what is the difference between "wife" and "husband" if you remove gender from the definitions?
from dictionary.com:
wife n. pl. wives
A woman joined to a man in marriage; a female spouse.
husband n.
1. A man joined to a woman in marriage; a male spouse.
2. Chiefly British. A manager or steward, as of a household.
3. Archaic. A prudent, thrifty manager.
are these definitions similar and yet different because of a traditional view of the man running the house?
do the things that make a good wife also make a good husband and vice versa? or are they exclusive?
finally, what is it that would not apply to gay marriage?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 19:53 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by coffee_addict, posted 12-12-2004 2:04 PM RAZD has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 52 (167309)
12-12-2004 2:43 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 52 (167351)
12-12-2004 10:46 AM


and gays
thanks ned.
no takers yet.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 4 of 52 (167392)
12-12-2004 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-11-2004 11:04 PM


Let me ask you something to be perfectly clear. Did you mean to asking about removing "gender" or "sex" from the definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2004 11:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2004 3:23 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 52 (167414)
12-12-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by coffee_addict
12-12-2004 2:04 PM


gender
what is it that makes a good "wife"
what is it that makes a good "husband"
that are different?
if there is no difference, and a marriage is between a husband and a wife, then why not gay marriage?
what's the big deal, eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by coffee_addict, posted 12-12-2004 2:04 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 12-12-2004 6:30 PM RAZD has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 6 of 52 (167473)
12-12-2004 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
12-12-2004 3:23 PM


Re: gender
A good wife has a vagina and a good husband has a penis?
Here is another one. By now, most of us should know that people like buzsaw likes subserviant women. Although we do see equal partnership in hetero couples (an example is my sister and her husband), gay couples are predominantly equal partnership. Perhaps this is one of the main reasons why people like buz and jazzlover are so against gay relationship and gay marriage. Instead of the typical dominant male figure followed by the obedient female counterpart, we now have 2 people that share pretty much equal say in their relationship.
These are just some of the things that I've noticed in other threads. As to my stance in the issue, I still say that it's not any of your goddamn bussiness to have any say in the issue of gay marriage. It's like me having a say in what kind of tv you should have in your house or whether you should choose cable rather than sattelite. This very simple concept of "not any of your goddamn bussiness" is apparently so hard to understand we still have people struggling to get the general public out of their bedrooms (I'm talking about sodomy laws that were only struck down by the supreme court just a few months ago).
But anyway, enough with my rant. I just think that people that are against gay marriage are people that are threatened by the very fact that the idea of equal partnership has taken an even greater step toward complete equal partnership.

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2004 3:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2004 7:14 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2004 7:40 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 52 (167493)
12-12-2004 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by coffee_addict
12-12-2004 6:30 PM


Equal partnerships
Although we do see equal partnership in hetero couples (an example is my sister and her husband), gay couples are predominantly equal partnership.
In my experience (maybe greater than yours) hetero couples are far and away predominantly equal partnerships.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 12-12-2004 6:30 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 12-12-2004 9:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 52 (167508)
12-12-2004 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by coffee_addict
12-12-2004 6:30 PM


Re: gender
whether they have an "inny" or an "outy" they both have an orgasm
personally I think the governments need to get out of the marriage issue altogether, as their real concern is {households} and {individuals}. there is no aspect of government that should depend on whether or not A is married to B. there is no aspect of government that should depend on whether A and B are having a sexual realtionship or not.
let the conservatives have their marriage definition, and let them lose the perks they have enjoyed because of the biased laws that have been based on the culural traditions could ignore the question until it is defined.
personally I think marriage is over-rated. the fact that most end in divorce (or worse) would be good evidence to that.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 12-12-2004 6:30 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PecosGeorge, posted 12-13-2004 9:49 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 21 by nator, posted 12-13-2004 7:57 PM RAZD has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 52 (167550)
12-12-2004 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
12-12-2004 7:14 PM


Re: Equal partnerships
I do not dispute with this. However, wouldn't you agree that gay marriage would seem to be more in-your-face in regard to equal partnership, especially to ultra-conservatives who still cling to the idea that there must be a dominant figure and a submissive figure in a relationship?

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2004 7:14 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2004 6:51 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6872 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 10 of 52 (167672)
12-13-2004 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
12-12-2004 7:40 PM


Re: gender
If marriage is over-rated, then why the big struggle for approval for gays?
Why not establish a law that would make it possible for them to enter a legal agreement and call it something else?
And make it possible for them to enjoy the benefits of such agreement.
But it is more than that, isn't it? The equality they want is more than may be found in the benefits of any legal agreement/arrangement.
Don't bother to reply. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2004 7:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-13-2004 11:27 AM PecosGeorge has replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2004 7:49 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 52 (167696)
12-13-2004 11:14 AM


Toward the OP, I would say that this is a very poor dictionary offering. Husbandry is an archaic term meaning the profitable guardianship/exploitation of a resource, often specifically of animals.
The reason for the distinction is that in the female case, what is significant about her new status is which man she is a dependant of. That is why only spousal connotations remain. In the male case the functional role of a man as head of the household/business/herd that is to be grown is retained.
So yes I do think the terminology specifically echoes inequitable roles. I disagree that most hetero couples are equitable even if most parties claim so - they will often continue to claim so even when only one of them actually does the running of the house. Else Marks and Spencers would not have introduced "male creches" (and an appropriate word-choice that is) with TV's and playstations at which men can be deposited while their better halves actually do the work of christmas shopping.
I agree with Lam's point that without the cultural references that normalises on gender as primaruily repsonsible for actually running the househould, gay couples are more likely to be based on actual equality.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2004 7:59 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 52 (167701)
12-13-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PecosGeorge
12-13-2004 9:49 AM


Re: gender
If marriage is over-rated, then why the big struggle for approval for gays?
Public water fountains are nothing special. A select group being forbidden from using them is.
Why not establish a law that would make it possible for them to enter a legal agreement and call it something else?
And when the Hell is someone gonna give them their own schools?
The equality they want is more than may be found in the benefits of any legal agreement/arrangement.
True. The equality most of us hope homosexuals will reach is a world where people don't see the need for asinine statements like "why the big struggle for approval for gays?" But you can't legislate that; all you can do is hope for it.
In the meantime though, equal rights are a nice gesture.
Don't bother to reply.
This is a discussion forum, not your blog.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PecosGeorge, posted 12-13-2004 9:49 AM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PecosGeorge, posted 12-13-2004 12:29 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6872 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 13 of 52 (167712)
12-13-2004 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dan Carroll
12-13-2004 11:27 AM


Re: gender
If marriage is over-rated, why the big struggle?
Assuming that the use of public fountains is not over-rated, the allusion is to marriage.
Why not establish a law that would suit their need for legal rights, such as those found in marriage. Schools?
If marriage is over-rated, why the big struggle for gays? It is not something to be desired if it is over-rated, eh?
And where exactly do you find equal rights on this planet? Could you name one that does not have an exception to the rule? Or that cannot be bought with money?
Thank you for your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-13-2004 11:27 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-13-2004 12:42 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 52 (167714)
12-13-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by PecosGeorge
12-13-2004 12:29 PM


Re: gender
If marriage is over-rated, why the big struggle?
Repeating questions does not lend them strength.
Assuming that the use of public fountains is not over-rated, the allusion is to marriage.
Seeing as we are unfamiliar with the concept of the metaphor, I will explain more clearly. Even if marriage itself is nothing special (which is debatable; obviously couples who want to get married, gay or straight, think it's nifty) the fact that a subset of the population is barred from marriage is special. And wrong.
Why not establish a law that would suit their need for legal rights, such as those found in marriage. Schools?
Again, the use of metaphor skips a beat. As with separate schools for black children, separate is not equal.
And where exactly do you find equal rights on this planet?
The fourteenth amendment.
Could you name one that does not have an exception to the rule? Or that cannot be bought with money?
So let me get this straight... because there are flaws in the system, we should not attempt to correct flaws where we find them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PecosGeorge, posted 12-13-2004 12:29 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PecosGeorge, posted 12-13-2004 2:00 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 16 by coffee_addict, posted 12-13-2004 3:25 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6872 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 15 of 52 (167738)
12-13-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dan Carroll
12-13-2004 12:42 PM


Re: gender
having a problem with subset of the population
repeating question may sink in the reason for asking it to begin with
my response was to RAZ and 'marriage being over-rated. that you fail to understand it is neither here nor there to me, nor is it if he does not.
are we not looking for making things easier for the subset called gays
and I suppose you also believe in the easter bunny or santa, if you believe that what it says in this amendment is actually practiced, and if it were, no conversation on such issues would be necessary
with liberty and justice for all......who have money to purchase same
it's called IDEALS, far far from reality
it is a strong desire to make all attempts to correct correctable flaws that has me in this conversation with you. There must be a way without the emptying of pockets or the shedding of blood.
This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 12-13-2004 02:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-13-2004 12:42 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-13-2004 3:38 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024