• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does this story bother anyone?

Tina Turner marries longtime partner in Switzerland - CBS News

Is it just me or does this story go out of it's way to not tell us that Tina Turner's husband is male. "Boyfriend" has now been replaced by "long term partner"?

Never seen a wedding reported this way before...

Not really but strangely seeing female actresses refereed to as "actors" does grate at me a little. Its like the culture is trying to masculinize (New word that I just created. Add to the dictionary!) some of America's most beautiful women.
 
Last edited:
doesn't bother me at all. Next crisis?
 
Mind Blown moment: Someone who presumably believes that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman claims that the title of "Tina Turner marries longtime partner in Switzerland" does not mention or imply the gender of the long-time partner.

If marriage is is defined as a union between one man and one woman, that tile would basically be stating said partner's gender, though. Thus, the person who is bothered by such a title obviously does not actually think that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman, just that it should be defined as such. They were perfectly willing to assume the existence of a marriage between two women.
 
Perhaps it is the first shots of a war on heterosexual marriage?
 
Mind Blown moment: Someone who presumably believes that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman claims that the title of "Tina Turner marries longtime partner in Switzerland" does not mention or imply the gender of the long-time partner.

If marriage is is defined as a union between one man and one woman, that tile would basically be stating said partner's gender, though. Thus, the person who is bothered by such a title obviously does not actually think that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman, just that it should be defined as such. They were perfectly willing to assume the existence of a marriage between two women.

Given the recent SCUTUS ruling and the fact that SSM is now legal in several states and looks like it will soon be the law of the land... I think it's pretty safe to say that the traditional definition of marriage is a thing of the past. Hence the question of is this wedding story as written by the author a sort of pandering to a new definition of marriage.

That's as deep as I wanted to go with this.
 
Given the recent SCUTUS ruling and the fact that SSM is now legal in several states and looks like it will soon be the law of the land... I think it's pretty safe to say that the traditional definition of marriage is a thing of the past. Hence the question of is this wedding story as written by the author a sort of pandering to a new definition of marriage.

That's as deep as I wanted to go with this.

If that's the definition, how would it be pandering to use it so?
 
If that's the definition, how would it be pandering to use it so?
I've seen you in action before, Tucker. Not really interested in a deep philosophical discussion along the same lines as "if a tree falls in the forest..."
 
It doesn't bother me in the least that they got married.
 
Doesn't bother me, but I always assume that when they say "partner" in the first sentence, it's a gay wedding.

If I had a son in his 20s and he wanted me to meet his "partner", I'd automatically assume that I was going to meet his boyfriend Julian and his pretty little Pomeranian, Princess.
 
Doesn't bother me, but I always assume that when they say "partner" in the first sentence, it's a gay wedding.

If I had a son in his 20s and he wanted me to meet his "partner", I'd automatically assume that I was going to meet his boyfriend Julian and his pretty little Pomeranian, Princess.

What if he was introducing you to a business partner?
 
Tina Turner marries longtime partner in Switzerland - CBS News

Is it just me or does this story go out of it's way to not tell us that Tina Turner's husband is male. "Boyfriend" has now been replaced by "long term partner"?

Never seen a wedding reported this way before...




Why would this story bother anyone?

What's the problem?

I went to the link, the story reads like a boilerplate celebrity wedding announcement to me.

If anyone has a problem with it, I suggest that they take it up with the happy couple
 
Given the recent SCUTUS ruling and the fact that SSM is now legal in several states and looks like it will soon be the law of the land... I think it's pretty safe to say that the traditional definition of marriage is a thing of the past. Hence the question of is this wedding story as written by the author a sort of pandering to a new definition of marriage.

That's as deep as I wanted to go with this.




Since this wedding took place in Switzerland and the bride is a Swiss citizen and the bridegroom is a German citizen and they live in Switzerland, I doubt that U.S. laws will affect their marriage.

I don't know about anyone else, but I actually have more important things to think about.
 
I've seen you in action before, Tucker. Not really interested in a deep philosophical discussion along the same lines as "if a tree falls in the forest..."

Oh Jack, you must have known what you were getting into when you started this thread. :lamo
 
Not really but strangely seeing female actresses refereed to as "actors" does grate at me a little. Its like the culture is trying to masculinize (New word that I just created. Add to the dictionary!) some of America's most beautiful women.

And for an opposite point of view, I have made a point for decades of not using "actress," "comedienne," or other feminized words--ess and ette words--because in the language, to feminize has been historically to trivialize. ;)
 
Oh Jack, you must have known what you were getting into when you started this thread. :lamo
I did.

I even thought it over for a little while before finally hitting "submit". In hindsight maybe I should have just scrapped the whole thing.:lol:
 
And for an opposite point of view, I have made a point for decades of not using "actress," "comedienne," or other feminized words--ess and ette words--because in the language, to feminize has been historically to trivialize. ;)

Hmm. I never saw it that way. To me its like calling a female police officer a policeman, robbing her of her womanhood to an extent, just to sound politically correct. I've never viewed women and their careers as trivial; in fact i tend to have more honor and respect for women that I do men who are single mothers and manage to work and raise children without the help of a man often out of necessity. My only issue is robbing women of their womanhood by describing them in masculine language, sometimes with their own complicity.
 
Hmm. I never saw it that way. To me its like calling a female police officer a policeman, robbing her of her womanhood to an extent, just to sound politically correct. I've never viewed women and their careers as trivial; in fact i tend to have more honor and respect for women that I do men who are single mothers and manage to work and raise children without the help of a man often out of necessity. My only issue is robbing women of their womanhood by describing them in masculine language, sometimes with their own complicity.

What is politically correct--because it is inclusive-- is the gender-neutral "police officer." We no longer say "salesman" or "repairman"; we say "sales rep/associate" and "repair technician."
 
Hmm. I never saw it that way. To me its like calling a female police officer a policeman, robbing her of her womanhood to an extent, just to sound politically correct. I've never viewed women and their careers as trivial; in fact i tend to have more honor and respect for women that I do men who are single mothers and manage to work and raise children without the help of a man often out of necessity. My only issue is robbing women of their womanhood by describing them in masculine language, sometimes with their own complicity.

For part of my life, women were regarded legally in many ways as chattel. I've always loved, loved, loved being a girl and have never lacked confidence in my "womanhood" or "femininity"...but the step up and forward to equality as a person has been great!
 


Time to bombard the thread with Tina songs.
 
What is politically correct--because it is inclusive-- is the gender-neutral "police officer." We no longer say "salesman" or "repairman"; we say "sales rep/associate" and "repair technician."

For a pro-business conservative you don't seem to have the slightest clue as to how the words you use to define employees affect the perception your customers have of your employees. Those titles aren't used out of political correctness. They're given to provide a customer the notion that they, employees, are qualified professionals. The changes in name are done in order to provide legitimacy to the people doing these jobs. If you say somebody is a repairman, you get this idea:

repairman.gif


If you say "repair technician", you get this:

View attachment 67150605

This is business 101. Type in repairman vs repair technician on google and look at the images which you get. Repairman makes it sound common, average. Repair technician provides the impression that the person fixing your car has gone to school and has completed all necessary qualification processes in order to have that job.
 
Back
Top Bottom