A large group of polygamists announced today they intend to sue the government and dictionary makers to change the definition of the Word “Couple.”
“For too long the term ‘couple’ has been narrowly defined as two people and that’s practically the definition of discrimination to groups of three of more,” reads the press release from the ACLU.
Many people consider this the next civil right’s struggle of our time. And there are many victims of this narrow definition of the word.
“Do you know how hurtful it is to us to hear two people referred to as a “cute couple” when I know that will never be said about our little family of one husband and seven wives,” said one female polygamist. “It breaks my heart every time I hear the word.”
Polygamists say the discrimination is hidden but prevalent in society and they feel excluded from attending “couples resorts” or even attending “couples counseling.”
One polygamist said her husband and three other wives showed up for “couples counseling” and there were only two chairs set up. She said that they had to seek out a therapist to get over that trauma before they could even return to couple’s counseling. “And all that therapy gets expensive,” she said.
Mathematicians and scientists say a change in the definition of the word “couple” could produce problems in their respective fields.
In science a “coupling reaction” represents a range of reactions in organometallic chemistry where two hydrocarbon radicals are coupled with the aid of a metal containing catalyst.
“A couple is a couple” said one anti-polygamist mathematician who declined to be named for fear of public ostracizing. “Why can’t they just be happy with the words “few” or “group?”
Said one outraged polygamist: “Who is anyone to define what the word ‘couple’ should mean? Isn’t a couple any group of people who love each other?”
The polygamists did not say whether the golfer Fred Couples offended them.
December 30, 2008 at 4:30 am
“Grouple” has a nice ring to it.
December 30, 2008 at 5:19 am
Think of the pain, the agony, the cruelty inherent in the crassly biased term, couple.
I suggest that they ally themselves with the already multitudes of aggrieved groups starting with the LGBTs of the present, and presently the Cannibal lovers and Society for Beast-Human Love (with variations), among many who are rising in fury against normalcy, decency, sanity and holiness…and
…throw in a few of the heavily degreed numbskull atheists and apatheists to make this potpouri of perversity complete.
December 30, 2008 at 5:24 am
“…anti-polygamist mathematician …
Clearly your command of English needs a brush-up. That should be “…polygamophobic mathematician …”
December 30, 2008 at 5:56 am
You laugh, but fundamental rights are being denied here. Why shouldn’t my 38 wives be allowed to visit me in a hospital room? And if there’s a shoving match and the ventilator plug accidentally gets pulled, they should be entitled to the $147.44 inheritance each one has coming to her.
December 30, 2008 at 7:25 am
I am outraged–Outraged!–that once again the happiness of single people is being ignored.
Traditional marriage, gay marriage grouple marriage (love that, btw.), interspecies nuptials, incestuous relationships (or, perhaps, kinogamy?) and the like are all being recognized, applauded, supported–but where is the outcry for those who really do prefer their own company?
The deep love a single person may have for him/herself is completely being ignored by our insistence that love requires two or more people. Sure, single people don’t have to sue to see themselves in the hospital, but they *don’t* get any of the coveted tax breaks the married get, and indeed must often pay more in taxes (percentage wise) than the married. Why, single people have to *subsidize* the lifestyles of those who are so unhappy alone that they have to go out and find someone else to live with! How, how is that fair?
Until we embrace the notion of marriage rights for the single, marriage will continue to be an exclusivist, discriminatory, hateful and bigoted state. As a formerly single person I think this is truly unjust.
Granted, some hurtful stereotypes of the single person may remain even after marriage rights are granted; but at least there will be greater societal acceptance and appreciation of singleness. For instance, there’s growing evidence that single people are actually *born* that way–they don’t choose to be single! So why should they be denied the bliss of marriage unless they happen to be lucky enough to find some person they actually like better than they like themselves?
😉
December 30, 2008 at 8:28 am
…
Epic.
December 30, 2008 at 10:27 am
You have to start small and build legal precedent.
For example, start with the railroads and get them to change “knuckle couplers” on cars to “joiners” or “connectors.”
Then move on to the sci-fi industry an sue them to refer to power couplers in spaceships as “power interfacers.”
December 30, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Song of the Polygamists:
You put your left (N) in,
You put your left (N) out…
— Mack
December 30, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Shocking that mathematicians can be so anti-polygamist. What’s wrong with cute crowds?
December 30, 2008 at 1:43 pm
“One polygamist said her husband and three other wives showed up for “couples counseling” and there were only two chairs set up. She said that they had to seek out a therapist to get over that trauma before they could even return to couple’s counseling. “And all that therapy gets expensive,” she said.”
Oh for the love of– well you know, now get OVER IT
December 30, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I know this is parody, but it really hits on a truth. Why is language always the first to be slaughtered for a cause? It seems like if you can change the language your cause will win in the long run. Why do we always fall for it?
December 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I really couldn’t tell at first if this was a parody or not. I’m glad it is…at least it is for now…
December 30, 2008 at 6:55 pm
My mother will be pleased. She has long been confused by the definition of couple. When she asks me to bring her a “couple of pieces of candy” and I bring her two rootbeer barrels she looks at me rather peculiarly. The she says, “Only two?” How relieved she will be to find that couple can mean “any number I have in my head but not telling you.”
December 31, 2008 at 7:35 am
Hmmm…a gaggle of geese, a murder of crows….a love-in of polygamists?
December 31, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Deusdonat, I think it’s called an “orgy”.
Just sayin’.