Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » This may cause a backlash...GAY MARRIAGE OPINION! (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: This may cause a backlash...GAY MARRIAGE OPINION!
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Chael:
[…]I would caution you not to put too many hopes on common use of the word 'marriage' being enough to protect one from discrimination. Applying for health benefits, after all, requires putting the to-be-insured party's name and relationship on a form. So in this scenario, your boyfriend might get hired (i.e., get past the initial gatekeeper), but he might still wish certain of his coworkers would decide to transfer to the opposite end of the world.

You are correct, of course. No matter what people call our relationship, there will still be ways to find out about it, and to discriminate against us because of it. The word "marriage" isn't a panacea, but a small step towards being treated equally. That said, it is probably the furthest that the law can go without being actively coercive, and I would be happy if the extension of marriage went hand-in-hand with rock solid religious exemptions. The rest is really up to us.

quote:
And on this, I understand that I have little understanding, because I am not gay. But isn't a certain amount of standing with one's partner before the world, come what may, a part of marriage?
Again, you are correct. My partner and I have very different opinions on this issue. [Smile]
Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Should these also find some place under the aegis of marriage?"
If society wants to equalize such groupings to marriage, they should indeed be calling them "marriage".

That's a different question to whether society *should* want to equalize polyamorous marriages.

quote:
"If not, upon what do you base your objection?"
I see marriage not as a "right", but as a contract between society and a couple. Society has the right to refuse to validate via marriage relationships it considers unhealthy: e.g. incestuous ones, or coerced ones, or underage ones, or even impetuous and/or temporary ones.

So if society considered polyamory unhealthy, I would feel it was within society's rights to object to it, and refuse to provide it with recognition or benefits.

Same is the case of same-sex marriage, of course. If society feels that same-sex relationships are unhealthy, it could and should refuse to validate them.

But don't go for the "equal but separate" attitude. That's not convincing anyone as sincere. Be either hot or cold, but if you are lukewarm, I shall vomit you out.

In my opinion what society shouldn't recognize is second/third/fourth marriages after a no-fault divorce. If you're divorced, fine, but don't expect us to recognize your remarriage as valid as your first one.

[ May 04, 2009, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3023 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And, similarly, if denying 'social approval' of same sex marriage is making homosexual couples 'lesser', then how does the notion of marriage impact people who choose to be single?
If society wanted to reward staying single, it wouldn't make much sense for it to recognize marriage.

And we'd be celebrating divorces not weddings.

Posts: 3023 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sky
Member
Member # 6452

 - posted      Profile for Sky   Email Sky       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcoming. Very nice, especially for those who've bicycled all the way from Pennsylvania to attend.

Introduction , to the point.

Personal History , usurping any autobiographies.

Statement of Intent , very confusing. I thought the parents' purpose of their children's marriages was to get rid of them.

Song , Well, I wouldn't marry into an unmusical family. What would we do if the lights went out?

Blessing of the Hands , sounds a bit like blessing the fleet; it didn't save anybody in The Perfect Storm.

Vows: , and I'll have to admit that the old 'thee' and 'thou' stuff brought a tear to my eye -- my left eye, I think it was, but it left my right eye twitching.

Exchange of Rings , always reminds me of the wife who got a 3.25-carat D-flawless -- and the guy who got a titanium band. I do hope our boys got equal carats or it wouldn't be gay.

Closing Reading , a very nice choice.

Pronouncement , oh, the meat of the greet! Enter the star of the show, the State of California -- the 13th fairy! I thought she'd play the part of Judy Garland -- and never show up at the show!

OTOH, Skater, I applaud long engagements, and 20 years is probably long enough. I have confidence that your marriage, unlike so many straight wedding presents I've wasted on such short ones, will survive. Any marriage which costs the public no money ought to be applauded, I join in.

Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Oh I see, sorry, JoshCrow, I missed your point halfway.

Yes, purple apple would be ok, cause it points out the difference. But if we call all of those apples, without any other significant word, just apples, then it becomes unclear which type of apple we are talking about.

Do you always specify the type of apple you are talking about when you refer to them? There are many varieties as it stands; is the distinction between them always relevant, or is it usually better to have the linguistic convenience of one catchall term that captures the essential concept?
Posts: 9658 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... I'm surprised nobody has accused me of that classical logical fallacy of "comparing apples to marriages". *ba-dum ching!*
Posts: 1915 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
No matter what people call our relationship, there will still be ways to find out about it, and to discriminate against us because of it. The word "marriage" isn't a panacea, but a small step towards being treated equally. That said, it is probably the furthest that the law can go without being actively coercive, and I would be happy if the extension of marriage went hand-in-hand with rock solid religious exemptions. The rest is really up to us.

Fair enough. [Smile]

quote:
Again, you are correct. My partner and I have very different opinions on this issue. [Smile]
Ah. [Smile]
Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would be happy if the extension of marriage went hand-in-hand with rock solid religious exemptions.
What about those people who want the term marriage to have nothing to do with any religion of any kind. Are they to be discriminated against, the term marriage would come to imply that they were religious and so could be at the mercy of atheists in the work place. What about the thorny question of trinogamy or would that just require a sleeping partner.
Posts: 703 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:

All "tradition," means is "been done for a time." In a discussion about how society should operate, on moral, social, or legal grounds, the argument from tradition should carry no weight.

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father." - G. K Chesterton
And yet we get such a bad rap when dead people vote in Chicago.
Posts: 2071 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]
Posts: 3448 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Athelstan:
quote:
I would be happy if the extension of marriage went hand-in-hand with rock solid religious exemptions.
What about those people who want the term marriage to have nothing to do with any religion of any kind.
By "religious exemptions," I mean protections in certain thorny contexts for religious groups or persons who disagree with same-sex marriage—not making civil marriage open only to religious couples! [Smile]

quote:
What about the thorny question of trinogamy or would that just require a sleeping partner.
Polyamory is a separate and complex issue. Pete et al say that same-sex relationships are too different from the existing model of marriage; I disagree, as do most supporters of same-sex marriage. Polyamory, on the other hand, would require some very serious rethinking of the most basic rules of marriage. Like employer insurance: it would be a pretty onerous hit for employers if they suddenly had to insure not only you, but the eight other adults and their twelve children in your commune.

Divorce especially, within the current legal framework, would become a legal challenge of staggering complexity. As I've observed elsewhere, the number of individual relationships in a polyamorous group is equal to the number of edges on a complete graph (aka. a mystic rose) with the same number of vertices as there are participants. In other words, for n participants, there are ½ n (n - 1) individual relationships to consider, all interdependent—i.e. the complexity increases quadratically with the number of participants!

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sky:
Welcoming. Very nice, especially for those who've bicycled all the way from Pennsylvania to attend.

Introduction , to the point.

Personal History , usurping any autobiographies.

Statement of Intent , very confusing. I thought the parents' purpose of their children's marriages was to get rid of them.

Song , Well, I wouldn't marry into an unmusical family. What would we do if the lights went out?

Blessing of the Hands , sounds a bit like blessing the fleet; it didn't save anybody in The Perfect Storm.

Vows: , and I'll have to admit that the old 'thee' and 'thou' stuff brought a tear to my eye -- my left eye, I think it was, but it left my right eye twitching.

Exchange of Rings , always reminds me of the wife who got a 3.25-carat D-flawless -- and the guy who got a titanium band. I do hope our boys got equal carats or it wouldn't be gay.

Closing Reading , a very nice choice.

Pronouncement , oh, the meat of the greet! Enter the star of the show, the State of California -- the 13th fairy! I thought she'd play the part of Judy Garland -- and never show up at the show!

OTOH, Skater, I applaud long engagements, and 20 years is probably long enough. I have confidence that your marriage, unlike so many straight wedding presents I've wasted on such short ones, will survive. Any marriage which costs the public no money ought to be applauded, I join in.

Not to worry, Sky. We exchanged matching .75 carat diamond & platinum rings, with trés gai interior inset accents of emerald (his) and blue diamond (mine).

The "thees" were at my insistence, as was being near water during the ceremony. Sorry for the eye twitches, we made a conscious choice to establish a homo-normative narrative.

Judy's belated entrance was by design--she's an upstaging bitch, and I wasn't letting her anywhere near a microphone until she sobered up.

[ May 04, 2009, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
And yet we get such a bad rap when dead people vote in Chicago.

Only when they vote twice. [Big Grin]
Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jimskater:
edgmatt,

My husband's name is Steven. We were married on October 12th, in Foster City, California.

The sky still hasn't fallen.

Jim, you might have answered me but I forget the information-

what do you call yourselves? Do you have a joint-last name, did you blend names? Also, do you refer to each other has husband (which might... I dunno.... I would use spouse, but heck, you guys can do what you want)

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We're hyphenating, the order was Steve's choice: "My Last Name"-"His Last Name".

He's my husband, I'm his.

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My parents hyphenated. I quite like the symbolism, which matches the merging of family trees neatly.

However, it's left me with the problem of what to do to my last name when my betrothed and I get married. We may just create an unwieldy beast.

*goes back to studying*

Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FWIW, I don't really think polyamory should count as marriage myself. It can be quite like a large family, but again, it's not 'marriage' in the traditional sense.

However, since some would say that tradition is not applicable to the debate, I can't really say I see any of the arguments for homosexual marriage as inapplicable to poly relationships. Both are cases of deviants seeking normalization. (And I use the term sociologically, not as an epithet.)

Which, as an aside, is kinda weird. I am proudly deviant. In some ways, both feel a bit like atheists seeking admittance to a church. (*chuckle*) Perhaps I am just a bit too enamored with waving my middle finger at society's stupidity.

But back to the point at hand, would it be more complicated? Certainly. But then there are a lot of 'rights' issues that make things complicated.

Offhand, I can't think of an argument against it other than a majority opinion of "Well, we just don't think it should be that way." Which brings me back to where I started. I think it's just something people have to vote on.

Posts: 593 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stayne,

poly needs to be a form of marriage. There is already a way to handle it- asset wise. Just as our traditional marriage between two parties is a shadow of corporate law, a poly situation is a shadow of a Model Form Operating Agreement, which is the agreement used to invest in ventures from oil wells to motion pictures.

Unless it provides civil protection, it won't work, and we can't just throw up our hands and say "well, we can't figure it out so I guess ya'all folks will be unprotected!"

unsatisfactory.

Poly to be regulated as shadow of MFOP with masteragreement.

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Offhand, I can't think of an argument against it other than a majority opinion of "Well, we just don't think it should be that way."
I've heard arguments against it HERE (among other places) -- it's Adam Cadre, one of my favourite reviewers, and he comments a bit on polyamory instigated by a review of "Big Love".

To summarize: two of the problems that endanger all relationships, Neglect and Jealousy, are much easier to occur and fester in a polyamorous grouping. Love isn't a finite resource but time and attention from one's significant other are.

[ May 05, 2009, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3023 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kuato, you've heard several arguments against polygamy. You may not credit them with much substance, but you at least used to be aware of their existence.
Posts: 10247 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"To summarize: two of the problems that endanger all relationships, Neglect and Jealousy, are much easier to occur and fester in a polyamorous grouping. Love isn't a finite resource but time and attention from one's significant other are."

I don't see why it has to be that way, especially in an actual polyamorous arrangement, and not a polygamous (or polyandrous) one. On the contrary, more failsafes against ennui and more safety valves for pressure on a group marriage. Also much better for the kids, as it is much easier to rotate care and make sure that childbirth isn't a prison sentence.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Opening marriage to same-sex couples involves a structural change, but in terms of the legal modifications involved it appears to be relatively minor, since only a very few laws actually assume or require that the partners be of different sexes.

Opening marriage to polyamorous groups, on the other hand, would require a complete overhaul of how marriage works, since almost all laws assume that a married individual has only one partner to consider.

That, essentially, is the extent of my opinion with regards to same-sex marriage vs. polyamorous marriage: the former changes one of the rules, the latter changes the game. Or, more colourfully: it's like you have a treehouse built to accommodate two kids with a "no girls allowed" sign on the door. Taking the sign off and letting their sisters in might annoy the boys a bit, but it won't harm the treehouse itself. Trying to squeeze five people in, on the other hand, could well send the whole thing tumbling down. If you want to do that, you need to build another treehouse, and possibly find a whole new tree.

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sky
Member
Member # 6452

 - posted      Profile for Sky   Email Sky       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't the problem here, RB, that sex and reproduction are a bad match -- and, thus, that sex and marriage are downright unnatural?

I have only 1 expectation from marriage, and that is paternal tracking. My concern is with a child's right to know who his father is or was and his right to bring himself up -- with decreasing intervention by parents and, as a libertarian, with minimal interference by the state BUT maximum support.

Your inference that, for many children, being born is a prison sentence is SOOOO right on. So much of parental law today reflects the insecurity of single moms (just lie sick in bed and watch daytime tv -- worse than daytime radio in the 1940s!) The whole purpose of parenting, I thought, was to provide a safe house from which the child could explore.

Perhaps if marriage licenses were called childcare licenses, we could pay attention to what's important and cut all this gender-bashing in the bud.

My proposal (education tokens for private boarding schools) would only have to be enforced for the child and to prevent parental interference.

So soon as possible, children should be allowed to choose their homes -- and to oblige children to remain in homes with hyperanxiety and stress is child abuse.

That is my primary objection to SSM -- that it seeks the same stupid traditional authorities of OSM.

Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's tough to be a clear-thinking radical, eh, Sky?

One must shoot precisely and with great deliberation, using a single-shot sniper rifle, duck by duck, an entire sky-obscuring flocks of canards.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sky: putting aside the issue of SSM, are you saying that you consider that marriage as it exists is too focussed on protecting parents when it should be protecting their children?
Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
and not a polygamous (or polyandrous) one.

Sigh. Linguistic annoyance here. What you said is like saying "mammals (or cats)".

Polygamy includes both Polyandry (many men) and Polygyny (many women).

So when someone says "polygamous" they don't need to specify "or polyandrous". Those are automatically included in the word.

quote:
On the contrary, more failsafes against ennui and more safety valves for pressure on a group marriage.
Those "failsafes" and "safety valves" seem to me to have their own potential traps: "They don't really need me, they have each other, etc, etc." It seems to me a different dynamic when you know the other person has you and only you in this sort of relationship, and that you have them and only them.

But instead of making a theoretical discussion about how it *might* be, I think we should seek datapoints from people that have been in such relationships, if we want to go anywhere. As I said, I haven't been.

Posts: 3023 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
My parents hyphenated. I quite like the symbolism, which matches the merging of family trees neatly.

However, it's left me with the problem of what to do to my last name when my betrothed and I get married. We may just create an unwieldy beast.

*goes back to studying*

Sounds like you'll end up with one of those names that people that used to have no written language and depended on oral-tradition used to have. You'll have to kind of 'sing' all your last names. [Smile]

And I agree with Ricky's last post.

And Sky, teenagers need to be imprisoned by their parents for their own good. I wasn't, and look how I turned out.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:

Opening marriage to polyamorous groups, on the other hand, would require a complete overhaul of how marriage works, since almost all laws assume that a married individual has only one partner to consider.


Not really. Civil marriage is a contract and there are many forms of contracts for our dealings already. RECOGNIZING that civil marriage is a contract would be the overhaul, but the idea of utilizing the most appropriate contract is already accepted.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sky
Member
Member # 6452

 - posted      Profile for Sky   Email Sky       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jordan: I think I am. We spend too much money dealing with weddings, marriages, domestic violence, divorces, etc., and not nearly enough on education. Both institutions are obsolete, and an obsolete institutions are fire hazards.

So when someone says "polygamous" they don't need to specify "or polyandrous". Those are automatically included in the word.

Aris: That is SOOOO sexist [Eek!] ! Are you suggesting that male mailmen include female mailpersons?

Let me put it this way: if females disapprove of being included in "chauvinist-pig male-dominated oppressive" identities like "garbage man" or "seaman", just cosider what males have done to avoid being called "nurses", "secretaries", and "housewives".

We could have a revolution on our hands! Have you no sense of political propriety?

That's why we have the convenient English words "spouse", "folk", and "worker". How much work would be to add an (s) to the term spouse on our documents? or, for that matter, an (es) to sex or an (s) to gender?

Hell, my grandmother had three dates of birth -- depending on circumstances. So nowadays we have multiple names, addresses, spouses, children, jobs ... and I know a woman who's collecting 2 social-security cheques!

Political Correctionists will next be expecting us to rewrite all our forms for us regardless of age, color, creed, gender, handicap, race, religion, or which our multiple personalities we're using to fill out the form.

Remember! Political Correction is an art in progress -- but bigamy will always be frowned upon by somebody.

Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Sounds like you'll end up with one of those names that people that used to have no written language and depended on oral-tradition used to have. You'll have to kind of 'sing' all your last names. [Smile]

That sounds nice! And it it has the side-benefit of not fitting on any government forms. [Wink]

Anecdotally (three cheers for second-hand information!), polygamy seems to work well for some people, and horribly for others. The trick is probably finding someone who actually shares one's preferences either way, rather than trying to talk that person into it.

Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And it it has the side-benefit of not fitting on any government forms.
Speaking as a database administrator: pbbbbt!
Posts: 21011 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For every bastion of order, TD, there must be an equal or slightly lesser bastion of chaos, or we'd get /way/ too much done!

At least we aren't adding extra fields. No Sr., Jr., or Honorable Magnificent Bringer of the Sacred Syllables for us. (My other option, I suppose, would be to have two middle names. Oh, yes--I have a middle name. I worked it out and, including spaces and hyphens, my new name would come to thirty characters.)

[ May 05, 2009, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]

Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sky
Member
Member # 6452

 - posted      Profile for Sky   Email Sky       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Chael:

/Thankyou/ for the //s! How much fugging easier than !@$5!

A young lady named van Rensselaer married a young man named di Giacomentonio -- and decided to hyphenate rather than take his name. Fortunately, they're unlisted.

I really wish we used all letters for phone numbers and all numbers for names -- but td would object.

Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Chael—this is probably the reason that the tradition in straight marriages is to just take on the male partner's last name, otherwise it would quickly spiral out of control! [Smile]

Tom, as another person who often works with databases of this sort, what lengths do you generally allow for in name fields? I've used nvarchar(50) in the past—however, the maximum lengths so far in our current customers database are 19 characters for first name and 18 characters for last name. (In another database I maintained, I do recall there being one person with a twenty-seven character first name field!) Based on that, I reckon that a thirty character length for each field is reasonable, maybe fifty if both are combined.

[ May 05, 2009, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Jordan ]

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, Sky--you just want an excuse for everyone to be able to refuse to give their serial number in civilian life. (Though I will admit some small part of me finds amusement in the thought of mating young adults giving out their numbers at bars, but, when pressed, proffering the letters of the local dry cleaner.) But before you become too attached to your fun, think of all the poor children whose adjacent 1s and 3s happen to add up to 13--why, superstition would cripple them for life!

As for the /s, you're welcome to them, or at least a few of them; I have plenty. I've ordered enough to last me 'til 2018--unlike my *s, which I expect will run out by Wednesday next. Dratted shipment delays.

[ May 05, 2009, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]

Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But Sky, UBB Code is your friend!

(Though I'd prefer a subset of HTML, to be honest.)

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
Chael—this is probably the reason that the tradition in straight marriages is to just take on the male partner's last name, otherwise it would quickly spiral out of control! [Smile]

Probably. But then, given that tradition is just another means of giving the dead oldlings the vote, I don't see any reason to adhere. Aside from practicality, but let us put that issue aside.. I've had almost thirty years in this name; I'm attached to it!

quote:

(In another database I maintained, I do recall there being one person with a twenty-seven character first name field!)

!

That makes me feel much less extravagant.

Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did a quick scan of our company address book and found a 33-character last name before I got past names that started with "Aa". Granted, we have a huge number of employees, but it you've got a lot of divirsity you might be surprised at how long names can get.
Posts: 3450 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom, as another person who often works with databases of this sort, what lengths do you generally allow for in name fields?
I do a varchar(30) for first name, varchar(30) for middle name, and varchar(50) for last name in all the DBs I build. Sadly, my employer's main ERP has field lengths less than half that.
Posts: 21011 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm the 4th, my son is the 5th, and although I've told him he can do what he wants (not an option I was given) he plans on there being a 6th. In five or ten years hopefully. [Smile]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1