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 » I now declare you ... what, exactly? [Brainstorm for imaginative persons only] (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: I now declare you ... what, exactly? [Brainstorm for imaginative persons only]
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fab is on the rise. It got duh buzz.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Fabulous" sounds good to me, too. After all, the word has practically been usurped anyway.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Funean:
quote:
Actually, that's my reaction much of the time, to most couples, gay or straight....try using your imagination, some time. [Razz] It's truly upsetting...
I'm sorry, Funean, did I insult you?

Here. [holds out his hand for slapping] Go on, smack me. I deserve it.

<Voice="Lou Costello">

I'm a baaaaaad boy!

</Voice>

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Talk about icky and upsetting...
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thing is, gays seem to have little problem today in telling their story. Video store's got more stories about openly gay people than about openly Christian people. Hell, just look at the size of the categories in a video library. I can't believe that in all that stuff that there's no ideas, no romance, nothing that would tie an original image or original word to the idea of a lifetime commitment. Surely gay culture isn't that derivative.

Come on, Jordan, don't be cruel. [Wink] Don't make a bunch of straight guys run down and rent Romeo and Julio or something like that to search for clues and terms. You've got to have something.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ javelin:
quote:
Talk about icky and upsetting...
I'll behave myself from now on. I promise. [Smile]

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Loki
Member
Member # 2312

 - posted      Profile for Loki   Email Loki   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been pronouncing 'Gayrriage' as 'Garage,' please tell me that's how it was meant to be said...because that's perfect, hell, makes me want to get garaged. Oh snap, I think somewhere a Conservative Christian's neck hair just unexplainalby stood on end .
Posts: 311 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I suppose you can pronounce it any way you like, since it's mostly meant in humor. [Smile] Garage can be pronounced two different ways: English "gEHrij" or American "GuhrAHj." However, when I've pronounced it, I say "gEHry-ij" to distinguish it from garage.

But, one thing's for certain, ain't no man gonna park anything in MY "garage!"

[Drum roll!]

Ed.

OK, I lied...

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
non-words, except in this instance, are nonhyphenated in American English, hence: nondisclosure agreement, nontraditional marriage, nonornery.

KE: Are we looking for conjoined, as in 'conjoined twins' that we spend so much money to 'divorce'?

Mr & Mrs Verrey Straight of New York and the Hamptons cordially invite you to a Solemn Nonmarital Conjoinment of Lesley Shirley and Shirley Lesley to become Lesley Shirley-Lesley and Shirley Lesley-Shirley at Four O'Clock Saturday Afternoon. Nonalcoholic Punch and Sugar-free Cookies will be served. R.S.V.P.

Oz: Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (1937) reverses this, noting that jazz ex. jism, i.e., 'semen', i.e., to jizz, 'to ejaculate'.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not Fab. Because I, like my hero Brad Pitt [Roll Eyes] , plan to change mine and Stacy's status to the new nonreligious definition, and I refuse anything as gay as Fab. How about Assimilated?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or, two halves make a whole, so, how about my whole? No wait, I can't introduce Stacy as my whole.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stacy says; "Life-partner". Sums it up. (of course she is always right. 18 years and counting.)

Of course, in Texas, that would be; "Life-pardner". [Smile]

KE

[ September 14, 2006, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depending on my mood, I use "sweetie" and "ball and chain" interchangeably. [Smile]

Those probably won't work on a legal document, though..

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I now pronounce you partnered for life?

I now pronounce you sweetie and ball and chain?

Hmm... partner ...

quote:
Synonyms: accomplice, ally, assistant, associate, bedfellow, buddy, chum*, co-worker, cohort, collaborator, colleague, companion, comrade, confederate, confrere, consort, crony*, date, friend, helper, helpmate, husband, mate, pal*, pard, participant, playmate, sidekick*, spouse, teammate, wife
[Big Grin] Bedfellowed ! [Big Grin] Confederated! Chummed! Teamed! Playmated! Collaborated, cohorted, consorted, helpmated ... buddied [Big Grin]

OK, enough silliness.
------------------------------

What about "mated"?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
"Mr & Mrs Verrey Straight of New York and the Hamptons cordially invite you to a Solemn Nonmarital Conjoinment of Lesley Shirley and Shirley Lesley to become Lesley Shirley-Lesley and Shirley Lesley-Shirley at Four O'Clock Saturday Afternoon. Nonalcoholic Punch and Sugar-free Cookies will be served. R.S.V.P."

As always, you fail to disappoint:

"Solemn Nonmarital Conjoinment"

SNC.

I now pronounce you solemnly nonmaritally conjoined. You may now divorce the bride.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The principal was showing the new teacher where the teacher's lounge, but when they opened the door, they heard a loud female voice shouting from behind one of the back rooms, "Je viens, tu viens, il viens, nous venons, vous venez, ils viennent..."

The new teacher looked at the principal, quizzically, and the principal said, "sounds like the French teachers are conjugating in the copy room."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*woosh*

Did something just fly over my head?

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jazz
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since they will be spouse and spouse, how about I now pronounce you spoused ...? or, what has always been proper but has gone archaic, espoused (ex sponsare, to sponsor, i.e., to be guaranteed by the society ... providing the agreement is maintained).
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did anyone propose "confabulated" yet?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hope not [Big Grin] !
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 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 
Did Tommy just suggest fabulous?!

The way of the gay is strong in this one. [Big Grin]

Unfortunately, fabulous already means (roughly translated from the original gayspeak) "super-gay." This is fine for the feather-boaed elite of level 20 homos, but sadly I'm not quite ready to join the cast of Queer Eye yet, and nor is Funean. (When's the last time we heard a decent slap coming from her direction? Or witnessed any tell-tale stilleto tracks?)

I agree with KE: fab is just a bit too gay for me! [Razz]


Jazzed is quite cool—in fact, it is extremely cool, but given current etymology hesitate to ask what would be involved in the wedding ceremony.

"You are now legally jazzed—ew, and gross!"

<bleuch />

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When my family lived in Poland, they told me that their weddings lasted 3 days, that it was one long party.

"I now pronounce you soused and spoused"

I'd be concerned about making sure that I married the intended person if everyone was pounded like that.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I agree with KE: fab is just a bit too gay for me!"

[Frown]

I know you're right, but I was so excited.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
foliated
Member
Member # 2041

 - posted      Profile for foliated   Email foliated   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given some of the previous arguments made, how about this one?

"I now pronounce you 'man' and 'wife'. "

Thus, SSM, and no quotes on the M, since the SS now refers to the (generally accepted, as opposed to legally defined, gender of the) participants, and not the M.

at least I remember Pete at Home saying things about the legally presumed gender of the participants in the past.

of course, I'm probably completely misremembering/misunderstanding what he actually did say. What did you say about this? Does what I say about SSM above accurately reflect your views?

(edited)

[ September 17, 2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: foliated ]

Posts: 123 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gaier Times carried a wedding in Provincetown in July in which the couple were simply pronounced "sinners". There was no reception but there was an orgy following the ceremony.
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What about a man marrying a man who has a sex change?
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
foliated
Member
Member # 2041

 - posted      Profile for foliated   Email foliated   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or for that matter, what happened in the movie "The Ballad of Little Jo", which was "based on a true story", and is similar to what I had in mind when I asked the question.
Posts: 123 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  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 
That's a special case. Typically, a magistrate just says, "Well, I de-CLARE..." and that's that.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by foliated:
Given some of the previous arguments made, how about this one?

"I now pronounce you 'man' and 'wife'. "

Thus, SSM, and no quotes on the M, since the SS now refers to the (generally accepted, as opposed to legally defined, gender of the) participants, and not the M.

at least I remember Pete at Home saying things about the legally presumed gender of the participants in the past.

of course, I'm probably completely misremembering/misunderstanding what he actually did say. What did you say about this? Does what I say about SSM above accurately reflect your views?

(edited)

[nodding delightedly.] Two men could "marry" each other, but it would not be legal ssm, since the law pronounces one of them a woman for purposes of the legal relationship.* That's exactly how the Zuni did it, and that isolated african tribe did the converse with FF couples, declaring one of them the man within the relationship.

The law already has constructive eviction, constructive possession, constructive malice... this is how we construct equitable exceptions to the rule when we want to preserve the rule.

If people really wanted to keep marriage rather than destroying it, and if they really wanted to "just let gay couples get married," then they'd go for this obvious time-tested means of creating "constructive" exceptions to an important rule.

I've been saying that for years on this forum, and I'm always delighted to see that my arguments have not gone on deaf ears.

Thank you.

You've made my day. [Smile]

__________
Footnote:

*Some might say "woman for purposes of the legal relationship? Aren't men and women equal before the law? Not equal in the interchangeable sense. There are a handful of good and necessary laws, mostly pertaining to marriage, wherein men and women do not have equal rights. Presumption of Paternity is one of those. If a husband cheats and fathers a child, the wife has no inherent legal relationship with that child. If a wife cheats and conceives a child, then the husband may have inherent legal rights and responsibilities with regard to that child.

How courts would cover PoP with regard to FF relationships is anyone's guess, but since FF "marriages" would be a constructive exception, there's no danger of changing marriage law to fit the exception. I don't want the legal terms of my marriage contract being rewritten to fit FF and MM relationships, and the constructive exception doctrine protects my interests.

It would also allow people to continue to say things like "children need mommies and daddies" and that "marriage is the union of man and woman" without suffering job discrimination, being sued, or otherwise ghettoized.

Which is, I suspect the main reason why some folks would oppose my proposal, even though it does "let gays marry," which is, after all, all that SSM proponents are asking for.

Isn't it? [Big Grin]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
What about a man marrying a man who has a sex change?

Been there, discussed that. Search on my name and the word "Kansas," where I blasted a conservative judge for annulling the marriage of a man who had been married to a former man. Kansas is AFAIK the only jurisdiction to screw transgendered people over like that, and as I understand, actually bans them from marrying at all, which is IMO unconstitutional.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
A_ha! A thread idea! POst our former handles in previous internet lives and let us peek at one another's sordid pasts!

I was 'the blue rajah' and 'the blue raj' for a long time, and longer ago than that I was, for a brief space, oscillowitz.

Baby px, anyone?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
foliated
Member
Member # 2041

 - posted      Profile for foliated   Email foliated   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
[nodding delightedly.] Two men could "marry" each other, but it would not be legal ssm, since the law pronounces one of them a woman for purposes of the legal relationship.*
That may be true legally, but I'm willing to bet $$$ that the result of such a ceremony would popularly be known as "same sex marriage", however incorrect it may be to refer to it as such. People tend to abuse precise language, even in mathematics.

three questions, born out of curiosity and because I now have had time to write them down:

1. (because I'm interested in the notion of estoppel, thanks partially to Will Shortz). Suppose two men get married in this fashion. Is the construed female then estopped in later proceedings from asserting maleness? If not all, then which ones and why? and if none, then why?

About the only example I can think of where something like this would remotely apply (but then again I'm not that sophisticated as this example will probably show) is a case where a construed female married an (XY) male, and later on a doctor missed the construed female's obvious testicular cancer which then metastasized with deadly results for the construed male, whom we will now name "Sue". [Big Grin]

(because, you see, our malpractice suit is being heard in Bedford Falls, NY, and Sue being dead, the requested damages are floral in nature ... [Big Grin] [Big Grin] )

Anyway, would our Doctor Bailey then be able to defend himself by saying that only males get testicular cancer, and therefore proving that Sue had testicular cancer would imply that Sue is male, which cannot be asserted in court thanks to Sue's marriage (which lasted till Sue's death)?

Also, same question, but now Sue is still alive and married when the suit is heard. Because now I think that the first version might have a trivial answer, but I'll wait for your confirmation of that, esp as I don't know the law. At. All.

2. As a practical matter, how would your proposal be implemented? Put yourself in Gavin Newsom's place, say, at the time just before all the SS couples got in line.

What does an MM or FF couple have to say/do to get legally married and have it stick, assuming you're going to use this construction? would someone in the MM couple have to go in front of a judge? do something else? How do you instruct the city/county clerk?


3. Could a legislature get around this idea by, say, requiring genetic testing, or the dropping of trousers? And what do you do with the results (say if genetic testing shows in fact XXY or XXX or XYY, despite an appearance of one or the other gender)? Can a legislature define maleness/femaleness and get away with it?

Apologies for the length of the post and the delay in responding. And also if I've asked questions that you've already answered, in which case, please direct me where to search.

But I just couldn't resist formulating #1! [Wink]

Posts: 123 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

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