Pharyngula: Here comes the bride

#1

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 10:10 AM

Couples filling out the license will now have the option of declaring themselves bride and groom, bride and bride or groom and groom. They can also leave the space blank.

I thought that was one of the options that we decided was indeed more fair to all parties concerned? Self-declare! Bride and groom? How about innie and outie? Top and bottom? Over and under? Cephalopod and mammal? &c, &c.

#2

Posted by: asad | October 7, 2008 10:10 AM

Hi PZ -- did you read the article? It says the new license allows couples to put whatever they want in -- either "bride" and "groom" or "bride" and "bride" or "groom" and "groom" -- or to leave the spaces blank.

Nobody loses, some people are placated...meh, doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

#3

Posted by: Hanes | October 7, 2008 10:10 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c&feature=related

"You want to have babies?"
"It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them!"
"But you can't have babies!"
"Don't you oppress me."

#4

Posted by: asad | October 7, 2008 10:13 AM

Hi PZ -- did you read the article? It says the new license allows couples to put whatever they want in -- either "bride" and "groom" or "bride" and "bride" or "groom" and "groom" -- or to leave the spaces blank.

Nobody loses, some people are placated...meh, doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

#5

Posted by: Tulse | October 7, 2008 10:20 AM

Yeah, the actual solution seems quite reasonable. I have no problem with people wanting to use the traditional terms if they want, I just object to them imposing them on others as a stealth way of opposing gay marriage. The forms now allow everyone to call themselves whatever they want, and that seems like the right approach to me. This isn't a win for intolerance, it's a win for everyone.

#6

Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | October 7, 2008 10:20 AM

I just wish that those who are so afraid of gay marriage "hurting" heterosexual marriage would explain exactly how this was possible. I don't think they can because I don't think it does.

Unless of course they mean that it displeases their god and could result in smiting or plagues of boils, and, their god having such poor aim that the innocent are targeted along with the "guilty",(think "universal flood")then yeah, I get it completely.

#7

Posted by: Tulse | October 7, 2008 10:22 AM

Yeah, the actual solution seems quite reasonable. I have no problem with people wanting to use the traditional terms if they want, I just object to them imposing them on others as a stealth way of opposing gay marriage. The forms now allow everyone to call themselves whatever they want, and that seems like the right approach to me. This isn't a win for intolerance, it's a win for everyone.

#8

Posted by: Tim | October 7, 2008 10:25 AM

If it's by mutual consent, and they're of age, it's not my business, but please, spare me the details.

#9

Posted by: Adviser Moppet | October 7, 2008 10:26 AM

My prediction is that they'll get divorced in about four years and wind up hating each others guts. It's amazing how high the divorce rate is in the country, but Oh NOES it's the gays that are destroying the sanctity of marriage.

#10

Posted by: CSBSH | October 7, 2008 10:27 AM

The change (that you can now fill in all combinations) is perfectly fine with me, but I think the couple who took this to court are morons, and I'm not happy with the fact that they think they've done something good.

#11

Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 7, 2008 10:31 AM

Math is to numerology as Linguistics/Grammar is to... wordology?

It never ceases to amaze me how people seem to think that there is something mystical and inherent about the meaning of words. It's like nobody understands how arbitrary a definition is.

#12

Posted by: chgo_liz | October 7, 2008 10:32 AM

I'm with CSBSH. I think the court (judge? jury?) figured out a good solution, but I hate the fact that the couple is gloating and thinking that they've "won".

#13

Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 7, 2008 10:32 AM

asad is correct. You don't even have to check any of the boxes. There's nothing official about it. This is much ado about nothing on both sides. How's that economy doing?

#14

Posted by: Debi Linton | October 7, 2008 10:35 AM

But will big butch bristly-bearded straight leathermen be allowed to declare themselves to be brides? That's what I want to know.

#15

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 10:36 AM

But my favorite example of gender subversion is an installation I did at Minicon 31, a science fiction convention here in Minneapolis. I noticed that the public suites had two single-user bathrooms each. Now, in the U.S. you hardly ever see two bathrooms next to each other that aren't labelled "men" and "women," even if they're identical in every respect and can only accomodate one person at a time. Somehow, these bathrooms had been missed: their doors were blank. I decided to remedy this oversight--but not with anything as mundane as MEN / WOMEN. Instead I made up signs with other sets of opposites:
CARBON	 | 	SILICON
OXYGEN	 | 	METHANE
OVIPAROUS	 | 	VIVIPAROUS
[...]
As the con progressed and people got the idea, I let the signs get stranger:
OFFICERS	 | 	GENTLEMEN
#1	 | 	#2
MACS	 | 	UNIX
And on Sunday--a traditional day of exhaustion at cons--I treated the bleary fans to my favorite bit of surrealism:
GENDER	 | 	NUMBER
I have over two dozen more signs ready for the next Minicon. If I ran them all here it would spoil the jokes, but I will give my new favorite:
THOSE WHO DIVIDE PEOPLE INTO TWO KINDS	 | 	THOSE WHO DON'T

( from here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040213000819/www.chaparraltree.com/raq/rename.shtml )

(pity Sb won't let commenters post tables. oh well.)

#16

Posted by: divalent | October 7, 2008 10:41 AM

Hey, don't you think the wording is important to strengthen the family and the marraige? I mean, they are both in their 20s, and between them they have 5 children from prior relationships, and she's the daughter of a christian minister. They *really* need this wording or the state will be responsible if their marraige fails.

#17

Posted by: Tempyra | October 7, 2008 10:41 AM

So, in a hetero marriage the guy could call himself the bride and the woman the groom? It seems Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding didn't really prove anything by going to court (except that they're capable of wasting people's time).

#18

Posted by: Greg | October 7, 2008 10:42 AM

Here here!

We should make this happy couple be present at the first such union ceremony, just to record the sound Mrs Bird (or is it Codding now?) makes when when one burly bear is told of his other that He "may now kiss the bride".

#19

Posted by: katie | October 7, 2008 10:43 AM

I love how in the original article, they both had been previously married. It's their second marriage they're bitching about folks.

I'm a little confused about how they're defending the sanctity of marriage then...

#20

Posted by: Ferin | October 7, 2008 10:47 AM

LOL I can't wait to see what comes of letting a bunch of people put what they want on their license.

"I now pronounce you ...big daddy and- ...I'm not saying that in city hall!"

#21

Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 7, 2008 10:47 AM

It's like nobody understands how arbitrary a definition is.

http://www.engrish.com//wp-content/uploads/2008/08/hand-grenade.jpg

#22

Posted by: Ploon | October 7, 2008 10:56 AM

She is kinda hot though, in that typical American painted-face/nipped-tucked-body kind of way. You betcha! Doggoneit?

#23

Posted by: MH | October 7, 2008 11:01 AM

So instead of "bride" and "groom", can people write "dom" and "sub", or "pitcher" and "catcher"??

#24

Posted by: 2-D Man | October 7, 2008 11:06 AM

"I now pronounce you ...big daddy and- ...I'm not saying that in city hall!"

If I ever get married in California, I might just fill myself out as the 'I'm not saying that in city hall factorial'.

#25

Posted by: Erica | October 7, 2008 11:07 AM

and here I was all happy for California having some balls - eerr whatever. :P I think Californians should petition for party "A" and "B" again. Really I think the state should just have civil unions, not just for homosexual, but heterosexual too. No state marriage, leave that to churches.

#26

Posted by: St. Bastard | October 7, 2008 11:08 AM

"Couples filling out the license will now have the option of declaring themselves bride and groom, bride and bride or groom and groom. They can also leave the space blank. The new forms will be available in county offices in November."

Sounds like everyone wins to me.

#27

Posted by: the petey | October 7, 2008 11:13 AM

They need to pur ticky boxes on the application

Name Party 1:________________________
( )Bride ( )Groom ( )Spouse

Name Party 2:________________________
( )Bride ( )Groom ( )Spouse

#28

Posted by: dbe | October 7, 2008 11:16 AM

Who wants to bet on how long it takes the original couple to complain about this perfectly reasonable compromise?

#29

Posted by: ajay | October 7, 2008 11:18 AM

Owlmirror: others that come to mind are

PROTOSTOMES / DEUTEROSTOMES
A LITTLE BIT COUNTRY / A LITTLE BIT ROCK AND ROLL
ALLEGRO / PENSEROSO
SAURISCHIAN / ORNITHISCHIAN
ROMANTIC / CLASSICAL
WITH US / WITH THE TERRORISTS

#30

Posted by: Cerberus | October 7, 2008 11:24 AM

Sigh. Looks like intersex and genderqueer got thrown by the wayside again.

Hopefully the third revision will be like #27's. I suspect the poor bureaucrat in charge of the wording won't be happy with all the unnecessary changes, especially when Party A and Party B was so perfect for a civil marriage form.

Hopefully us Californians can give these whiny straights another reason to cry come November, though it'd almost be worth it to see them win just to see the look on their faces when the patient judge explains that due to the definition of suspect class, they've just invalidated all marriage.

#31

Posted by: Monado in Toronto | October 7, 2008 11:28 AM

My favourite washroom signs were in a company where I worked in the 1980s. In the R&D department, there were two washrooms for about 14 guys and one gal. She didn't like them using "her" washroom, so some enterprising souls rearranged the letters, including a little judicious cutting up, and produced

FLIDS and WEE-NA.

I knew as soon as I saw it that I was going to like the place.

#32

Posted by: Leo B. | October 7, 2008 11:29 AM

It's a win-win. If there was a group of proponents of prop. 8 who was incensed by the "party A/party B" wording, it is now appeased.

#33

Posted by: Kim | October 7, 2008 11:33 AM

PZ, your acting like an ass now. They left the places blank, so that everybody can fill in what they want to be called. As a lesbian, I do not want to be party A either. And for those that would like gender neutral, that is not a problem, as you fill in the spaces at the form yourself.

#34

Posted by: jj | October 7, 2008 11:34 AM

Well it may not matter in the long run if Prop 8 passes in CA

- Vote NO!

#35

Posted by: Nicole TWN | October 7, 2008 11:38 AM

Owlmirror: I wish to bear your children.

Also, how about:
TASTES GREAT / LESS FILLING
FLOOR WAX / DESSERT TOPPING
P / NP
X / NOT (X)
USE OTHER BATHROOM -> /

#36

Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | October 7, 2008 11:39 AM

I just wish that those who are so afraid of gay marriage "hurting" heterosexual marriage would explain exactly how this was possible. I don't think they can because I don't think it does.

Unless of course they mean that it displeases their god and could result in smiting or plagues of boils, and, their god having such poor aim that the innocent are targeted along with the "guilty",(think "universal flood")then yeah, I get it completely.

#37

Posted by: Alverant | October 7, 2008 11:42 AM

Your Name's Not Bruce? #6

The main argument I've read claiming that gay marriage hurts heterosexual marriage is that gay marriage is a counterfeit marriage which devaluates "real" marriages. Sort of like how counterfeit money hurts real money. Of course since a "real" marriage is never defined or fixed, the argument falls flat.

#38

Posted by: Michelle | October 7, 2008 11:43 AM

Box checking sounds pretty good to me. It'll solve every problem.

Though the problem itself seems like a big idiocy if you ask me. So you were called a party. SO WHAT? It's legal talk and it was very decent. Get over it. You too, Kim.

#39

Posted by: Bouncing Bosons | October 7, 2008 11:45 AM

I guess it's kind of a win-win, but I still feel like the court time and changing the forms is a waste of time and money. Seriously, so you can but whatever you want before your name now? I just fail to see how this is substantially different than Party A/B... couldn't they have just written (bride) or (groom) after their names on the blanks provided next to A and B and saved the taxpayers some money?

Or maybe there was an argument as to who should be A and who should be B. I can picture that: "I dunno honey, you really look more like a 'B' to me..."

#40

Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 11:54 AM

I suggest they save some time and fill them out "Future Ex-Husband" and "Future Ex-Wife".

#41

Posted by: llewelly | October 7, 2008 11:56 AM

Owlmirror, #15, quoting from http://web.archive.org/web/20040213000819/www.chaparraltree.com/raq/rename.shtml

Instead I made up signs with other sets of opposites:

CARBON | SILICON

Now wait a minute here. Carbon and silicon are in the same column of the periodic table. They have the same number of valence electrons. And as a result they have numerous similar chemical properties. They are not opposites at all!

#42

Posted by: MikeM | October 7, 2008 12:05 PM

A guy dropped by our house the other day to urge us to vote yes on 8 (the bigotted proposal to halt gay marriages in California). He wanted to let me know that he was one of my neighbors; lived just a couple blocks away.

I wanted to say, "Oh, Hell, there goes the neighborhood.", but instead, I was polite. Told him I'd rather not answer his questions.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that if I was gay, I'd complete the form by using the terms "Queen A" and "Queen B".

When I actually DID get married back in 1991 (still married, too!), I promptly lost the marriage license (the ceremonial, pretty one, that you can hang on your wall). I have no idea where it went. I think one of the waiters tossed it, partly due to a lack of English reading skills.

Oh well. Just not that big a deal.

I still can't figure out the harm of putting in whatever terms you want for those fields on the form. Bride & Groom? Het A and Het B? Winkin' & Blinkin'? Who cares?

I think now people will just be more creative about what they want to call themselves for the last 18 minutes of their single lives.

But I'm still glad I don't have to look at that picture of that couple any more. Gawd, that was getting old.

#43

Posted by: Lau | October 7, 2008 12:09 PM

Of course, there is a perfectly lovely way in which the existence of gay marriage changes the institution of marriage. It's one step away from the patriarchal passing of women and property (er, sorry - redundant there) from one man to another, and towards marriage as a commitment between two loving adults to become each other's family. Though I could see how a fundie might think that reconception was a danger to their own union.

As for the decision, sounds like a good compromise and a waste of the court's time. But that only makes sense, since the original complainants sound like a waste of oxygen.

#44

Posted by: Tim Fuller | October 7, 2008 12:11 PM

It'll piss off the fundies because they don't want choice for anything. This seems like a huge victory for the gehs.

Enjoy.

#45

Posted by: PlainJane | October 7, 2008 12:23 PM

llewelly @ 41

It probably means carbon-based versus silicon-based life forms. Like, you know, a horta.

#46

Posted by: Bouncing Bosons | October 7, 2008 12:28 PM

I guess both forms are better than the one we used when my wife and I got married this summer. It's blanks?

MAN : _____________
WOMAN : ___________

It just reeks of fundies trying to push their norms on everyone else. Stupid backward Ohio. At least here in Maryland things are (slightly) more progressive.

#47

Posted by: Brad D | October 7, 2008 12:31 PM

More alternatives for bathrooms and licenses (Owlmirror #15):

Hal / Mother
Facehugger / Host
Marvin / Deep Thought
QWERTY / DVORAK
Ionic / Covalent

#48

Posted by: Tim Fuller | October 7, 2008 12:34 PM

It'll piss off the fundies because they don't want choice for anything. This seems like a huge victory for the gehs.

Enjoy.

#49

Posted by: pixelfish | October 7, 2008 12:36 PM

My bf and I have taken to referring to each other as Party A and Party B since hearing about this little debacle.

I think the fill-in-the-blanks forms were an okay compromise. Thing is, those two kids in Sac didn't get what they really wanted which was labelling of everybody down to gender roles. What they got was a realistic compromise that would allow gays to put groom and groom, or bride and bride, if'n they wanted. (I personally don't like the words Bride and Groom, because I've known too many people getting married for the first time who become wholly fixated on that day, and it's a DAY long. Out of your whole life. But people turn into twits over those words.)

#50

Posted by: Steve Fisher | October 7, 2008 12:37 PM

I wouldn't say this couple actually won anything.The solution the state came up with now makes same sex marriages even more obvious...as in groom-groom and bride- bride. I'm suprised this couple doesn't object to signing a license with such same sex enabling terms and start crying for a license that only has terms that don't offend their religious sensibilities.

#51

Posted by: pixelfish | October 7, 2008 12:38 PM

My bf and I have taken to referring to each other as Party A and Party B since hearing about this little debacle.

I think the fill-in-the-blanks forms were an okay compromise. Thing is, those two kids in Sac didn't get what they really wanted which was labelling of everybody down to gender roles. What they got was a realistic compromise that would allow gays to put groom and groom, or bride and bride, if'n they wanted. (I personally don't like the words Bride and Groom, because I've known too many people getting married for the first time who become wholly fixated on that day, and it's a DAY long. Out of your whole life. But people turn into twits over those words.)

#52

Posted by: Quiet Desperation | October 7, 2008 12:52 PM

The main argument I've read claiming that gay marriage hurts heterosexual marriage is that gay marriage is a counterfeit marriage which devaluates "real" marriages. Sort of like how counterfeit money hurts real money. Of course since a "real" marriage is never defined or fixed, the argument falls flat.

(light bulb!)

So gay marriage is like a sub prime loan! I see! :)

More form suggestions:

Strange/Charmed

Matter/Antimatter

Pitcher/Catcher

+1/-1

Real/Imaginary

#53

Posted by: Geoffrey of Ballard | October 7, 2008 12:57 PM

Name Party 1:________________________
( ) Tab ( ) Slot

Name Party 2:________________________
( ) Tab ( ) Slot

#54

Posted by: JimB | October 7, 2008 1:03 PM

Damn. I was gonna say that silicon life forms are Teh Evil.

At least until you mind meld with them and find out it's just a single mom protecting her kids.

But PlainJane beat me to it. So I won't.

#55

Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 1:13 PM

It's been said before, but I'll say it again:

If these idiots were really about the "sanctity of marriage", they'd be opposing divorce.

#56

Posted by: Interrobang | October 7, 2008 1:18 PM

I really have to echo the sentiments of a lot of the posters here. Until these bozos can actually come up with a genuine reason why same-sex marriage hurts opposite-sex marriage -- from their own mouths -- I'm going to continue to point and laugh at them. I may do so even afterward, but it'll be for a different reason.

Math is to numerology as Linguistics/Grammar is to...

Gematria. Glad to help.

#57

Posted by: cactusren | October 7, 2008 2:01 PM

My favorite bathroom signs are in the White Dog Cafe in Philadelphia: Pointers/Setters.

I agree with many of the other comments here--while this particular couple was being petulant, the end result seems to be a fair system. Time to move on, and make sure Prop 8 gets shot down.

#58

Posted by: Qwerty | October 7, 2008 2:03 PM

"Rachel Bird can call herself a bride (she could all along, of course), but so can the biggest, butchest, bristly-bearded gay leatherman with a biker mustache...and he should be able to get state recognition of his status as a bride."

OMG, next we'll have two gay men fighting over who gets to be the bride.

#59

Posted by: Tulse | October 7, 2008 2:05 PM

If these idiots were really about the "sanctity of marriage", they'd be opposing divorce.

You mean the two divorced people who started this whole kerfluffle? Or the various divorced/adulterous/secretly gay conservative politicians and commentators who go on about same-sex marriage?

Consistency has never been a strong point of the Religious Right.

Carbon and silicon [...] are not opposites at all!

Put me down for a horta remark as well. (Gotta love all the old-school ST:TOS fans here!)

#60

Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 2:10 PM

You mean the two divorced people who started this whole kerfluffle? Or the various divorced/adulterous/secretly gay conservative politicians and commentators who go on about same-sex marriage?
Consistency has never been a strong point of the Religious Right.

Far be it from me to let the obvious go un-pointed out.

Put me down for a horta remark as well. (Gotta love all the old-school ST:TOS fans here!)

NO KILL I

#61

Posted by: Cactus Wren | October 7, 2008 2:13 PM

I'M A MAC / I'M A PC

#62

Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 2:13 PM

Oh, and I forgot the obligatory

"I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!"

#63

Posted by: Quiet Desperation | October 7, 2008 2:16 PM

Ponder: Can two of my multiple personalities get married now?

#64

Posted by: Ian | October 7, 2008 2:21 PM

Now wait a minute here. Carbon and silicon are in the same column of the periodic table. They have the same number of valence electrons. And as a result they have numerous similar chemical properties. They are not opposites at all!

Well, it depends whether you're looking at it from the point of view of a chemist or a biologist. This is a biology blog, so I would say that it fits the pattern.

#65

Posted by: Kobra | October 7, 2008 2:29 PM

How the hell did they win? Did they annoy the judge into agreement with their whining?

#66

Posted by: Noadi | October 7, 2008 2:33 PM

All these science lovers and no one yet mentions putting the chromosomes as the label?
XX|XY (or of course XX|XX or XY|XY)

#67

Posted by: Karey | October 7, 2008 2:42 PM

I think its dumb the state caved in to these phonies because calling yourself Party A and Party B does not harm or 'label' anyone anything. What a monument to pettiness this is. But its probably for the best right now, considering Prop 8 is on the ballot and how close to the election we are. If that gets defeated it will change the direction all gay rights progress takes in the country so its important not to antagonize the fundies right into passing Prop 8. Let them win the battle, they'll just lose the war.

#68

Posted by: Ilya | October 7, 2008 2:44 PM

pipette/pipette tip
coffee/tea
coke/pepsi
itchy/scratchy
key/lock
mess-maker/mess-cleaner

#69

Posted by: MikeM | October 7, 2008 2:44 PM

pixelfish @49: It ain't Sacramento. If you look on a map, it's only about 20 miles from 24th and J to Granite Bay, but in effect, these two areas are about as far from each other as Georgia and San Francisco.

Roseville isn't Sacramento. Heck, Roseville isn't even the same county.

I'm from south of Broadway, and proud of it.

#70

Posted by: Brad D | October 7, 2008 2:45 PM

I can't hold back any more... The most compelling evidence I have ever seen for alternate, Silicon based life forms was an episode of Fantasy Island. It was so bad that I think it was what pushed poor Herve Villachaise (Tattoo) over the edge.

In my defense: I was a kid, I didn't have enough of a vote to change the channel, I was just glad to be up past my bedtime. Oh, the humanity! That and Love Boat. Of all the useless crap to (involuntarily) waste long term memory on.

#71

Posted by: Chris | October 7, 2008 2:59 PM

I can't wait to be a blushing bride to my girlfriend's groomliness.

If I lived in CA.

I hope she doesn't see this.

#72

Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 2:59 PM

outie/innie

#73

Posted by: Psycho Atheist | October 7, 2008 3:01 PM

The option of bride/groom, bride/bride etc seems perfectly reasonable to me. I can't be the only one though that is thinking that the Coddings didn't actually have that result in mind when they started their little tantrum.

What's the betting that they considered the terms 'bride' and 'groom' biblically acceptable and will be quietly seething that same sex couples can now utilise these labels?

#74

Posted by: Mojave66 | October 7, 2008 3:02 PM

You know, I just got married to my partner B of 16 years. It was our fifth wrangling of some kind of legalized partnership. As far as I'm concerned, I'm already married, but the state begged to differ, and I rather like being able to cover my beloved partner's insurance needs.

If we can make all the wingnuts whine about insignificant little shit like this, we'd all be much better off. They can declare victory in their misty-mystical little brains, and we can concentrate on the REAL problems.

#75

Posted by: KristinmH | October 7, 2008 3:08 PM

Elvis/The Colonel

Scully/Mulder

...and I can't believe no one suggested

Pitcher/Catcher

#76

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 3:15 PM

Owlmirror: I wish to bear your children.

...

PS: I am nearly entirely certain that no one has ever said that to me before, ever....

PPS: I am not Raphael Carter.

More form suggestions:

Strange/Charmed

I like this one a bunch.

Some more that come to mind:

SACRED / PROFANE
SPRING / FALL
OVERWORKED / UNDERPAID
DECIDUOUS / CONIFER
SUGAR / SALT
COOK / CRITIC
SHINY / HAPPY
SLOB / SNOB
FREAK / GEEK
RATIONALIST / EMPIRICIST
BACTRIAN / DROMEDARY
SALAMANDER / NEWT

or maybe even a few that are just bare punctuation...

! / ?
# / *
♯ / ♭
∴ / ∵

#77

Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 3:21 PM

1/0

#78

Posted by: Rey Fox | October 7, 2008 3:24 PM

OVER THE ROLL / UNDER THE ROLL
LOVE THE GRATEFUL DEAD / HATE THE GRATEFUL DEAD
K-SELECTED / r-SELECTED
STOIC / EPICUREAN
SHIT / SHINOLA

Why this one has never been on bathroom doors is beyond me:

PENIS / VAGINA

#79

Posted by: Jadehawk | October 7, 2008 3:25 PM

I agree that the solution is actually pretty good... but what a waste of tax-money, to have all the forms changed (again), and the legal proceedings...

#80

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 3:38 PM

(Having too much fun with this...)

Transcendent / Ineffable
Nature / Nurture
Tight End / Wide Receiver
Even / Odd
Phantasmagorical / Mundane

#81

Posted by: Zach | October 7, 2008 4:04 PM

I really don't care if they get to be called bride and groom. In fact, if they want to be "bride and groom," I think we may as well let them.

I don't think many gay couples will mind being a bride and groom. In fact, it actually sounds kind of nice.

#82

Posted by: Zach | October 7, 2008 4:09 PM

I really don't care if they get to be called bride and groom. In fact, if they want to be "bride and groom," I think we may as well let them.

I don't think many gay couples will mind being a bride and groom. In fact, it actually sounds kind of nice.

#83

Posted by: The Petey | October 7, 2008 4:22 PM

how about:
Liza-Fan / Cher-Fan

#84

Posted by: Wehaf | October 7, 2008 4:31 PM

@noadi #66 - maybe that's because a surprisingly large fraction of the population is neither? XXY (Klinefelter's) in particular is very common (1 in 500 males). In addition, a lot of people who are genetically female identify as male, and vice-versa.

Just for fun, more 47 aneuplodies:

XYY - occurence 1 in 1000 males
Trisomy X - 1 in 1000 females
Monosomy X - 1 in 2500 females

#85

Posted by: The Petey | October 7, 2008 4:31 PM

How about

8==D / (_*_)

#86

Posted by: WRMartin | October 7, 2008 4:32 PM

Lenny/Squiggy
AC/DC
Bait/Fly
Tap/Bottled
Whiskey/Whisky
Dumptruck/Tube
PZ Myers/Bill Donohue
Boss/Husband

#87

Posted by: Tulse | October 7, 2008 4:47 PM

Raw/Cooked

#88

Posted by: Desert Rat | October 7, 2008 4:56 PM

These pair suggestions are cracking me up.

Angiosperm/Gymnosperm
Monocot/Dicot
WIMP/MACHO
Boson/Fermion
Spin up/Spin down
Heads/Tails
N/P
Anode/Cathode

The possibilities are endless!

#89

Posted by: Brendan White | October 7, 2008 4:57 PM

I know its not quite what you were after when you said you wanted to see a Bear bride but its the best I could come up with on short notice.

#90

Posted by: Mrs. Peach | October 7, 2008 5:06 PM

Yeah, the whole thing's kinda stupid. What I don't understand is why they wanted to be called "bride" and "groom" rather than "wife" and "husband." You're only a bride or groom for the day. Those are party names, for the ceremony. Next day, you're not a bride anymore... heh,heh, well except for Bride of Shrek.... But for everyone else, you're just a wife or husband.

Well, maybe that was intentional, just preparing for the next divorce since they're, you know... traditionalists. Good luck to them trying to get their other legal documents to refer to them as bride and groom.

#91

Posted by: Sultmhoor | October 7, 2008 5:14 PM

R-enantiomer/S-enantiomer

I thought this was a biology blog? ;o)

#92

Posted by: Richard Gadsden | October 7, 2008 5:27 PM

Quark / Lepton
Fermion / Boson (and take the lock off the boson door)
Quark-Lepton plasma / electroweak separation
QCD / QED

#93

Posted by: Kel | October 7, 2008 5:28 PM

All that over a word... it's pretty silly in the end.

#94

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 5:47 PM

Shaken / Stirred
Dazed / Confused
Wired / Inspired
Twirling / Whirling
Knowledge / Power
Comedy / Tragedy
Euclidean / non-Euclidean
Action / Adventure
Austere / Rococo
Lepton / Quark
Eye-candy / Smörgåsbord

#95

Posted by: Aksunai | October 7, 2008 6:52 PM

While we're on the subject of marriage, my partner and I will be getting married next year. We've been racking our brains to think of some meaningful ceremonies/rituals and readings that aren't religious... any ideas from the atheistically married out there?

#96

Posted by: Rob in Memphis | October 7, 2008 7:10 PM

And for music lovers getting married there's always...

WAS / (NOT WAS)

#97

Posted by: mandydax | October 7, 2008 7:14 PM

Gatekeeper / Keymaster
DNA / RNA
Master / Servant
Yes it is! / No it isn't!
Life / Liberty (will name their child Happiness)
Euclidean / Cartesian
Army / Navy
Purple / Violet
Fall / Autumn
Photon / Photon (QM geeks, can I get a shout out for an anti-particle joke?!)

#98

Posted by: Buford | October 7, 2008 7:24 PM

Back to basics:

Left / Right
Up / Down
Front / Back
Past / Future
Left handed / Right handed / Ambidextrous

#99

Posted by: Carlie | October 7, 2008 7:25 PM

Forgive me if I've missed it reading through, but no one's done
Seat left up/Seat left down
yet?

Coffee/Tea
Star Wars/Star Trek
Squeeze from middle/Squeeze from end
Wax on/Wax off
Chocolate in my peanut butter/Peanut butter in my chocolate
One Bourbon/One Scotch (one beer can use either)
Give you up/Let you down
Right round/Like a record player
Alexander Hamilton/Aaron Burr

#100

Posted by: Rachel I. | October 7, 2008 7:46 PM

@ #66: 46XX/46XY | XXX

#101

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 8:00 PM

Scylla / Charybdis
April Showers / May Flowers
Rock / Hard Place
Lost / Found
Devil / Deep Blue Sea
Too Old to Rock and Roll / Too Young to Die
Gotta Sing / Gotta Dance
Tragically Hip / Just Plain Tragic
Heart / Mind
Eye of the Tiger / Hungry Like the Wolf
Left Brain / Right Brain
Feathers / Lead

#102

Posted by: travc | October 7, 2008 8:54 PM

HA! My SO and I got our marriage license earlier this month, so party A and party B is forever enshrined for us!

(I'm a he and she is a she, but still like party A and B better for a legal document.)

#103

Posted by: Desert Son | October 7, 2008 9:09 PM

To-MAY-to / To-MAH-to
Velocity / Position (Heisenberg's Restrooms)
Mountain High Enough / Valley Low Enough
Yankees / Red Sox (Plenty of sports rivalries to mine)
Morning Person / Night Owl
DC / Marvel
Broadway / Hollywood
She Won't Do It / Her Sister Will
Highway to Hell / Stairway to Heaven
High Road / Low Road
Acid / Base
Fred Astaire / Ginger Rogers
Xs / Os
Fiction / Non-fiction

No kings,

Robert

#104

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 7, 2008 9:13 PM

Charm/Strange

#105

Posted by: Desert Son | October 7, 2008 9:40 PM

How about . . .

Newton / Leibniz (does this one work?)
Summer Games / Winter Games
Farsighted / MYOPIC (should be in large type)
Dogs / Cats
Lo-Pan / Egg Shen

or perhaps

Wing Kong / Chang Sing
Leaded / Unleaded
Arctic / Antarctic
Sinister / Dexter
Electric / Acoustic
Private / Public (this could have interesting results)
Sober / Sloshed
At Rest / In Motion
Fusion / Fission
Hostess / Little Debbie
Beatles / Stones

No kings,

Robert

#106

Posted by: wrpd | October 7, 2008 9:45 PM

PARTY ALL THE TIME/PARTY SOME OF THE TIME

#107

Posted by: Robert Byers | October 7, 2008 9:54 PM

The state here is imposing a new idea/value on the people without their consent. That same sex marriages etc are right and to overthrow the historic moral belief in only men and women marrying each other. at least this couple has done what they could for their identity as man and wife.
Defining who may get married is from God and the historic right of all nations and cultures. its a great right of civilization from high to the lowest tribe.
This right of a people do decide their own marriage laws is beyond small judges deciding that sexual identity is not a good reason to stop marriages between folks.
This will not stand.

Homosexuality is seen as a repulsive, dysfunctional, and absurd state of conduct.
To be called gay, all those words, is still in every playground a meaning of contempt.
To allow gay marriage is to reject all men and women, save gays, identity in relation to the opposite sex. Its profound to every person in its implications.
Any suffering of homosexuality as a legitamate alternative to normal is a rejection of the identity of man and women here and in the past.
Its just a error of thinking, however profound, and can be overthrown by the individual.
Its inpractical to make it illegal although it should and was.

I suspect Aids and other problems in the world are from God lessening his mercy.
To christians in America homosexuality is more wrong because its railed against in scripture.

The homosexual agenda has been a great evil against God, human identity, and collective soul. This ugly thing hurts True men and women and the gays themselves.
Its a worthy thing to fight and defeat in its march for acceptance.

#108

Posted by: Kel | October 7, 2008 10:03 PM

Defining who may get married is from God and the historic right of all nations and cultures.

If it's from God, then how come marriage is present in all cultures regardless of belief systems? If it's the historic right of all nations and cultures, then surely nations and cultures can change it to what suits their society best.

Remember, throughout history the most popular form of marriage was one man many women. Social constructs change in the society they are in. Robert, you are a tool.

#109

Posted by: Carlie | October 7, 2008 11:22 PM

Little bit country/Little bit rock-n-roll
Stewart/Colbert
blogger/troller
ketchup/mustard
cheesy fries/poutine

#110

Posted by: Jarandhel | October 7, 2008 11:43 PM

Just to further combine the ST:TOS references and the opposites listings:

Doctor | Miracle Worker

#111

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 7, 2008 11:55 PM

The state here is imposing a new idea/value on the people without their consent.

Byers, as usual, has it exactly backwards.

The state WAS imposing an old idea/value on the "people" without their consent.

The State Supreme Court fixed that.

I expect their decision, being based on pretty sound reasoning, will be narrowly upheld. I also expect that the morons like yourself pushing for actually amending the State Constitution to be rejected, and not just with this tiny little thing, but firmly and gradually shoved to the margins, where you belong.

#112

Posted by: Mojave66 | October 8, 2008 12:09 AM

Gosh darn, thank you, Robert Byers.

I realize now that standing by my partner of 16 years when she was unemployed and I fed and nurtured her was repulsive, dysfunctional, and absurd state of conduct. When she held me, hurting and scared after two major surgeries, that was repulsive, dysfunctional, and absurd state of conduct.

I see the light now. God, 'cause he's a narrow-minded bastard of a five-year old who demands recognition at every moment, and says that taking care of another human being through sickness and health, bad times and good, is repulsive, dysfunctional, and absurd state of conduct.

I see the light. It's a pretty dim, feeble light, but hey, we gotta take Kindergarten God as he is, eh?

#113

Posted by: Dennis N | October 8, 2008 12:16 AM

Defining who may get married is from God

Yeahh... there's this separation thing that we like to keep between church and state. It's one of those amen.. amendnent.. amendment things? One of those things.

#114

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 8, 2008 12:40 AM

I see the light. It's a pretty dim, feeble light, but hey, we gotta take Kindergarten God as he is, eh?

Next they teach you how to color inside the lines!

*joy*

:p

#115

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 8, 2008 12:54 AM

To allow gay marriage is to reject all men and women, save gays, identity in relation to the opposite sex. Its profound to every person in its implications. Any suffering of homosexuality as a legitamate alternative to normal is a rejection of the identity of man and women here and in the past.

Your moral and ideological forebears said the same thing about women's suffrage. Any comments on how that worked out?

#116

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 8, 2008 1:17 AM

Your moral and ideological forebears said the same thing about women's suffrage.

excellent point.

Still, my prediction will be that the comparison, while perfectly valid, will be entirely ignored by our resident Black Knight. That, or he will construct an entirely ludicrous misogynist argument of some kind (women should be in kitchens, etc.), that he really doesn't believe, but will happily trot out so he at least appears to be consistent at a place where he doesn't respect any of the posters to begin with.

I wonder what the world would be like if people didn't mostly epically fail to be students of history?

#117

Posted by: Patricia | October 8, 2008 1:18 AM

Marijuana Bill Byers - You stupid fuck. How does anyone else's marriage harm mine? You disgusting old prat of a pervert from the 1970's.
Shit Byers, go home, stop dropping your pen, and go diddle yourself in the garage.

#118

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 8, 2008 1:40 AM

ah, yes. NOW you've got a worm on your hook, Patricia.

;)

...and I'm sure he'll be back before the week is up.

#119

Posted by: Kel | October 8, 2008 1:52 AM

I wonder why Robert Byers even bothers to post here. Being an agent of intolerance on a progressive blog is hardly going to have a receptive audience. Likewise being a godbot on an atheist blog will gain a similar reception. And being a creationist on an evolution blog is never going to go down well. He doesn't have a single quality about him that would endear him to anyone on this blog. Maybe he likes to be mocked because he can feel persecuted therefore be as one with the J-man.

#120

Posted by: clinteas | October 8, 2008 1:56 AM

//Homosexuality is seen as a repulsive, dysfunctional, and absurd state of conduct.//

LOL
Your fellow christian priests and ministers seem to disagree with you there,Byers.They seem to find it quite ok,actually.

#121

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 8, 2008 2:08 AM

I wonder why Robert Byers even bothers to post here.

-cry for help?

-thinks he is "winning"?

-thinks he is showing off to his "friends"?

-wife divorced him and he misses being yelled at and belittled for his obvious stupidity?

-bugfuck nuts?

-just plain lonely?

none of which are mutually exclusive.

things it simply cannot be:

-he thinks he is converting people to his PoV

-he honestly thinks he is actually debating.

#122

Posted by: Donovan | October 8, 2008 6:03 AM

Grrr. If I didn't already hate California enough. People like Bird and Codding disgust me. When I got married, I cared about two things: Is this legally binding (can we visit each other in a hospital, get insurance, buy a house), and do I have the support of my friends and family (because it does mean a lot). These slime mold wannabes got scraped off some dog owners shoe and show up claiming they have rights on what other people need to call them? We should have a vote on what we call them instead of bride and groom.

#123

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | October 8, 2008 6:35 AM

asad @2,

...the new license allows couples to put whatever they want in -- either "bride" and "groom" or "bride" and "bride" or "groom" and "groom" -- or to leave the spaces blank. Nobody loses, some people are placated...meh, doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

And it's not a big deal for any normal people. But far from the Talibangelicals having "won", this solution is likely to infuriate them far more than the original, single gender-neutral description would have done. Why, the new formula explicitly makes b/g equivalent to b/b and g/g. Even as the ink dries in the page, their marriages are being Destroyed By Teh Gay!

But shame on all you people suggesting frivolous alternative pairings. This is no laughing matter; clarity over traditional gender roles is important. When there is confusion over this sort of thing, society as we know it inevitably breaks down. For my own part I shall try to ensure that Ireland's government enact legislation to require that public toilet doors be clearly labelled in the First National Language: Mná and Fir, respectively; or, to save space, a simple M and F will suffice.

#124

Posted by: thalarctos | October 8, 2008 7:35 AM

Not knowing Gaelic (my loss!), but having enjoyed Mrs. Tilton's sense of humor for a couple of years now, I had a suspicion about the possibility of "fir" being cognate to Latin "vir". A brief session with the google confirmed not only my hunch, but--simultaneously--Mrs. Tilton's Discordian wit.

Thank you for what will undoubtedly be the intellectual high point of my morning, Mrs. T!

#125

Posted by: Selcaby | October 8, 2008 7:48 AM

Gay marriage doesn't hurt heterosexual marriage. Dull bureaucratic language hurts heterosexual marriage.

I'm glad someone got the Party A/Party B business changed, although I think a polite letter-writing campaign would have been a more appropriate tactic than going to court. Such a prosaic word choice showed a lack of a sense of occasion, and that can only lead to more people getting married in church.

#126

Posted by: Joshua Bowers | October 8, 2008 8:33 AM

BB / [^B]{2}

#127

Posted by: bezoar | October 8, 2008 9:21 AM

HEY, I'm a Biker and have a handlebar moustache. Let's not mistake the Village people moustache for a Biker moustache. Know of what you speak. Proudly hetero and super macho Biker son of a bitch, god dammit!

#128

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | October 8, 2008 9:46 AM

bezoar @127,

Proudly hetero

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

#129

Posted by: Tulse | October 8, 2008 10:23 AM

More musical pairings:

Rock and roll all night / Party every day
Stay (trouble) / Go (double)
Check out any time you like / Leave

And if we going to do ST:TOS McCoyisms, we'll be here till doomsday, but here are some of my faves:

Doctor / Escalator
Doctor / Bricklayer

#130

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | October 8, 2008 11:48 AM

thalarctos @124,

coming from you, the title "Discordian" has made my day, no, week.

You're absolutely right about fir being cognate with vir. It's the plural, the singular being fear. The singular of mná is, obviously, bean. (BTW, though fear and bean resemble English words visually, they don't sound like the words they resemble.)

A few years back there was a dustup at Queen's University Belfast. Signs reading Fir and Mná were hung on some toilet doors, and some students complained. One wag on a usenet group I used to haunt commented, "Do they not understand the Irish for 'catholic' and 'protestant'?".

#131

Posted by: Desert Son | October 8, 2008 11:54 AM

Tulse at #129 posted:

Stay (trouble) / Go (double)

Excellent one!

First Name:	Last Name:
Address:
City:	State:	Zip Code:
Email:

Pharyngula

Search

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Here comes the bride

Comments

Post a Comment

Blogs in the Network

Top Five: Most German

Search All Blogs

Science News From: