George Takei and partner to appear on "Newlywed Game"
David
TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
NEW YORK � Even as states and jurisdictions made gay and lesbian
marriages legal, "The Newlywed Game" has played it straight � until
now.
The long-running game show, now on the GSN cable network, said
Wednesday it will feature its first gay couple this season on a
celebrity edition. George Takei, who played Mr. Sulu on "Star Trek,"
will appear with his partner, Brad Altman.
They just celebrated their first anniversary after being married in
Los Angeles last September, but they're nothing like the giggly young
couples the game is known for. Takei and Altman have been together for
22 years.
"What we want is to display the normality and the joy of having a
happy union," Takei said.
"The Newlywed Game" has been on TV off and on since it premiered in
prime-time on ABC in 1967, mostly with Bob Eubanks as host. Singer
Carnie Wilson is now host of the show, which is in its second season
on GSN and done well in the ratings for the network.
The show always teased and tested couples about how well they know
each other, with the slightly lascivious Eubanks delighting in
questions about "making whoopee."
It has since featured older couples, interracial couples and some who
have lived together many years before marriage. Even long-ago
contestants were retested as part of "Oldyweds Game" segments.
Kelly Goode, GSN's programming chief, said she couldn't speculate on
why gay couples were never included in the past because GSN, the
former Game Show Network, has only been responsible for the show for
two years. She said it was in the game's rules that the couple needed
to have a legally-recognized marriage to play.
The change "made sense for GSN," Goode said. "It seems like the show
has always reflected the times in terms of marriages depicted and this
felt like the next logical step."
Takei and Altman haven't taped their episode yet but expect to do so
soon. GSN hopes to air in October.
The show is sprinkling a handful of celebrity players and their new
spouses in this season, including Davy Jones of The Monkees,
Christopher Knight of "The Brady Bunch" and Jonny Fairplay of
"Survivor."
Wilson said she had been pressing behind-the-scenes to have an all-gay
edition of the show. She's excited about Takei's appearance.
"It's needed at this point," she said. "To me, this is not anything
political. This is not a political statement. This show has always
been about couples and how well they know each other."
Even though they've been a committed couple for 22 years, Takei said
he and Altman are quietly preparing for their appearance. He's taking
careful note of what his partner orders in restaurants and wears.
"To be included in something we never felt we'd be included in is very
satisfying," he said.
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_en_tv/us_tv_newlywed_gay_coupl...
>
> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
> By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
>
> NEW YORK – Even as states and jurisdictions made gay and lesbian
> marriages legal, "The Newlywed Game" has played it straight — until
> now.
The two of them have already played the game on the Howard Stern Show
where George sometimes sits in for a week of shows as the announcer.
Michael Black
How dare they be on the Newlywed Game.
I'm sure they've been together long enough that they don't count as
newlyweds.
Michael
peachyashiepassion
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
>
>> On Sep 16, 1:25 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_en_tv/us_tv_newlywed_gay_coupl...
>>>
>>> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
>>> By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
>>>
>>> marriages legal, "The Newlywed Game" has played it straight � until
>>> now.
>>
>> The two of them have already played the game on the Howard Stern Show
>> where George sometimes sits in for a week of shows as the announcer.
>>
>>
> How dare they be on the Newlywed Game.
>
> I'm sure they've been together long enough that they don't count as
> newlyweds.
>
> Michael
Plus, they are way too smart.
I'm way on board for a gay couple, but they just aren't newlyweds!
Anim8rFSK
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 1:25�pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap en tv/us tv newlywed gay coupl...
> >>
> >> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
> >> By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
> >>
> >> NEW YORK � Even as states and jurisdictions made gay and lesbian
> >> marriages legal, "The Newlywed Game" has played it straight � until
> >> now.
> >
> > The two of them have already played the game on the Howard Stern Show
> > where George sometimes sits in for a week of shows as the announcer.
> >
> >
> How dare they be on the Newlywed Game.
>
> I'm sure they've been together long enough that they don't count as
> newlyweds.
>
> Michael
Yeah, that was my reaction
--
Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
--actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST
Patty Winter
>
>I'm sure they've been together long enough that they don't count as
>newlyweds.
:-)
Are straight couples who've been together a long time before they
get married ineligible to be on the show? If not, then more power
to Takei and Altman!
Patty
David
wrote:
>
>In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@darkstar.example.net>,
>Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>>How dare they be on the Newlywed Game.
>>
>>I'm sure they've been together long enough that they don't count as
>>newlyweds.
>
>:-)
>
>Are straight couples who've been together a long time before they
>get married ineligible to be on the show?
No, the article mentioned that they're allowed.
Michael Black
After I posted, I realized that might be true. It's been a long time
since I've seen the show. I was making a joke.
They could have "The Bickering Old Married Show", to test the couples
on how well they know each other after decades. It probably would be
about the same as the Newlywed show.
Michael
David
wrote:
>They could have "The Bickering Old Married Show", to test the couples
>on how well they know each other after decades.
That was in the article too!
(people, read the articles. Let's not become a nation of Lenos!)
KC
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Patty Winter wrote:
Well, the original premise was these young adults are just now getting
to know what it's like to live in a house together. But these days,
people tend to be older when they marry and often have lived together
first, so the idea that the contestants wouldn't already know that
their spouse leaves the toilet seat up or drinks the last of the milk
and leaves the carton in the fridge is silly.
The other element was the supposed innocence of the newly married,
creating embarrassing moments as intimate details were revealed, which
is pretty laughable in our modern, Jerry Springer, blog, reality show,
sex tape society?
The whole concept doesn't work in today's world. If anything, it just
needs to be a show about how well partners (gay, straight, married,
living together) know each other. I don't even think there should be
any particular number of years the couple has lived together, since
long time partners might think they have the advantage, but the more
recently coupled may be more keenly aware of each's quirks and
preferences.
Of course, the original show was really more about double entendre and
Eubanks laughing at these idiots (Wife: "Well, where *I* live, the sun
comes up in the South. I live on South St and I can see the sun out my
window.") than any of what I just wrote.
KC
Michael Black
We've already become a nation of lazy, where people post stolen articles
rather than say something in their own words. If I want to read
something, I'd read it where it was originated, not here.
Michael
David
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, David wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:02:49 -0400, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They could have "The Bickering Old Married Show", to test the couples
>>> on how well they know each other after decades.
>>
>> That was in the article too!
>>
>> (people, read the articles. Let's not become a nation of Lenos!)
>>
>We've already become a nation of lazy, where people post stolen articles
>rather than say something in their own words.
I'll get right on rewriting whole articles in my own words as soon as
I'm done transcribing punchlines to online videos for people who don't
like clicking on links.
>If I want to read
>something, I'd read it where it was originated, not here.
So you'll continue asking questions that were already answered at the
start of the thread? That certainly can never get annoying.
(alternatively, you *could* read the article where it originated by
using the link above the article)
Patty Winter
In article <78v4b555u8qr34um8...@4ax.com>,
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>(alternatively, you *could* read the article where it originated by
>using the link above the article)
And I do thank you for including those, David!
Patty
peachyashiepassion
Well, unlike you apparently do, I do not have knowledge of every
thing ever written, so sometimes I find it helpful for people to share
articles that I may not have seen.
Patty Winter
In article <h8umv...@news1.newsguy.com>,
peachyashiepassion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Michael Black wrote:
>>>
>> We've already become a nation of lazy, where people post stolen articles
>> rather than say something in their own words. If I want to read
>> something, I'd read it where it was originated, not here.
>
>thing ever written, so sometimes I find it helpful for people to share
>articles that I may not have seen.
I don't think Michael was suggesting preknowledge of articles.
He can read them where they originated if someone posts a summary
and a link. They don't have to post entire--usually copyrighted
--articles.
Patty
David
wrote:
>
"They" don't have to, assuming that people think there's *too much*
on-topic discussion in rec.arts.tv and wish there was a lot less.
Patty Winter
In article <qmu5b5hkm1u33if96...@4ax.com>,
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 18 Sep 2009 01:56:10 GMT, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com>
>wrote:
>
>>He can read them where they originated if someone posts a summary
>>and a link. They don't have to post entire--usually copyrighted
>>--articles.
>
>"They" don't have to, assuming that people think there's *too much*
>on-topic discussion in rec.arts.tv and wish there was a lot less.
I said "they" intentionally, David. I don't think you're the
only one who posts articles here.
Of course I appreciate that your postings stimulate discussion.
And probably posting the full articles accomplishes that better
than posting synopses and links. But as someone who has had her
work used without permission on TV shows and websites (and later
obtained payment for the unauthorized use), I'm very sensitive
about copyrighted material.
Patty
David
wrote:
>
>In article <qmu5b5hkm1u33if96...@4ax.com>,
>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 18 Sep 2009 01:56:10 GMT, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think Michael was suggesting preknowledge of articles.
>>>He can read them where they originated if someone posts a summary
>>>and a link. They don't have to post entire--usually copyrighted
>>>--articles.
>>
>>"They" don't have to, assuming that people think there's *too much*
>>on-topic discussion in rec.arts.tv and wish there was a lot less.
>
>I said "they" intentionally, David. I don't think you're the
>only one who posts articles here.
I know. I didn't mean to swerve things someplace ugly like often
happens on usenet. Caustic is just how I am.
>Of course I appreciate that your postings stimulate discussion.
>And probably posting the full articles accomplishes that better
>than posting synopses and links. But as someone who has had her
>work used without permission on TV shows and websites (and later
>obtained payment for the unauthorized use), I'm very sensitive
>about copyrighted material.
The difference I see is the small scale of this place. I don't think
that many people are interested in any particular thread. If there's
something interesting on a small, private-owned website I usually only
provide a link, but I don't believe Variety and websites like that are
losing anything because of me.
Default User
> "They" don't have to, assuming that people think there's *too much*
> on-topic discussion in rec.arts.tv and wish there was a lot less.
I'd offer you some pie, but I'm afraid it would make you grouchy.
Brian
--
Day 228 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
David
wrote:
>David wrote:
>
>> "They" don't have to, assuming that people think there's *too much*
>> on-topic discussion in rec.arts.tv and wish there was a lot less.
>
>I'd offer you some pie, but I'm afraid it would make you grouchy.
You know deep down you don't want me less grouchy. This is how I
excel.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
(I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>Well, the original premise was these young adults are just now getting
>to know what it's like to live in a house together. But these days,
>people tend to be older when they marry and often have lived together
>first, so the idea that the contestants wouldn't already know that
>their spouse leaves the toilet seat up or drinks the last of the milk
>and leaves the carton in the fridge is silly.
>
>The other element was the supposed innocence of the newly married,
>creating embarrassing moments as intimate details were revealed, which
>is pretty laughable in our modern, Jerry Springer, blog, reality show,
>sex tape society?
To be honest, I was surprised this show is still in production!
Like you wrote, it's obsolete.
--
Jimmy Carter: History's greatest monster
peachyashiepassion
> In article <4bi2b5lvh8lbj25on...@4ax.com>, diml...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
>
> An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
>
> So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
> (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>
I'm entirely confused about what it is you are trying to say here...
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <4bi2b5lvh8lbj25on...@4ax.com>, diml...@yahoo.com
>wrote:
>
>>TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
>
>An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
>
>So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
>(I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
Based on the wedding pictures he looked happy enough.
Anim8rFSK
peachyashiepassion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
He's saying they can't be legally married, and assuming that if George
got legally married, it would have to be a woman, and his boyfriend
would be annoyed.
They got married last year (and didn't invite The Shat, claims to the
contrary notwithstanding) in L.A. IIRC it's either one of those 'not
really legal' marriages or 'retroactively invalid' marriages.
--
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Saturday the 19th be "Talk Like a Pirate Day"!!!
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/
Michael Black
He's saying "George Takei can't be married because his partner is a man
and men can't get married to each other".
It's the outrage that I made fun of when I posted that it was wrong, and
then clarified by saying they aren't newlyweds.
Michael
Patty Winter
In article <ANIM8Rfsk-1968F...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>They got married last year (and didn't invite The Shat, claims to the
>contrary notwithstanding) in L.A. IIRC it's either one of those 'not
>really legal' marriages or 'retroactively invalid' marriages.
Neither, actually. It's really legal, and it wasn't invalidated
retroactively. The California Supreme Court let stand the marriages
that were performed between June 16 and November 4, 2008. Takei
and Altman were married that September.
Patty
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> diml...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
>>
>> An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
>>
>> So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
>> (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>
> I'm entirely confused about what it is you are trying to say here...
One can only be wed to one of the opposite sex.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> In article <h90qv...@news2.newsguy.com>, exquisi...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> >Ubiquitous wrote:
> >> diml...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
> >>
> >> An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
> >>
> >> So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
> >> (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
> >
> > I'm entirely confused about what it is you are trying to say here...
>
> One can only be wed to one of the opposite sex.
Obviously untrue.
Patty Winter
In article <180920091857056116%takebac...@2008.com>,
Ubi lives in his own little dream world where things he
doesn't approve of don't exist.
Patty
Michael Bowker
> In article <h90qv...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> peachyashiepassion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> In article <4bi2b5lvh8lbj25on...@4ax.com>, diml...@yahoo.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
>>> An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
>>>
>>> So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
>>> (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>>>
>> I'm entirely confused about what it is you are trying to say here...
>
> He's saying they can't be legally married, and assuming that if George
> got legally married, it would have to be a woman, and his boyfriend
> would be annoyed.
>
> They got married last year (and didn't invite The Shat, claims to the
> contrary notwithstanding) in L.A. IIRC it's either one of those 'not
> really legal' marriages or 'retroactively invalid' marriages.
>
CA court invalidated gay marriage, but did not invalidate those who got
married while it was legal. So gay marriage is legal in CA, except you
can't do it now. So it's quite possible to be gay married in CA, but no
currently unmarried gay couples can do it.
Doesn't make much sense to me, but that's what the courts ruled.
Anlatt the Builder
> In article <h90qvi0...@news2.newsguy.com>, exquisitepe...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Ubiquitous wrote:
> >> dimla...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
>
> >> An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
>
> >> So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
> >> (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>
> > I'm entirely confused about what it is you are trying to say here...
>
> One can only be wed to one of the opposite sex.
>
>
This may be true in particular religious groups - and NOT in other
religious groups. However, as a statement about legal marriage in the
United States (and Canada, Spain, and a few other countries) it is
FALSE. In several states of the U.S., you can be legally wed to
someone of the same sex.
You've simply made a mistake. Say it again, however, and you'll be
lying.
Anlatt the Builder
> In article <h90qvi0...@news2.newsguy.com>,
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
>
> > > An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
>
> > > So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
> > > (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>
> > I'm entirely confused about what it is you are trying to say here...
>
> He's saying they can't be legally married, and assuming that if George
> got legally married, it would have to be a woman, and his boyfriend
> would be annoyed.
>
> They got married last year (and didn't invite The Shat, claims to the
> contrary notwithstanding) in L.A. IIRC it's either one of those 'not
> really legal' marriages or 'retroactively invalid' marriages.
>
>
It was a legal marriage when it was performed, and, according to the
California State Suprmem Court, it is STILL a legal marriage. The
Court upheld the Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriages, but only as it
applies to subsequnet same-sex marriages. The 18,000 same-sex couples
who got married when it was legal in California are, according to the
Court, still legally married. That includes George Takei & Brad Altman.
Anim8rFSK
Michael Bowker <mi...@rawbw.com> wrote:
K, thanks.
peachyashiepassion
> In article <h90qv...@news2.newsguy.com>, exquisi...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> diml...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
>>> An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
>>>
>>> So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
>>> (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>> I'm entirely confused about what it is you are trying to say here...
>
> One can only be wed to one of the opposite sex.
>
>
Micky DuPree
: We've already become a nation of lazy, where people post stolen
: articles rather than say something in their own words. If I want to
: read something, I'd read it where it was originated, not here.
Would you outlaw clipping services too?
-Micky
S. R. Newport
here.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Pete B
@yahoo.com says...
The one does not follow the other. I do wish you would post a little
less, but there are others I'd like to see deported on mars (without
internet)
Pete B
@yahoo.com says...
Google archives it all, and so do other websites. If someone searches
and the keywords matches your posts show up ;)
Pete B
flower...@yahoo.com says...
> On 2009-09-18, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> > In article <4bi2b5lvh8lbj25on...@4ax.com>, diml...@yahoo.com
> > wrote:
> >
> >>TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
> >
> > An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
> >
> > So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
>
>
> > (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>
Married to a woman - ie, the only thing god approves of.
Pete B
mi...@rawbw.com says...
Its a cool idea. They could make one day a year where you can kill as
many as you can and then not get prosecuted for it.
That could probably solve a lot of problems. You could have a 'cash for
corpses' - the undertakers would love it.
Pete B
MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply says...
They stopped buying newspapers?
peachyashiepassion
My God doesn't approve of that at all.
That seems sort of gross.
peachyashiepassion
Well, I certainly agree that marriage is a close kin to murder.
Anim8rFSK
peachyashiepassion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your God doesn't approve of being married to a woman??
peachyashiepassion
> In article <h9c2m...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> peachyashiepassion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pete B wrote:
>>> In article <slrnhb7tua.5u5...@shasta.marwnad.com>,
>>> flower...@yahoo.com says...
>>>> On 2009-09-18, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> In article <4bi2b5lvh8lbj25on...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> diml...@yahoo.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> TV's 'Newlywed Game' features first gay couple
>>>>> An OBVIOUS publicity stunt.
>>>>>
>>>>> So one doesn't have to be married to appear on this show now?
>>>> He is married.
>>>>
>>>>> (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>>>> What an odd thing to imagine.
>>> Married to a woman - ie, the only thing god approves of.
>>
>> My God doesn't approve of that at all.
>>
>> That seems sort of gross.
>
> Your God doesn't approve of being married to a woman??
>
Not a man and a woman. Ick.
Default User
> Google archives it all, and so do other websites. If someone searches
> and the keywords matches your posts show up ;)
That's a nice theory. In practice, of late, something rather different
often happens.
Brian
--
Day 233 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
PV
>> Google archives it all, and so do other websites. If someone searches
>> and the keywords matches your posts show up ;)
>
>That's a nice theory. In practice, of late, something rather different
>often happens.
Indeed, google's usenet archive has been broken for years now. And I'm not
aware of anyone else running an archive. I wish there was. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Pete B
says...
> Pete B wrote:
>
> > Google archives it all, and so do other websites. If someone searches
> > and the keywords matches your posts show up ;)
>
> That's a nice theory. In practice, of late, something rather different
> often happens.
>
2C+of+late%2C+something+rather+different%22&fp=a7695902553203bf
Ubiquitous
>flower...@yahoo.com says...
>> On 2009-09-18, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>>
>> What an odd thing to imagine.
>
>Married to a woman
That IS the definition, after all.
Ubiquitous
>Its a cool idea. They could make one day a year where you can kill as
>many as you can and then not get prosecuted for it.
>
>That could probably solve a lot of problems. You could have a 'cash for
>corpses' - the undertakers would love it.
I prefer "Cash for Codgers". It fits in so well with Obama's socialized
medcine plan.
Dragon Lady
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:voGdnRatXJv8SozW...@giganews.com...
> xxxh@_xsomeething.com wrote:
>
>>Its a cool idea. They could make one day a year where you can kill as
>>many as you can and then not get prosecuted for it.
>>
>>That could probably solve a lot of problems. You could have a 'cash for
>>corpses' - the undertakers would love it.
>
> I prefer "Cash for Codgers". It fits in so well with Obama's socialized
> medcine plan.
I assure you, a true Codger would take a few with him.
trotsky
> From: web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous)
> Angry Left web sites...dog-eared stack of Michael Moore comic books
> ---------------------------------------
> More tired, meaningless shit from Ubi.
Ubi said that if he puts his hands over both ears he can hear the ocean.
David Johnston
wrote:
>xxxh@_xsomeething.com wrote:
>>flower...@yahoo.com says...
>>> On 2009-09-18, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>>>> (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>>>
>>> What an odd thing to imagine.
>>
>>Married to a woman
>
>That IS the definition, after all.
mar?ried
/?m�rid/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-eed] Show IPA
Use married in a Sentence
See web results for married
See images of married
�adjective
1. united in wedlock; wedded: married couples.
2. of or pertaining to marriage or married persons; connubial;
conjugal: married happiness.
3. (of an antique) created from components of two or more
authentic pieces.
4. interconnected or joined; united.
5. (of a family name) acquired through marriage.
Nope.
Professor Bubba
<da...@block.net> wrote:
Correcting the header.
krp
"Professor Bubba" <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:040120100228543958%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid...
> In article <6t13k5tcntob93geh...@4ax.com>, David Johnston
> <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:04:33 -0600, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >xxxh@_xsomeething.com wrote:
>> >>flower...@yahoo.com says...
>> >>> On 2009-09-18, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> (I imagine George's bf would NOT be happy about him getting married)
>> >>>
>> >>> What an odd thing to imagine.
>> >>
>> >>Married to a woman
>> >
>> >That IS the definition, after all.
>> mar?ried
>> /?m�rid/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-eed] Show IPA
>> Use married in a Sentence
>> See web results for married
>> See images of married
>> 1. united in wedlock; wedded: married couples.
>> 2. of or pertaining to marriage or married persons; connubial;
>> conjugal: married happiness.
>> 3. (of an antique) created from components of two or more
>> authentic pieces.
>> 4. interconnected or joined; united.
>> 5. (of a family name) acquired through marriage.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>
> Correcting the header.
Homophobia. Congrats to Mr. Chekov!