ALTRAV,

"....I choose to go with the accepted and traditional European, Christian standards as laid down through history."

That's the shaky ground because the Christian standards have changed,
for instance, it was common for couples to decide to wed, live together then tell the Church authorities that they were married, the local priest would then record the marriage.

Even today in Catholicism the couple marry each other, the priest is the witness for the Church, the other witnesses are for the community.

People commonly say that they were married by Fr. Blank, but the correct way to phrase it is that they were married before (in the presence of) Fr. Blank.

By the way, 'the tunnel' is masculine!!

Is Mise, thanks for the clarification on marriage.

But now I am confused as to the reasoning of the train and the tunnel.

I am probably showing my lack of imagination, but if it's not too much trouble is it possible for either yourself or someone familiar with French, (whatever this is called), to expound on this strange comment.

ALTRAV,

Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You may understand it better, but the frog dies in the process.

Anyway, I see that you have no answers to any of my questions; no further detail for any of your half-baked claims; and no examples of any of your offensive accusations.

I guess you hoped that if you slung enough mud, some of it would stick. Is that it?

ALTRAV,

Nouns in French have gender but it has nothing to do with the sex, or lack thereof, of the subject.
A table is feminine, a knife is masculine, fork feminine and the spoon is masculine, this is gender fluidity (said tongue in cheek).

But it does illustrate that gender need not be tied to sex.

Is Mise, thank you for that. Now that I know the answer, it seems the same is so for Italian.

Oh, and Mr Philips, Is Mise kindly came to my rescue without digs or innuendo or making some point about a frog that only you would understand.

Thanks again Issy.

ALTRAV,

That’s a bit rich, coming from someone who has spent their last few posts to me accusing me of all sorts of offensive things. According to you, I:

- tried to get away with something sneaky, which I was also allegedly aware of;
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8052#250736
- presumed to speak for all gay people;
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8052#250743
- was under the illusion that I was the arbiter of what cultures do;
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8052#250759
- presumed to speak for all trans people;
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8052#250759

And countless other offensive accusations about what me and my so-called “mates” supposedly do. Needless to say, you could not substantiate a single one of your ridiculous claims. Your arguments are so devoid of any reasoning that you are instead forced to resort to character assassination.

<<Is Mise kindly came to my rescue without digs or innuendo or making some point about a frog that only you would understand.>>

And I can assure you that all here still reading this thread (except you, apparently) understood the ‘frog’ analogy. If you genuinely didn’t, then you are a lot slower than I could have imagined. It's a classic quote from E.B. White.