While I understand what the intention of the Oracle's curses are - give people in a D&D-esque game a mechanically supported set of drawbacks - I am thinking that this implementation is a bit...odd.
It has been my experience that drawbacks work best when they give the player something to work off of, not an in game limitation to work around. EG, an Oracle should deal with divine meddling rather than being nearly blind, deaf, lame or babbling in tongues.
I'm not saying that a gaming group can't make these things work; I am saying that they put a lot of extra work on everyone else at the table (the GM has to keep track of what the Oracle's player doesn't hear, the players have to ignore what the Oracle's player is saying because they don't understand Ghetto Abyssal)
A Cavalier's orders are a bit closer to what my experience says works with these types of things - social commitments and organizations that are important to the players saying "you have duties and obligations that will inconvenience you."
Is it kosher to reference other game designs for comparison and contrast, to see if we can isolate a more workable solution?