You know, I'll never quite understand how close minded anti-gay people can enjoy a game like The Sims. There couldn't possibly be a more egalitarian societal simulation-type game out there...

I'm sorry (not), but people like you are egotistical, arrogant, and most importantly ignorant. If there's anything wrong with anyone here, it is clearly you. Have you ever, even for a second, thought of another human being's feelings before your own and realized that maybe people are disagreeing with you because you're wrong? I mean, I know the fact that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth and the earth doesn't revolve around you may be something beyond the comprehension of someone as close minded as your self, but I would certainly try. Also, I'm going to give you a mind blowing fact, the majority of people on this earth aren't gay yet your comment was unanimously disagreed with (I'm assuming that one agree you got was from yourself), so obviously more than gays find your opinion to be wrong.



Mind blowing fact #2, some things are different to different people. You may call it a cat but other people may call it "gato", "chat", "gatto", "katze" or "kat", just to name a few. My point? The world is not as black and white as you may think. Language changes, physical things evolve and people change. In any case, your point is invalid, because marriage is a social union created by humans, cats are created by, well other cats. Social constructs can change depending on the society, cats take much longer to evolve.



I don't know where in the hell you live, but I have never even heard of a country where biological children are required before a marriage is valid. (I always thought you bible thumpers did things in that reverse order, but whatever.) Anyways, if for whatever weird, creepy reason this is your (very narrow minded) definition of marriage, it certainly isn't that here in America and just because you have that (idiotic) belief it doesn't mean any other (decent) person in this world shares that view, so stop shoving your views down our throats and leave people the hell alone.

Good luck, my madame. With a perspective like that, you'll need a lot of it.

Marriage is a religious term. It is a shortened/colloquial term for Matrimony and Matrimony is a religious sacrament that churches are not required to perform for any given couple. A priest or rabbi could easily deny a religious man and a religious woman (of the same religion as the minister) marriage. This usually does not happen and if it does, they can usually find someone else to do it.

However, I believe that everyone should have access to the equal rights, responsibilities, and privileges entailed in unions performed at courthouses or other civic service buildings. I think that any 2 consenting adults with the required paperwork filled for their country should be able to get a Civil Union. Abolishing the term "Marriage" from legal documentation and replacing it with "Civil Union" is a matter of Separation of Church and State. The government should not be able to call the procedure and status after a religious term. If one takes the true definition, one does not "remarry" unless one spouse has died of natural causes. Couples cannot get a divorce from a real marriage. There is still the possibility of getting an unwanted marriage annulled but that is different.

I can tell you that my parents were not married in the church to each other. Before I was even conceived, they were "married" in a civil service because my father had previously been married for a month and the marriage could not be annulled because the union was consummated. My mother was never married in the church. Therefore, I call my parents' decade long union a Civil Union (it also ended in Divorce). Of course, common terms by people not affiliated with the government can be anything. The government has no right to ban words.

--Ocram

Marriage is not a religious term. It is just a societal term. The only reason the church got involved in marriages in the first place is because in the Middle Ages, monks and clergy were some of the only people who could read and write. Therefore local churches were the places that kept all the records, and thus people would just get married at the church as a matter of convenience.

That's just as problematic as the state defining marriage, though. There isn't a "true" definition of marriage. I assume you have taken that definition of marriage from your own religion, probably a Catholic or Catholic-extracted branch of Christianity. That's fine. My parents were married in a church; my mother had previously been married for several years before she and her husband had to divorce. According to the rules of her denomination, if the minister was satisfied that her first marriage, and her first husband, no longer played any part in her life, she could remarry. That was that denomination's true meaning of marriage, the minister was so satisfied and my parents had a religious wedding.

You always have to be careful when throwing around words like "true definition", because you have to be able to vouch for why your definition is the true one. Saying "my religion says" means you have to vouch for why your religion, or sect, is right and all other religions, or sects, are wrong. Saying "god says" means you have to vouch for why you're right about what god says, and all the other religious people are wrong. Saying "I think" means you have to vouch for why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Better to have a little more humility and accept that neither you nor anyone else has a monopoly on truth, meaning that neither you nor anyone else should be allowed to force others to conform to what you think the truth probably maybe might be hopefully.

Actually, the word "marriage" is rooted in the Latin word "maritus", which means "lover" and comes from the word "man" (literally, male lover). Matrimony comes from matrimonium, which is rooted in the word "mater", or "mother" and -monium indicating that it's an abstract noun (literally, motherhood). The two words weren't related. They eventually took on a similar meaning, but one is not short for the other.

Also, marriage exists in almost every culture in the world. The Catholic Church does not own the concept and never has. Plus, good luck telling the Protestants - who make up 60% of the US - or anyone who's not a Catholic - which is roughly 90% of the US - that they're no longer allowed to use words legally because of their Catholic meanings.



Again, you're using the Catholic version of the term. Catholics cannot divorce without getting excommunicated. Protestants can, and they're the ones running the US. For that matter, both words come from Latin. If you're using the older definition of both, then you're talking about pre-HRE Rome rules, where divorce was not only okay, but mandatory in some cases. You really can't declare any definition the "true" definition, because marriage and matrimony existed before the Church and will exist long after. Picking one is either arbitrary or biased.

And why should the government get rid of words because they're considered religious? Communion and Confirmation are also Catholic sacraments; should the government rename all their communion and confirmation procedures?



...but you're arguing that the church should have the right to, since they can apparently adopt any word and prevent the government from using it ever again.

Oh thank you. I have not studied much Latin (I am only fluent in English and Spanish). I guess "marriage" is not such a religious term after all. I apologize for the confusion. I meant to mention (what I have mentioned elsewhere previously) that every church should be allowed to have marriages (as they see fit) and that no resident should be denied the ability to have a Civil Union in the country based off of demographic. That way, churches that marry people without the proper documentation can result in married couples not being legally "married"/joined and many people could get legally joined without needing to go through any church to to so. I thought it was a good solution that satisfied the progressives and conservatives equally (which is admittedly not much for either). Marriage remains sacred but Civil Unions replace them in legal grounds and are non-discriminatory. Anyway, I recently found out that the way taxes and welfare have been changed now, the government is discouraging people (economically) from getting married.

Sometimes I interchange "true definition" with "traditional definition." On a slightly off-topic note, I also interchange "useless" (like a historical cell phone that cannot function on any current network) with "worthless," which I should not because non-functioning things can be valuable collector's items.

As I said earlier in this thread, everyone should be able to get the equal rights (even if they have to go through bureaucracy) but people who don't go through the proper channels (and instead opt for things such as drive-thru weddings) should not get the same rights and privileges.

Have a good day!

--Ocram

I'm very confused by your stance, as you are contradicting yourself in the very same sentence. Do you believe all people (regardless of race or gender) should be able to get married, or not? Because if all couples have to go through the church to get "the same rights and privileges" you're effectively banning gay marriage, and creating a theocracy while you're at it.

Also, the way you've phrased your post makes me feel like you don't think of marriage and a civil union as equal. Could you please clarify?

So you're advocating fertility testing before marriage licenses are issued? No viable eggs and sperm; no marriage? And do you think women past menopause should have their marriages automatically annulled or should they just not be allowed to enter a new marriage?



Drive-thru weddings are perfectly legal and require a valid (if very easily obtained) license, so I don't see why you think they're not 'going through the proper channels' and shouldn't confer the full rights and privileges of marriage. If you're trying to say that the 'proper channels' are a church, that's not only contradicting your prior statements that you realize marriage is not a religious term and that everyone should have equal rights, but also effectively bans atheists and other people who for whatever other reason don't want a church wedding from marriage, as well as same-sex couples belonging to churches that don't allow same-sex marriage.

If you're saying that unions sanctioned by religion should be called marriage but all others should be called civil unions - that's Separate but Equal in a new disguise. We've already seen how that turns out - it's never really equal. The desire to use a different name and a different procedure is just putting a pretty face on discrimination.

Proper channels means going to a courthouse OR filling out all the required paperwork and having your Union (I don't know the right word, the closest word I know is "ordained") by someone who is properly licensed to wed people. I think that all states should have a more rigorous way to obtain such a license because Las Vegas cheapens the whole experience. Proper channels does NOT mean going through any church. If one gets married in a church and does not fill out the proper paperwork with a judge/justice and witnesses, then they are not legally Joined. I am NOT advocating the creation of a theocracy (look at all the theocracies in the Middle East; they are not bastions of liberty), I am advocating something almost the opposite.

I did not contradict myself. I said everyone should be able to 'get' equal rights. I used 'get' as in 'acquire' or 'earn.' Those that do not acquire a Civil Union legally, do not earn the rights and privileges of one.

You are right, I don't think Civil Unions and Marriages are equal. I think Civil Unions are superior. Matrimony is a sacrament, which is an old custom performed in a church of an old religion that has lasting repercussions mostly within that church only. I equate Matrimony with Eucharist (except Eucharist cannot be denied but Matrimony can be). I consider Civil Unions a civic process that should confer more benefits. Of course, a couple could have both, which would confer more benefits than either alone.

--Ocram

Vegas weddings require a legal license issued by the marriage license bureau and a ceremony performed by a licensed official, so they fulfill all the requirements you mention. Tackiness or cheapness is a separate issue and a personal opinion. Just saying.

I don't think anyone's arguing that people who don't have a legal marriage/union should get the associated benefits. Your point might be better made by using common-law marriage as an example.

As for civil unions vs marriage - I get your point but still say the only way to have true equality is to use the same words, the same ceremonies, and the same set of benefits. In reality, that word is going to be marriage. I'm not sure what extra rights you think people married in church should get, but assume you mean strictly religious benefits within the church. If they include any legal rights that would be violating separation of church and state and discriminating against people who can't/won't get married by a church.

Matrimony should only confer religious benefits. Civil Unions should confer legal benefits.

--Ocram

Agreed. However, in the real world it might not work that way. For example, churches would inevitably start giving financial benefits only to spouses of married employees and claiming their religious freedom to only recognize those marriages if challenged. And inevitably other inequalities would creep in, probably including legal ones, since separation of church and state is very imperfect in this country.

Let's turn this around - since 'marriage' is the legally recognized term, let's use that for, well, legal marriage. Then churches can have a separate term - say, 'religious union' - that has absolutely no legal meaning. Nothing's stopping them from doing that now. The fight is over the word 'marriage' because that's a word everyone recognizes; that's the word that has meaning for us.

I really do see your point - years ago I thought the solution was to keep the term marriage for traditional male/female and have civil unions for same-sex with identical rights and privileges. (I know that's not exactly what you're proposing but it seems similar.) It's just words, right? But soon I saw that that simply won't work. Making it into two different things opens the door for different sets of rights, different treatment under the law, different treatment by society. That's how the concept of civil unions ended up - in most if not all states that recognized them they did not carry the same rights. The only way to ensure equal treatment (at least legally) is to have just one institution of marriage that applies to all.

I never thought that same sex couples should be forced to have a different ceremony/title/process. I think you were right in changing your mind on giving same-sex couples one term and opposite-sex couples another term. Matrimony predates the creation of the USA and the English word "marriage." Currently, there are 3 types of ceremonies that are all given the same exact name and therefore the same exact treatment. There should be a rigorous process to get a marriage/civil union license. Holy Matrimony and equivalent ceremonies in other religions should hold no water legally. Drive-Thru weddings should either get another status or go through a more rigorous process. Also, domestic partnerships should be sort of like what they have in my state of Washington, where it is easy to attain and grants less privileges. Maybe Drive-Thru Weddings should grant domestic partnerships?

On a side-note, I play Sims for the building and only occasionally play single people (and occasionally siblings, and extremely rarely play a traditional family). I don't use Story Progression and Sims 2 doesn't even have Story Progression. I spent over 10x as much time on Sims 2 than Sims 3.

--Ocram

The only problem with "separate but equal" terminology and institutions is that they always end up creating even *more* inequality for the group that is "separate". Marriage equality is one of those "Do, or do not. There is no try." type of movements. If you say you're all for same-sex couples having the same rights, but falter on the terminology of it because it makes you uncomfortable, then you may as well be opposed to it. Equality is not subject to gradation or semantics. It's all or nothing.

GabyBee, you seem to misunderstand me. I merely suggest that the legal term be changed. The USA government has done this many, many times with other terms, and Gov. Inslee has stirred up some controversy by legally forcing certain groups (mostly those working with the government) to replace certain words and terms with more "politically correct" terms. I honestly think that changing the legal term for "Marriage" to "Civil Union" and giving all of those that go through the proper channels the same rights and privileges is far better than banning terms such as "penmanship," "brown bag," "citizen," "fireman," "master bedroom," and a dozen or so others.

Also, rights and privileges are different. Marriage is NOT for everyone. It never has been. There are several privileges that certain organizations have thought should be considered "rights" that makes no sense to me, and no sense to many other people. This is off-topic but internet access, health-insurance, and voting are not rights. The United States used to have no voting whatsoever for citizens (that are not government officials). However, legally (and ethically) one cannot deny one group of people from obtaining something just because of their demographic. It is a civil rights violation to withhold a promotion if the only reason is because the worker is female. It is perfectly reasonable to withhold promotions because of lower performance of workers. It is a civil rights violation to prevent a group of people to be denied the ability to vote based on gender or ethnicity but it is legal to deny groups of people based of citizenship status (nationality), criminal history (it is legal and ethical to prevent felons from voting and to prevent incarcerated criminals from voting), and age (no one under 18 is allowed to vote in the USA).

Equality is subject to both gradation and semantics. Equality of outcome (for example) is nonsense. Not everyone has equal talents, equal skills, equal work-ethic, or equal abilities.


--Ocram

Oh I understand perfectly what you're saying. You want to reserve the term "marriage" for religious purposes only, and therefore it should only be conferred upon heterosexual couples who marry in a religious ceremony. However, there are many, MANY, LGBT individuals who are devoutly religious and get married in religious ceremonies. They absolutely see their union as one made before god.

Just because you don't believe the terms should be used the way they are now, doesn't mean that the term marriage should be changed. The term "marriage" means something different to just about everybody these days. So rather than nitpick what is, and isn't, a "true" marriage, I think it's more worthwhile to focus energy on ensuring true equality for all under the law.

No, you do not understand me "perfectly."

I think that marriage should be defined by the church of the couples. I NEVER said that anyone who gets married in religious ceremonies should be denied calling their union a marriage. I am pretty sure I said the exact opposite. I said that marriage is a religious term and that it should be defined and issued by churches. I never said that Catholic-based churches should have the monopoly on this. Civil Union should be defined by the country/state in which the couples fill out the paperwork and are wed by a licensed justice. In my church, same sex couples cannot be married, in other churches they can. The government should not recognize any religious marriages that do not have legal backing from witnesses, forms and a justice/judge/whatnot. I am not sure but I think priests cannot become judges anyway. So this would redefine who can get people legally wed.

--Ocram

Marriage is not strictly a religious term.

Here. Explanation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD-INsIbVcw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI

As you said above, marriage is not in fact a religious term. I don't see why you want to reserve it for religion, especially since that confers all the status and societal recognition inherent in the established term 'marriage' exclusively on religious marriages. If you want to use separate words, why not my suggestion of marriage for legal marriage, and add the legally meaningless 'religious union' for those who want to use it within the context of a church?

1. Marriage is not sacred. It is a legal term.

2. It does not satisfy the progressives.

3. Satisfying the social conservatives is like finding a person who wants to eat a chihuahua puppy alive and another who is trying to save the puppy and deciding that the best way to satisfy both is to allow the one person to only eat the puppy's hind legs. Neither is happy and the puppy is quietly sobbing in pain.





Matrimony is not marriage. Matrimony is a sacrament. Marriage is a legal term. You cannot use the two interchangeably.



Why "should" they? And again, matrimony =/= marriage.



So because the US government has done it before, and because religion is apparently incapable of updating their vocabulary, the government should be the one to do so?



So, because religions want to discriminate and people don't want them to, we should separate matrimony and civil unions to allow religions to discriminate?

Why should religions have the right to discriminate? Making a law specifically to allow them to do so violates Separation of Church and State - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."



No, you're just taking the word "marriage" away from atheists and people whose churches won't allow them to marry. And for no good reason, I might add.
And what are you supposed to use as a verb for civil union, anyway? Civilly united? Doesn't have the same ring to it.



...which it is not, since it's a legal term. You yourself said "I guess it's not as religious as I thought it was".



Okay, you've brought this up a couple times, so I feel the need to address this.

Drive-through weddings are exactly as rigorous as a civil union or marriage in Las Vegas. You can get marriage licenses with no waiting time (unlike other states, where you need to apply, then wait some period of time to receive it). Unlike in TV, you also can't be visibly intoxicated when you do so, which means no waking up to find that you're suddenly married after too much booze. There is no difference in legal procedure: you get the license, you get a trained official (who may or may not look like Elvis - drive-through officiants are all legally licensed) and you do the ceremony. If you have a problem with Nevada's laws - or Clark County's - that has nothing to do with the business itself.

The verb for Civil Union is joined, the verb for Matrimony is married.


--Ocram

Glad to know that you gleaned such valuable information from my post and that you felt the need to engage so much of it in reasonable debate.

Well, I read somewhere that some states don't recognize Las Vegas weddings. I think that if a national government forces other states to recognize them, the national government should be able to set a standard. I also have many problems with Nevada's law. I hope it gets depopulated because of the drought. California should build Desalination Plants and cutoff supply to some neighboring states or the coastal state will ironically dry up as well (I like California more than Nevada).

Now I have a Katy Perry song stuck in my mind (hint: "Why I'm wearing your class ring?")

Anyway, my supposedly touch-screen compatible gloves are not very warm and I already drained half my phone battery (and it is super cold outside).

--Ocram

...You think that we should force people out of their homes because you don't like their state's laws? Right, I don't like Washington's laws, so next time you experience a natural disaster like a tsunami, I hope they cut off all help for you so that you'll have to move out of your home and depopulate the state.

Vegas marriages are completely legal as long as you get the license and get officiated. They can't refuse to accept a marriage because of where it came from, and if they didn't follow those steps, then they're not married.