Replies: 183 (Who?), Viewed: 49493 times.
Page 1 of 8
Inventor
Original Poster
#1 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 2:31 AM
Default Should gay marriage be called marriage?
Today the subject of gay marriage came up. I said it should be legal, because I have no right to tell someone else who they can or can't marry. Someone else said it should be legal, but it should not be called marriage because it undermines or disrupts the definition of marriage we have had for thousands of years; meaning one man and one woman. That gays being married is not the definition of marriage we have had for so long...

I think that was completely stupid, selfish, and a a little hypocritical. They should be able to get married AND call it marriage.


P.S.- If this post offends anyone, too bad. This is one of the few times I will not apologize.
Advertisement
Site Helper
#2 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 2:44 AM
Of course. Gay marriages should be called marriages and there should be no reason to add the word "gay" at the front. I can't think of even one good reason for calling it something else.

As far as the "traditional" definition of marriage, what about polygamous marriages? They were called marriages long before someone decided that marriage should just be one man and one woman.
Field Researcher
#3 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 2:58 AM
Ditto both of you. It should not only be called marriage (since that is what it is), and it should be understood it IS just "marriage" just like anyone elses. My husband is Scottish, we are not "Scottish Married", we are just married.

And to add to what Mootilda said on Polygamy, this too should be legal and recognized. Who the hell am I to decided that only monogamy should be allowed. People are so freaking self-righteous. Who do they think they are to assume their way is THE right way. What a bunch of ego-maniacs.
Field Researcher
#4 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 3:02 AM
Yes. Because, as the saying goes, I parked my car this morning; I didn't gay park it.

Well that's what happens when you're on your own and you're alright at letting nice things go
Inventor
Original Poster
#5 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 3:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mootilda
Of course. Gay marriages should be called marriages and there should be no reason to add the word "gay" at the front. I can't think of even one good reason for calling it something else.


Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mootilda
As far as the "traditional" definition of marriage, what about polygamous marriages? They were called marriages long before someone decided that marriage should just be one man and one woman.


I asked that, she said it was illegal.
Mad Poster
#6 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 3:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoopy_loopy
Yes. Because, as the saying goes, I parked my car this morning; I didn't gay park it.

I'm bisexual drinking a can of cherry 7Up right now! As a bisexual woman who may end up in a long-term relationship with a man or a woman I look forward to my hypothetical bisexual marriage. But now it's time for me to head up to bed for some bisexual sleep... :-)
Instructor
#7 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 3:18 AM
Yes. Sí. Ja. Other affirmatives.
*shrugs*
staff: moderator
#8 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 3:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo06girl
.... but it should not be called marriage because it undermines or disrupts the definition of marriage we have had for thousands of years....


Why doesn't anyone find this commercial offensive?! Chicken and crunchy stuff can't get married! How dare they've use the all-sacred term "marriage" so loosely. Arrrghh!

Seriously, people use the term "marriage" so loosely...but get bent out of shape when it comes to gays. Marriage is marriage.

I don't mind if you call me "MSD" or something for short.
Tumblr
Perhaps someday I'll have leisure time back...
Forum Resident
#9 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 3:29 AM
We should absolutely not refer to gay marriages as marriages. The proper thing to do would be to refer to all marriages as gay marriages. That way, when people protest against gay marriage, they will have to stay single and never have kids, thus ending a generation of bigots.

Gay marriage for everyone. You know it's the right thing to do.

"Given enough time, hydrogen starts to wonder where it came from, and where it is going." - Edward R. Harrison
Undead Molten Llama
#10 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 3:34 AM
I tend to think it's a good idea to call a duck a duck, myself, no matter how many people think that some ducks should be called geese.

For further blathering from me on the subject, I refer you to this: http://www.modthesims.info/showthre...794#post4104794 Otherwise, I'm too sleepy to reiterate all of it.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Instructor
#11 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 3:41 AM
iCad, to be fair, the proper term for the animal known as a duck is a 'quackling'.
Undead Molten Llama
#12 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 3:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GabyBee
iCad, to be fair, the proper term for the animal known as a duck is a 'quackling'.


Is not! It's a quacker! Anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic who will burn in Las Vegas. (Because we all know that Las Vegas is worse and hotter than hell. )

...'K, I'm going to bed now. It's probably best, before I really get silly.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
#13 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 4:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElementMK
We should absolutely not refer to gay marriages as marriages. The proper thing to do would be to refer to all marriages as gay marriages. That way, when people protest against gay marriage, they will have to stay single and never have kids, thus ending a generation of bigots.

Gay marriage for everyone. You know it's the right thing to do.

What the H? I'm sorry, but I just don't see how that could even make sense. We refer to all marriages as gay marriages (even though not everyone is gay and "gay" could also mean happy), then...people who protest against gay marriage would have to stay single and never have kids, thus ending a generation of bigots? Uh...how, exactly? By law, or just by the fact that all marriages are gay marriages?

My opinion on gay marriages is that...well...it should be legal, and it shouldn't be called "gay marriages" because...well...who cares, you know? Marriage is marriage, why call it something else?

But I'm just saying "gay marriage" so that people could get as to what exactly I'm referring to. *shrugs* I guess it shouldn't be called gay marriage all the time, maybe just to explain it to people so it makes sense.

And to add on what to ElementMK said, why don't we just ignore people who protest about gay marriage and think about other things? I mean, that would make sense, 'cause people who protest these kinds of things are kind of like haters, and who cares about haters; there's too many of those morons on YouTube. That, and too many people who reply back to them and write about how stupid they are.

In conclusion, I think that we should make gay marriages legal, call it just simply "marriage" and only put "gay" in front of it so it could make sense, and ignore all the people who protest about gay marriage so we could think about other things and get things done faster. I'm sorry if anyone disagrees with my opinion, but I just think the world would be a better place if there weren't so many people who complained about any of this stuff.

Edit: Or...we could just...ignore my opinion...
Instructor
#14 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 4:13 AM
I think ElementMK was being sarcastic. The internet really needs a sarcasm font...
#15 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 4:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GabyBee
I think ElementMK was being sarcastic. The internet really needs a sarcasm font...

Yeah, I think you're right. :P
Mad Poster
#16 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 5:47 AM
What is this definition of "marriage" that we've had for thousands of years? That a man may marry many women (biblical marriage)? That an old man may marry a young girl of 11 or 12 (American west in the 1800s)? That a white person and a black person may not marry at all (America for too long)? That you must marry who your parents tell you to (many cultures for many centuries)? That marriage is really a business deal about exchanging property (most of Europe and other parts of the world for many centuries)? Or one of the other many traditions of marriage that have existed since the beginning of time?

When people make the argument for "traditional" marriage, I think they have some tv version from the 50s in mind. They need a reality check.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Retired
retired moderator
#17 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 6:03 AM
Gays should be able to married, they should just call it "garage".

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Mad Poster
#18 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 7:26 AM
What, OP? I don't get the question. It's . . . you don't call it straight marriage, do you?


Angie/DS | Baby Sterling - 24/2/2014
This account is mostly used by my sons to download CC now, if you see me active, it's probably just them!
Undead Molten Llama
#19 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 2:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_tea
Gays should be able to married, they should just call it "garage".


I dunno, kiwi...Some people have more than one car in their garages, you know. Having "gay garage" might set a bad precedent. (Or a good one, depending on how you look at things. )

Anyway, in an attempt to make this less silly, I'll say this: The people who are against calling a marriage between two people of the same sex a marriage as opposed to something else, generally have this mindset:

"I think gays are icky, even if I don't want to admit to my prejudice. I don't like seeing them do Things in public where my children might see them and I might have to Explain Things and maybe have to tell them that it's OK for two men to kiss even though seeing them do so makes me uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'm not enough of a dickhead to deny them the right to, for instance, allow them to make legal and medical decisions for their incapacitated partners. So, sure, give them the same rights, but for the love of Shiva don't call it marriage. Because that would mean that the icky gay people can have the same thing that I, a normal straight person, can have. And that would be icky."

So they can do all the smokescreening they want, but what it really boils down to is...bullshit. And lying to themselves. And justifying their prejudice to themselves. Really, what OTHER reason could there possibly be to have an institution with the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as marriage but calling it something other than marriage? Honestly, the people with the above mindset actually tick me off more than the WBCesque folks. At least the WBC is honest about what they think, not wishy-washy and trying to have the appearance of being accepting and fair and all that without actually BEING those things.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Top Secret Researcher
#20 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 4:00 PM
Calling same-sex marriage something different smells like "Separate Yet Equal". Everyone gets the same rights, but keep it separate so we don't get the blacks...I mean gays, get the gays in our institutions. And we all know how well that went after the US Civil War.
Mad Poster
#21 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 4:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Calling same-sex marriage something different smells like "Separate Yet Equal". Everyone gets the same rights, but keep it separate so we don't get the blacks...I mean gays, get the gays in our institutions. And we all know how well that went after the US Civil War.


That's why children born to gay parents end up having two men or two women on their birth certificates. We all need to be equal even though that's physically impossible.
Top Secret Researcher
#22 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 5:10 PM Last edited by hugbug993 : 1st Apr 2013 at 6:11 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocobaura
That's why children born to gay parents end up having two men or two women on their birth certificates. We all need to be equal even though that's physically impossible.


Pfft. Give genetics a few years, and we'll be having kids with two same-sex bio-parents. EQUALITY AND BETTER LIVING THROUGH SCIENCE.

On an aside, the parents on a birth certificate are usually the parents who will take care of the child. Even if they aren't biologically the parent, as some men will willingly put their name on the birth certificate of a child who they know isn't theirs. So if a gay couple is going to take care of it, why shouldn't their names be on the birth certificate?
Undead Molten Llama
#23 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 5:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocobaura
That's why children born to gay parents end up having two men or two women on their birth certificates. We all need to be equal even though that's physically impossible.


Even if that were true (and it generally isn't), what does that have to do with whether or not homosexual marriage should be called marriage if it confers all the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges that heterosexual marriage has? The argument, as I read it, is "We're not talking about whether or not gay marriage is OK. We're talking about the terminology applied to it."

I say that if something is the same, it should be called the same thing. Otherwise, the implication is that it actually isn't the same. And if it's not the same, it's not right. If it IS the same, but we call it something different, then hugbug is correct in that it's a "separate but equal" situation, just like civil rights for blacks in the US in the 60s. IMO, the mindset wasn't fair or right then. It still isn't.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Mad Poster
#24 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 5:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Pfft. Give genetics a few years, and we'll be having kids with two same-sex bio-parents. EQUALITY AND BETTER LIVING THROUGH SCIENCE.

Frankenbabies! It's not enough that people who do IVF select the sex of their babies, now we're going to genetically engineer them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
On an aside, the parents on a birth certificate are usually the parents who will take care of the child. Even if they aren't biologically the parent, as some men will willingly put their name on the birth certificate of a child who they know isn't theirs. So if a gay couple is going to take care of it, why shouldn't their names be on the birth certificate?


Parents on the birth certificate are and should be the biological parents of the baby. The reason men have got away with recognising children that aren't theirs is because nobody will bother to do a test as long as they assume the responsibility of raising that child, and should there be a paternity dispute biological parents usually win. But two men or two women, how do they give birth to a child? Maybe they should call it a parental certificate.
Top Secret Researcher
#25 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 6:06 PM Last edited by hugbug993 : 1st Apr 2013 at 6:36 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocobaura
Frankenbabies! It's not enough that people who do IVF select the sex of their babies, now we're going to genetically engineer them.


Yep. Cool, huh?

Taking two sets of genes split into two by meiosis and putting them together: the product is truly a freak of nature. Oh...wait...

Quote:
Parents on the birth certificate are and should be the biological parents of the baby. The reason men have got away with recognising children that aren't theirs is because nobody will bother to do a test as long as they assume the responsibility of raising that child, and should there be a paternity dispute biological parents usually win.


Actually, if someone does do a paternity test and the father on the certificate isn't the bio-parent, the name still stays on the certificate.

Quote:
But two men or two women, how do they give birth to a child? Maybe they should call it a parental certificate.


THROUGH SCIENCE!

Well, it is scientifically possible for a man to carry a child to term. The problem is, there are no willing test subjects.
As for women, they can give birth to a child through this thing called a uterus.

And no, they're not calling it a parental certificate. That's because a birth certificate is a legal document that a person has been born, not a legal document that two people are parents. Otherwise, instead of one copy, all households would get one for each parent.
Page 1 of 8
Back to top