The name of the game is "wedding chicken".

[LoZoccolo]

Each person puts down how much their wedding cost, and as soon as someone posts a cheaper wedding, the people with more expensive weddings have to apologize to them and are not allowed to comment on the Clinton wedding unless they can provide scanned documents that establish that they have since given more to charity than they spent on their wedding.

Only charitable contributions given after the wedding count; you are not allowed to "buy" an expensive wedding by giving a lot to charity before the wedding and think that you are entitled to an expensive wedding.

Anyone who does not post in this thread is not allowed to comment on the Clinton wedding.

Anyone who has not been married is not allowed to comment on the Clinton wedding.

Anyone who had a wedding without a reception has instantly lost the game of "wedding chicken", but can make their way back in by eating a string organic vegan diet for a week (you cannot buy the food at Whole Foods because the CEO is a libertarian).

I have no idea how this game actually relates to the game of chicken.

[Radical Activist]

1. Chicken isn't vegan

corporatist butcher

[hfojvt]

2. the name of the game seems to be

"find a silly way to justify outrageous spending."

See, people with $10,000 weddings have to apologize to people with $5,000 weddings and they both have to apologize to people with $2,000 weddings (my parents do not post here, but they may have paid less than $100 in 1957.) Because, of course, an $80,000 house is just as outrageous as a $20,000,000 house to a guy with a $35,000 house (like I live in now) and both are just as outrageous to a guy with a $4,500 mobile home (which I lived in, in 1987), and a $60 watch is just as outrageous to a guy with a $5 watch as a $500,000 watch is. Amazing how that works.

5 < 70
5 < 70,000,000
therefore
70 = 70,000,000

[Mugweed]

3. The celebration of marriage is dumb anyway

The idea of having a big party, inviting everyone you know, spending a bunch of money just for the unremarkable event of a man and woman getting married is just stupid. It's my opinion that it perpetuates the idea that somehow this is a special thing and should not be sullied by men doing the same with other men, or women doing the same with other women.

Anyway, who gives two shits about the Clinton wedding?

[customerserviceguy]

4. I don't see anything wrong with people

celebrating a marriage by having a wedding where friends and family can come together. It's the ostentatious way that weddings are celebrated that bothers me.

The only thing stupider than an ornate wedding, is an overblown funeral.

[Th1onein]

5. They earned the money; they should spend it however they like.

It's their money. Who are we to judge how they spend it?

[SheilaT]

6. To me the issue is

going into debt, or paying for a lavish party when the money might better be used for a down payment on a house. Or save for retirement or some future financial crisis.

I no longer recall exactly what I spent on my wedding in 1980. I can tell you that we paid for everything in cash at the time. And pulled it all together (with my sister-in-law's help) inside of about ten days. I wore a dress I'd had for several years and had always liked. I told my one attendant to wear whatever she felt like. It was just family and a few close friends, not a lavish party by any standards -- other than if you think there should be absolutely no celebration of a marriage.

Oh, and I didn't have anyone "give me away". I've always felt that was a totally stupid custom. The idea that the bride belongs to one man (typically her father) and is given away to another man is offensive to me.