2 ms·

I can, and I do. Weddings are about the people getting married, unless for some reason you think people get married for your sake or for their friends' sakes. I

I can, and I do. Weddings are about the people getting married, unless for some reason you think people get married for your sake or for their friends' sakes. If somebody has a problem, there's no law or hit squad sent out to compel them. It's unreasonable to have this attitude that people should limit their weddings just to "respect your time"

jfengel 5y ago
Public weddings are also about the guests. The guests serve a function: they witness the promises, and tacitly agree to help support them in fulfilling it. (I've even been to ceremonies that make that explicit: the guests are asked to reply to a vow with "We do".) Not every couple wants that. Some elope, and others hold ceremonies only because they think relatives and friends demand it of them. The latter is unfortunate, because it imposes a burden on the new couple that they shouldn't have to shoulder. But the couple should consider that community can be a crucial part of the success of their marriage, in ways that they may not recognize (especially if they're young). It can benefit them to have the community at the ceremony and feel invested in the marriage (for however they define "community"). Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved. I think we have some overlap, I just lean more towards disregarding guests. For me it's strictly a matter of whether people come or not. If they want witness or someone to come, then yes the couple needs to be practical and consider compromise. But if they want support, then no, I don't think it's necessary to compromise. Someone's support of a couple shouldn't be based on how convenient and fun the couple's wedding was.

jfengel 5y ago

Public weddings are also about the guests. The guests serve a function: they witness the promises, and tacitly agree to help support them in fulfilling it. (I've even been to ceremonies that make that explicit: the guests are asked to reply to a vow with "We do".) Not every couple wants that. Some elope, and others hold ceremonies only because they think relatives and friends demand it of them. The latter is unfortunate, because it imposes a burden on the new couple that they shouldn't have to shoulder. But the couple should consider that community can be a crucial part of the success of their marriage, in ways that they may not recognize (especially if they're young). It can benefit them to have the community at the ceremony and feel invested in the marriage (for however they define "community"). Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved.

silicon2401 5y ago
> Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved. I think we have some overlap, I just lean more towards disregarding guests. For me it's strictly a matter of whether people come or not. If they want witness or someone to come, then yes the couple needs to be practical and consider compromise. But if they want support, then no, I don't think it's necessary to compromise. Someone's support of a couple shouldn't be based on how convenient and fun the couple's wedding was.