|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Live together, never marry?
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
SSM seems to benefit from a different dynamic. If heterosexual marriage is patriarchal, old-fashioned, or conservative, SSM is about breaking down barriers, subverting norms, defying conventions.
Some cynics have said that SSM activists have basically saddled themselves with a dying, anachronistic institution.
You may well be right - I don't know.
(See also my comment on the previous page).
[ 26. June 2016, 13:24: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think it will be the reverse. Ironically, after decades of the religious right declaring emphatically that SSM equals the complete and immediate destruction of "traditional" marriage, I believe SSM may be the thing that saves it. There's something about seeing people fight hard for the thing you took for granted, the overwhelming joy of an entire community when the doors at long last opened. If that doesn't make our cold hetero hearts break open a bit nothing will. The effect is probably temporary-- in a generation young GLBTQs will forget the fight and take it for granted as many young women do with feminism today. Still, I will cherish it while it lasts
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm inclined to think that Britain, and Europe in general, is too secular and too individualistic for SSM to 'save marriage' as such. I don't think it's had that effect in any country where it's become legal - but I could be wrong.
If the CofE decides to change its theology and practice then the media will take an interest, but I doubt that the change will have much effect on the society as a whole.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
In any case, we have to break the link between "marriage" and "having a lovely wedding".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
That can only happen if a marriage becomes important for its own sake, rather than just being one way among others for a couple to organise their lives together.
The problem for the clergy, perhaps, is that couples must often choose a religious wedding precisely because they want something 'lovely'. They want something that looks traditional, i.e. likely to cost a lot of money. Those who don't care about that, if they're not especially religious, probably choose a registry office or other low key venue.
Last week my cousin in London got married in pink trousers with a neckerchief and dark jacket, rather than a traditional suit. Would that have looked acceptable at a church wedding? If I got married in a simple blouse and skirt would that be completely out of place in my parish church? Do I really have to 'walk up the aisle? If I only want 10 guests won't a 200-seater church feel incredibly empty?
Ministers could perhaps try to promote the religious wedding as something counter-cultural, something that doesn't have to involve lots of faff and expense. But do they ever try to do that?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I've helped at a CofE religious wedding with 20 guests in a side chapel, no hymns or organ, CD for entrance, signing of registers and exit, simple summer dress for the bride, lounge suit for the groom, no verger in costume. This was before the pricing structure changed in the last few years so cost the basic minimum at the time - something like £400. This couple desperately wanted to marry in a church where they had lots of links, had planned a bigger wedding, but injuries following a car crash and redundancy had scaled it back. They replanned it timed to coincide with a big family celebration, which had happened the day before, so the scattered family had flown back for parents golden wedding, or whatever, and the wedding party made use of leftovers.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The problem is that generally/reputedly church people are not traditionally counter-cultural in other ways either.
More than that: churches want to promote marriage, and don't stop to ask if "proper weddings" need to be the concomitant.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
The assumption behind the OP is that marriage is the default choice, and living together is odd, uncomfortable for other family members, and second-best. I don't know about Canada, Britain, and other places shipmates live, but in the US, unmarried adults now outnumber married adults. People who do marry are delaying marriage until later in life, and increasing numbers of people never marry.
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
"Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
In some British (and also French, etc.) circles, such questions wouldn't be unknown.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
VirginiaKneeling
Apprentice
# 18414
|
Posted
Well, I've been married. Twice. One short, horrible one, and one long (35 years) one that finally ended because of his intractable alcoholism, mostly. My ex is now, as Precious Ramotswe would say, late. Our children are grown; one has died, the other two are settled. My gentleman has also been married twice, once for 24 years (he says 22, because he counts it from the time he moved out, not when the divorce was final), and the second time for 6 years, a rebound from another relationship, which he puts to a poor decision on his part. We knew each other for well over 4 years, and he courted me seriously for 2 years, before we moved in together, and I don't think either of us has regretted the decision. But marriage? I don't think so. We've both been down that road. Besides, there are financial considerations in the US that make it very difficult at our age--Social Security, pensions, and whatnot. And he doesn't want to saddle me with *his* debts, which are somewhat greater than mine, should he predecease me (we own nothing in common). We're quite content as we are, and have started the legal steps to making each other power of attorney and so forth. My children are cool with it and he has no children to worry about, and no near relatives.
--------------------
Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me..
Posts: 11 | From: Virginia, USA | Registered: May 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ministers could perhaps try to promote the religious wedding as something counter-cultural, something that doesn't have to involve lots of faff and expense. But do they ever try to do that?
Some do. I do. But it often feels like swimming upstream.
Interestingly, Mormons very much do this (my daughter is LDS and married in an LDS ceremony). Mormon weddings are very small scale, especially if they take place in the Temple where you need an "recommend" from your bishop to enter. Even many Mormons don't get one, and definitely no non-LDS, so Mormon weddings are usually short ceremonies attended by 2-3 witnesses and that's it. Lots of emphasis on the spiritual aspect, every low cost. In Utah there are outfits that rent wedding gowns very cheaply (at least compared to traditional gowns), which is the usual for Mormon brides. They're designed to fit over the "Mormon knickers" but in two pieces, so the bride can choose the skirt she likes and the bodice she likes separately.
When my daughter married in the LDS church (setting aside all the issues related to her choosing a different faith) I was of course disappointed not to be able to attend her wedding, but we were able to have a very nice, simple reception the next day-- very, very modest-- almost miserly by mainstream American standards, but lavish by LDS standards, where if there is anything at all it's just cake and punch.
In talking with daughter & son-in-law about the different cultural, I said what I love about the LDS tradition is the focus on the ceremony, commitment and faith aspects, and what I dislike was how private and isolated it was. Conversely, what I dislike about mainstream American ceremonies is the ridiculous lavish expense (reportedly upwards of $20K) that only seems to put stress on the marriage rather than enhancing it. But what I love is the focus on community-- that this is not just a private ceremony but really an act of an entire community of friends & family coming together to support & celebrate. I hope that what we came up with was a meld of the best of both cultures.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The assumption behind the OP is that marriage is the default choice, and living together is odd, uncomfortable for other family members, and second-best. I don't know about Canada, Britain, and other places shipmates live, but in the US, unmarried adults now outnumber married adults. People who do marry are delaying marriage until later in life, and increasing numbers of people never marry.
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
Because we wanted to affirm with family, not just ourselves, that we committed to each other. And the idea that there was something beyond ourselves also involved, i e God.
Additionally for me, my father's family had been all war killed. Everyone. 12 families of cousins and others more distant. (We located 1 cousin born in 1943 in 2005, but it didn't change the feelings about family.) We exist because my grandfather fled in 1938 from Germany and then in 1942 from Hong Kong via Manila. Family was a central thing, even as my father's trauma was passed along.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The assumption behind the OP is that marriage is the default choice, and living together is odd, uncomfortable for other family members, and second-best. I don't know about Canada, Britain, and other places shipmates live, but in the US, unmarried adults now outnumber married adults. People who do marry are delaying marriage until later in life, and increasing numbers of people never marry.
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
Because we wanted to affirm with family, not just ourselves, that we committed to each other. And the idea that there was something beyond ourselves also involved, i e God.
Additionally for me, my father's family had been all war killed. Everyone. 12 families of cousins and others more distant. (We located 1 cousin born in 1943 in 2005, but it didn't change the feelings about family.) We exist because my grandfather fled in 1938 from Germany and then in 1942 from Hong Kong via Manila. Family was a central thing, even as my father's trauma was passed along.
In your OP you set aside religious and traditional issues. With respect, I'd say that's what you've cited here. If family isn't tradition, nothing is.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Also, given the intensity of your feeling about this, wouldn't you be a bit put out if you were periodically asked to justify your decision to get married?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The assumption behind the OP is that marriage is the default choice, and living together is odd, uncomfortable for other family members, and second-best. I don't know about Canada, Britain, and other places shipmates live, but in the US, unmarried adults now outnumber married adults. People who do marry are delaying marriage until later in life, and increasing numbers of people never marry.
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
That's already happened to me a few times. I would never ask someone when or if they were going to get married. I would consider that bad manners as well as none of my business, but I have had friends who were in living-together relationships say, in front of long married us, "We don't need a piece of paper to tell us we love each other."
___________________________
Adding to the wedding stories: We were married in a Methodist church with just thirty guests. We had a small dinner reception afterward, total cost about $300. Maybe our little crowd did look funny in the front of a church that seats 200 but I never thought of it till now. My Catholic father-in-law always called it that Buddhist wedding for some reason. He spent a fortune on huge weddings for his eight daughters and was sorry he didn't, in his words, "get to collect."
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I've helped at a CofE religious wedding with 20 guests in a side chapel, no hymns or organ, CD for entrance, signing of registers and exit, simple summer dress for the bride, lounge suit for the groom, no verger in costume.
I think I've mentioned before that I've been at a C of E wedding that took place in the normal Sunday service. B&G were both young, wore the best clothes they owned, and all the parishioners brought a dish to a lunch afterwards.
Having a wedding in the Sunday service is unusual, but spending silly amounts of money is strictly optional.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
I'm only somewhat in no prophet's flag's camp, in that I am a big fan of commitment, but would never ask anyone whether they were going to marry or even think committed people need to do so. I am asked that sometimes though, and I am totally okay with that. On the flip side, when my sister and her wife thought they would not ever want to formally get married, I asked whether they were on that level of commitment (yes) and asking if they had a name for their relationship (no). I told her cheerfully that I totally respected that, and being a person who needs words and a boring old fart, I was going to privately think of them as married unless they developed a new word. She said that was fine, and they did eventually decide marriage was right for them, so I guess they agreed on some level.
I knew that would be okay with my sister, or I wouldn't have said it, but I've always wondered how others feel about it. To those who don't plan to marry, is it offensive if others privately think of you as married? What word would be better?
[ 27. June 2016, 00:40: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
I'd feel it was a perfectly understandable question given the current situation in the United States vis-a-vis marriage. I feel like you want me to say I'd be offended or annoyed. But I would not.
Oh, and I want to echo those who say they'd never ask somebody I'd they intended to marry, or why they had not.
[ 27. June 2016, 01:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In your OP you set aside religious and traditional issues. With respect, I'd say that's what you've cited here. If family isn't tradition, nothing is.
Family history isn't tradition. Traditions are things passed along, culturally and by habit within a group. I don't consider family history as tradition. I think you have conflated personal experience into history.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Questions like who makes medical decisions for someone incapacitated, who is allowed into a hospital room, who inherits apply to singles, too, including elderly who outlived their families.
A partial solution I picked up from friends is to tell the hospital the names of a few "siblings" - apparently they don't demand proof. If you say Betsy is your sister, they let her visit you.
As to the rest, there is paperwork available, but it can be surprisingly hard to get hold of, and even harder to get hold of clear explanations what it means in practical effects.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
"In a way that questions your choices..." is the thing that I was trying to remove from no prophet's question. If you go in to any discussion with the assumption that the other person's choices are all wrong, then it's unlikely to go well, whatever the subject matter.
But the actual question "why did you feel like you needed to marry" doesn't do that.
Gwai asked her sister if she should treat her as effectively married, and got the answer "yes". There's no accusation or value judgement in Gwai's question - just a request for clarification of status.
For my part, you're welcome to ask me why I felt it necessary to get married. I'd tell you that, regardless of what society thought, it was my default. I'd tell you that I thought that the promises made in marriage were important, and that if Mrs. C and I were going to make those promises to each other, why would we not do so in the traditional way? And I might talk about how publicly advertising my marriage co-opts the wider society into helping us keep our vows.
There's a bunch of other conveniences that come along with being married. You can't get a US visa for "unmarried partner of visa applicant", for example, which would have been a problem for us has we not been married, we married long before we had an idea that that might be an issue.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
When NZ passed the Civil Union legislation, we didn't immediately take the opportunity to civilly unite. When we did, about 4 years later, before the changes to the Marriage Act, most people we spoke to said, "Oh, you're getting married."
Officially we weren't, the law made that very clear. But in the eyes of many of the public (such as our pharmacists, our local greengrocer, colleagues, etc.) we were.
Having lived together without being able to marry, being civilly united, and, now, considering whether a third wedding is being greedy (for the purposes of getting married as opposed to civilly united), the only difference, and it's huge, is the legal protections. But then, we're both feminists and hate it when anyone refers to either of us as the other's wife.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Arabella, excuse my ignorance, but I didn't realise there was a difference in the legal protections. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I think that's iniquitous.
Thank goodness you now have the option of getting married should you wish to do so.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem for the clergy, perhaps, is that couples must often choose a religious wedding precisely because they want something 'lovely'. They want something that looks traditional, i.e. likely to cost a lot of money. Those who don't care about that, if they're not especially religious, probably choose a registry office or other low key venue.
I'm sorry but this comment seems way out of touch with the wedding venue industry in this country. My son got married 2 weeks ago in such a place, complete with all the trimmings (and more) that you would expect in a church wedding (bar the religious bit of course) and it certainly was lavish and 'lovely' - I'm still reeling from the several thousand pound contribution that was required of me - brides parents and grooms parents put in about £10,000 between them, and the couple themselves put in nearly as much, as far as I can work out.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Arabella, excuse my ignorance, but I didn't realise there was a difference in the legal protections. I think that's iniquitous.
Thank goodness you now have the option of getting married should you wish to do so.
Huia
Sorry, I didn't write it well - there isn't a difference BTW civil unions and marriages. Don't be alarmed. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) It was the reason we civilly united but there's no real reason to get married.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
But then, we're both feminists and hate it when anyone refers to either of us as the other's wife.
I'm wondering about this. Does it mean you think you can't be both a wife and a feminist or do you find the condition of being a wife submissive in all cases?
[ 27. June 2016, 11:15: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There is a difference in the States between married and non-married couples as to end-of-life or incapacitated-state decisions. Too often the fact that a couple had been partnered for decades suddenly no longer matters when one of them needs the other to make tough medical decisions. The family would step in, and the healthy partner would get pushed aside and their decisions ignored, even if they by any right would know the dying person's mind, and the dying person hadn't spoken to (or been spoken to by) their family for as many decades. Which is one of the strongest reasons given for many of the LGBT+ people I know for wanting marriage equality.
Re. "wife" -- is it not possible to redefine the word so it no longer means submission, Arabella? Or do you think it's too far gone?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem for the clergy, perhaps, is that couples must often choose a religious wedding precisely because they want something 'lovely'. They want something that looks traditional, i.e. likely to cost a lot of money. Those who don't care about that, if they're not especially religious, probably choose a registry office or other low key venue.
I'm sorry but this comment seems way out of touch with the wedding venue industry in this country. My son got married 2 weeks ago in such a place, complete with all the trimmings (and more) that you would expect in a church wedding (bar the religious bit of course) and it certainly was lavish and 'lovely' - I'm still reeling from the several thousand pound contribution that was required of me - brides parents and grooms parents put in about £10,000 between them, and the couple themselves put in nearly as much, as far as I can work out.
There certainly are lots of different sorts of impressive (and impressively expensive) wedding venues available. The problem I think Svitlana is highlighting, though, is that in this whole hyped up wedding mania is that the church just becomes one more hyped-up venue, no different from a plush hotel. It's chosen not because of it's religious significance, but because of wholly other factors-- the beauty, the sense of "tradition" (in a vague way disconnected from what the tradition is about), how it will look in photos, etc. There's then a huge disconnect between the expectations of the couple and those of the clergy.
On the one hand, spending a sizable sum of money on a wedding marks the significance of the event-- you are symbolically investing in the ceremony. If that stays connected to the marriage-- i.e. the wedding as marker of the
marriage-- that makes sense. You are saying "I'm investing a lot in this ceremony because this event and what it says about our future together is important".
But I think for many, we've long since passed that point. We're at the point where the amount of money spent is far more than just a symbolic token of significance. Where instead in some cases it seems more about consumerism and ostentatious display than it is about honoring a commitment. And the shift has gone from being about the wedding as symbol for the marriage to it just t the wedding as an end to itself. When you spend so much $$ there is the sense that this has to be perfect-- after all, you spent a fortune on it. I just can't see how that sort of pressure and misplaced priorities can be a healthy way to begin a relationship.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
On the one hand, spending a sizable sum of money on a wedding marks the significance of the event -- you are symbolically investing in the ceremony. . . .
. . . But I think for many, we've long since passed that point. We're at the point where the amount of money spent is far more than just a symbolic token of significance. Where instead in some cases it seems more about consumerism and ostentatious display than it is about honoring a commitment.
How do you tell the difference between "symbolically investing in the ceremony" and "ostentatious display"? It seems like "ostentatious display" is when someone else decides to "symbolically invest". Is it another one of those irregular verbs?
I am symbolically investing
You are engaging in consumerism
They are ostentatious displaying
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
And, of course, there is the question of children, who can be quite expensive. During the various debates on same-sex marriage I was informed quite seriously, mostly by the religiously inclined, that the whole and sole purpose of marriage was procreation, which is why non-procreative couples should never be allowed to legally marry. Given how much time and effort was spent trying to sell this line, it should perhaps be no surprise that couples with no immediate plans to procreate decide they also have no immediate need to marry.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
On the one hand, spending a sizable sum of money on a wedding marks the significance of the event -- you are symbolically investing in the ceremony. . . .
. . . But I think for many, we've long since passed that point. We're at the point where the amount of money spent is far more than just a symbolic token of significance. Where instead in some cases it seems more about consumerism and ostentatious display than it is about honoring a commitment.
How do you tell the difference between "symbolically investing in the ceremony" and "ostentatious display"? It seems like "ostentatious display" is when someone else decides to "symbolically invest". Is it another one of those irregular verbs?
I am symbolically investing
You are engaging in consumerism
They are ostentatious displaying
Absolutely. It exists on a continuum, with a high degree of subjectivity and relativity. It's impossible to tell what's in my own heart much less someone else's, and motives are always mixed and change from one day to the next.
But the fact that something is subjective and relative and impossible to nail down does not mean it's not a real issue that needs to be identified.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Absolutely. It exists on a continuum, with a high degree of subjectivity and relativity. It's impossible to tell what's in my own heart much less someone else's, and motives are always mixed and change from one day to the next.
But the fact that something is subjective and relative and impossible to nail down does not mean it's not a real issue that needs to be identified.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) If it's "impossible to nail down" but the distinction between "symbolically investing" and "ostentatious display" is something that "needs to be identified", how do you proceed in the face of that impossibility? And why does the distinction need to be be nailed down? Can't whatever actions you're going to take or not take based on the determination tolerate the ambiguity?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Absolutely. It exists on a continuum, with a high degree of subjectivity and relativity. It's impossible to tell what's in my own heart much less someone else's, and motives are always mixed and change from one day to the next.
But the fact that something is subjective and relative and impossible to nail down does not mean it's not a real issue that needs to be identified.
If it's "impossible to nail down" but the distinction between "symbolically investing" and "ostentatious display" is something that "needs to be identified", how do you proceed in the face of that impossibility? And why does the distinction need to be be nailed down? Can't whatever actions you're going to take or not take based on the determination tolerate the ambiguity?
Reread the part you quoted. I didn't say the distinction needs to be identified, I said the issue needs to be identified. Those are two different things.
"Nailing down the distinction" would probably entail imposing some arbitrary rules that 2nd guess other people's priorities & choices & motives, which is inherently impossible and counter-productive for the reasons you highlighted and I heartily agree with. Passing judgment on any particular couple's wedding budget or choices similarly involves making assumptions you can't possibly know about their reasons and motives for each individual choice.
But that doesn't mean we can't highlight the issue of consumerism in general in the wedding industry, or the danger each of us (who marry) might face in having the whole thing get away from us so the focus is ceremony rather than what it represents. You don't have to be able to identify where each particular wedding or bride/groom falls on the continuum to be able to recognize that there IS a continuum and that the farther one goes along the "consumerist" side the more danger it poses for the marriage itself.
This is something more for individual soul-searching than for outsiders to 2nd guess other couples. But for clergypersons, who are charged with the responsibility of "care of souls"-- spiritual direction and counsel, especially when we are the ones officiating at the ceremony-- we're stuck somewhere in between. Just like everyone else, we can't know where the couple before us falls on the continuum, can't know their motives or see the future and how their present choices will impact their future relationship. But we are responsible to counsel the couple about the dangers and raise the issue for their own consideration and prayer.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
To the OP, I think that continuum is one reason (among so many others we've identified) that prevents couples from choosing to marry rather than co-habitate. In some cases as I mentioned earlier, it is the fact that the cultural pattern of hyper-expensive weddings prevents a financial barrier that causes couples to feel that they can't afford to marry. For others, it may be an instinctive and appropriate distaste for the waste and consumerism inherent in our cultural pattern, or the awareness that the pressures caused by the excess may ironically harm the relationship more than it helps. In either event, it seems prudent for churches, whose primary goal would be to encourage and support marriage rather than just weddings to identify and highlight more modest yet meaningful traditions & ways to honor the relationship w/o going down such a consumerist path.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This article may or may not shed some light. From the New Yorker magazine, "Casual Sex: Everyone Is Doing It." It talks about more than just casual sex, but also about marriage or not-marriage as options.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The cost for a marriage licence where I live is $60. The cost for a marriage commissioner is $75, with an extra $25 if a rehearsal is wanted. Marriage commissioners can charge mileage to travel at 40¢/km. -- I know of 2 couples who've married with minimal fuss like this, and then served tea and dainties in the Legion or church hall which rents for $200. Easily less than $1000, and possible for $500 if you make the tea and dainties yourself with family, which is commonly done (about £250).
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
But then, we're both feminists and hate it when anyone refers to either of us as the other's wife.
I'm wondering about this. Does it mean you think you can't be both a wife and a feminist or do you find the condition of being a wife submissive in all cases?
To be a wife has been, for much of human history, to be submissive. So, for some, it carries that connotation even in situations where there is no such intent.
ISTM, this is why, in some of the circles with which I associate, partner is the preferred term no matter what the gender mix or legal title of the union.
[ 27. June 2016, 17:08: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, this is why, in some of the circles with which I associate, partner is the preferred term no matter what the gender mix or legal title of the union.
And "partner" is not a bad term, as it seems to imply an equality of sorts. Although in business terms you can talk about a "majority partner" and a "minority partner." So the word is not universally seen as implying equality.
Although it seems to me in social contexts, at least those I frequent, "partner" implies "not married."
ETA: thought that just occurred to me: What's wrong with "spouse" if the problem is the power imbalance of "husband" and "wife"?
[ 27. June 2016, 17:13: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Although it seems to me in social contexts, at least those I frequent, "partner" implies "not married."
ISTM, this is partly generational.
quote:
ETA: thought that just occurred to me: What's wrong with "spouse" if the problem is the power imbalance of "husband" and "wife"?
Because spouse implies marriage. Using partner eliminates any hierarchy of relationship descriptions.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Although it seems to me in social contexts, at least those I frequent, "partner" implies "not married."
ISTM, this is partly generational.
That could be. Most of the social circles I frequent are people of my own generation (Jones), or close thereunto. Although I have learned heaps about relationships and privilege from my (sadly too few) Millennial friends.
quote:
[S]pouse implies marriage. Using partner eliminates any hierarchy of relationship descriptions.
Okay, I can see that. We had been talking about hierarchy within a relationship, but now are broadening the context to hierarchy between types of relationships, within which context this makes a good bit of sense.
[ 27. June 2016, 18:16: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
In the world of the U.S. Air Force, I used to be my husband's dependent, then became his spouse and now I'm his family member and he's my sponsor.
I think generation probably explains my slight dislike of "partner" because it sometimes sounds a little bit like a cold business arrangement to me. Yet, when my mother died, my father, born 1915, broke down crying, "I've lost my partner." I wouldn't have thought that would be his word for her. It did give me a mental picture of all they faced together in life, standing shoulder to shoulder.
The talk about end of life medical decisions just makes me glad I have a very detailed living will. My husband probably wouldn't know my wishes about those things and we've been married 36 years.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
For many centuries most people who got married just moved in together and got on with it.
It's strange how vexed we now are over people doing exactly what they used to do before the government decided everyone simply must get a certificate.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem for the clergy, perhaps, is that couples must often choose a religious wedding precisely because they want something 'lovely'. They want something that looks traditional, i.e. likely to cost a lot of money. Those who don't care about that, if they're not especially religious, probably choose a registry office or other low key venue.
I'm sorry but this comment seems way out of touch with the wedding venue industry in this country. My son got married 2 weeks ago in such a place, complete with all the trimmings (and more) that you would expect in a church wedding (bar the religious bit of course) and it certainly was lavish and 'lovely' - I'm still reeling from the several thousand pound contribution that was required of me - brides parents and grooms parents put in about £10,000 between them, and the couple themselves put in nearly as much, as far as I can work out.
There certainly are lots of different sorts of impressive (and impressively expensive) wedding venues available. The problem I think Svitlana is highlighting, though, is that in this whole hyped up wedding mania is that the church just becomes one more hyped-up venue, no different from a plush hotel. It's chosen not because of it's religious significance, but because of wholly other factors-- the beauty, the sense of "tradition" (in a vague way disconnected from what the tradition is about), how it will look in photos, etc. There's then a huge disconnect between the expectations of the couple and those of the clergy.
Yes, that's right. I wasn't saying that civil weddings are inevitably cheaper than church weddings, but that those who are very keen to have a low cost wedding are probably unlikely to marry at church.
Of course, a typical bride and groom in Britain aren't churchgoers; those who are may think about it differently.
It was interesting to read cliffdweller's post about low key Mormon weddings. I wonder if religious people in the secular West generally spend less on getting married than other people do?
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I've helped at a CofE religious wedding with 20 guests in a side chapel, no hymns or organ, CD for entrance, signing of registers and exit, simple summer dress for the bride, lounge suit for the groom, no verger in costume.
I think I've mentioned before that I've been at a C of E wedding that took place in the normal Sunday service. B&G were both young, wore the best clothes they owned, and all the parishioners brought a dish to a lunch afterwards.
I quite like the idea of getting married during a church service, but I imagine that the elderly churchgoers I know would find such a thing highly irregular.
It wouldn't be popular with non-churchgoers either, since it would combine the awkwardness of attending church with the anxiety of getting married!
[ 27. June 2016, 23:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It was interesting to read cliffdweller's post about low key Mormon weddings. I wonder if religious people in the secular West generally spend less on getting married than other people do?
I'm not sure what region you're referring to as "secular West"? UK? Canada? Both?
Certainly in the US religious folks (with the exception of LDS) seem to spend just as much as their non-religious counterparts, although there are a few bucking against the trend.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For many centuries most people who got married just moved in together and got on with it.
It's strange how vexed we now are over people doing exactly what they used to do before the government decided everyone simply must get a certificate.
Its got nothing to do with certificates, I think.
When people just "moved in together and got on with it", they didn't move out again in a couple of years. You move in together, you're a married couple, regardless of whether or not you have a bit of paper.
These days, moving in doesn't always carry the same implications of permanence.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I quite like the idea of getting married during a church service, but I imagine that the elderly churchgoers I know would find such a thing highly irregular.
I don't think it's a good idea in general. In this particular case, it worked, as the young couple were regular parishioners, and the guests were the assembled congregation plus maybe half a dozen of their friends.
And everyone was invited to the bring-and-share lunch afterwards.
But these were unusual circumstances.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I quite like the idea of getting married during a church service, but I imagine that the elderly churchgoers I know would find such a thing highly irregular.
I don't think it's a good idea in general. In this particular case, it worked, as the young couple were regular parishioners, and the guests were the assembled congregation plus maybe half a dozen of their friends.
And everyone was invited to the bring-and-share lunch afterwards.
But these were unusual circumstances.
Why wouldn't it be a good idea in general? It seems like a lovely custom-- if the couple is a part of the congregation, known and loved. I suppose if it caught on it could become unwieldy if it was happening all the time. Another option might be to do it right after the worship service, so those who don't want to stay can leave, and non-church wedding-goers could arrive after the service.
But as with all things, it takes a community to make a custom.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For many centuries most people who got married just moved in together and got on with it.
It's strange how vexed we now are over people doing exactly what they used to do before the government decided everyone simply must get a certificate.
It's more that the people decided they wanted certain benefits to accrue to married people, developed the government system of keeping track of who is and isn't married in order to apportion those benefits. For a time society as a whole frowned on people who shacked up but didn't register their shackification with the government. That's declining.
Supposedly people who didn't want the legal benefits wouldn't have gotten married in the old days if it weren't for the social opprobrium. These are presumably the people who aren't getting married now, now that much or most of that opprobrium is gone.
Although in this country many states counted you as de facto married if you lived together and presented as a couple for some set number of years. The "common-law" marriage.
Further: It is in the government's best interest to know how to handle someone's estate and children when they die, because when it's not clear what to do, it costs taxpayer money to sift through the bullshit. Marriage gives a pre-defined set of instructions on all these things, to where if you just get married according to the state, then a lot of these things don't require further spelling out.
[ 28. June 2016, 03:05: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
For centuries fathers arranged marriages for their daughters, most people died rather young, had poor teeth, burnt witches, enslaved others, and thought washing was unhealthy. I am not particularly interested in going back 100+ years. Frankly, nothing before disco.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
