in USA if 'weddings' per se were banned ? Or severely curtailed -- you could go to a court in some nice clothes, sign a document, have a small party maybe. No gowns, no limousines, no gift registries or gifts, no elaborate cakes, no bridemaids, no paparazzi......

Frankly, it seems to me that a lot of hetero folks -- esp young women -- are more interested in the 'manufactured fairytale' aspect of the event itself.....the gown, the enormous fuss and the whole 'center of attention' and 'princess for a day' phenomenon...........its more important than the quality of the relationship itself. I suspect a lot of them would be far less interested in marriage if it just involved going and signing a piece of paper with no cameras in attendance -- and no wedding dress!

If anything, gays entering relationships so far have been more 'genuine', because they did so without all the spotlights and the over-hyped hoopla that accompanies so many hetero weddings, where the 'ceremony' becomes more important than the relationship per se. I suspect that with the legalization of gay marriage, you may get the similar situation of at least some gay couples entering marriage because they want the fuss and the frills and the gift registries accompanying a 'proper wedding'.

I say we should ban hetero weddings for at least 50 years. Let's see how many hetero couples still want to enter long-term committed relationships if they can't have their little 'fairy tale wedding' to go with it......

what if we eliminated the CIVIL aspect of marriage?

No more licensing...no more tax considerations....nothing legal about it (yes, even divorce, alimony...child support could be a separate issue, as it is with un-married couples with children together).

"Religious" weddings?...sure, go for it. All the pomp and circumstance you want....but legally, it means nothing?

"I say we should ban hetero weddings for at least 50 years. Let's see how many hetero couples still want to enter long-term committed relationships if they can't have their little 'fairy tale wedding' to go with it......" Personally, I am all for this idea since it gives me an 'easy out' for when one of my partners starts dropping hints about getting married: Sorry Precious, still banned for another ## years \o/ \o/ (men all over the world will cheer and sing praises to your name for this!!!!!!!!!)

Reptilicus:

what if we eliminated the CIVIL aspect of marriage?

Husband: Make me a sammich bitch!

Wife: Suck it your damn self you fat bastard!

Hmm....probably not a recipe for success

*Chuckle*...

No, I didn't mean hetero-marriages....I meant WEDDINGS. Do it communist China style if you want to tie the knot -- go down to courthouse wearing a well-pressed simple dress and boring shoes and sign the papers. Maybe your family and 3-4 close friends (one with a cheap instant camera) in attendance.

I suspect men around the country will STILL thank me on bended knees :) Because take away the gown and the ring and the paparazzi and the fuss and half the young women will immediately lose all interest in the 'institution of marriage'.

I suspect it would be bad for the economy. All those churches, florists, dress-shops, musicians, etc would need to find another way to make money.

I'm not entirely sure what it would do to the institute of marriage. A disturbing number of women I've known in my life have been so focused on the wedding (even before so much as a boyfriend was in sight!) that there was little attention paid to the actual marriage.

A disturbing number of women I've known in my life have been so focused on the wedding (even before so much as a boyfriend was in sight!)

******************************­******************************­******

Same here. It was a bit of a culture shock for me -- in the socio-economic class of India that I came from, the 'hip' thing was to pooh-pooh elaborate weddings and go for the simplest ceremony possible. Bank-busting extravaganzas were considered 'feudal'. (and I did get married in a courthouse -- in a $40 dress).

Though I dare say the new-globalization has changed that now!

Uncle_Spike:

Reptilicus:

what if we eliminated the CIVIL aspect of marriage?

Husband: Make me a sammich bitch!

Wife: Suck it your damn self you fat bastard!

Hmm....probably not a recipe for success

Dood!

Hubby & I talk to each other like that all the time. It can get really funny when we go back & forth a couple time.

In our case, when we say things like that to each other, we both know it's a "schtick" & try to out do the other.

A disturbing number of women I've known in my life have been so focused on the wedding (even before so much as a boyfriend was in sight!)

I agree with this observation too.

If we were to eliminate the over the top, lah de dah wedding & I'm sure the number would drop.

On what basis do you believe that homosexual wedding are NOT full of fluffs and BS?

After the ruling we had a big party at my house. All the gay guys said that IF they get married it will be an EVENT!

Of course most of these guys work in the fashion industry so MAYBE that explains it!

Also, it is PC to continue with the homosexual stereotypes; lesbians are generally not look looking and gay men are babes!

So gay men would have wonderful wedding but lesbians would be dull (since everryone knows lesbians don't know how to dress!).

To me we need to move way beyond these homosexual stereotypes.

NOTE: On the serious side I believe the state should allow two people to get married with NO ceremony. Just the standard 3 day waiting period, like anyother contract.

Therefore there would no longer be any need for religious staff to perform official state duties.

On the other hand, a wedding ceremony, whatever the size, is a ritual. Rituals mark the transitions of life and the seriousness of the event. Big ritual arguably could be an indication of big seriousness in the minds of the participants. Generally the rational behind a big wedding tends to support this. The idea is that this IS a once in a life time event and the biggest event in my life so lets do it up big. Course that’s not to say there aren’t some simple minded people out there who are more worried about the party than the institution, but I think they are the exception and not the rule.

G

Of course there is no way of knowing if 'they are the exception' or not. Asking them wouldn't help because on one is going to give an honest answer.

But based on the RESULTS of wedding (the number of divorces after only a few years) I would have to say that the party is at least as important to many.

Anyhow, how about this idea. Have the big party after one has stayed married for 10 years.

Also, I would say the ritural is what is BAD about marriage because marriage is ONLY a legal contract. The religious 'crap' and associated ritual don't have any REAL (legal) meaning or ramifications.

So maybe it would be better to get rid of the ritual and have the focus be on these LEGAL ramifications. So instead of a priest performing the ceremony it should be a lawyer perform it.

E.g. 'Bob, do you agree to provide child support to all kids created during this union even if the union ends,,,,, 'Suzy, do you understand that if you place this union in debt that you will be responsible for 50% of that dept even if your husband decides to leave you'!

There was a time when the ritual was all they had. Seems to me it survived a good little while and is still going strong for many folks. Heck, many folks take their vows (part of the ritual) more seriously than that little old piece of legal paper. I guess you believe that folks stay together because they are legally bound to. I don’t guess you get accused of being a romantic to often.

G

konark_girl:

Same here. It was a bit of a culture shock for me

Despite growing up in middle class suburbia, it was a bit of a culture shock for me too. I'd always been a "geek" and done "geek" activities, which meant that the vast majority of my friends growing up were boys or they were girls with a similar mindset. Getting married was just one of those things that we all figured that we'd do eventually, but it just wasn't an aspiration.

When I went to college, my first roommate's goal in life was to be a bride. It was very strange. She read bridal magazines and would discuss things like how many bridesmaids a person should have. It really was a shock to me, since at 18 I figured I wouldn't be married for years and years.

Oddly enough, she's never married and I married four years ago. Though I must admit I had some difficulties in planning my own wedding because people would ask me things like, "What are the colors for your wedding?" My answers were generally along the lines of, "Colors? There are colors? I dunno. Blue? Everyone likes blue."

I'd have loved an excuse to not do the ceremony.....

"Frankly, it seems to me that a lot of hetero folks -- esp young women -- are more interested in the 'manufactured fairytale' aspect of the event itself.....the gown, the enormous fuss and the whole 'center of attention' and 'princess for a day' phenomenon...........its more important than the quality of the relationship itself."

I know. But part of the problem is the commericialism that reinforces everything.

"If anything, gays entering relationships so far have been more 'genuine',"

More genuine? That's disingenious considering the counterfeit nature of the whole deal (e.g. male gays use a substitute vagina; lesbians a substitute penis).

"because they did so without all the spotlights and the over-hyped hoopla that accompanies so many hetero weddings,"

So what? So do many heteros? And the guys could care less about all that pezzaz.

"where the 'ceremony' becomes more important than the relationship per se. I suspect that with the legalization of gay marriage, you may get the similar situation of at least some gay couples entering marriage because they want the fuss and the frills and the gift registries accompanying a 'proper wedding'."

Sure they do. That explains why most of the gays of Vermont didn't enter into marriage. Just look at the stats? When civil unions was legalized, well I forget, but only around something like 1 to 5% entered the state sponsered unions. Gee, gays are more genuine.....sure they are.

"I say we should ban hetero weddings for at least 50 years."

The way you grind your gears is amusing.

"Let's see how many hetero couples still want to enter long-term committed relationships if they can't have their little 'fairy tale wedding' to go with it......"

Yeah, turn everything into socialism!