Is it inappropriate to have a big wedding if-

[lillygator]

I don't necessarily have a bias about having kids out of wedlock, and I certainly don't think that you have to live by the "Rules" to deserve a big wedding. However, I do think it's foolish to delay getting married so you can afford a big wedding when there are children involved. First, because to me it would be more important to have my family intact than it would be to have a large wedding. (And by intact, I mean legally as well as emotionally - and to me marriage is important; it's different than just living together.) Second because once you start having children money is suddenly much more important than it is when you are single and childfree. The money you spend on a big wedding could be going into a college fund for the child, or could pay for family vacations, or any of the other expenses that you have once you become a parent. I find it odd when someone prioritizes what is essentially a big party enough to put their marriage on hold to wait for it, especially when there are children involved. But I know everyone doesn't feel that way.

why? at your one wedding, if that is what you and your spouse wanted ----??? what is the big deal?

 

[piglet too]

Like I had said, our wedding was not huge, I think the total guest list was about 100. (we trimmed it down from 175 when we changed the wedding date) I see some posters saying how it is irresponsible to not get married right away. Well, in my case, it would have been irresponsible to not wait. I would have had no health insurance and having that continuous health care was far more important then taking vows. I know that there is nothing I can say that will change certain posters minds, just like there is nothing that they can say that will make me feel like I did the wrong thing.

 

[Sheree Bobbins]

As Bob Dylan would say, "The times they are a-changin."

 

[Scurvy]

why? at your one wedding, if that is what you and your spouse wanted ----??? what is the big deal?

I thought I explained my reasons in the post you quoted.

But frankly, to me the big deal is the marriage and the family. Delaying that for the sake of a bigger party just seems superficial to me.

But fortunately everyone is entitled to their own priorities, and I'm sure that no couple would care that I think they are foolish for delaying their marriage for the sake of a party. They have their priorities and I have mine, and we can each live our lives as we see fit.

 

[koima]

I thought I explained my reasons in the post you quoted.

But frankly, to me the big deal is the marriage and the family. Delaying that for the sake of a bigger party just seems superficial to me.

But fortunately everyone is entitled to their own priorities, and I'm sure that no couple would care that I think they are foolish for delaying their marriage for the sake of a party. They have their priorities and I have mine, and we can each live our lives as we see fit.

For me, a wedding is about the family, not about the bigger party, and there are times when delaying the wedding can be about putting the priority on the family. My wedding was special because of the people who could come and celebrate with us. It wasn't because of the DJ and alcohol and food, but being with my husband's and my cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, who all live in different states. Although we didn't have a baby, we did end up postponing our wedding for nearly a year so that everyone could be there, because the priority was the family and having everyone together. I guess we have different ideas on how that priority is manifested!

 

[lillygator]

I thought I explained my reasons in the post you quoted.

But frankly, to me the big deal is the marriage and the family. Delaying that for the sake of a bigger party just seems superficial to me.

But fortunately everyone is entitled to their own priorities, and I'm sure that no couple would care that I think they are foolish for delaying their marriage for the sake of a party. They have their priorities and I have mine, and we can each live our lives as we see fit.

I don't necessarily have a bias about having kids out of wedlock, and I certainly don't think that you have to live by the "Rules" to deserve a big wedding. However, I do think it's foolish to delay getting married so you can afford a big wedding when there are children involved. First, because to me it would be more important to have my family intact than it would be to have a large wedding. (And by intact, I mean legally as well as emotionally - and to me marriage is important; it's different than just living together.) Second because once you start having children money is suddenly much more important than it is when you are single and childfree. The money you spend on a big wedding could be going into a college fund for the child, or could pay for family vacations, or any of the other expenses that you have once you become a parent. I find it odd when someone prioritizes what is essentially a big party enough to put their marriage on hold to wait for it, especially when there are children involved. But I know everyone doesn't feel that way.

I guess it may seem superficial to you and I hope if you are invited to such and feel that way you would decline....I have never been in this position but I guess I don't see the big deal.

I grew up with a single mom, raised mainly by my grandparents and then back to mom for late hs years...had a wierd view on marriage...at first, no way, then later yes, and then I wanted a wedding, a registry, the beach, whatever....I was fortunate to find my Charming and have it all...but had we gotten pg before hand I would not have thought twice and would hope I would have no one shallow minded in our circle of friends that thought this way.

 

[HunnyPots]

It really has no effect on me one way or the other. The only time I shake my head a little is when you see people that have been living together as a family for YEARS suddenly decide to go the route of the big wedding, complete with someone "giving the bride away", and all the other ceremonial traditions. I don't get that.
But as I said, it has no effect on me personally. Live and let live...

 

[Scurvy]

Although we didn't have a baby, we did end up postponing our wedding for nearly a year so that everyone could be there, because the priority was the family and having everyone together. I guess we have different ideas on how that priority is manifested!

For what it's worth, I do understand this. If my husband and I had larger families, or if our families had lived further away, I might have had to deal with balancing the desire to get married sooner with the desire to have our families there. Fortunately for me, it wasn't an issue - everyone I wanted there could make it almost any time we chose. I do understand why people don't get married immediately once they decide they want to marry. Even though I never wanted a big wedding, I did want a church wedding and it took time to pull it together.

But, when you already have started your family together and you have a child, it seems more important to me to get married sooner rather than later. I guess for me, part of what it boils down to is that I want my child to grow up with parents who are married. If my husband and I weren't married and we had a child, we could choose to wait a while and plan a big wedding. But if heaven forbid something happened to my child's father and we were not able to marry, I would always regret that. Because to me marriage is important, and that's something I want my child to grow up believing as well. Plus, I am very aware that life is short - if there's something that is really important to me, I don't want to put it off any longer than I absolutely have to. And I sometimes forget that not everyone feels that way.

Anyway, I'm not saying that everyone isn't entitled to their own choice - of course they are. And of course there are lots of valid reasons to take your time before your wedding. But for me, none of those reasons outweigh the reasons that would make me want to marry before my child was born. (If the father was the person I was planning to marry anyway, at least.) And because those reasons are so important to me, it always seems odd to me if they aren't as important to someone else.

 

[Colleen27]

It's most definitely not a choice I would make. And I would internally cringe a little as a guest at such a wedding. For me, I would have gotten married well before the birth of my child. My child would have become the priority instead of a large party. I cannot relate to their decision to wait. But that's their decision and not mine of course.

It isn't one or the other, though. My kids have always been my top priority, but there was still room on the list for wanting to get married and celebrate with family & friends. But I think a key difference here is that I don't see it making a whit of difference whether a couple is married or not when the baby arrives. DH is no less DD8's father than he is DD1's, in any sense - legally, emotionally, or otherwise. I knew he was committed to us and we would have our entire lives together, so why rush and skip the wedding we both wanted?

 

[BelleWDW]

OP here.
BTW-I know no details of why the couple waited to marry. They have a big Catholic , Italian family=lots of smiles and laughter in all the photos. A joyous occasion.


You never know, maybe they got pregnant early on in their relationship and weren't at that place to get married right away.


Anybody see that movie "Knocked Up"???

 

[Colleen27]

Our wedding was significant to our lives in total. It was significant to my husband and I, to our families. It was a worship service that joined the two of us as one in marriage. In our church a wedding is not a sacrament, but it is still an important spiritual event. I took our vows seriously- far too seriously to say them in a hurry in a courtroom. I'm not knocking courtroom weddings, that's fine for those who want to marry that way, but it wouldn't have been fine for us. Its a pretty huge- rather illogical- leap to think that a person who doesn't run out and get married immediately just becuase she is pregnant is not taking marriage seriously or has some sort of a princess fantasy about a wedding. In fact, I would think that a wedding planned over time, would by nature require the bride and groom to give more thought toward the marriage itself, than the couple that runs out and gets hitched as a visceral response to an unplanned pregnancy.

A wedding may not be important to you, but baby or no baby, it would be important to my husband and I.

I think there are some people that are bridezillas, of course, but just becuase a wedding is important to a couple does not mean that they haven't thought about the marriage, planned for it, etc.

Well said. We're not especially religious, but the family aspect of the wedding was supremely important to both DH & I. Too often these days, the only time a large and scattered family like ours gathers is at funerals, and we both very much wanted to share our vows and celebrate our love not only with our parents but with the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins that were so much a part of our lives growing up. We didn't have a lavish wedding and we didn't follow every tradition, but it was a pretty big wedding simply because we are from large families and had a lot of people we wanted to be with us on that special day.

 

[Mrs. Charming]

I think it's wonderful. Best wishes to them!

 

[bethy]

It isn't one or the other, though. My kids have always been my top priority, but there was still room on the list for wanting to get married and celebrate with family & friends. But I think a key difference here is that I don't see it making a whit of difference whether a couple is married or not when the baby arrives. DH is no less DD8's father than he is DD1's, in any sense - legally, emotionally, or otherwise. I knew he was committed to us and we would have our entire lives together, so why rush and skip the wedding we both wanted?

I think it's just that we have different viewpoints of what a wedding is (and that's fine!)

For me a wedding is a gathering of people to witness a marriage and show support for it. And there might be a reception afterwards to celebrate what just happened. For me a wedding is not primarily a celebration of love, or a couple's "special day." For me, for a couple who has committed to each other for a lifetime, set up a household and even had children a wedding seems really redundant. I don't personally see the point of it. For me a wedding is celebrating the moment (or thereabouts) when a couple makes that commitment to each other in front of God and family. So any wedding that happens long after that public and personal commitment doesn't really have much of a point or a purpose in my opinion and isn't really related to the actual marriage.

For me, I see anything else as really a big party and that's great too. Who doesn't love a party? For me, if I wanted a big party on my own timing then I'd host a big party. So for me actually getting married trumps everything else.

This is just my personal viewpoint. On the one hand a person could say that I can apply to myself but shouldn't have that view of other's people's personal choices about weddings. But on the other hand the whole point of a wedding for most people seems to be involving friends and family in their celebration of getting married. So since a wedding is a community event - a public dedication of a couple to each other, it does matter a little bit IMO how the people feel who are witnessing and supporting the event.

I have not had my morning coffee yet and so I'm sure I'm not articulating very clearly.

Disclaimer: I've probably attended 40 weddings (and been in 12 of them) in the past 15 years and so I'm admittedly maybe a tad jaded about the whole "princess day" concept. Note: I've been happily married for 13 years after a lovely and understated wedding. Held at the time we made a lifeling commitment to each other.

 

[koima]

I think it's just that we have different viewpoints of what a wedding is (and that's fine!)

For me a wedding is a gathering of people to witness a marriage and show support for it.

I'm with you here...

For me a wedding is not primarily a celebration of love, or a couple's "special day." For me, for a couple who has committed to each other for a lifetime, set up a household and even had children a wedding seems really redundant. I don't personally see the point of it. For me a wedding is celebrating the moment (or thereabouts) when a couple makes that commitment to each other in front of God and family. So any wedding that happens long after that public and personal commitment doesn't really have much of a point or a purpose in my opinion and isn't really related to the actual marriage.
.

I would hope that a couple would have made the commitment to one another well before the wedding itself! I think people must know one another and make that decision of commitment before even getting engaged, and wedding planning typically takes about a year, so I guess the point is lost to you by the time they actually get to the wedding day?!

My husband and I lived together for four years before we got married. Our wedding day was absolutely a celebration of love, more about the love, commitment, and family than the party, and I never once considered it a princess day. Although we lived together and our day-to-day lives weren't shifted 180 degrees, our wedding day was a defining moment for both of us. We've been married 5 years this September and I think of our wedding day with such affection not because it was the day we chose to spend our lives together - that decision was made before we even got engaged, more than 2 years earlier - but the day that we made it official. The point was very clear for us.

 

[bethy]

but the day that we made it official. The point was very clear for us.

I think that's where we differ in our basic philosophies. I personally would not choose to commit myself to that degree to another person, to spend that much of my life living intimately with them, and most especially not have children, unless we had first made the commitment that made it "official" to family, friends, God and ourselves. I just need that level of security for me and any potential children (because let's face it: having sex can yield children.)

But I am a risk adverse person and for me the risk is just way too high to do it any other way. I would never want to be that vulnerable or to have my children be that vulnerable. But often - as in your case - it turns out very well regardless and that awesome! There is just a awful lot of heartbreak in this world and it makes me sad and I'd love to see more of it circumvented. Granted, for plenty, there is heartbreak that happens after marriage, too.

 

[Scurvy]

I think that's where we differ in our basic philosophies. I personally would not choose to commit myself to that degree to another person, to spend that much of my life living intimately with them, and most especially not have children, unless we had first made the commitment that made it "official" to family, friends, God and ourselves. I just need that level of security for me and any potential children (because let's face it: having sex can yield children.)

But I am a risk adverse person and for me the risk is just way too high to do it any other way. I would never want to be that vulnerable or to have my children be that vulnerable. But often - as in your case - it turns out very well regardless and that awesome! There is just a awful lot of heartbreak in this world and it makes me sad and I'd love to see more of it circumvented. Granted, for plenty, there is heartbreak that happens after marriage, too.

You aren't the only one who feels this way - I agree completely with this.

 

[koima]

I was talking to DH about this and he said, "right, but think about our ceremony. It was as much about the guests as us." And he's right. I dug out our ceremony and here's a chunk that says what we thought in a much prettier way:

Good afternoon and welcome! We are gathered here today in this circle of joy to celebrate the love, deep friendship, and commitment that has brought koima and DH to this place.

Their public declaration of love is neither an end nor a beginning, but rather a time of momentary pause to acknowledge and articulate and share what exists between them before continuing, changing and growing over the years to come.

In this ceremony today, koima and DH share not only their joy in the present and the growth they’ve already realized together, but their commitment to share the future together...



koima and DH are so honored that we, their friends and family, are here to witness and participate in this wedding, as the ideals that koima and DH bring to their marriage have their roots in the love, friendship, and guidance they have received from everyone here today.

koima and DH could have stood in their kitchen any Tuesday night they chose and said most of what they are going to say here today—but you wouldn’t have been there.

So you might have thought that you were here because of them. In truth, they are here because of you. They want and need you to share this with them. You are not here as an audience; you are here to contribute to their rite of passage.

There are a lot of reasons that people get married, and we can hope that all do it for love and long term stability. But many people have love and long term stability in place before deciding to have that pubic display, but there are other reasons why marriage doesn't yet make sense. Sometimes kids come before the love and long term stability. Just because they've had a kid doesn't mean their relationship shouldn't get that blessing and celebration.

There is heartache within many marriages; it doesn't insulate a couple from pain, of course. But a wedding is such a hopeful time, and I can't see any reason not to celebrate it.

 

[EMom]

I think that's where we differ in our basic philosophies. I personally would not choose to commit myself to that degree to another person, to spend that much of my life living intimately with them, and most especially not have children, unless we had first made the commitment that made it "official" to family, friends, God and ourselves. I just need that level of security for me and any potential children (because let's face it: having sex can yield children.)

But I am a risk adverse person and for me the risk is just way too high to do it any other way. I would never want to be that vulnerable or to have my children be that vulnerable. But often - as in your case - it turns out very well regardless and that awesome! There is just a awful lot of heartbreak in this world and it makes me sad and I'd love to see more of it circumvented. Granted, for plenty, there is heartbreak that happens after marriage, too.

Yes! That's it! There would no way on God's green earth that I would bring a child into the world with a man who was less than 100% committed to me. If we somehow happened to conceive that child before marriage, then we'd move up the date because I would want the security for my child. And, I'd have been ready and willing to marry him anyway. I too, am risk averse. In all honesty, there is no way I'd have sex with a man wihtout asking myself two questions that doubtless, some of you will laugh at.

(1.) What kind of child would I have with him? I don't mean this in the "perfect Aryan child" sense. But does his family have certain physical, psychological, emotional, legal issues that permeate the family to such an extent that to create a child with him would doom the child (and me) to years of grief from association? If so, then I'm not going to risk a pregnancy. The young woman I mentioned earlier who just had a baby (alcoholic BF who won't give her a cent and gripes about the pregnancy inconveniencing him, etc.) is one of the BEST individuals his family has ever produced. He is the shining star in a family that defines dysfunction. And now she and that baby are tied to them forever.

(2.) If I got pregnant, would I be proud and happy to marry him and have him as the father of my child and would be feel the same way about me? If the answer is 'no' then I'm not risking a pregnancy. If a man was not that committed to me, I'd want no part of him.

I know the stats. Yes, many marriages end in divorce. But any study will show that fathers of children who were married to the mother (even if they divorced later) are much more involved in the life of the child than fathers who never married the mother. (I'd have to read the studies on those who marry AFTER the birth.) The stats are staggering. Of course, there are those who never marry and stay committed for decades. Look at Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell. But they are the exception and not the rule. Add up all the pregnant girls you ever knew, divide them into "got married" and "didn't get married" and 10 years later, the "got married"s will have a higher percentage of father/child involvement. Doubtless, what I have seen during the time I was an attorney colored my feelings. But most often, willingness to make a legal committment to the mother translated to making a lasting emotional committment to the child, even when the marriage ended in divorce. This is not an absolute, mind you....simply going with percentages.

Maybe that is part of what we're seeing here. It's not so much, "Only virgins (or faux virgins) are entitled to church weddings," as it is a case of some women being extremely risk averse and having what amounts to a primal desire to make sure their child has economic and legal protection even before birth. Those who carry that a step further and wouldn't have a child with a man they were not prepared to marry would obviously be more than ready to make it official before the child is born. Therefore, the wedding would become insignificant to their perceived need to make the union legally stable and more secure for the child.

I'm not saying other mothers don't care about the security of their children. I'm saying it may have more to do with the nature of the woman....partly religious, partly whether she's risk averse or not, partly how she was raised, partly.....a lot of different things.

 

[MrsPete]

I think that's where we differ in our basic philosophies. I personally would not choose to commit myself to that degree to another person, to spend that much of my life living intimately with them, and most especially not have children, unless we had first made the commitment that made it "official" to family, friends, God and ourselves. I just need that level of security for me and any potential children (because let's face it: having sex can yield children.)

But I am a risk adverse person and for me the risk is just way too high to do it any other way. I would never want to be that vulnerable or to have my children be that vulnerable. But often - as in your case - it turns out very well regardless and that awesome! There is just a awful lot of heartbreak in this world and it makes me sad and I'd love to see more of it circumvented. Granted, for plenty, there is heartbreak that happens after marriage, too.

This makes perfect sense to me. Don't we all know a woman or two who chose to have a baby without being married, who thought that everything would work out just fine, and the man didn't quite have that same level of commitment? A baby deserves two people who are 100% committed to him (or her), and one of those commitments is a marriage. A promise that you're a couple forever, a promise that neither partner can simply walk away -- at least without a great deal of trouble. I don't understand why any woman would want less for herself and for her child?

I think the real issue is that many people just don't think marriage means much these days. It's an attitude that was bound to develop: So many people live together (I worked with a girl once who lived with a guy whom she had no real intention of marrying -- I don't understand that), so many people divorce . . . it's eroded the idea that marriage is a forever commitment.

 

[SharpMomOfTwo]

My sisters second wedding was bigger than her first! They were both in their 40s and she had 2 kids at the time. Personally, its not for me, and I don't think its appropriate. They had a registry for all the stuff they already had. Personally, I think the point of having a wedding registry is to help out a new couple that doesn't have anything - they had a home, no morgage, and everything already there. So as I said, not something I would do, but it is done, and if your not paying for it, just go and enjoy the food!!!!