´óÏó´«Ã½

I feel sure my comments will not be shared by the majority of the readership here, but I don't think western societies spending money in these ways is bad for the third world, and the best economics tells us that this kind of spending actually generates wealth. The more we have, the more we can give. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are currently signing up a slew of their billionaire friends, people who made a lot of money by providing goods and services in a capitalist market, to an initiative by which they will give away a majority of that wealth to those who need it more.

I think the minute we decide that having money and spending it is bad, we've ignored the most basic of economic principles and compromised our ability to continue to give.

There is a belief you have to pay a lot these days for a wedding. I know that bride wants to have the best wedding ever, but the best weddings aren't alaways the most expensive. The wedding service is actually the most important part of it. The sevice is where a man and a woman declare their love for one another and are prepared to commmit to each other for the rest of their lives. This sevice should be done most times in a church though not always. One of the loveliest weddings I was at was performed at a decking that was beside a riverbank. It was done there for a special reason. The service was performed by a minister and an assistant minister. The people who where married are both Christians. Nowdays a lot of people don't include God in the service. They forget that the institute of marriage was instiuted by God.

You could argue that you can't generate profit without turnover, but, speaking as someone deliriously happily married to a wonderful woman, the "special day" was really not the highlight. It was just an event, and in retrospect I think we maybe should have gone for something simpler. But our focus is on the *marriage*, not on the *wedding*. Every day I see my kids get a bit older, learn a bit more - those days are better by far than the day we got married, and those are the days that bring us closer together.

-H

For once Helio, we find ourselves in complete agreement.

Helio

I could not agree more. You have my utmost respect for those comments and, more than that, those comments hold me accountable in my own marriage.


John

I think we'd all be agreed that it's not the sharing of wealth which is the problem.

Helio- "deliriously happily married" describes me too... and we're a minority, which is a shame. But yes, it's the relationship that's our focus, and the 'wedding' was an event. I actually think there's a lot about the wedding that speaks to values I don't share: the father giving away the bride like a possession, the veil, the thought that one must do this public thing to live a certain way or share benefits...

Nevertheless, I'm not sure that spending a ton of money on a wedding is immoral, as the original question asks; merely silly unless you can afford it.

I think one of the biggest problems with the huge, overblown, "fairy tale" wedding is that it starts the marriage out in a haze of unreality. The marriage will never live up to such a beginning. How much better a simple service and reception would be -- a joyous day, one with friends and family enjoying the event, but one in which the hopes and expectations are firmly standing on planet earth.

I got married last year, we made a big effort to keep down costs and were determined not to have any of the more extravagant add ons that many people love. The total cost of our day came in at just over £10K, and we didn't need to take out any loans or go into the red as our families helped out with the costs, for example my sister in law and her partner paid for the wedding cars as their present to us. Afterwards all our guests commented that it was one of the best weddings they had been at as it was so simple and low key.

You do have to be firm and say "I'm not having this" so that costs don't spiral out of control. There is a line between being careful and being stingy and you can't be too miserable but you can do it.

I'm glad I married in America where there is often more sanity about how much is spent. Despite the Transatlantic flights it was still cheaper.

We had a buffet prepared by some of the women in the church in the church hall. No fancy car as we just walked from the place of worship to the hall. People just moved around and chatted. We had a great time. The best day of my life.

Marriage should be a celebration (Christ at Cana with lots of wine, although he wouldn't have encouraged drunkenness, which is condemned as a sin), but it shouldn't be a burden, esp. with the cost of housing and student loans for young people today.

The future for the people of God is described as a wedding banquet, so there is no doubt God approves. It is clear in the light of the rest of Scripture that unwise use of money is also condemned. Like so many things it is all about balance.

The cost definitely puts off some people. The problem for too many people is that they are enslaved by the opinions of others. The fear of God casts out the fear of man, as Knox said.

We got married in a park. There were 17 people in attendance including us (I thought the right number, my wife thought too many people.) A month later we had a party. I would not change a thing.

Its a shame that Clergy seem to get upset when people get married, and spending money to do so. Churchs generally CHARGE for their services when performing marriages. they also charge for the CHOIR, sometimes they charge for the flowers, and sometimes an EXTRA fee for the Organist!!! The church is as guilty therefore as other wedding suppliers from benefiting form the EXCESS costs of a Weding these days, perhaps churches could offer FREE weddings so that they can take the moral HUGH ground and not PROFIT from weddings!!!

So who is this Moral Hugh? Sounds like an important chap; Will, interview him for SunSeq! :-)

Not all churches charge for a wedding and flowers. When we got married in our church, our minister presented us with a lovely white bible and wouldn't take any money of us. In my 1st posting I made refernce to a service I attended at a decking on a riverbank. I had the privilage of singing at the wedding and didn't charge the couple as they where and still are very dear friends of my wife and I. The 2 ministers and the organist as far I know didn't charge either.

Tullycarnetbertie ,

your real problem is this:-

There are so many churches who all believe the others are wrong, how do you know you are actually married? You could be living in sin.

Tut tut, Helio, picking someone up on a typo.

Netiquette, me old china, netiquette!

(It was funny though....)

:-)

Yes three cheers for Peter Singer.

Without him we would not have had Bob Geldoff, the Jubilee Campaign, Tear Fund or World Vision or Oxfam.

Though I personally think that many people spend far too much on weddings - it's what you are doing that matters much more than how ostentatious the day is - I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone else how they should spend their money. Yes, there are people starving in this world, but someone spending less on their wedding is hardly going to change the situation. I don't think anyone should feel guilty about the rest of the world when spending their own money on anything. Unfortunately, there is so much pressure from all sorts of sources to make your wedding day so "special" that it's pretty much inevitable that some people will spend vast amounts.

Must admit, I do kind of take on board Gakels point regarding church fees, bearing in mind it is a priest who has in effect brought this to the fore. Surely there should be no fees for using the church itself. However, I don't agree with him/her regarding charging for choir, organist etc. Would you give up your time for someone you don't even know for nothing? Spend a couple of hours doing a "freebie" for someone you've (in the vast majority of cases) never even met? I know I certainly wouldn't, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either!

OT - (@ 16) -

"Yes three cheers for Peter Singer."

Yes, OT, his stance is commendable. It is just such a pity that his compassion cannot extend to the most vulnerable members of society - not only the unborn, but even the newborn. As Singer has stated:



He formulates a moral stance, but my morality does not accept this. Whose morality is right? Mine or his? On what basis? Or is morality simply subjective, based on clever words? Does morality mean anything at all?

Concerning weddings, my view is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a couple deciding to spend a fortune on a wedding, rather than sending the money directly to the developing world. Why do I say that? Because that expense creates jobs for caterers, wedding car companies, wedding dress hire companies or retailers, jewellers etc. Such an expense simply involves the redistribution of wealth within our economy. We do it all the time.

Sending money directly into a developing country without there being concomitant economic growth in that country simply creates inflation, or, more likely corruption (with much of the money finding its way back to western banks). Economic life becomes politicised, and the fact is that since the 1960s (the period when most African states gained independence) the West has thrown billions of dollars at Africa and in many countries poverty has increased. I know one or two things about this, since, for a long period in the past, I was involved with a certain activity combining business and charity throughout sub-Saharan Africa (Zimbabwe, Zambia, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia, Tanzania and a few others besides).

What are needed are long-term economic partnerships which guarantee accountability and wisdom in the disbursement of funds.

Singer makes the point (see the site I linked to above) that "About a sixth of the world’s population survives on the purchasing power equivalent of less than $US1 per day." That sounds terrible until you realise that for millennia (and let's not get into the debate about the age of the human race) untold millions of people have lived - and still live - outside the money economy. It's not money - or a monetary comparison - that defines poverty, but access to the necessities of life. It is possible to acquire the necessities of life without money (if that were not true then how did the human race survive before the invention of money?!). So forget about money, and think about land, water, shelter, community etc.

So I don't feel the slightest guilt about buying luxury goods (although, not rolling in money myself, this is pretty much an academic argument for me in practical terms), and I do not believe that my purchase of anything luxurious necessarily directly harms someone in the developing world (I say necessarily, because, of course, there are ethical issues to do with the work conditions in some factories in the developing world - but that is a specific issue relating to certain goods). Issues relating to the cause and cure of poverty are far complicated than that simple formula.

Indeed groovehoob. Why should Anyone work for free. But I made the point purely to show the fact that as Marriage is a mostly a RELIGIOUS ceremony the clergy shold not complain. With over 200,000* weddings taking place each year, the combined income for churchs, assuming they are all religious, and an average charge of £200.00 fee paid to the individual church, the revenue would be in the region of £40,000,000. Does the chuch need that money MORE than the starving, more than the needy anywhere in the world. Perhaps that sum could be donated to the needy in this country, the homeless, or drug programmes, provide food for the hungry, presents at christmas for the poor. Yes its the same old argument but is it not an insult to tell people they spend too much on thier marriages when part of the cost is going to the organisation the original critic seems to represent.

* Office of National Statitics Marriages taken place in 2007 (latest figures)