billege

I'd like to comment on some ideas presented.

It came from the ritualized property transfer, more or less, as you describe. However, for myself and my wife and plenty of other people too, that's the last thing it currently symbolizes. Debate that all you want, but it won't change its truth.

While your visceral response is impressive, there's nothing wrong with honoring one's spouse/life partner/what-have-you. I believe mutual respect is important. Perhaps it's your take on the meaning of the word "honor" that causes your gorge to rise.

"Obey" is an interesting word. I believe it was part of our vows, but I can't remember a time when I presumed to give my wife an order I expected her to obey; or vice versa. On that one, had we thought about it, it likely would have been replaced with another word. "Obey" does have connotations that are not in line with what marriage means to me. I'm with you on that one.

That is very true.
The piece of paper does not make a marriage.
However, some people choose to express thier commitment to share two lifetimes through the symbol of marriage. Of course, the symbol takes many forms.
Choosing to, or not to, express the life commitment through the state/traditionally recognized marriage is a personal choice.
Its value is set by those that make it, not those that observe it.

On the one hand, it's nice that your friends did what worked for them. That's the important part to what you're saying, what I'm saying, and this thread's question as well.

On the other hand:

You choose certain words (perhaps words I can call "flowery") to describe a forest ceremony where the partners "stripped their bodies of all binding material and held hands as they exchanged some beautiful words. then they turned and ran and jumped into the lake, holding hands."

To you (if I understood you clearly) that's more beautiful and meaningful than my traditional wedding simply by default.
In reality, how you and I view other's bonding ceremony is completely unimportant.
The people expressing thier bond forge its strength from within themselves.
Your or my opinion about the type of ceremony means very little in relation to how meaningful, real, or long lasting thier bond is.

I can say "two people met in the woods, stripped naked, then held hands and jumped in a lake" and go on believing that they are "hippies" "flakes" or any other derisive terms.
Just as you can say my wife and I are traditional morans who've succumbed to societies lies, etc etc.

Both those trains of thought are tiresome and unoriginal.

In reality though, things are much more clear and exciting.
The comittment a couple has is hardly decided by how they choose to express it. Be it a forest site or a church site, the level and depth depend on the couple's hearts and minds.

Your friend's forest wedding and mine do nothing to negate each other.
Yet, it would seem you believe a union is more meaningful and real depending on how far it veers from the traditional wedding ceremony.
That's a cheap fallacy, and I'm sure you know better.

There's a tendancy for those who have chosen alternative paths to mistakenly believe that those choosing traditional paths are somehow less enlightened, less "real," less meaningful, have thought about it less, are less informed, and generally just poor saps who don't know better.

While it's exciting to meet people like your friends, people who found thier own path, it's also important to learn there's no negation of one path by the other.

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."