The scientific concept of time is. The social concept of time / free time definitely is not.
The amount of free time you have as a 14 year old kid, is very different from the amount of time you have being single in your mid 20s, which is very different from the amount of time you have being a parent with 3 kids.
Saying everyone has the same amount of time is wrong.
> "I don't have the time"
Can also mean "I have enough chaos in my life right now that I cannot determine my priorities well enough to say yes and keep that commitment."
> so it's much more believable
This chaos can come from failing to say no to commitments for fear that the people in your life will not believe you about your own time-management situation.
Not every couple wants that. Some elope, and others hold ceremonies only because they think relatives and friends demand it of them. The latter is unfortunate, because it imposes a burden on the new couple that they shouldn't have to shoulder.
But the couple should consider that community can be a crucial part of the success of their marriage, in ways that they may not recognize (especially if they're young). It can benefit them to have the community at the ceremony and feel invested in the marriage (for however they define "community").
Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved.
I think we have some overlap, I just lean more towards disregarding guests. For me it's strictly a matter of whether people come or not. If they want witness or someone to come, then yes the couple needs to be practical and consider compromise. But if they want support, then no, I don't think it's necessary to compromise. Someone's support of a couple shouldn't be based on how convenient and fun the couple's wedding was.
It's their party, your being invited at all is already a courtesy being extended to you.
Not surprising, the location where the majority of the attendents reside is usually the most economical for the total cost the wedding for all involved. I do understand that it is the couples wedding and they can choose where they want to hold it. I am surprised that more couples (in my limited experience) do not consider their guests expenses more.
Destination wedding will eliminate some percentage of guests who "do not matter", which has the side benefit of reducing the venue expense.
When we got married, our goal was to have a great party for everyone we invited.
Which included thinking about were our wedding is, making sure our Guests have a great time and that the photographer would make sure to also take pictures of and for them as you normally dress for the event.
I would personally not care about a wedding without guests and i wouldn't care about random guests. Therefore my mental conclusion is, that its the guests who are a critical part of our wedding and therefore they do serve being accounted for.
Of course if i would marry somewhere totally different, i would make it much smaller to put less pressure on my guests but i was really happy to have nearly my whole family taking part in our wedding.
But it probably depends on your expectation. If you don't mind your guests not coming due to costs and effort, its probably valid as well.
It is not true that the ability to allocate that time is egalitarian.
It is much, much more likely that people with less money will have to spend more of their time working, taking care of children, cooking, cleaning, commuting on public transport, and 1001 other things that pick away at their time, but would be easily resolvable if they just had wads of disposable cash to throw at them instead.
Could mean you don't want to spend the money for me.