I got married and we had a relatively simple wedding and there
I got married and we had a relatively simple wedding and there were not a lot of thrills to it.
In the words of Paul F. Tompkins, “I got married and we had a relatively simple wedding and there were not a lot of thrills to it,” we hear a truth that resounds across ages: that love does not require grandeur to be sacred. The simple wedding, stripped of pomp and extravagance, stands as a testimony that the bond of two souls is greater than any spectacle. For it is not the gilded halls or the lavish banquets that seal a union, but the quiet vows spoken from heart to heart.
Tompkins’s reflection is a challenge to the world’s obsession with display. In an age where the wedding often becomes a contest of wealth and spectacle, his words remind us that simplicity can be more profound than splendor. For when the noise of excess falls away, what remains is the essence: two lives joined, not for the eyes of the crowd, but for the journey ahead.
History recalls the marriage of Socrates and Xanthippe, not celebrated in grandeur but lived in humility. Their union, though difficult, was not famed for feasts or ceremony, but for the endurance of a philosopher who sought wisdom over wealth. So too did Tompkins’s choice of simplicity reflect a prioritization of what is lasting—companionship, love, and fidelity—over what fades with the turning of seasons.
There is a deeper lesson also in his dismissal of “thrills.” The world mistakes excitement for joy, and spectacle for meaning. But the truest thrill is not in fireworks or gold but in the steady, enduring warmth of love faithfully kept. To embrace a wedding without thrills is to embrace a life built not on illusion, but on truth—a foundation that endures when glitter fades.
Thus, let this teaching endure: the measure of a wedding is not in its grandeur but in its sincerity. Let your vows be rich though your feast be poor, and let your love be abundant though your ceremony be plain. Tompkins shows us that the greatest celebrations are not those that dazzle the eye, but those that strengthen the heart, reminding all generations that the union itself—not the performance of it—is the true treasure.
KNTruong Thi Kim Nguyen
It’s refreshing to hear Paul F. Tompkins speak so candidly about his simple wedding. It challenges the often-overblown expectations that come with weddings, where there’s pressure to create an elaborate celebration. It makes me wonder—what makes a wedding truly special? Is it the grand moments, or is it the intimacy and sincerity behind it? Shouldn’t the focus be more on the love and commitment rather than the ‘thrills’?
TCPham Trung Chanh
Paul F. Tompkins’ simple wedding sounds like a wonderful reminder that the essence of a wedding doesn’t lie in the spectacle, but in the commitment. It makes me think about the pressure people face to have a 'dream' wedding, when sometimes the most meaningful ceremonies are the simplest. Do we place too much value on thrills and grandeur, when perhaps the true joy lies in creating a personal, heartfelt experience?
BN21-Tran Hoai Bao Ngoc-7TH2
I really appreciate Paul F. Tompkins' view on his wedding being simple. It's a reminder that weddings don’t have to be filled with extravagant thrills to be special. It makes me wonder—how much does society's idea of a 'perfect' wedding influence the way couples plan their big day? Could focusing on simplicity and intimacy be more meaningful than trying to meet certain expectations?
HTNguyen Thi Hoai Thuong
Paul F. Tompkins' perspective on his wedding is refreshing and down-to-earth. It's nice to hear that not all weddings need to be grand or filled with excitement to be meaningful. It makes me question: Do we sometimes lose sight of the true purpose of a wedding by focusing too much on the details or 'thrills'? Isn’t the essence of a wedding really about the bond and commitment between two people?
::-(
I love how Paul F. Tompkins describes his wedding. The idea of a 'relatively simple' wedding speaks volumes about the importance of meaning over extravagance. It raises an interesting question, though—why do we often equate a wedding with grandeur and thrill when it’s really about the commitment between two people? Do we place too much emphasis on the spectacle rather than the sincerity of the occasion?