See, now this I don't agree with. It's all in how you view it. I'm still a hopeless romantic and I believe that marriage means that you are
I'm pointing this out for a reason. You're basically going "I believe you should go about it this way." Or otherwise assuming how others go about it instead of checking in first. Both can be dangerous. I'm sure you never intended to speak about how others go about it though. But I do strongly believe in everyone going about anything they please in their own way. I also once assumed things myself without checking in, so I hope you understand why I express concern on the matter.
We might view it in different ways, which of course is fine. The question I now ask myself is would you end up being with someone that might view it differently? Obviously this would be someone of a loving/caring nature but they simply view marriage as, say, pointless. Or perhaps they might even consider it harmful for whatever reason.
Now sure, someone could just go "This is pointless to
me". But then that displays lack of support with your view on it, doesn't it now? So when you said the words "That you are", what I think you mean is "I need someone to support me with what I consider important". This too if fine. Personally I would do something for others as long as I see no harm in it. To make another happy.
But has the other side of the fence been considered? I for example would never marry due to "cutting someone not yet met off". Meaning someone could pop up later and then it would be a position of "This person came first, you get lower rank". I have reasons for this. There can be tons of other reasons for others. This goes more along the line of what may be harmful. Harmful in general? No, of course not. But harmful to
them. Simple mental health. Could you never marry if it meant being with someone happily? What if even a simple kiss could cause someone you care about to go into a mental breakdown? And no, that's not a made up example. Some people pass out on simple physical touch with anyone. Would you go "I can't be romantic" or would you then try to find
other ways of sharing said romance? I ask this not to just you but to everyone reading. replace "marriage" with "Other romantic things". What can you live with and without and for what reasons? The real question is, has it been considered? Have the alternatives?
Furthermore I don't think it's about "marriage" being romantic. That's one show of support though and I realise it can be romantic to others. Frankly, if you're not "romantic" already (I use the term loosely. Others can view none romantic things in an intimate/supportive fashion but I'd call it their idea of romance) then is it wise to
get married? Is marriage in this regard a test of sorts then? To state "Now we're getting serious"? Personally I get serious long before it's a factor. Some treat it as "a test". Others as "Passing the test". Think not what marriage is about but what happens IN marriage itself. Do you have to be married to do those things? Does it even have to be legal and official with paperwork? Perhaps you could even "make" a wedding and have a big party and declare your love to each other. One that isn't "as restrictive". It's real when it's real to you, not to others. Law and perks not withstanding. That said I wouldn't advise doing such a thing at the first opportunity and give matters of the heart careful consideration.
As for romance in general, think along the lines of Beauty and the Beast on the one hand, and Mr and Mrs Smith on the other. Sometimes romance has a "sick and twisted way". Sometimes the two can mingle too. Huh, Beauty and the Beast is a prime example of that come to think of it. In the mingling sense.
But my opinion could be different depending on the details of the situation.
You get a cookie for saying this. ^_^