Originally Posted by Marcus
"Veto Power" really is just an prearranged agreement regarding a future deal breaker. It's like having the argument beforehand and deciding not to break up, but to instead capitulate to the desires of the one with the issue. Instead of saying "I don't trust that girl, she gives me the willies, you need to break up with her or I'm leaving you" and his responding "No, no, don't leave me... I'll break up with her because my feelings for her are irrelevant"... it's just done prior to the issue coming up.
I know that in practice, they end up amounting to the same thing, but I agree that there is a huge change in meaning between a "game-changer" and a veto.
A veto puts your issue directly onto your partner rather than on yourself. It's saying, "I don't like <x>, therefore YOU need to do <y> or I'm done."
Letting your partner know what could be a game-changer, regardless of when it's done (I've let my partner know ahead of time what potential game-changers or deal-breakers of mine could be) still rests the decision where it belongs - on the person who has the problem. "It's my issue, therefore it's mine to take care of however I need to when/if it ever occurs."
A veto is expressed in a much more controlling manner and tends to have that vibe of "my opinions mean more than yours". I'd rather get my cards out on the table, say that I may have issues that could cause me to rethink the relationship if <x> occurs, and then agree to go down our path and deal with it if it ever occurs. My partner's informed, I'm not going to be surprising him, and it's not telling him how to behave.
I dunno. It may all be semantics, but the different ways of wording things can convey a heck of a different meaning.