Vegan Wedding--Rude? Experiences?

When I started reading this, I was on one side of the argument (the "it's rude" side), but after reading *some* of the comments, I have come around to the other side. And I think it is fine.

In many cultures in South Africa it is actually considered very rude to offer a meal without meat in it. If I invited my in-laws for supper and gave them a vegetarian meal, they would think that I am purposefully disrespecting them. It would cause a family feud (FH and I come from different cultures, in my own, it wouldn't be a big deal).

Having said that, I can also respect that if a person is vegan, then they wouldn't want to serve meat at their wedding. If I saw that it was a vegan wedding, my knee-jerk reaction would be "what am I going to eat, I am going to starve", but to be honest, I don't know a lot about vegan foods.

My reply will probably get lost in the millions on this post, but if you are concerned about what meals will be served, and that you won't be able to eat any of the food, are you able to reach out to the couple and see what their menu will be?

At this point, your friends menu is set. They have a wide range of options, and while they dont work for you, I'd bet they would work for most people. If the couple is paying for the wedding themselves, its unfair to expect then to compromise their beliefs.

The one thing I have gained from reading this whole thread is that most people are pro-Vegan because it's based on one's belief system. That is totally fine. BUT, just remember that's what you argued next time a thread comes up about a bride, who is truly religious and doesn't support the consumption of alcohol, who says she wants a dry wedding even though her guests drink alcohol.

You can't have it both ways.

I must disagree. I'm not a vegetarian or vegan but it's their wedding so they can serve what they want. Think of all of the times that vegans and vegetarians have been somewhere and they couldn't eat anything on the menu. It's not like you don't eat vegetables for a moral/ethical reason, right?

@Elizabeth, I'm not dismissing it, I'm saying it's not equivalent. Drinking only affects one being: the drinker. Eating an animal affects two beings: the animal who was killed, and the person eating it. Allowing people to drink doesn't have any consequences that affect the hosts or other creatures, serving meat does. Surely you can see the difference?

No matter how stern someone's objection is to alcohol, I doubt they would say it's equivalent to murder. I know some people wouldn't classify killing animals as murder, and that's fine, they can do and pay for what they want to in their own lives. I won't pay for animals to be killed. End of story.

There are plenty of vegan options that you probably enjoy. Pasta with marinara sauce or garlic and oil are vegan options that pretty much everyone enjoys. If they are both vegan they obviously feel very strongly about not hurting animals. So why would they decide to kill 50 chickens so their guests can each have a chicken breast? That's a lot of animals and that's how many you would need for 100 chicken breasts. I'm just saying you should look at it from their point of view. I'm sure their food will be amazing and you won't feel deprived.

Greenleaf, as someone who has no moral objection to either animal products or alcohol, I find your dismissiveness of those with objections to serving alcohol to be hypocritical. Those who have religious objections to alcohol DO believe that it affects them because they are spending money to aid in the "sin" of others (and I don't really care to debate whether or not it's a sin as I don't believe it is, but it's their belief; just as I don't believe that those of us who eat meat are murderers). You can rationalize it however you want, but defending your belief while stomping on the belief of others is not cool.

Elizabeth summed it up greatly.

Because it's all a matter of personal ideas on morality. You argued that killing an animal affects two lives, but as someone who isn't vegan, my first thought is "I don't really care." You have that same idea for alcohol. You state someone who's against alcohol doesn't see it as a murder. That's true. But, it is a sin. And to most of the religions that prohibit alcohol, a sin is a sin. Now, I'm not saying I support dry weddings. But, I think it's important to be even on one's stance either way. In my case, I'm saying, have meat at a wedding, Vegan. Have alcohol at the wedding, Mormon. But, putting one above the other (just because it's what YOU believe) is pretty hypocritical.

Not getting into any of this debate.

I wouldn't care either way, personally. As long as I get fed food that won't make me sick, idgaf.

This topic has been hashed out so many different ways. All viewpoints have been covered, and I really don't want any more arguing. Can this thread be locked? I don't want to delete it, since the information is incredibly useful to me, but people are just repeating themselves and getting angry now.

Silverlava threads usually just run their course here. It pisses posters off when people hide their threads, so I'm glad you don't want to do that. But asking for it to be locked is useless too. All threads eventually die. No rules have been broken. No need to censor. Just don't click on it anymore if you don't want to read. Problem solved :-)

I've gotten what seems like six million notifications from this thread, is all... I also don't want to post & ghost so I keep reading it to make sure.

By the time it hits 14 pages and you're still replying, you're off the hook for posting and ghosting, so no worries.

I'd rather be rude than contribute to something I find morally repulsive. As a ethically vegan couple, we will have a vegan wedding. In fact, we want to host at an animal sanctuary that prohibits any non-vegan food on the premises. If our guests want to eat dead animals or their breast milk they can, but we will not be buying it for them. I wouldn't expect other couples to go against their beliefs for my comfort, even if it meant I had to bring my own meal, or be sober for a night or wear a headscarf in their house of worship etc. Imagine yourself in a situation where you feel obligated to purchase something cruel and grotesque for your guests. Would you rather be complicit in something you think is evil or be rude? If you are having a hard time empathizing, imagine that your friends and family expect you to purchase something horrifically inhumane (ex. a tortured chimpanzee or puppy) for their dinner. Would you rather your loved ones think you are inconsiderate/ forcing your beliefs on them or pay for the suffering and death of an innocent, intelligent being. What would you do?

Wrong thread

Thank you for saying this. It's astonishing to me that people think not being complicit in torture and suffering is rude.

STOP. REPLYING. TO. THIS. THREAD. It is dead. Long dead. I will delete it if you all can't stop.

It does not "go both ways" not eating meat is a personal conviction/ moral. a preference would be then not having tomatoes in their menu because they don't prefer it. Not having meat or engaging in in purchasing animal products is a personal conviction. not rude.