Yesterday I read that New York Times Article regarding the question of whether vegans and vegetarians should feel "obligated" to serve meat at their wedding receptions, and subsequent commentary on it at Jezebel.
And I can't help but think... what was the point of this article? It seems like it's just drama for the sake of drama. Are people really up in arms over this "controversial" issue enough to merit news headlines?
If I were attending the marriage of two people who I knew to be vegans, I'd expect the menu to be vegan, and I'd actually be shocked and confused if it was not. However, as someone who has dated a lot of meat-eaters, I know that if I were to marry an omnivore I'd compromise on a reception menu that had both meat and vegetarian/vegan options - afterall, if I wouldn't expect my boyfriend to stop eating meat once we were married, why should I demand that he not eat it at our actual wedding itself?
I don't see much to argue over here... Just more sensationalization of vegetarian/vegan lifestyles where there really is no need for it. I have thrown vegetarian dinner parties at which omnivores were present, and they all enjoyed the food I prepared for them even though there was no meat in it. I don't think I know any meat-eaters who are so carnivorous that they would really be bothered by ONE meatless meal on ONE special occasion... especially if the food was really good, as (surprise!) a lot of vegetarian/vegan food certainly can be!
Anyone else think it's kind of absurd that this article was even published?