"sponsored" weddings?

[4greatboys]

Originally posted by Jeff in BigD
Maybe it should be Crisco

 

[caitycaity]

my initial reaction was TACKY!!!

but if it is done in the way donna mentioned, i guess i don't have much aof a problem with it.

 

[RUDisney]

Yes, I think it makes the couple look cheap. If they can't afford the hoopla, they should scale the wedding back to match their means. The end result is that they are still married.

What's next? Baby shower sponsored by Kid's World?

Is the word of mouth going to spread about brand X store sponsoring the wedding, or is it going to be, "can you believe that Bill and Jane had brand X store pay for their wedding cake?"

Is it truly going to raise revenue for brand x store, or is it only going to make more couples go to the store to get help for their special day, too?

One of the tackiest things I ever got at a shower was a favor from Mary Kay with 2 sample lotions in it. That didn't make it tacky... the fact that there was a card from the MK distributor made it tacky.

 

[disykat]

I think more than making the couple look cheap, it's just makes them look plain silly. I would be more likely to say to a friend "Can you believe the crazy thing I saw at so & so's wedding...".

 

[CookieGVB]

It's got to be better than going on Ricki Lake and having THEM pay for the wedding.

 

[Zurg]

Alex would obviously cheat and alter the numbers

Never!

 

[philaround]

hey how about sponsored pregnancies?

THIS IS A REAL GERBER BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jamsmom]

I think there may be some little older ladies at my parents church that might rather see a wedding sponsored than the couple just live together


At first, I thought really tacky, but I guess it might be able to be done subtly.....but then, if it were subtle, would it give enough advertising?

 

[GeorgeG]

For the most part, tacky. However, if a large corporation... let's say Disney, were to offer to sponsor a wedding... let's say for my granddaughter a handful of years down the road... and it was an all-out gala at the Grand Floridian...

Still tacky? Maybe, but an offer I certainly would not refuse!

 

[RUDisney]

Originally posted by jamsmom
I think there may be some little older ladies at my parents church that might rather see a wedding sponsored than the couple just live together


At first, I thought really tacky, but I guess it might be able to be done subtly.....but then, if it were subtle, would it give enough advertising?

You made me laugh at this. I have a cousin who always said she and her BF would have to just live together because they couldn't afford a wedding.... then her sister won the state lottery of $3 million. Her sister offered to pay for her wedding.... she had to find a different excuse for not marrying him. This was about 15 years ago and they are still living together and happy. They have never married.... so your theory was blown with this couple.

 

[disykat]

Originally posted by jamsmom
I think there may be some little older ladies at my parents church that might rather see a wedding sponsored than the couple just live together


Wow, that's a pretty offensive statement. I don't know which I find worse - implying that only little old ladies don't approve of live-ins or implying that a good reason for living together is that you can't afford a wedding.

 

[RUDisney]

I don't see anything offensive about jamsmom's statement. I don't know of many old ladies (especially "church going" married, old ladies) that approve of live-in arrangements. They weren't raised to believe that is acceptable. We younger ladies are far more accepting of this type of arrangement.

As for implying that people live together because they can't afford to get married, I've heard many couples claim that this is the case just to get people off of their backs.

 

[disykat]

You misunderstand me, what offends me is that it is not ONLY "little old ladies" who are against live in arrangements. I guess I'm being called a little old lady!

I'm not trying to start a debate here - It's none of my business what people do in their private lives. I'm simply trying to point out that there are many people, not just "little old ladies", that don't favor live-in arrangements. I'm sure there are also "little old ladies" who don't have a problem with it.

 

[RUDisney]

You're right. I misunderstood. Sorry. It just seems to me that the "little old ladies" are the most vocal about it. I know that my DGM always was.

 

[jamsmom]

I did not mean to offend. I just think of some of the ladies on my parents church (80+ ) that I can not imagine find living together as okay. I know othres who are not 80+ may feel the same.