Disney Opens Fairy Tale Weddings To Gay Couples

[shinerbock]

Not to get picky, but I really don't think you have to be a religious extremist to be disgruntled with Disney's relationship w/ the gay community.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Not to get picky, but I really don't think you have to be a religious extremist to be disgruntled with Disney's relationship w/ the gay community.

Well, maybe, but I don't think the average person would try to organize a boycott.

[TPASIGEP]

Good for them! At least they'll be making money off one of the fastest growing income groups.

On a side note...it always amazes me that ignorant people have this innate desire to stick their noses in anyone elses business.

There are plenty of other things to worry about in this world.

<off soap box now>

[BetteDavisEyes]

Originally Posted by TPASIGEP

On a side note...it always amazes me that ignorant people have this innate desire to stick their noses in anyone elses business.

LOL! Oh yeah. I agree here. Gay or straight, it doesn't matter. Gay people's money is just as valuable as straight people's money.
If those extreme religious yahoos want to boycott Disney over this, no big deal.

[DeltAlum]

Good for Disney.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by TPASIGEP

Good for them! At least they'll be making money off one of the fastest growing income groups.

On a side note...it always amazes me that ignorant people have this innate desire to stick their noses in anyone elses business.

There are plenty of other things to worry about in this world.

<off soap box now>

On a side note, I love how people automatically deem those don't agree with them to be "ignorant".

[UGAalum94]

I'm not addressing the issue of gay marriage with the first part at all:

But if in the past Disney required a valid marriage license, and now they are being more inclusive, can you just have a "play" wedding there now? Can a girl with really indulgent parents throw her a sweet sixteen in the form of a Fairy Tale Wedding?

On to gay marriage sort of:

I sometimes think that the state should get out of the marriage business all together and rewards whatever benefits it sees in marriage on couples actually doing those things: raising a family, etc, in terms of couples in civil unions.

As long as heterosexuals are represented by the Elizabeth Taylors and Brittney Spears of the world and bizarrely Michael Jackson too, it's hard to make a claim of the moral high road for heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law.

Now, I think churches ought to be able to restrict the sacrament of marriage in any way they want, but it's hard to figure out what valid interest the state has in the biological sexes of the couple. (Heterosexual couples use artificial insemination to conceive and sometimes surrogates to carry the child, so procreation as a state interest, or whatever, is kind of problematic. Do you think I read to much Andrew Sullivan?)

[BetteDavisEyes]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

But if in the past Disney required a valid marriage license, and now they are being more inclusive, can you just have a "play" wedding there now? Can a girl with really indulgent parents throw her a sweet sixteen in the form of a Fairy Tale Wedding?

I don't know about a "play" wedding b/c I'm not sure exactly what that entails but I was at Disneyland with a friend who was considering getting married and found out that though there are some technicalities involved, you can have a Sweet 16, Quincanera, or Anniversary party and have everything a wedding does except for the wedding ceremony obviously. You can even get the coach which if I recall correctly, it's around $2000 to use it.

[shinerbock]

I agree that it would be much better without government sanctioned marriages. Unfortunately that ship has failed.

[UGAalum94]

I don't really know what a play wedding entails either, but I was thinking of the funny cases in which people who saw themselves as permanently single threw themselves wedding-like parties. No one I've really known has ever done this, but I've read funny news articles about them.

Thanks for answering my question: the answer is that they already could.

[TPASIGEP]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

On a side note, I love how people automatically deem those don't agree with them to be "ignorant".

OK...first off, I wasn't referring to you, but was commenting about people in the article that think boycotting Disney is really going to impact this decision. It didn't work in the past.

Also, you're right, a different opinion is not ignorance, an uniformed one is.

[UGAalum94]

From the article:

"In 2005, Southern Baptists ended an eight-year boycott of the Walt Disney Co. for violating 'moral righteousness and traditional family values.'"

And now, Disney is allowing people not officially allowed by law to marry in many places to go through the wedding event they offer.

If Southern Baptists were actually following through on the boycott through 2005, do you suppose the decision to offer the weddings to same sex couples will be just be ignored? Maybe it will, and Disney seems committed enough to their beliefs to be firm anyway.

But while certainly the first point of a boycott is to change the practice of company who you are boycotting, but it can also reinforce the resolve and unity of the people engaged in the boycott as a matter of principle.

While I don't care one way or the other about the parties available at Disney at all, I'm not sure that it's ignorant to boycott. Unlikely to change the policy maybe, but that may not be the only point.

Even though I'm not bothered by Disney's decision politically or socially, I'm not really celebrating that Disney found another way to make money. It's hard for me as a matter of taste to get excited about anyone having a Disney wedding, (shouldn't you have gotten over that when you were twelve?), and the silliness of it is compounded by it having no legal significance.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

From the article:

"In 2005, Southern Baptists ended an eight-year boycott of the Walt Disney Co. for violating 'moral righteousness and traditional family values.'"

And now, Disney is allowing people not officially allowed by law to marry in many places to go through the wedding event they offer.

If Southern Baptists were actually following through on the boycott through 2005, do you suppose the decision to offer the weddings to same sex couples will be just be ignored? Maybe it will, and Disney seems committed enough to their beliefs to be firm anyway.

But while certainly the first point of a boycott is to change the practice of company who you are boycotting, but it can also reinforce the resolve and unity of the people engaged in the boycott as a matter of principle.

While I don't care one way or the other about the parties available at Disney at all, I'm not sure that it's ignorant to boycott. Unlikely to change the policy maybe, but that may not be the only point.

Even though I'm not bothered by Disney's decision politically or socially, I'm not really celebrating that Disney found another way to make money. It's hard for me as a matter of taste to get excited about anyone having a Disney wedding, (shouldn't you have gotten over that when you were twelve?), and the silliness of it is compounded by it having no legal significance.

If after eight years, a boycott doesn't hamper Disney, I fail to see how the Southern Baptists' continuation of said boycott would have a) prevented this or b) made anyone at Disney care what the SB's think.


To your second post, Disney has been very pro-gay for a long time now. If you're just now figuring that ouw you AREN'T worrying about the politcal implications of the policies of the businesses you frequent. Their allowal of these ceremonies really does jack shit politcally. It's just fun and lets them waste humongous amounts of money equally with straight people.

They're not issuing marriage licenses to couples who cannot legally marry under state law.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by TPASIGEP

On a side note...it always amazes me that ignorant people have this innate desire to stick their noses in anyone elses business.

There are plenty of other things to worry about in this world.

<off soap box now>

So, are you saying that people shouldn't worry about the political implications of the policies of the businesses they frequent generally, or just that people who aren't as progressive as you shouldn't do this?