So I got a wedding invitation..

You're being told you must attend - it's not a choice you are allowed to make. To me personally I would not go out of principle because it should be up the recipient to choose to go (or not) and might require a lot of re-working of other personal and/or work arrangements.

I've never been to a wedding, been invited to one, or had one of my own. Weddings to me are a joke because they are only ever 100 pct about the woman and the man is just an 'accessory'.

They might’ve worded it a bit more concisely. 😊

My cousin, who married at age of 56 (her groom was 60) sent invitations that said:

"Between me and Eric there are two houses full of material possessions. Respectfully, your presence is the only gift we require."

If you dont want to be a gift dont attend. I will come to any wedding i am invited to because it is a gift to you to be invited the host spends so much money and time on it.

I believe that they are conveying the wish for you to remove or obfuscate your "presence" which is normally seen as a gift in their eyes, ears, and noses. So, just come as you are, without the real you underneath it all. But not just in your B-Day suit. Could be children present.

To everyone offering advice… thank you but this was meant to be a joke😁

😂 I didn't get it at first. Now I read it as a quite smart backhanded insult. 😂

I would say no. You’re invited by FaceTime call or video only.

I read it as not an invite, but an insistence..

They want your presence so much they don't want a gift but.. You HAVE TO GO.. Otherwise you have to get a gift 😆😆

It means you don't need to take a gift
Your presence (you being there) is enough

Yes, you are invited but they are asking that your presence be gift enough. So apparently they don’t want gifts.

Don't go, but send a gift instead.

Subtle insult.

"We want everybody to come."

"Yet no humans."

You sure it wasn't a case of mistaken identity?

Maybe they thought you were someone else.

After all, you constantly create new accounts here to circumvent blocks in direct violation of the TOS.

It does seem a bit ambiguous.