It's not the use of the word "gay" as an adjective, Jane. It's the generic use of "gays" as a noun. I am a gay woman but I am not "a gay", like you wouldn't say "He is a black" or "She is a straight". For one thing, it's grammatically incorrect!
I don't mind if you want to call your husband your "husband" as long as I can call my partner my "partner" ;)
Michelle, you may find the term āgaysā offensive, but I would not otherwise to refer to you. Would you prefer to be referred to as lesbian? I think I speak for most of the straight population, we really do not know how to refer to other than gay.
I never refer to my husband in any other term. He is not my partner or OH.
Wow Sheila! Why did you choose to get married? I suspect for the same reasons my partner (that's how I choose to refer to her) did - because we love each other, wanted to spend our lives together and wanted to show our commitment to each other. We are not technically married because at the time we decided to make our commitment to each other only a civil partnership was available to us. If we were doing it all again now, of course we would choose a marriage.
You seem to want to define us by the one thing that makes us "different" from you, suggesting that we adopt the term "gayhood"! In what circumstances would anyone ever wish to use that? What would it be used to refer to? I just don't understand the need for it. And why would gay people want "their own exclusive institutional definition of their relationships"? Simple equality is all any of us want.
I'm not sure why you're getting so hung up on semantics. What difference does it make how we choose to refer to each other? People use "partner", "wife", "husband", "other half", whether they are in straight or gay marriages. Surely, that's an individual choice. Why should we have to adopt a definition of your choosing such as "couple"? As for the "Miss/Ms/Mrs" thing, again, personal choice. Some straight married women prefer "Ms".
Are your ideas to segregate gay people, to make us stand out as different and be easily identifiable, pigeon-holed into the boxes you have defined for us, aimed at ensuring we are easily recognisable, so that you are able to keep your distance, make sure we don't encroach on your traditional (putting it kindly) going-on? Maybe we should all wear pink ribbons to make it easier for you.
I'm afraid I do find your views homophobic and, by the way, I find the generic word "gays" offensive.
Before gay people were able to marry or have civil partnerships, we didn't only have no legal inheritance rights, which I agree could be remedied in part with a will; more importantly, in my view, we had no rights as next of kin while our partners were still alive. If decisions had to be made about hospital treatment, end of life care or even decisions such as turning off life support, the gay partner had no legal right to be involved in them. He or she was completely shut out. They weren't even entitled to register their partner's death. Another important reason for demanding equal rights.
In the C of E the vicar is both and all marriages conducted in a Church of England church are legal. When we were married we signed the Register in the church and so did our witnesses.
All priests, vicars, curates can conduct marriages and are always both celebrant and registrar, therefore, no need for any further civil marriage.
Agreed.
Probably for the same reason as you wanted to be married when pregnant Shirley.
It is a personal choice.
Maybe it is of mega importance to many gay couples Bruce ? Each to their own surely ?
This may be the legal point in Ireland, but not in England, where civil partnerships gave the same legal rights as marriage.
I'm afraid you're wrong there, Jane. As far as I know, in the UK, religious marriages have no legal validity UNLESS performed in a church by an "authorised celebrant" (usually but not always a minister of religion), who performs the dual roles of celebrant AND registrar.
My experience is of the Irish situation, but I'm pretty certain it is no different in the UK.
Time to kick over the traces Shirley.
Before 325, the 1st Council of Nicea, the original church believed that women held the same status as men within the church. Blame Constatine!
Abortion, next on the list.
When I was looking for my natural father I cme in contact with a lady who was born at almost the same time as myself in Lancaster.
Her mother came over fron Northern Ireland to Heysham snd she was adopted into an RC family in Liverpool.
Incidentally I went to obtain a passport inLiverpool with my shortened form birth certificate and had my passport stamped āfurther proof of British citizenship requiredā.
The clerk actually said that I could have been smuggled in from Ireland!
I'm an atheist and my wife is a Hindu. we got married to tell people that we were committed to each other, as gay couples, I presume,who want to marry. Plenty of straight couples don't feel the need to, as do gay couples. It's horses for courses.
I do know that our kids would have likely got some stick at school if we weren't married (being a mixed couple was bad enough). Hopefully, gay couples with kids might not get so much as if they were not married, but I won't hold my breath.
There's too many more important things in the world than this.
Can't believe you have your head buried so far under the ground Shirley. This IS 2015 and we are not living in the Dark Ages !
Two men or two women chose to get married for exactly the same reason as two heterosexuals choose to tie the knot.They all have their reasons though personally I woud hope the underlying reason for the vast majority would be to show their love and devotion for and to each other.
For one thing, it makes our society more inclusive. Secondly, it is a matter of equality, and finally and most importantly, it is a human right.
In my opinion, and that of all my friends including my LGBT friends, sexual orientation is NOT a choice.
Exactly Celeste, it just shows how out of touch are those in charge who have been appointed by Rome.
I am hoping that things will change within the Catholic church, with the beatification of Oscar Romero, and the recognition of liberation theology.
Mind you contraception, women and married priests, which are welcomed by my Catholic friends here in France, are still blocks to bringing together Christian churches.
Never mind the question of the presence of Christ within the host.
I left the C of E because I cannot accept the Nicene Creed and I am sure that this is the case for many Christians, they cannot be bothered to find a happier home, or perhaps they do not know where to look?
We really need Christians to come together as the challenges from outside are more dangerous than those from within.
despite all replies, Other than the legal disposition of goods and chattels, Iām still not totally getting why Gay people need or want to be married, unless someone is saying if one of the partners dies and leaves everything to the other, that is not legal in Ireland, without a change in the law, so is the only reason for marriage instead!
I used to type Wills back in UK and we had to define the lfegal relationship of family and other beneficiaries. I leave ??? to my wife (enter name hereā¦) /husband, etc etc. What word/s will gay married people be allowed to use, if itās now legal to leave them your āgoods and chattelsā. I understand the desire to change the law for same sex marriage there in Ireland in that context, however it would be easier to change the law for individuals to dispose of their assets to whomsoever they wish, as well as to define rights and responsibilities if they have children from whatever source - āyou can lead a horse to waterā¦ā I think someone said.
Iāve heard family arguments over the disposition of a next of kin wills, usually their parent of course. all good fun thatleft me gobsmacked at the greed or disagreement! Even had regular phone calls to enquire if the court of Probate had accepted and released the will for disposition. So again yes change of law required.
So many words have been hijacked and are now mis- used, from the English language, by gay society. Why?
Gay was a āChristianā name, both female and male. How many people name their baby āGayā in todayās society?
Marriage, marry, married,described the legal and aspirational definitions when marriage was the legal definition of a union between a man and a woman only, while nowadays, that relationship is defined as a partnership.
Why do people use Partner instead of husband/wife? A Partner used to define a business relationship only, when I was younger. Now anyone can use it no matter who their personal/private life is shared with. Why canāt gays just define hemselves as a āCoupleā - 2 people in relationship with each other, just as a married man and woman are. The word 'couple can define the type of relationship. when meeting a couple of people! marriage defined a man and womans legal relationship exclusively.
what do or did a gay couple say, this is my husband/wife/partner when introducing themselves to ssomeone else. I Like or donāt like, an individual for who that individual is, not their sexual preferences or living arrangements? How do you address two women now married say, if one or both had never been married before, are they Both say Mrs. āsmithā. If both were divorced from previous husbands to start their gay relationship, then marry, how do you address them?
There are so many logical reasons why the hi-jacking of both the word and our institution of marriage by gays are not a good idea. I hate to express the following in the way Iām going to because I donāt want to appear homophobic, Iām not butā¦
A gay relationship is different - why not define your/themselves by means of a different institution, invent their own not hijack ours, long held over many many years by those of us who are not Gay.
Marriage, parenthood both long understood to mean something, so not why Gayhood, and canāt think of a name myself for a gay institution. Letās keep things where they belonged when it comes to the language. One day things will change no doubt to give gays their own exclusive institutional definition of their relationships.
no Iām still not persuaded as to why I should change my mind over the use and definition of āmarriageā for same sex couples. Shouldnāt have changed the law and almost destroyed history for millions, just for the sake of a few thousand/million who choose to be different.
Two men were always know pm as individuals as Mr only, which will continue.
Sheila, the original question was that the clergy were not able to marry legally. In the UK if you marry in an established church, you do not need to have a civil ceremony to make your marriage legal.
In France you have a civil ceremony and then, or not, a religious ceremony.
Hi Celeste, I reckon the Brits would have voted like the French and like most of the EU countries with a 70%-30% Yes majority .
It's great that the democratic process has won the day with people now having the SSM choice, onwards and upwards. Religious and sexual freedom of expression is primordial for me - I am still Charlie and Charlotte !
Shirley, I am so sorry that you were not able to marry in church.
I am sure that, even in the 60ās, there were ministers who would have married you. Perhaps Non-conformists?
I was adopted, so I would prefer if you would not use the term bastard.
I am myself and since I found my natural family it is apparent that I have a much more āmoralā outlook on life.
Money is not my be all and end all!
I have so often noticed that the most intelligent, most educated people are often among the most ignorant. Your neighbour is probably just that.