"Stephen Fry, 59, looks in high spirits as he makes a very dapper appearance alongside toyboy husband Elliott Spencer" As much as I try, I just can't get my head around this. Anyway Fry looks more like the 'husband' that the other one. Then again, the other one would have looked better in a wedding frock. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...-husband-Elliot-Spencer-arrive-Wimbledon.html
They both identify as male, so they are both the husband. What outdated concepts are you going by that say there can be only one? My marriage has two wives and two husbands.
I've known my fair share of gay married couples. To date none of them have introduced their other half as anything other than the typical title based on their gender. Male=husband, Female=wife.
And that makes you an expert on SSM ? Introduction; This is My Life Partner; ( name here) very few adopt HS terms of husband & wife... The outdated stereotype of a homosexual marriage, a butch man and a fem man reffering to each other as husband & wife...
No, it does not. I never claimed that I was an expert on SSM, I never said that it was what all SSM couples do. I simply stated a fact about my personal experiences with the SSM couples that I know and how they introduce themselves. If I used my experiences as a basis for a broader statement, then I would have been in the wrong. But if I had done that then my statement would have been akin to "Every SSM couple I've known has done this therefore all SSM couples do that." Which is not what I said. What I actually said was... Bit of a difference. Well I find that odd since I've not seen that. My friends have introduced themselves as "Hi, I'm [male name] and this is my husband [male name2]" and "Hi, I'm [female name] and this is my wife [female name2]" Perhaps it's a difference in locality? I sent my one friend a message over Facebook and asked about "Life Partner". His response is that he and his husband have had enough of having to call each other life partners and rejoiced when SSM became legal in all 50 states and could acknowledge each other as a true married couple. Again this is not a broad statement...just the opinions and beliefs of two people that I know.
He likes talking about it he just talks negatively about it so he can talk about it without admitting he likes talking about it. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
You seem to have this way with vague statements, that don't convey any real message at all. But if you want to drop it that's on you.
You think Polygamy is modern? It is, at least, just as "outdated" as monogamy, so calling the latter "outdated" makes no sense whatsoever.
Polygamy is no more or less modern than monogamy. The outdated concept is not monogamy itself, but that monogamy is the only one possible. Or in the case of monogamy that only one wife and one husband is possible. The outdated concept is that you can't have two of either in the same marriage.
I'd have to disagree with that. My understanding is that many gay people are thrilled and proud to be able to (finally) call each other husband or wife. They feel it's a small victory.
They are thrilled and proud to be able to have their partner legally recognized. It is pretty much the same victory that was felt by interracial couples after than became legal.
I disagree. Most gay couples I know never once have used the term life partner. That tends to be how uneasy parents or relatives of the couple introduce their spouses. I believe what he meant was husband and husband.
If we marry, we tend refer announce ourselves as a married couple and the two spouses are identified by the typical gender related term husband or wife. This 'partner' thing is used by those who live together without benefit of marriage. Basically gay spouses, reach back to the behavior of their own married parents as their model, just like straights do. This isn't complicated, at all.
You are not very up with the gay community and how it references itself, or the poly community for that matter. But before we go too deep into this, let me ask you a question, and yes it is related and is going to be used to illustrate my point. If you are not married assume you are for the purpose of the question. If the government were to suddenly cease to recognize any marriages legally, would your wife still be your wife (or husband as the case may be since no gender is listed for you)? Or would she suddenly be only your partner?
Am I religious in this hypothetical and does my church recognize this union as a marriage? Or alternately am I alone defining this relationship outside of any civil or religious institution? I cannot define or create or destroy my own marriage, but I can describe my relationship. A marriage requires the sanction of a social institution.
Says who? For the longest time, marriage was simply a matter of declaring such. Weddings were the purview of the rich and nobility, if even then. The Church didn't make it a requirement that you be married under their auspices until around the 13th century, I believe, under Pope Innocent II, IIRC. As to the initial questions, that is whatever you actuallly and currently are. But that is still enough to illustrate my point. There is no singular definition of marriage, of who and what it should be, or how those within it are named. Just because one particular group doesn't recognize the marriage, does that automatically invalidate it to all other groups? Now if we are talking about the benefits or other result of a given group, then yes, what any other group, including the marriage unit itself, holds to doesn't matter one whit, within that context.