Grrr Radio One News - HUSBAND!!!

[FlameWithTooManyHormones]

I may () be hormonal but it is really starting to piss me off.

Stephen Gately did not have "a partner". He was married. They keep saying "His partner who he married in....".... therefore it is his HUSBAND!

Grrr.

Feels like they are lessening the relationship somehow.

OOh prof that's a nice image there isn't it? great way to start a Monday

Its ok if the person is saying it, as in my whatever. It is when it is in the third person that I will/do get confused I know I will and then my a pratt of myself

family relationships are confusing enough, with who's who and to add this into the mix and have a child telling me all this in the third person is when I get totally lost - sorry.

When all I aksed was who shall I go and find for you ect at the end of the stay.

I shall carry on being as dilpomatic as possible and never ever asuming just think person

I think peson is by far best of all.

And I would suggest (as someone with a fott permanently in it and hencefore a large stock of usefulphrases ) 'Shall I go get your other half?Sorry i've forgotten,what was their name'....

unless it's lesley, sam (oh dear ds1 is a SAm) or nat, you should be laughing LOL

I have been known to get other halfs confused and try and swap them - that was but not my fault the description was lose, getting sexes mixed up is not soemthing any of us want to do.

stuffit - yes, IMO it does matter very much.

Peachy, you are this mornings Goddess, fab come back!

Prof I love the image of the DM combusting.. you have lightened my day

Flame, well done on the facial expression - keep working on it though, the need to ask if you are still pg seems to be directly related to how obvious it is you are pg.. the more obvious the stronger the need to ask so keep at it

I really do think that the whole attitude of (from the other thread) "it just sounds wrong! or "it's confusing", "it is not legally correct" and so on just displays latent homophobia - which perhaps the speaker is not even aware of, homophobia is pretty much an intrinsic part of our society but in a very subliminal/under the wire kind of way and I do think it is important to challenge yourself and others when these kind of things are said - ask someone to explain why it sounds wrong and you will most likely get "well, it just does"

Of course I would equally defend a persons right not to use the traditional terms too...!

Mat lucas's ex who committed suicide last week was referred to as his husband.

It seems to me it is up to the individuals concerned. If SG referred to his other half as his 'husband' then it is entirely reasonable for other people to use the same term. Likewise the converse - but if I don't know, I would refer to someone's partner - irrespective of the genders of the two partners, I would use the same term if I didn't know if they were married or not.

Ivykate, honestly I doubt that many same sex couples are really all that bothered if you get confused about their partner being male or female saying "oh no my partner is [same sex]" must become a part of everyday life simply because the general assumption is of hetrosexual relationships. Rightly or wrongly. As long as you don't respond with " Oh REALLY, well I never knew that, I mean well... with you haveing dc I just assumed you HAD to be hetro.. you know..." a simple "ok, and what is his/her name then" or words to that effect.

It is only a big deal if you make it a big deal IMO!

(and yes I have had a 4yo explain to me that X in the new class has two mummies and a daddy but the mumies live together and the daddy stays sometimes at the weekend but he has his own house where he lives with Uncle Y.... I survived and even managed an appropriate response!)

Yes he was wasn't he?And yet it was his ex.....

Ivy there is no great hammer from above destioned to smite you if you get it wrong; I am sure gay people get things confused as much as anyone else. It's just about trying to do your best to show acceptance, and not discriminate. A minor cock up from time to time- well a peson having an issue with that is being off, something just as common in the gay community as the staright one IME.

It's not remotely homophobic to object to it for the reason that they're not married - because it's still not legal for a man to marry a man. That's just a fact. It's sucketh a lot, but some people really do object to it because they're still working for actual equal-rights and aren't too happy with the current second class 'civil partnership' fudge.

Not that I have an opinion on this, you understand.

'A minor cock up from time to time'

demonstartesown theory very effectively indeed

Stealth yep,I find partner easiest overall, and mostly I find a listening ear willpick up the term of choice.

No but it may effect and upset the children they live with - and this is important to child.

It is not a case of me surviving it it is making sure the dc are not left upset, children want to be and see there way of life as the norm.

Kay, what is different between a civil partnership and a marraige?

The best response on the other thread could manage is that it is because it is written as a new law rather than extending the current law to include same sex couples...

My point all along has been that, if a couple takes on the same rights and responsibilities as they would in a civil wedding ceremony then they are just as entitled to be considered married as anyone else.

If the rights and responsibilities are different then that does need adressing and I do think the current law of marraige should be changed to take out the clause that they have to be male/female, however, essentially if people make a commitment to each other in this way then they deserve the right to be considered married to each other if that is what they want.

TBH I suspect you are over thinking it, children will live with people getting it wrong the first time they meet their family - they may get a bit upset if you do it every time you meet them of course but not if it is the first time.

I would expect a parent to be able to explain to their children that this is a common mistake and, mostly, no harm is meant by it.

People assume my dc have the same father, they assume I live with one of them, they assume I am straight (I am but that is not really the point) and my dc have not yet gone quivering into the corner screaming for a shrink.

Matt Lucas's ex committed suicide?

Sorry, this has just reminded me of Horton Hears A Who - "Think of the children... think of the CHILDREN"

See, I find kids do think the way they live is the norm and OK until other people stick the oar in. Our family is somewhat unique in many ways yet the boys don't notivce that DH is a student, that 3 / 4 kids have SN or SEN, or that I am the oppsoite of their friends yummy mummy famillies- all they notive is that 'Why aren;t we the same, B ahs a flatscreen in the kiitchen and S has a snake, it'snot faaaaaair'

Kids need toexperience variety to grow up open minded.Much as we don't have a gay aprent here,we do have gay friends and want them to know that is OK, and most imporatntly normal.

Yes Flame, very sad, there are threads on here but it is not pleasant TBH.

If a couple is happy to be called husband and husband that's one thing. But plenty of gay couples in civil partnerships aren't - John Barrowman springs to mind actually, and their objections can't be considered homophobic, which was my main point.

Because the civil partnership 'new law' primarily means that those who object to gay marriage can be pacified, because it's not simply an extension of the laws on marriage. It should be, it's half-arsed to not do it, but that's this government all over.

No, I wouldn't consider a gay couple making a choice about their own life homophobic - why would I? I might if they were trying to apply that view to everybody else regardless of the choice they have made for themselves though....

DMNC, a civil partnership doesn't have to have a ceremony at all; the legally binding thing and, in a sense, the civil partnership itself, is the signing of the register (is it a register? The bit of paper, anyway). A civil marriage very definitely does have to have a ceremony, and the ceremony has to include a very specific form of words. It's the ceremony that's the legally binding thing and the register is the record that the marriage has actually taken place (I'm not sure what happens if for some freak reason the register then doesn't get signed).

It's a small difference, but it must be a deliberate one. It would have been far easier when drafting the civil partnership legislation to just copy-and-paste the existing civil marriage legislation than to come up with something new, and it wouldn't have been at all difficult, having come up with the new civil partnership arrangements (which do seem a better system, IMO), to amend the civil marriage arrangements to be the same.

It has been left slightly different, and with different legal terminology, specifically as a sop to those who object to gay marriage ("you see, it's not really marriage; it's just a change of legal status to protect financial and housing rights"). And ultimately that's what needs to be sorted out.

Well, personally I don't have a problem with Gately's widower being referred to as such, I was just talking about the broader point of homophobia (oh, how I hate that word).

Goo dpoints in both last two posts

I think it comes down to respecting what individuals want (I, for example have a horror of being called Mrs Peach ) whilst simultaneously shouting for real gay marriage in law, and calloing thosewho wish to be called husband, husband.

A bit ofa tesy of listening togetherwith a measured amunt of foot in it syndrome

Yes, children find it normal, until adults keep getting things muddles - that is why it is important to me to say the right/correct things. It would be good to have a clear cut stance on it rather than all having different, the children dont make that choice but adults can

cheers