Since their wedding this weekend, how is one to address them formally? Sir and Lady John? Doesn't sound right, really, and I don't know how many men would like to be called 'Lady'. And Furnish can't become a knight by marriage, can he.
Any ideas, or is this an example of the folly of gay marriage? Personally I would have thought Civil Partnership was sufficient for this type of union.
|
|
What gets me about this is the inequality, in that a mixed sex couple is not allowed to civilly partner, while a same sex couple can choose that or marriage. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
|
>> a mixed sex couple is not allowed to civilly partner, while a same sex couple can choose that or marriage. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
OK Alastair, technical inequality. But who could possibly care? What's wrong with living in sin? We've all done it, if we're any damn use...
It's mean-spirited to be envious of homosexuals, even rich happy ones like Elton John and David Furnish. I can never help thinking of all the disadvantages.
Being 'straight' isn't always a bed of roses, but it must be better than that (to a conventional, backward person like me anyway).
|
|
Sir and Mr sounds right to me. Worried about what to put on the invite? :-)
|
Personally I
>> would have thought Civil Partnership was sufficient for this type of union.
>>
Rather an obnoxious, ignorant bigoted comment.
Yes, the frownie was from me !
|
I think gay people should be absolutely entitled to get married.
I am somewhat less supportive of forcing churches to marry them.
|
There was a couple on the wireless this morning going on about hetero couples not having the right to a civil union, marriage being a male domination idea seemingly being the main objection. About the only other one they could think of was that whilst a woman only has to produce a marriage certificate to change her name upon marriage, a man has to have a deed poll job, therefore it is not a "partnership".
I don't see why marriage can't be a partnership if the parties decide it is. Why don't they just form a limited company and move on?
I thought they didn't have enough to worry about, and were wasting their lives worrying about it TBH.
|
>>
>>
>> I don't see why marriage can't be a partnership if the parties decide it is.
>> Why don't they just form a limited company and move on?
>>
>>
I wouldn't fancy having to register with Companies House and submit accounts every year. Then there's the VAT...
|
>> Any ideas, or is this an example of the folly of gay marriage? Personally I
>> would have thought Civil Partnership was sufficient for this type of union.
Like Skip I'm seeing some bigotry here. What on earth is 'this type of union'?
There's a wider issue on the titles thing isn't there. If I were a knight my wife would be Lady Bromptonaut (or is it Lady Elizabeth?) . However if she were a Dame (ie the female equivalent of a knight) I'd still be Mr/Esq.
|
>>
>> Like Skip I'm seeing some bigotry here. What on earth is 'this type of union'?
>>
There are a few (not yourselves I hasten to add) who would see bigotry anywhere short of homosexuality being compulsory. I suspect the point being made is that every time a move is enacted towards an equal balance on this subject, something which I personally have no problem with by the way, it's never enough to satisfy some.
For the record, a considerable chunk of the gay community think the same way, that gay marriage is a step too far.
|
>>a considerable chunk of the community think the same way, that marriage is a step too far.
There ya go, Harleyperson - fixorated :-)
|
>> There ya go, Harleyperson - fixorated :-)
>>
>>
No need for that. My information comes from gay friends, and I share their friendship not their sexual preferences.
|
>> a considerable chunk of the gay community think the same way, that gay marriage is a step too far.<,
...and no-one is forcing them to get married, so why does it worry them when those who want to, are allowed to?
Pat
|
|
Whilst I don't doubt the views of your friends, for the record, as a gay man, I don't know anyone who thinks that it's a step too far... A generational thing again perhaps?
|
>> Whilst I don't doubt the views of your friends, for the record, as a gay
>> man, I don't know anyone who thinks that it's a step too far... A generational
>> thing again perhaps?
Oddly, my gay friend and former colleague Paul, like me in his mid fifties, is in the 'step too far' camp. I'm inclined to think perhaps his Catholic upbringing shows occasionally (or experience from his own long term relationship that hit the rocks shortly after their Civil Partnership) .
|
Easy answer to the OP - get rid of all snooty, class obsessed titles.
Mr & Mr.
|
|
I think this is all a case of Reg Dwight wishing to be in the limelight again.
|
I find it really hard to care one way or another how anyone else chooses to live their lives, what agreements, legal, religious or other they make between themselves or indeed what title they wish to be known by so long as it has no adverse bearing on my life.
Good luck to them. We are all just temporary tenants of the planet and soon enough none of what we, the current coincidental occupants think will matter, if ever it did.
|
>>
>> There's a wider issue on the titles thing isn't there.
The obvious answer is to discontinue all courtesy titles aquired simply by marriage.
If a spouse is worthy of an honour in his/her own right, then award one. If not, then the person remains untitled.
eg
HM The Queen and Mr Phillip Mountbatten.
|
The Japanese are as ever ahead of the curve when it comes to the whole area of partnerships and weddings. You can now have a "solo wedding, which sounds like all fun and no baggage.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-30574801
|
>> The Japanese are as ever ahead of the curve when it comes to the whole
>> area of partnerships and weddings. You can now have a "solo wedding, which sounds like
>> all fun and no baggage.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-30574801
The Japanese even arrange weddings between you and your blow up doll.
|
Scope for tax inheritance planning there.
Marry your blow-up doll, and leave him/her your fortune.
Son marries blow-up doll and inherits fortune.
Son sticks pin in doll to stop it changing its mind.
|
>> The Japanese even arrange weddings between you and your blow up doll.
>>
Is a puncture grounds for divorce?
|
Only if it's a little prick
:)
|
>> HM The Queen and Mr Phillip Mountbatten.
>>
Or Commander (Retd) Philip Mountbatten. Given that HRH served with distinction in the Second World War it would be a niggardly person indeed who begrudged him that. Then again I tend to find that all the people who knock the royals tend to be of that kind of persuasion.
|
I wasn't knocking them at all. In fact I think the D of E fully deserves a title under his own merits. I was simply giving a tongue in cheek example of my suggested revised system, starting with the default position that no husband should be anything more than a Mr unless he has a title in his own right.
( I thought he was an admiral?)
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Wed 24 Dec 14 at 14:35
|
>> I wasn't knocking them at all. In fact I think the D of E fully
>> deserves a title under his own merits.
He was born a Prince, so his title would always have been 'Prince'.
|
...how is one to address them formally? Sir and Lady John?
Sir Elton and Laddy John.
}:---)
The problem with the traditional titles not fitting the changed institution isn't with the change, it's with the tradition.
Incidentally, I hadn't thought of the name-change issue for same-sex couples. Does it mean either one of two women can change her name to match the other, but the same doesn't apply to two men? If so, that's plainly discriminatory but probably unintentional, and one imagines is on the list to be fixed.
As for the Civil Partnership, it was brought in as a compromise before we were sure society was ready for fully equal marriage, to give gay couples access to the legal protections those of us who - by chance, remember - turned out straight had had for generations. Now it seems superfluous and will, I hope, be quietly dropped. Extending it to all couples would be daft.
|
>> As for the Civil Partnership, us who - by chance, remember - turned out straight had
(snip quote)
>> Extending it to all couples would be daft.
If it were marriage by any other name that's true. It's value would be as a form of civil registration which could be done with nil/minimum ceremony.
Something that allowed a simple legal recognition of the 'common law wife' - a position that has no existence at either common or statute law.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 24 Dec 14 at 16:51
|
Elton John and David Furnish - Alastairw
