56 1 min 11 yrs

I see that women have overtaken men in the number of same-sex unions for the first time since civil partnerships were legalised in 2005.

The number of lesbian couples tying the knot has steadily increased, with 2010 being a record year as 51 per cent of all partnerships were female couples. Figures released by the Office for National Statistics show this amount crept up from 49 per cent of female same-sex unions in 2009 and 40 per cent in 2006, the first full year of the legislation.

Here are two sweeties that got “hitched” in Belfast in 2005. To a Dolly Parton song. They split up two months later.

Trailblazers: Shannon Sickels, right, and Grainne Close, were among the first of lesbian couples to 'wed', with many following them up the aisle

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

56 thoughts on “SHE….

  1. Perhaps your two “sweeties” were simply giving their new found freedom a test run.
    Her in front looks like she might enjoy a Guinness or two..

  2. Homosexuals are human beings who have the right to make the sme mistakes as heterosexual couples (whose marriages sometiems last less than 2 months). The phrase “Sweeties” surely indicates that homophobia is the driving force in the objection to marriage rights for gays, and not some defense of marriage itself.

  3. Can anyone hazard a guess at the relevance of the fact that there are now more same-sex unions between women than between men?

    Will it be equally newsworthy next month when there are more men than women in such unions? What about if there is a dead heat, will that also be worth reporting?

    In short, who cares a tinker’s cuss about things like this?

  4. Sweeties is a perfectly innocuous term, and those who see homophobia in it need to take a chill pill. Maybe I should have said lovelies? Get some perspective.

  5. If I can paraphrase Denis Leary on gay rights issues in the US: gay people want to make formal commitments to the one they love, be able to raise children in a loving home and fight for their country. What could be more American than that?

  6. Mahons,
    We’ve been here before.
    Marriage is for heterosexuals,
    and with all due respect
    Homosexuals cannot have children,
    which is one of the primary purposes of marriage.

    Talk all the PC garbage you want,
    but two girls with one trying to look like a regular guy,
    is not a recipe for domesticated bliss.
    It is simply a parody of the real thing.

    And again, all the PC crap about failing heterosexual marriages does not detract from the fact that the vast, vast majority of the world’s heterosexual population practice some form of marriage,
    providing a framework of love and security for the usual outcome of such relationships,
    namely children.

  7. I can’t understand why so many lesbian women favour the clothes and hairstyles of (straight) men, and also why some homosexual men seem to cultivate a very (traditional) feminine look.
    I would have thought that, if you’re a chap who fancies chaps, then you would be attracted to the male aspects of chappiness, and vice-versa for women. Where does this desire to dress yourself up as if you are a member of the oppposite sex come from? I can’t quite fathom this aspect of homosexual orientation. It’s a mystery to me. Having said that, I think the lady on the right of the photo is quite attractive.

  8. Marriage is for heterosexuals,

    This is not marriage. It is not a registry office wedding.

    It is civil partnership. Like wot the Act says it is. Duh!

  9. I would have thought the figure would be much higher for female unions. I always have thought lesbians were far more willing to tie the knot than gay men.

  10. “It’s a mystery to me. ”

    Let’s face it, Tom. “homosexual orientation” is just one of the very many things that are a mystery to you.

  11. Have to agree with Tom’s bafflement. I to find it a bit strange when you see obviously very masculine looking lesbian women and deliberately feminine looking gays. They have same sex partners but they look the opposite of what you would expect their partners to be attracted to, if that makes any sense ?

  12. Tom,
    I don’t know where it comes from, but in terms of sexual orientation homosexuals/lesbians are a tiny minority.
    They could never BE a majority because they can’t have children.
    Why are homosexuals often feminine and lesbians “butch” I haven’t the faintest idea.
    I just think that going down the road of giving it the same recognition and importance as heterosexuality is dangerous and destabilising to society.
    As is wife beating
    Human trafficking, Pornography
    Slavery and prostitution.

  13. Agit8ed – Having children is not a marriage requirement in your country or mine.

    One of the things about PC accusatiosn is that they are flung out as often as PC comments. And some PC comments, not all, happen to be both political and correct.

    Who made you the fashion king, can’t people dress the way they wish, or is that too much liberty for you? And plenty of gay and lesbian couples would dress in what you might consdier gender appropriate clothing. And plenty of heterosexual couples get married in what some might consider inappropriate clothing.

    Heterosexual marriage failures are not PC crap, but factual reality. And there is no statistics that demonstrate that heterosexual couples make better parents for children. In fact, you might recall tha twe have childre who need to be adopted becasue of heterosexuals.

  14. They could never BE a majority because they can’t have children.

    Agitated – You are far cleverer than to make such a dumbass comment as that.

  15. Wife beating, human trafficking, pornography, slavery and prostitution. Five areas in which heterosexuals also make up a greater majority of participants.

  16. “Peter, on July 8th, 2011 at 9:32 pm Said:

    Marriage is for heterosexuals,

    This is not marriage. It is not a registry office wedding.

    It is civil partnership. Like wot the Act says it is. Duh!

    Duh!!
    There are those in the homosexual community who would say that there should be no difference. Civil partnership =marriage.
    Which, if you follow Mahon’s line of argument
    (that if they pay their taxes
    fight for the country etc (like everybody else)
    they should be entitled to the same rights and privileges -including marriage.
    Duhh!!

  17. “They have same sex partners but they look the opposite of what you would expect their partners to be attracted to, if that makes any sense ?”

    Colm, it makes sense only if you can ignore the fact that people obviously don’t change their inclinations to suit the imagined preferences of a partner.

  18. Gayhater

    It is called The Civil Partnership Act, not the Gay Marriage Act. And for a reason.

  19. No one is saying that you have to attend their weddings, that your Church (if you belong to one) has to perform their wedding service, or that you have to marry a gay person.

    But they have the right as citizens to full citisenship, which includes the right to marry the person they love.

  20. Agit8ted,
    Without wanting to give offence to anyone, I agree with much of your 21:29 comment.
    I’d like to make this point: The pop artist Lady GaGa’s latest album is entitled “Born This Way”, a clear reference to homosexual lifestyles, with the inference that all homosexuals are inherently…born that way, and that therefore the condition is perfectly normal, and only lingering medieval prejudices stop it from being perceived as such.
    Well, I’m no prude and I have led far from a sheltered life in my youth. I was an utter hedonistic selfish so-and-so in my teenage years, and I’ve been around Soho and mixed with “the he-males and she-males”, as Shane McGowan sings of in “The Old Main Drag”. And in many instances – not all, but many – I have seen it for myself, that many sexually hedonistic people simply “try gay sex” not from some inner sense of being “born that way”, but just out of a sense of…I dunno, boredom, of having tried everything else and wanting to try something new (and ‘taboo’) simply in order to get a greater sexual kick out of it. It comes from a sort of addiction to ‘sexual thrills’, just like any other sort of addiction. All I’m saying is, I’ve seen it up close, and that’s the way it happens in a lot of cases (not all, I repeat, but in some cases). That’s what I have observed in real life, and I think that Lady Gaga’s album title is a big lie. The truth is far, far more complex than this idiotic “born that way” mantra.

  21. “Wife beating, human trafficking, pornography, slavery and prostitution. Five areas in which heterosexuals also make up a greater majority of participants.”

    I was talking about marriage and the health of society, which obviously is affected by heterosexual behaviour.
    Following your implication that because people mess up on marriage, that therefore it should be open to all to mess up.

  22. Noel

    Not sure what you mean by that. I was only really making the rather superficial argument that if say you are a Lesbian, it means you are attracted to female physical qualities. Why would you want a girlfriend who makes Big Daddy look like Kylie Minogue 😉

  23. Agit

    Can you explain what you meant by your 9.38pm comment that gays and Lesbians can never become a majority because they cannot have children ?

  24. Tom – Has someone here cited Lady Gaga as the authority on civil rights?

    Agit8ed – no, if you follow my logic it would be that just because the gay couple above had a marriage that didn’t last longer than 2 months doesn’t mean anything substantive on the issue since heterosexuals also split up in such periods of time.

  25. “Peter, on July 8th, 2011 at 9:46 pm Said:

    Gayhater

    It is called The Civil Partnership Act, not the Gay Marriage Act. And for a reason.

    Look at what Mahons said in uly 8th, 2011 at 9:49 pm.
    which as I said is the logical conclusion of his original comment.
    I don’t agree with the aggressive promotion of homsexuality, and I don’t believe in gay marriage for the reasons I stated.
    To call me homophobic and a gayhater is somewhat hysterical, don’t you think?

    I have made it clear many times that I respect homosexuals, I have had friends that were homosexuals, that they should be protected by law, they shouldn’t be victimised, ostracized or anything else.

    But that doesn’t mean I have to approve of their lifestyle, want it for my kids, nephews and nieces or join in Gay Pride marches.
    So stop getting your knickers in a twist and calm down.

  26. Tom Tyler –

    “I would have thought that, if you’re a chap who fancies chaps, then you would be attracted to the male aspects of chappiness, and vice-versa for women. Where does this desire to dress yourself up as if you are a member of the oppposite sex come from?”

    Well, yes, that is a fair point. Presumably a bloke fancying blokes likes the bloke aspects of blokes, so why the need to mince it up?

    Still, I won’t be worrying about it. I’ll be fluent in Serbo-Croat before I know how a bloke can fancy a bloke.

  27. The real question in all this is the source of the daily mail, now its offices are raided is it next in line to go, and if so what will happen to ATW’s ‘she’ stories…worrying or what 🙂

    As Noel said above who cares about such stories?

  28. Mahons, no, I am merely quoting LGG as she is a cultural reference point in 2011. But far more importantly I am giving my opinion on what I have actually seen, and with respect to people I have actually known. And I know that the mantra “born this way” is a deliberate lie, in my experience. It’s better stated as “bored this way”.

  29. Tom

    Have you actually seen the polar bears mutate? Check out that thread and please get back to me.

  30. Tom – I disagree, I think homosexuals are born “this way”, though I am sure that there are heterosexuals who have, how shall I say it, non-heterosexual experiences. I’m not sure I would reply on, with all due respect, your Lola period as the definitive answer.

  31. “Colm, on July 8th, 2011 at 9:54 pm Said:

    Agit

    Can you explain what you meant by your 9.38pm comment that gays and Lesbians can never become a majority because they cannot have children ?”

    My dear Colm,
    I mean that two men who love each other cannot produce children except through a third (female) party.
    Likewise, two women.
    Of course nowadays, it is more acceptable for these arrangements to take place, but the bottom(no pun intended) line is that you couldn’t have a society made up of same sex couples.
    I do not think it is fair for children to be brought up by same sex couples, and yes, I know that lots of heterosexual parents are less than great as parents. But that is a moral/behavioural issue, not a biological one.

    I have no problem at all with two people of the same sex being in love and committing to each other, but it shouldn’t be called marriage.
    I know what hysterical Peter was saying about it being a Civil Partnership, but I was taking up Mahon’s point about marriage.

  32. Agit

    But your comment still does not make sense. Gays are overwhelmingly created by heterosexual people. By claiming that gays cannot become a majority because they cannot create children implies that homosexuality is procreative of homosexual parents which is nonsense.

  33. Mahons –

    “Pete – As our libertarian I presume you have no problem with gay marriage.”

    None at all.

    As long as no-one attempts to use the violence of law or intimidation tactics to force a church into changing it’s beliefs, do as you please. If you can’t find a church to marry you, set up your own.

    And if someone objects, they can object under the same conditions too.

  34. Tom,
    I also agree with Mahons that many homosexuals are born that way. There are those who become confused about their sexuality -overbearing parent etc etc., but I don’t thin anyone can seriously deny that many Gays are born …
    Gay!

  35. Well said Pete Moore. The more churches the better. The sky-god will love them all.

  36. Colm,
    “But your comment still does not make sense. Gays are overwhelmingly created by heterosexual people. By claiming that gays cannot become a majority because they cannot create children implies that homosexuality is procreative of homosexual parents which is nonsense.”
    I would say that Gays are EXCLUSIVELY created by heterosexual couples/couplings!

    Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean here,

    “implies that homosexuality is procreative of homosexual parents which is nonsense.”

  37. Mahons, what you feel sure of (22:11), I have done, (as I said, I was an ‘anything goes’ hedonist in my youth). So I speak, not only from assuming from other people, but from my own experiences. Trust me on this when I say it’s a question of “bored this way”, not “born this way”, – NOT for everyone, I hasten to repeat, as I cannot speak for everyone, but I know what’s what, in that sphere.

  38. Agit

    Clumsily worded on my part I must admit, so I’ll give it another go.

    You said gays cannot become a majority because they cannot have children. What has having children go to do with the proportion of people in society who are homosexual. It is not like race. If black people could not have children, black races would die out. Homosexuals do not create homosexual children, so your comment about them never becoming a majority because they don’t procreate is illogical.

  39. Ha ha, good one, Pete! No, I have never had gay sex, just to clarify, and I’ve never wanted to. I’m not gay, and I’m not referring to that level of…thingumajig, I’m just talking about generally fooling around, in a fully dressed sense, with a kind of “who cares who I’m snogging, male or female” attitude. The point is, to me, at that time, it was more an act of pure rebellion than a sexual act. Sex or sexuality hardly entered into it. You snogged a person (you could hardly even tell if they were male or female, and you didn’t care) at the Camden Palace, and it was all so rebellious and exciting, you were doing something your parents would be shocked to find out about, and that was the point.

  40. Tom

    So you were the bird with the stubbly chin I tonsil tickled at the Camden Palace back in 1985 😉

  41. Tom

    If your 10.41 was addressed to me, it’s not at all what I meant at 10.27.

    But I wish you would reply to me on the polar bears thread.

  42. Aah, flippin’ eck, Colm, I knew I must have got the thrush on me lips from someone!
    No, but seriously my point is, there was no end of people “going gay” because they were “bored this way” (ie, bored being heteros), not “born this way” as Lady GaGa likes to insinuate, as if it’s all so simple and clear-cut. It’s not.

  43. Peter, sorry, I have not re-read the Polar Bears thread since I last commented. I shall now do so.

  44. “I see that women have overtaken men in the number of same-sex unions for the first time since civil partnerships were legalised in 2005.”

    This has resulted in:

    1) A huge fall in the sales of double-ended dildoes.

    2) An enormous rise in the use of Nature’s organic dental floss.

  45. Colm,
    Sorry for the late reply.
    “You said gays cannot become a majority because they cannot have children. What has having children go to do with the proportion of people in society who are homosexual. It is not like race. If black people could not have children, black races would die out. Homosexuals do not create homosexual children, so your comment about them never becoming a majority because they don’t procreate is illogical.”

    What I mean is that
    a) two men or two women cannot make children. Only sex between a man and a woman can produce children. This is how all mammals reproduce.
    b) Homosexuality is therefore a deviation from the norm. Biologically it is a dead end.
    c) “Parents to be” may express a preference for a boy or a girl -never that they be born a lesbian or a gay. That sounds cruel I know, but it is a fact. Parents hopa nad expect that they will see physical or character traits that remind them of some other family member.
    d) there will always be homosexuals. We don’t know why it occurs, but it does, and parents love them just as much as any other child, but it DOES cause tensions, disappointment and heartache for the heterosexual parents.

    So, whilst I believe any human being of any gender/orientation merits respect, dignity and protection,
    I don’t accept that the promotion of homosexuality, Gay Marriage, and Gay “family life” as an alternative lifestyle is desirable from a societal point of view.

Comments are closed.