The argument against the term "homosexual wedding" is a grammatical one. "Heterosexual wedding" is equally incorrect. People are homosexual or heterosexual (or something else); weddings are not. A same-sex wedding is one between people who are homosexual.

"Homosexual" is the preferred term of the right wing?! What difference does that make? Linguistically speaking, it's a completely neutral term, and we can hardly fault the right wing for using neutral terms, or shy away from every otherwise unoffensive word they use (otherwise "black" and "African-American" would be off-limits too). We're not yet at the point (or even close, I think) where "homosexual" has become a word with primarily negative implications (as opposed to, say, "negro"), and there's no need to let the conservatives control our use of language so completely.

I have no bones to pick with you on your terminology. This week's Styles section cracked me up, however. Consider the nuptials of Shauna Yule (Semitic first name, Christian surname) who met her beloved Jay Brasseur at a 1995 Halloween party (where else?) in San Francisco

dressed as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, while he was dressed as Chef Boyardee.

And what about that dolphin trainer. Couldn't he have dried his hair after getting out of the training pool for his wedding photos?

And who is Jessica Marcotte's stylist? Is she REALLY 45 years old????

And, finally, there's David Frishkorn, 49, betrothed to Jack Hellaby. Do we really need to know that "Mr. Frishkorn was married and is divorced?"

While at least you started using similar terminology for both types of weddings, the fact remains that "homosexual" is still the preferred term of the right wing. Saying that "fag" is still the standard usage for some people is irrelevant, and saying you're just entertaining yourself is pretty disingenuous for someone who writes for a website with as much traffic as Gothamist. Do it however you want, but you're hardly doing it in a vaccuum.

nope, I am not doing anything close to research. mostly I'm just entertaining myself, which sometimes is related to the words I choose to use. as to who cares, I have no idea who cares, or if anyone does. why did you get this far?

"homosexual just sounds more clinical to me. . ."

Huh?? You doin' some kind of important psycho-sexual research?

Anyway, who really cares a fig how many bald/nearly bald men got married. What are you? Cosmo magazine?

Anya, you're not the first person to ask for the same-sex change and I understand the why, but to be honest, at least as long as i'm doing these numbers, it's just not going to happen. Why? Partially because I just don't care what the "standard usage" is (i.e., for many people the "standard usage" is still fag, and I'm not about to start using that either) and partially because homosexual just sounds more clinical to me and that, to me, seems fitting for a by the numbers look at the freaking New York Times Weddings. But who knows, maybe I'll change my mind next week. Check back to see... Anywho, thanks for the input.

I'm hoping you'll consider saying "same-sex" weddings rather than "homosexual" (that's the standard usage at this point). Thanks for your consideration!