Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Boyzone’s gay love interest is a video first

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. luv the video and song!

  2. Nice to see

  3. The c*nt of Monte Crisco! 14 Nov 2008, 3:21pm

    I love that they’ve done this! It would be very silly to cast Stephen a female love interest because it would be so false. Everyone now knows he is gay so casting a male love interest is DEFINITELY a good step forward

    Nice to see you back lads :)

  4. Well, I’m a soppy b*gger at the best of times, but loved this cover version, in oh so many ways! What a change to see two guys expressing love in a music video – at last!

  5. Well, sorry to inject a negative note, but there still seems to be much less of our Stephen than the others and he is being less explicit and demonstrative (ie no snogging)… of course he had to have a bloke,and even a record company couldn`t have stuffed him back into the closet, but they seems a bit less than enthusiastic.Shame. But great song and I like the black and white….

  6. “Reformed boyband Boyzone..” How exactly does Pink News think their characters have been reformed?

    Have they all done time at Her Majesty’s pleasure or been subject to an act of parliament?, have they renounced previous bad habits, or has another grammatical howler escaped the attentions of the editor.

    We can only presume they mean re-formed, as in formed again or anew.

  7. Please don’t put the word “married” in quote marks. They are married. Full stop no quotes. Don’t pander to the bigots who insist we can’t use “their” word.

  8. On a more disturbing note, one of the people commenting on You Tube says that Bebo has suspended their account for uploading this video.

  9. @Ivan – hopefully it’s just a copyright issue; plenty of music videos get taken down after all.

  10. Peter Clifton 15 Nov 2008, 1:40pm

    A beautiful song and video. I suppose now there will be demands to withdraw it because of Gately and his “lover”

  11. excellent, can’t wait to see the video! it was ridiculous when westlife were shown with their wives in the ‘us against the world’ video, but kevin mcdaid and mark feehily weren’t shown. so wrong!

  12. michael chapman 17 Nov 2008, 2:16am

    Actually, this is not the first time Boyzone have featured a gay couple in one of their vdeos. Have a look at the following link for ‘You Needed Me (1999), at 1:08 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SyPkZXvdo7A It’s only for a brief moment, but you get that the two men are a couple.

  13. Makes a refreshing change. Even after the cottaging incident and his “Lets go outside” vid shot in a men’s toilet, George Michael was still making videos with female love interests, as if he was still open to suggestion. Ditto Will Young. Surely once you’re out the closet, there’s no point in pretending to be straight in your video. Or is this just overzealous managers concerned about how it affects record sales?

  14. Tim Chapman 17 Nov 2008, 8:37am

    Contrary to Ele Gir above, I say keep the quotes. They’re not married, they’re civil partners.

    If we refer to civil partnership as marriage without qualification, then everyone will reasonably assume it’s the same thing with the same rights as marriage. Unfortunately, most people don’t seem to realize that it doesn’t have the same rights, particularly when it comes to pensions entitlement, and we need to get that message across. We shoot ourselves in the foot if we just call it marriage and pretend it’s already equal, because then it never will be.

  15. To Tim Chapman… please point out precisely how UK civil partnerships give diifferent rights to marriage when it comes to pensions and ‘entitlement’ [not sure what entitlement you are refrirrng to]…. Ta, Jim.

  16. Tim Chapman 20 Nov 2008, 7:42am

    The CPA obliges pension schemes to equalise benefits for spouses and civil partners, but for certain final salary pension schemes there’s an exemption. They only have to equalise from 5th December 2005. This means that, for example, a single person who is a member of such a scheme could have made contributions into a pension fund for, say, 25 years then, in June 2006, become a civil partner. Any subsequent surviving civil partner pension from the fund will be based only on the member’s contributions from 5th December 2005 – ignoring the previous 25 years’ worth of contributions. However, had the member become a spouse in June 2006 through marriage, then any surviving spouse’s pension would be based on the entire contributions record, resulting in a substantially greater widow’s or widower’s pension over that of a surviving civil partner’s. If that’s not a difference between the rights of civil partners and those of married people, then I don’t know what is.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all