Calling people in laws when not married

[rosie991]

Am I the only one who finds this odd?

I keep coming across people in relationships (but not married) who refer to their partners parents, siblings etc as 'mother in law', father in law, sister in law etc.

Surely the meaning of 'in law' mean you are married to said person 'in law?'

Not sure why it bothers me, just confuses me when someone says this

If the person had asked them do you feel the same about unmarried cats, I suspect the answer would have been the same.

You keep saying "the person who asked them", that person was me. I'm perfectly aware of what I asked.

I was careful not to refer to all gay couples, but specifically to gay couples who couldn't marry, not those who had the option but chose not to. ("How did you feel about gay couples before civil partnerships were introduced Little? Or gay couples in countries where gay marriage still isn't recognised?")

That poster therefore thought all gay couples were necessarily inferior to straight couples.

"was careful not to refer to all gay couples, but specifically to gay couples whocouldn'tmarry, not those who had the option but chose not to. ("How did you feel about gay couples before civil partnerships were introduced Little? Or gay couples in countries where gay marriage still isn't recognised?")

That poster therefore thought all gay couples were necessarily inferior to straight couples."

No..that doesnt follow through at all. Your logic is confusing. The gay couples relationship you asked her about were not married. Therefore she thought their relationships were less valid than gay couples who were married. Has nothing to do with them being inferior to heterosexuals.

It has everything to do with marriage, not their sexual orientation. As I've said it could have been about anybody or anything that can get married. She thought their relationship was less valid than those who were married.

Your logic is confusing
It's very wrong of you to confuse people with your logic Cohle

The gay couples relationship you asked her about were not married. Therefore she thought their relationships were less valid than gay couples who were married. Has nothing to do with them being inferior to heterosexuals.

Yes, but they weren't married because they couldn't be. Prior to 2004 no gay couple in the UK could be "married" (civil partnership). Even in those circumstances the poster still felt like her relationship was more valid to any gay relationship. A couple had no means to achieve "validity" in her eyes.

Do you no see how it's homophobic to believe that prior to 2004 no British gay couple could have a relationship as valid as a straight couple could?

As I've said it could have been about anybody or anything that can get married.

A gay couple couldn't get married. That's the entire point.

What a weird thing to give a shit about. Are you my ex MIL? (I mean the mother of my ex partner of 15 years and grandma to my 2DDs)?

It's far easier referring to my partners brothers partner as my sister in law rather than that big mouthful.

I don't consider that relationship link to be my SIL.
I would say DH's SIL or my BIL's wife, but I don't consider them to be my SILs.

No issue with people calling partner's family in laws, or using step parent terms rather than parent's partner, but do find it weird for people to use husband and wife if they're not married.
I find it sad that some gay colleagues use 'other half' a lot in work as they don't always feel comfortable saying husband or wife.

What’s confusing about it?

You’re saying you genuinely can’t fathom what the relationship could be? Or that you can’t grasp why people might use the term?

You must find an awful lot of things very hard to understand.

Language evolves. At one point in time until you were married you wouldn't live together, have kids, make joint decisions, certainly wouldn't be expected to take a very active role in your partner's family. Now things are different. You could be living together 25 years with 3 kids and not be married. Since most people you're talking to aren't interested in the legal technicalities of your relationship and the actual relationship you'd have with your partner's mum wouldn't change if you nipped to the registry office and got married it makes sense to just say MiL to refer to your long term partner's mum.

Yes, but they weren't married because they couldn't be. Prior to 2004 no gay couple in the UK could be "married" (civil partnership). Even in those circumstances the poster still felt like her relationship was more valid to any gay relationship. A couple had no means to achieve "validity" in her eyes.

"Do you no see how it's homophobic to believe that prior to 2004 no British gay couple could have a relationship as valid as a straight couple could?"

No. She said unmarried couples relationships were less valid than married couples. It is of no relevance that they couldnt get married, she still sees an unmarried relationship as being less valid. It's got nothing to do with them being gay.

"A gay couple couldn't get married. That's the entire point"
That's totally irrelevant. It's the unmarried part she finds less valid, not the fact that they are gay. You need to take the word gay out of the equation and concentrate on the unmarried part. Just think say...dogs cant get married. The poster doesnt think dogs are inferior because of that. It's the relationship she thought was less valid, not their sexual orientation.

I don't think comparing gay people to dogs is a great way to make your point.

You need to research indirect discrimination under the equality act - Indirect discrimination is when there’s a practice, policy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people than others.

Can you see how your belief that married couples are more valid disproportionally impacted gay couples because they couldn't achieve "validity"?

Just convenient, have been with my partner for 11 years, no intention to get married (no extra legal standing where we live and total waste of money for us!) So call his family in laws for shorthand. Would really struggle to understand why anyone would be confused by this, isn't it obvious?

"don't think comparing gay people to dogs is a great way to make your point."

That's just hilarious, you really are desperate to make out there is some fault where there isnt.

"You need to research indirect discrimination under the equality act - Indirect discrimination is when there’s a practice, policy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people than others."
Nope, I dont, because there are no policies or procedures at play here?

"Can you see how your belief that married couples are more valid disproportionally impacted gay couples because theycouldn'tachieve "validity"?"
You know it's not my belief...it was another poster's...and no I dont believe the poster's belief impacts gay people as gay people can get married just the same as heterosexuals.