long term relationship v marriage

coco1980

skypie123 wrote: »

There IS something special about this status - they are married and have made that commitment to each other and want to show the world how they feel.
Strikes me its the people who are 'anti-marriage' that always want to knock those who have made this commitment and yet still want to be able to refer to each other as hubby or wife.
You are NOT hubby and wife you didn't get married.
Perhaps if the term partner doesn't sit well with you maybe you should rethink your views on marriage. Maybe you aren't as cool with not being married as you think.
After all if you are committed to each other whats the problem with getting married?

I actually find it is the other way round, I constantly have people telling me that oh obviously doesnt love me enough if he hasnt popped the question yet etc etcetc, ( when in actual fact we have discussed it and we will get married one day, when we can afford it lol:o)I think do whatever makes you happy. I also know lots of people who call their oh hubby or wifey although they are not married, it like a nickname !

I think if you have been together 20 years without being married and are happy then you are probably better off than a lot of people on these forums that have a ring on their finger:o but thats just my opinion

shellsuit

jcr16 wrote: »

thing is we all have different views, we all say things perhaps without thinking, not with any nastiness but easy to do.

i don't see why call hubby , hubby if not your hubby. but i'd never think anything less of anyone for doing so. becuase everyone has reasons for doing so.

but i'm sure the op has family and friends around her who love her just as much no matter what she calls her oh then it doesn't matter.

sometimes emotions get in the way, and i've had alot of peeps make passing comments they may not realise they hurt, but they do. but then sometimes i can be over sensitive. as long as your happy and your not hurting anyone then it doesn't matter.

but i don't agree with getting married to please others. it is a magical time getting married and should be done , when and if you want. not cause you feel you should.

yes i see the legal side. but i think the legal side is wrong at times. a father is a father and just cause not married to the mother i think it awful he has no rights over the children if the mother dies.

If a Father is named on the birth cert, he has rights, even if he isn't married to the Mother of the child.

minnie123 wrote: »

Hi there - does it really cost under £100. I was looking into this and it was looking like being closer to £200 but I may have got it wrong. I would appreciate the info if you have it on minimum costs involved. x

Yes, I can cost less than £100. But that's probably to get married mid week in a registry office. It's more expensive of a weekend, and even more expensive to have a registrar come out to marry you at a hotel for example.

I'd ring your local registry office if I were you and ask them for prices

Tropez wrote: »

I apologise if you found that statement rude. However, would you have preferred me to lie or not even bother acknowledging your request? Surely, given the fact I stated just how many records exist via a Google search, you can understand my position that trawling record after record is not a productive use of mine (or anyone elses) time.



I can assure you that "whoever" was not "having me on". I can also assure you that "whoever" knows more about the history of language than you, I or anybody else on this forum.

Wikipedia is written by "normal folk" - is it fair to discount everything written on there? As a record of current, popular use of language, Urban Dictionary is actually as relevant as any other, especially given that, like Wikipedia, falsified entries are removed.

You're quoting sources yet admit that you don't even know who or what they are. This hardly puts you in any better position.

I don't know what the American 'heritage' dictionary is, because I'm not American and so have never come across it before. I only posted that link because you said what you knew came from the US!

Young people sometimes call their BF's and GF's their hubby and wife, the same as on Facebook where they have 42 sisters, 6 dads and 14 brothers. That's the younger generation for you :rotfl:


If you want to state something as fact, but aren't prepared to back it up, don't get into a tizz and be rude when people are questioning you!

rev_henry

Tropez wrote: »

Ah, some people just have an issue with those who choose to live their lives in a different way to others. For many, marriage is considered the ultimate goal of a relationship, or the "proof" of a long-term commitment and if they feel that way then of course that is fine.
I think I think like this.
But then, of course, there are those (thankfully) few who believe that their way is unquestionably the correct way and anything different is wrong. I would just ignore them.
But not this.

My partner has a very negative view on marriage due to experiences in her childhood. It is, therefore, unlikely that she will ever wish to get married. It isn't an issue for me and if it is an issue for anyone else then really, how stable can their relationships be if they're worrying about mine?

I wouldn't have a go at anyone for doing it differently though. My father on the other hand, is highly critical of me for living with my OH. 'Its ridiculous you living man and wife like this, its not right you know, and you can't possibly get married at the age of 19.'
!!!!!! am I supposed to do then, I agree that its ridiculous getting married right now so I don't have a problem with 'living in sin' as he would put it. He's very religious and has brought me up accordingly so go figure... Although I think this is why I think the ultimate goal thing or whatever, and I am grateful for this.

I think I would disagree with people who have children and live as if they are married etc. I just think one should get married and have children in that order. Not that I would say anything to someone doing differently, I'd just think it.

Whilst on the subject of the term 'hubby', what do you think of the term 'missus', to which I often refer to my OH as, as do most of my (similar aged) friends...

Tropez

shellsuit wrote: »

If you want to state something as fact, but aren't prepared to back it up, don't get into a tizz and be rude when people are questioning you!

I didn't actually say what I knew came from the US, although I did learn it while in the United States. I said it is still used in some places in the US. Having lived in the US for a short period of time, I encountered its usage in that way on a number of occasions. It actually confused me no end to begin with because I was incorrectly assuming that certain people were married when they were not.

It wasn't until a discussion with somebody who had taught academically on the subject of linguistic history of North America that I learned that 'hubby' was in fact in use several hundred years ago in English (and that would be British English as it predates the signing of the Declaration of Independence) to signify what I said previously - somebody who would be considered to be husband material, or somebody who would has spousal qualities.

As for backing it up, while the Internet serves as a reasonable resource for knowledge, it does not, yet, record private conversations or personal experiences (unless one were to type everything they ever did on social networking sites) and as such I would have to start trawling through the tens of millions of pages to find a similar reference. It isn't worth my time and if we're honest, it isn't worth yours either.

So, whether you believe what I say or not (and I suspect most of you will not as you've already decided I am a liar) I know what I was told, what I experienced and I am quite content with that. Anything else is irrelevant.

shellsuit

Tropez wrote: »

I didn't actually say what I knew came from the US, although I did learn it while in the United States. I said it is still used in some places in the US. Having lived in the US for a short period of time, I encountered its usage in that way on a number of occasions. It actually confused me no end to begin with because I was incorrectly assuming that certain people were married when they were not.

It wasn't until a discussion with somebody who had taught academically on the subject of linguistic history of North America that I learned that 'hubby' was in fact in use several hundred years ago in English (and that would be British English as it predates the signing of the Declaration of Independence) to signify what I said previously - somebody who would be considered to be husband material, or somebody who would has spousal qualities.

As for backing it up, while the Internet serves as a reasonable resource for knowledge, it does not, yet, record private conversations or personal experiences (unless one were to type everything they ever did on social networking sites) and as such I would have to start trawling through the tens of millions of pages to find a similar reference. It isn't worth my time and if we're honest, it isn't worth yours either.

So, whether you believe what I say or not (and I suspect most of you will not as you've already decided I am a liar) I know what I was told, what I experienced and I am quite content with that. Anything else is irrelevant.

I don't think you're a liar at all, I was just interested in reading something which backed up what you were saying, but as you can't, I'm quite happy to carry on believing it is short for husband.

Tropez

rev_henry wrote: »

I wouldn't have a go at anyone for doing it differently though. My father on the other hand, is highly critical of me for living with my OH. 'Its ridiculous you living man and wife like this, its not right you know, and you can't possibly get married at the age of 19.'
!!!!!! am I supposed to do then, I agree that its ridiculous getting married right now so I don't have a problem with 'living in sin' as he would put it. He's very religious and has brought me up accordingly so go figure... Although I think this is why I think the ultimate goal thing or whatever, and I am grateful for this.

I think I would disagree with people who have children and live as if they are married etc. I just think one should get married and have children in that order. Not that I would say anything to someone doing differently, I'd just think it.

Whilst on the subject of the term 'hubby', what do you think of the term 'missus', to which I often refer to my OH as, as do most of my (similar aged) friends...

My partner finds "missus" derogatory, therefore if I were to use it to refer to her I would expect a severe beating.

I think it is more of a local dialect thing though. In some areas it seems to have derogatory connotations but in others it seems more acceptable. Similar to "duck" in a way - in most places where "duck" is used it is only used to refer to the opposite gender, yet in places like Staffordshire "duck" is a genderless term of respect and/or endearment hence you will often hear men saying "duck" to other men. Oddly enough, once when I was in Stoke-on-Trent I discovered that "shag" was used in a similar way.

My mother comes from a Catholic background. I'm 90% sure she thinks I'm committing evil sins.

Hobbit56

Can I say that I am religious at the start - I actually have a number of friends who are either married or living together. Their status to me is not relevant - what is, to me, is that they are happy. So Gavin83 stop making assumptions about what we 'religious' people may think. The only thing I think is important for people in long term relationships is that they have made a will to protect themselves should one of them die. To you all I say - Be happy in life!

rev_henry

Tropez wrote: »

My partner finds "missus" derogatory, therefore if I were to use it to refer to her I would expect a severe beating.

I think it is more of a local dialect thing though. In some areas it seems to have derogatory connotations but in others it seems more acceptable. Similar to "duck" in a way - in most places where "duck" is used it is only used to refer to the opposite gender, yet in places like Staffordshire "duck" is a genderless term of respect and/or endearment hence you will often hear men saying "duck" to other men. Oddly enough, once when I was in Stoke-on-Trent I discovered that "shag" was used in a similar way.

My mother comes from a Catholic background. I'm 90% sure she thinks I'm committing evil sins.

How on earth is missus derogatory lol? Never heard that before, and being at uni I have quite a cosmopolitan group of friends. Interesting...

Tropez

rev_henry wrote: »

How on earth is missus derogatory lol? Never heard that before, and being at uni I have quite a cosmopolitan group of friends. Interesting...

Just one of those things I guess. Perhaps it is something to do with the context? "The missus" may be more derogatory in some people's minds than "my missus" (but in my partner's case, any context is offensive to her) just as some people really dislike "the wife" instead of "my wife".

Tropez

coocoocadgoo wrote: »

Are you sure?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=erin

There is only one definition on that first page that is nearly true...
Oh yeah, nearly forgot the " "

Still on this eh?

Well, I've never met this or these Erin(s) they are referring to but it might possibly be accurate.

For instance, this Erin - http://www.maybelline.com.au/ABOUT_US/Our_Models/medias/erin.jpg - fits some of those definitions fairly well.

For all I know, American kids are saying "that's so Erin", just like they are calling unmarried partners "hubby" and believing that Chuck Norris, or some character from World of Warcraft whose name escapes me right now could take on the entire Soviet army.