Happy Days in Random Chatter 10

[Digit]

I started applying for my current software job in late October of last year and started this past March. So a little over four months for me. Hopefully quicker than that for you.

[Portia]

This article about coastal cohabitating Millennials hating the word fiancé made me think of Candid non-Canadian and the sudden rise of the term partner.

I don't know if this is tied to geography or socioeconomic status or friend group, but I personally would throw up a little in my mouth before referring to my boyfriend as my "partner." THAT's the term that rings pretentious to my ears. If he puts a ring on it, you'd better bet I'd use the traditional term.

Interesting to me because on other measures, I'm the same age, liberal-leaning, and might not even change my mouthful of a surname should I get married, but I don't see how "when's the wedding?" and "how did he propose?" are annoying or unwanted. Of course I'm still a Utahn even if I am an apostate. :P

[Emiliana]

This article about coastal cohabitating Millennials hating the word fiancé made me think of Candid non-Canadian and the sudden rise of the term partner.

I don't know if this is tied to geography or socioeconomic status or friend group, but I personally would throw up a little in my mouth before referring to my boyfriend as my "partner." THAT's the term that rings pretentious to my ears. If he puts a ring on it, you'd better bet I'd use the traditional term.

Interesting to me because on other measures, I'm the same age, liberal-leaning, and might not even change my mouthful of a surname should I get married, but I don't see how "when's the wedding?" and "how did he propose?" are annoying or unwanted. Of course I'm still a Utahn even if I am an apostate.

I don't get this at all. I've never thought of "fiance" as an awkward word. "Boyfriend," to my mind, is far stranger, because it can mean anything from "this guy I've been seeing for a few weeks" to "the person I love and have been with for the past eight years with no plan of being away from."

[wryness]

Holy cow holy cow. One of my friends posted a joke on Facebook with some drawings/words added onto a church pamphlet. ("Does God have a flan for me?") Said friend is religious, so it was all in good fun and not meant to be disrespectful. Somehow a very very angry acquaintance of his read this as an opportunity to go on a rant about how God is dead, people are suffering, wake up sheeple, etc. and when a religious person made a fairly innocuous post in response (something like "I hope you can eventually feel differently, but either way, yeah, let's make the world a better place") the guy went CRAZY and made a very angry personal attack to the lady that would have only been possible after Facebook-stalking her. (Neither person knew the other personally.) Seriously, if I was her, I would have felt threatened. She decided to withdraw from the conversation but other people jumped in, incensed on her behalf. Now the whole conversation has devolved into possibly the ugliest argument I have ever seen online. Much worse than any Trump-related "debate" I've seen so far. I was going to go back and check the posts for context before posting this, but I don't want to subject myself to seeing it again. (Angry Guy's posts drip with venom and frankly the responses aren't very pretty either.)

TL;DR: Sometimes the Internet is a scary place and it doesn't show people at their best IMO. I never thought flan could be so troublesome...

[bobtheenchantedone]

I've never thought of "fiance" as an awkward word. "Boyfriend," to my mind, is far stranger, because it can mean anything from "this guy I've been seeing for a few weeks" to "the person I love and have been with for the past eight years with no plan of being away from."

We've started using the word "partner," Marduk and I, because yes, "boyfriend" just doesn't really cut it when it's a six-year, committed relationship that we have every intention of continuing for the rest of our lives.

But there's really no good answer. If I say boyfriend, they ask how long we've been together, and the response "six years" blows their minds and prompts a new wave of questions (always including "why aren't you married?"). "Partner," when used without Marduk present, is always assumed to mean I'm dating a woman. When he is present we just get lots of weird looks. And we're not planning to get married, for various reasons, so fiance or husband will never apply.

I just wish there was a better word for it. Or that "partner" was a more widely accepted term for unmarried but committed relationships, so people wouldn't feel so weird about it.

[Craig Jessop]

I just wish there was a better word for it. Or that "partner" was a more widely accepted term for unmarried but committed relationships, so people wouldn't feel so weird about it.

When in Spanish you could try "mari-novio?" It's a made-up word, but it conveys exactly what the intent behind it is.

English is so frustrating. For a language that's as large and diverse as it is in many ways, it's absolutely terrible at conveying emotion.

(Then again, nearly all of the employees at my company call their partners husband or wife even though they're not married. It's frustrating when filling out insurance/tax papers, because you have to ask them "Okay, are you legally married? As in, you went down to the county clerk, got a license, then had a preacher or judge perform an actual wedding where you said 'I do?'" I can never be sure, and sometimes I'm not convinced they even know what being legally married entails.)

[yayfulness]

Chilean Spanish (and maybe other Spanish, I don't know) uses "pareja" (pair or partner) to refer to anything from a long-term significant other to an actual legal spouse.

I agree - there's a really frustrating gap for "long-term boyfriend/girlfriend" in our language. Hopefully that'll be rectified as time goes on.

[Emiliana]

I just wish there was a better word for it. Or that "partner" was a more widely accepted term for unmarried but committed relationships, so people wouldn't feel so weird about it.

When in Spanish you could try "mari-novio?" It's a made-up word, but it conveys exactly what the intent behind it is.

English is so frustrating. For a language that's as large and diverse as it is in many ways, it's absolutely terrible at conveying emotion.

(Then again, nearly all of the employees at my company call their partners husband or wife even though they're not married. It's frustrating when filling out insurance/tax papers, because you have to ask them "Okay, are you legally married? As in, you went down to the county clerk, got a license, then had a preacher or judge perform an actual wedding where you said 'I do?'" I can never be sure, and sometimes I'm not convinced they even know what being legally married entails.)

Heh. This exists in East Africa, too. People will use "husband/wife" for the person that they live with, but "married" only if you have had a religious ceremony. So you can have a husband but not be married, which is confusing until you get used to it. A lot of times people delay the actual marriage ceremony because it's expensive (you're expected to provide food for all 4,000,000 of your relatives, plus a bride price in many cases), just like they do here. Moving in together and calling the other person your husband/wife can be a perfectly acceptable thing to do by the standards of many religious groups, even if extramarital sex is normally frowned upon. The level of commitment implied by moving in together is what's important rather than the actual ceremony.

[Portia]

Relieved that my grandma is on the Never Trump side. It may seem minor, but it makes me happy.

[Violet]

I just wish there was a better word for it. Or that "partner" was a more widely accepted term for unmarried but committed relationships, so people wouldn't feel so weird about it.

When in Spanish you could try "mari-novio?" It's a made-up word, but it conveys exactly what the intent behind it is.

English is so frustrating. For a language that's as large and diverse as it is in many ways, it's absolutely terrible at conveying emotion.

(Then again, nearly all of the employees at my company call their partners husband or wife even though they're not married. It's frustrating when filling out insurance/tax papers, because you have to ask them "Okay, are you legally married? As in, you went down to the county clerk, got a license, then had a preacher or judge perform an actual wedding where you said 'I do?'" I can never be sure, and sometimes I'm not convinced they even know what being legally married entails.)

Heh. This exists in East Africa, too. People will use "husband/wife" for the person that they live with, but "married" only if you have had a religious ceremony. So you can have a husband but not be married, which is confusing until you get used to it. A lot of times people delay the actual marriage ceremony because it's expensive (you're expected to provide food for all 4,000,000 of your relatives, plus a bride price in many cases), just like they do here. Moving in together and calling the other person your husband/wife can be a perfectly acceptable thing to do by the standards of many religious groups, even if extramarital sex is normally frowned upon. The level of commitment implied by moving in together is what's important rather than the actual ceremony.

And this is what common law is, after that series of questions a few months ago...

[wryness]

Relieved that my grandma is on the Never Trump side. It may seem minor, but it makes me happy.

I don't know you or your grandma, but this makes me happy, too!

Interesting that about 1/3 of Utah Mormons still support Trump (ugh yuck yuck), but that's much better than many other Christian and Evangelical communities, and has earned some praise from the outside (HuffPost).

[Portia]

I thought the Why would anyone willingly choose the putrid fruit of heathenism/and Why would anyone choose the deserted hellscape of Rexburg juxtaposition was awesome.

I dunno man people are weird

[Portia]

Although I do think that willfully going to the uncultured landscape of southeast Idaho may be a sign of incipient madness, I think that the angry 40-something man might benefit from reading this talk from 2013. It's from the weekend I left the Church for good, but it's stuck with me as something that at least wasn't super inflammatory (check) and likely to push one's friends away further (double check):

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... s?lang=eng

[Zedability]

Sometimes I wish Uchdorf would be asked to just give all the conference talks.

[yayfulness]

For those of you who have opinions and care to share them: What do you think of the new version of the Church's Mormon/Gay web site?

[TheBlackSheep]

I'm glad they changed the name and the location.

But I don't think it's news. I think it's too little too late for me to be moved, and I can't imagine that most people I associate with in the LGB and Mormon/post-Mo circuit feel any differently. Most of the conversation I've seen it spark I wouldn't want to be a part of. In fact, the only conversation I've seen about it that didn't really rub me the wrong way was Zed's Facebook post.

Maybe it's good for more mainstream members and I've lost touch. I'm glad the church is doing ANYTHING for the sake of young LGB members. All in all, though, no news.

[Shrinky Dink]

I thought the Why would anyone willingly choose the putrid fruit of heathenism/and Why would anyone choose the deserted hellscape of Rexburg juxtaposition was awesome.

I dunno man people are weird

Because sex is fun and Rexburg is a small town with super judgmental people

[Portia]

Because sex is fun and Rexburg is a small town with super judgmental people :)

#QOTD :P

[Zedability]

I think if every member read and internalized what the website says, overall treatment of LGBT Mormons/LGBT people in general would improve. But that says more about how crappy some members are than how awesome the website is, which has its fair share of issues. (I know someone who posted a screenshot of some guy's comment insisting that this website is the first step in the slippery slope towards the Church caving to political correctness and an unacceptable compromise and I was like, really???)

The main advantage, I think, is that the average straight member needs to have respectful conversations about LGBT issues normalized in a Church setting. Most members seem to think anything other than "Gay marriage is destroying the family!!!" is somehow inappropriate to discuss at Church and the very silence is toxic.

I also think the website has made some improvements over the old one in terms of clearing up some misconceptions and acknowledging that being gay and Mormon is hard.

The main issue I have is there's a lot of platitudes without a lot of concrete examples of HOW to live those principles of love, etc. A lot of members unfortunately feel like they need specific permission to do loving and supportive things, and speaking in generalities is going to do little to nothing to repair the damage from past counsel to, for example, refuse to allow your child to visit the family with their same-sex partner.

The website does (subtly) condemn conversion therapy and state that it's not a sin to openly identify as LGBT (although there's plenty of language discouraging it) and I feel like it will be useful for some people to have an official-looking source to show their parents and bishop on those issues.

I got to participate in a focus group for the site and had an incredibly positive experience with that. I got to express ALL my frustrations with how the Church and church culture treats LGBT people and I felt listened to and didn't feel like I was shamed for "being offended" or anything. I can see the results of the focus group in the final product and that also makes me feel good and like they do care. On the other hand, I feel like the caring comes with reservations; I feel like the Church leaders are afraid of something that's making them reluctant to do certain things that don't require changing or compromising doctrine, but would make a big difference to LGBT members. Probably going back to not wanting to appear to have backed down or "started on the slippery slope to compromise". And it does frustrate me that they seem to care more about that than about ministering effectively to the LGBT community.

[Amity]

What Zed said. (That's cool that you got to be in a focus group for it! I have a friend who did a focus group for the initial website when it came out a few years ago and he had good things to say about that process too.)

Also, this is going to come out more cynical than I intend, but I think this website revamping would have been a lot more credible and trustworthy had it come out in October 2015 instead of October 2016. The exclusion policy did so much damage to the level of trust that many LGBTQ and their allies have in the ability of the institutional church to deal with LGBTQ issues, and one website redesign (even though it contains many positive steps forward) isn't going to fix that.