Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Darvi]

I am amused and disappointed that Helgo didn't rearrange those last few letters into "PRON".

[XXSockXX]

It'd be a bit unusual to use it for a traditional relationship, though -

Not at all, at least in formal contexts you hear that quite often. Either that or "Lebensgefährte/Lebensgefährtin" (=lifemate).

I am amused and disappointed that Helgo didn't rearrange those last few letters into "PRON".

This combination of letters is really porne to misunderstandings.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Clearly, whenever a gender dispute happens the accused student will go to the principle's office and disrobe to prove their sexiness.

[Helgoland]

It'd be a bit unusual to use it for a traditional relationship, though -

Not at all, at least in formal contexts you hear that quite often. Either that or "Lebensgefährte/Lebensgefährtin" (=lifemate).

Lebensabschnittsgefährte you mean! (Such a German word: 'The companion of this section of [my] life')
And yeah, it certainly is more common in formal contexts. I only thought about day-to-day communication for some reason...

[Darvi]

Clearly, whenever a gender dispute happens the accused student will go to the principle's office and disrobe to prove their sexiness.

Nah, they'll call over the local priest who does a thorough examination. _{(Too much?)}

[i2amroy]

For a moment there I thought I had stepped into the "Bad Jokes (We're all going to Hell)" thread.

[XXSockXX]

Lebensabschnittsgefährte you mean! (Such a German word: 'The companion of this section of [my] life')

Of course, serial monogamy FTW!

And yeah, it certainly is more common in formal contexts. I only thought about day-to-day communication for some reason...

Might be an age thing too, I've noticed that many people over a certain age become reluctant to refer to their SOs as their boyfriend/girlfriend and prefer a more "serious" sounding term when the relationship is considered serious.

[Helgoland]

That makes me wonder: What do non-married people whose relationship is identical to marriage except for that document use to refer to each other? 'Boy-/girlfriend' seems to teen-y, 'partner' has a bureaucratic ring and doesn't quite capture the nature of the relationship... In German you could use 'Mann' and 'Frau', but 'husband' and 'wife' are clearly unsuitable.

[Arx]

Here they'd probably be called partners. It doesn't sound particularly bureacratic to me, I'unno.

[i2amroy]

The common trend I see is to just use the other person's name, or to say "this is X, we live together". "Partner" tends to be the absolute last fallback I see if you really can't get away with anything else, but it doesn't really capture the nature of the thing, as you mentioned.

[scriver]

In swedish there's "sambo", "together-liver", and "särbo", "apart-liver", depending on if you live together with the significant other or not.

[Sheb]

"apart-liver" sounds like what alcoholic gets.

[XXSockXX]

I use boyfriend/girlfriend and so do most people I know. It does feel a bit odd, because it doesn't differentiate between "been together for 3 weeks" and "living together for 20 years", but "partner" sounds too bureacratic and "lifemate" sounds...I don't know, a bit square.
There is also that thing where some people casually refer to "your husband / wife" whether you're married or not, but that might be a regional thing.

In swedish there's "sambo", "together-liver", and "särbo", "apart-liver", depending on if you live together with the significant other or not.

That seems useful. No such thing in German.

"apart-liver" sounds like what alcoholic gets.

That even works as a double pun. 

[Truean]

Well, the trans restroom thing is horrifying.

I liked south park's recent episode, "cissy" on topic. It was a welcome reversal of their prior view of trans.... This is yet another reason I rarely go out, at all. That said, when I'm in a skirt and heels, blouse, with a neat bracelet and a super cute clutch purse, I'm not using the Men's room if I have to pee, cause I wanna live at least through the day.... That's a great way to get gay bashed to death.... Noooo thank you.

It's a whole god aweful mess. That law wouldn't help one bit.

In related news, yes I realize it's Buzzfeed, but the reporting is dead on:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/mike-bowers-calls-for-a-swift-death-to-georgia-religious-fre#.eug2D4V7R

The Supreme Court case that finally made it so homosexuality was not a crime in the United States was Lawrence v. Texas 2003, which overruled Bowers v Hardwick 1986. The Hardwick case stated that it was perfectly permissible to criminalize not homosexuality as a status, but rather homosexual acts, i.e. consensual sex under sodomy law. So they didn't throw you in jail and ruin your life because you were gay.... No no no, that would be illegal. Rather they threw you in jail and ruined your life, because you were male and had a boyfriend and for all intents and purposes it was assumed you were having sex, and THAT was considered legal....  Even then you effectively had to prove that you were celibate and a virgin to avoid prison time, which is both impossible to prove and completely monstrous to ask of two consenting adults solely and entirely because they are of the same sex, i.e. gay. God. Damn. It. Only recently was this changed in 2003 and the backlash of state constitutional amendments was a terrible injustice we fought against and lost, until recently. It took us over 10 years, but we're reversing it, ever so slowly and painfully.

Now the penudulum has swung back in our favor and just as it did in 2003, it is bringing backlash from the bigots. This time it's under that lovely bumper sticker tagline, "religious liberty." They don't say they're a license to discriminate, but they are.

Now focusing back to that article, did you see the name "Mike Bowers?" Did you make the connection between that name and the case I cited Bowers v. Hardwick 1986? Yeah, he was the Attorney General for the state of Georgia who pursued the case Lawrence v. Texas 2003 overruled..... EVEN HE, is calling religious liberty bills exactly what they are.... As an inevitable consequence, he is opposing what he once championed.