Ah Hah. Now you’ve discovered the REAL reason for Proposition 8. Thanks to that, the missionaries’ use of the word companion will no longer be misconstrued.
And if you’re going to misconstrue the use of the word Companion, there’s really no word that IS safe. Except maybe colleague.

I’m just glad that three missionaries working together are no longer called a “threesome.”

For some reason “with panis” doesn’t make me feel more comfortable.

#7. On my mission, most missionaries simply refused to use that term (this was from 2004-2006). And when it was used, the blushes and laughter that followed were enough to discourage its continued use.

Use partner, but say it like you’re a character in a cop show.

I shouldn’t have hit return yet. In the vein of Falk and Ganz using “compañero” will talking in English in an otherwise German movie, perhaps missionaries in all countries (not just the Spanish-speaking ones) should call each other compañero. Or maybe “my pal.”

I have to admit that this is actually a great point to bring up. I’m all for “colleague” or “co-worker” over “companion”. I’ve tried to think of this myself and haven’t come up with anything better, but I do think that the practice of missionaries referring to their “companion” needs to change. I’ve been a member all my life–a decade removed from my mission–and even I now have to stop myself from thinking of “companion” in a non-sexual way. While under normal secular conditions (whether heterosexual or homosexual) I have no problem with that, in the context of two LDS missionaries it’s a bit jarring.

I suggest that the junior companion be required to refer to his companion as “My Leader or my Senior” and the senior referred to his companion as “My assistant or my boy”. That way it would be clear to the investigators that in anything official, some priesthold holder is presiding. Habits of presiding will also help the missionaries in their marriage. In the case of trios, you could have the middle one referred to as “My/The first assistant” or “Assistant to the Regional Manager.”

Hey Ron, No he was someone else’s. Mine was a real hassel.

I suggest that the…senior referred to his companion as “My assistant or my boy”.

This is funny! I almost never hear gay men refer to one another as “companions.” On the other hand, I’m acquainted with several gay men who refer to their younger partner in a “dominate/submissive” relationship as “my boy.”

associate, or “socio” in Spanish, seems cool.

“Gefährte” or “Gesellschafter.” Never encountered those words in Germany.

A Gefährte is a companion in the sense of a sidekick or one who accompanies you on a journey, like a hobbit, or someone who sticks with you through thick and thin like a common-law spouse. A Gesellschafter is an associate, shareholder or partner in a business. Mitarbeiter is normally used in the context of co-workers but I think it connotes about the right level of relationship for missionaries (which I suppose is why the church in German-speaking countries uses the word)–a shared goal, a common “employer” and maybe a degree of camaraderie, but not as formal as a Gesellschafter or “tight” as a Gefährte.

Nick. Something about that bothers me. Seriously? It doesn’t soumd very healthy and loving. Although a gay friend of mind did refer to problems with a former partner as boy problems. Geez, Nick.

I guess. I’ve been pondering lately the deal that the husband is the head of the home—that book, dang, can’t think of the name. I know a lot of women who do that and seem happy to let their husbands make the decisions. I think my marriage would be happier if I could do that. Well, Bill sure would be happy.

I was thinking why do so many things just allude to homosexuality nowadays? The very term gay. If somebody asks how I”m doing, and I answer “just happy and gay” it can’t just be taken on the face of it. And who coined the word “gay” to mean homosexual, anyway? Also purple. If you like purple, must be gay. It’s just so silly.

The Total Woman! That’s the book!

The use of “gay” has been morphing for a very long time, annegb. In the 17th century, “gay” went from “happy and carefree” to something more like “hedonistic,” in the sense of being free of moral (sexual) constraints or responsibilities. By the late 19th century, “gay” became associated with uninhibited heterosexual license, such as prostitution. By the 1920s, this extended to describing the “carefree” and uninhibited life of what were euphamistically called “confirmed bachelors,” who had no family responsibilities, etc. By the mid-20th century, the word took on connotations of frivilousness or showiness. By the 60s, it was preferred usage within the homosexual male community.

Purple? Really? When I was a student at Utah State University, I worked part time with an Episcopalian woman. She told me that I ought to be an Episcopal bishop, because I looked good in purple! LOL!

RE: missionaries

The term “associate” is interesting, but doesn’t it kind of sound like the mafia to you? No? Just me?

Au contraire, Mcq–I was a teenager during the first part of the seventies. I lived in Nevada. Never heard the word gay. Well, to be completely honest, I was a teenager in 1970 and 1971. But still.

Give me a break, Mcq, you weren’t even alive then. How would you know? Nobody said “gay” in 1970 It was still the q word.

ESO, in Ecuador, “socio” had the connotation of “bud”. (Not referring to marijuana.) It was also used as a greeting: “Socio!” Though it may have been more of a colloquialism.

I didn’t mean to imply the word colored conveyed disapproval. Just the word queer. But as an aside, Bill uses the word colored. I correct him and say he should say black. He says he thinks it’s a rude word. You really can’t dismiss the generation gap. The ever-changing descriptions of life conditions, for want of a better word, can be pretty confusing. Retarded didn’t use to be a bad word.

Not to threadjack.

#31:
What happened between the 20?s and 60?s to make it a preferred usage?

At least part of that grew from the use of “gay” as a codeword of sorts. While the larger culture didn’t associate “gay” with “homosexual,” many homosexual men evidently found it discrete to ask “Are you gay?”. Another homosexual man would know what he was being asked, while an “outsider” would think he was being asked whether he was happy, etc. Eventually, the underground “codeword” became not-so-underground.

40 – colored is probably better than darkie – which is one that my step-father has said on occasion. Actually, I think he switched to that when I would ask if he was born in 1850 when he would refer to them as coloreds. . .

Anyway, I do like how this discussion managed to include queer, gay, faggot, retarded, colored, black, and now darkie. Luckily we haven’t managed to be offensive yet. . . I think. (confused look)

I need a picture of you, Mcq, so I can put it up on my wall with the words “the only person who ever wore Arlene out in an argument.”

I’m not sure what we’re argung about this time!

Mcq, you said the word queer had a negative connotation in the 70′s and I said “no, it didn’t.” Then you brought up Archie Bunker to support your argument. Well, when Archie used it, he was speaking in a derisive manner, a sneer on his face and in his voice. The rest of us used the word in hushed tones, meaning no disrespect, but feeling fairly repulsed. At the time, no one approved of homosexuality and it was thought to be sinful and deviant. Nevertheless, the term homosexual wasn’t commonly used; it was queer. Actually we used it as a noun.

It was the times, Mcq, Archie speaking openly about his disgust actually probably opened up a lot of good discussion, ie progress? in our society by allowing people to discuss homosexuality above a whisper. I don’t specifically remember, but I’m sure gay people, probably men, were shown in a sympathetic light on the show. Remember, the entertainment world was way ahead of us on the issue of homosexuality and civil rights—bigotry in general.

All in the Family was meant to be a glaring portrait of the bigot juxtaposed against his sweet wife, “Edit” and his more liberal “meathead” son-in-law. It showed his evolving relationship with his equally bigoted black neighbor. We were supposed to reject Archie, although he was the Roseanne of his time and said things out loud that many people thought.

Nidk, that makes sense to me. Thank you. What are your thoughts on my conclusions regarding Archie Bunker and the 70′s?

ROTFLOL, gst! :-)

My goodness….all of this talk about gay stuff…even if it is peripheral….and no one is upset, the conversation is interesting and no one has used the word bigot or condemned anyone else to hell. Could it be that post Prop 8 tempers are finally cooling off, almost 3 years later. I hope not!!