Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rain

The label "TBM"

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

You have to see the difference between one or even a few people calling for a change in the name of a salad and an entire community including two of the most active gay watchdogs, the Human Rights  Campaign and GLADD which issues guidelines on how the press should handle language the exact same way the church uses guidelines on how it prefers to be addressed.that has expressed offense with the term SSA AND explained why they find the term offensive.

None of the examples you gave is anything like the issue of using the offenisve term SSA.  It is hardly a few people who have some personal beef asking people not to use the term.  

But at the end of the day, each of us can decide their own personal behavior.  No one is asking for jail time for those that continue to use offensive terms.  

 

We can thank the First Amendment for that, more so than we can any alleged forbearance by extremists and activists. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We can thank the First Amendment for that, more so than we can any alleged forbearance by extremists and activists. 

Whatever Scott.  You are free to use any offensive term you want.  No one is going to stop you. At this point, it is clear that when you do use the term it is for the purpose of offending and being disrespectful to the gay community.  You certainly can not hide behind the "I didn't know I was being offensive." It is intentional.

Edited by california boy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, california boy said:

Whatever Scott.  You are free to use any offensive term you want.  No one is going to stop you. At this point, it is clear that when you do use the term it is for the purpose of offending and being disrespectful to the gay community.  You certainly can not hide behind the "I didn't know I was being offensive."

As the world’s foremost expert on what is and is not my intent, I reject your accusation out of hand. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t disagree with President Nelson. 

If, in his judgment as a prophet, seer and revelatory, continued use of a nickname has the effect of supplanting the use of the name of Jesus Christ as the identifier for His church, I will forgo the use of the nickname. 

It is that supplanting that I believe offends God, not the nickname itself. Furthermore, if you will go back and re-read your link, you should be able to see this is precisely what President Nelson is saying: 

QUOTE: “To remove the Lord's name from the Lord's Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior's name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us — even His Atonement."

I dont' mean to make this about this nickname stuff.  I'm surprised to see you making some degree of allowances for the nickname seeing as Pres Nelson has suggested that is precisely what you should not do--I'm not sure your explanation addresses that, even if I can appreciate you are far more concerned about the replacing the name Jesus Christ.  I'm curious why it'd be ok, according to Nelson, to supplant the name of Jesus Christ with the shortened version of "the Church" if that is really the big and only sticking point to raise here.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Question:  Since some of the reasoning that "same sex attraction" is offensive is that "same sex attraction" implies for many it is a condition, wouldn't "homosexual attraction" do the same given it is identical in structure..."attraction" modified by "same sex" (which appears to be acceptable in other cases as a modifier such as a  "same sex marriage") or " homosexual"?  Does anyone who rejects "SSA" also reject using "homosexual attraction"?

PS:  I am not trying to defend usage, but understand arguments against usage.  I get the "it has baggage" argument.  I don't get the "implies" at this point as it seems like it might and might not be used that way and so it is more context rather than the term itself that is problematic.

I find it easier to avoid using terms when I 'get it'.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I dont' mean to make this about this nickname stuff.  I'm surprised to see you making some degree of allowances for the nickname seeing as Pres Nelson has suggested that is precisely what you should not do--I'm not sure your explanation addresses that, even if I can appreciate you are far more concerned about the replacing the name Jesus Christ.  I'm curious why it'd be ok, according to Nelson, to supplant the name of Jesus Christ with the shortened version of "the Church" if that is really the big and only sticking point to raise here.

I’ve been very clear about my position as I have addressed this issue over the years. If what I say now surprises you, I suspect you haven’t been paying attention. 

QUOTE: “I'm curious why it'd be ok, according to Nelson, to supplant the name of Jesus Christ with the shortened version of "the Church" if that is really the big and only sticking point to raise here.” 

As I understand the guidelines, use  of “the Church” is acceptable on second and subsequent reference after the full and formal name of the Church — containing the name of Jesus Christ — has already been given. 

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, california boy said:

You have to see the difference between one or even a few people calling for a change in the name of a salad and an entire community including two of the most active gay watchdogs, the Human Rights  Campaign and GLADD which issues guidelines on how the press should handle language the exact same way the church uses guidelines on how it prefers to be addressed.that has expressed offense with the term SSA AND explained why they find the term offensive.  Just what would it take to convince you both that the term SSA is offensive to the vast majority of the gay community?

 

I'm not arguing that it's not.  My point was that it's not offensive to every gay person, and that some gays prefer that label to any other.  SSA isn't either offensive or not, in and of itself.  It completely depends on the person.  That the majority of gay people find it offensive doesn't mean that those who don't are wrong.  The gay community doesn't get to decide that for another person.  

Quote

None of the examples you gave is anything like the issue of using the offenisve term SSA.  It is hardly a few people who have some personal beef asking people not to use the term.  

Since one of the examples i gave was of someone who choose to use the label SSA, I'm not sure how 'none of the examples I gave are anything like the issue.'  The issue of the use of the term eskimo also seems to be pretty similar to the SSA issue.  Maybe you can clarify what you mean?

Quote

But at the end of the day, each of us can decide their own personal behavior.  No one is asking for jail time for those that continue to use offensive terms.

To be clear, I'm not advocating that people should use whatever terms they want regardless of how they are received.  I think that people should generally try to be respectful and use the terms that people request.  I'm just saying that since terms are often received differently depending on the person, a blanket statement of '______ is offensive' is hardly ever accurate regardless of what the term is. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I agree the TBM term can be misused to cause offense so I suggest we just come up with clear lines between the “exalted chosen” and the “terrestrial slacker wannabes” and another for the “hellbound apostate scum” and call it a day so we can avoid any future offense.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve been very clear about my position as I have addressed this issue over the years. If what I say now surprises you, I suspect you haven’t been paying attention. 

Most definitely I have not paid you more attention than anyone else and have, no doubt, forgotten more of your opinions I"ve read here than I remember.  I hope that is understandable.  

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

QUOTE: “I'm curious why it'd be ok, according to Nelson, to supplant the name of Jesus Christ with the shortened version of "the Church" if that is really the big and only sticking point to raise here.” 

As I understand the guidelines, use  of “the Church” is acceptable on second and subsequent reference after the full and formal name of the Church — containing the name of Jesus Christ — has already been given. 

I don't think that's explicitly spelled out:

Quote

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged. The "restored Church of Jesus Christ" is also accurate and encouraged.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide

It certainly does not suggest that "the Church" is acceptable only after the full or formal name of the Church is given.  Just that it is allowed if a shortened reference is needed.  They certainly don't want Mormon church as the shortened version, but of course it is allowable to exclude Jesus Christ altogether.  This, ti seems to me, clearly shows your explanation isn't really capturing the spirit of what the church and Nelson have said about this.  That is really why I brought these questions up today--not because I haven't been paying attention to you or don't think you haven't been clear. 

All the best.  I don't care if you practice differently than asked to by the Church by allowing the nickname Mormon, and I don't care if your rationale is at odds with Nelson and the Church.  I mean good for you.  But I would say it surprises me.  

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

You think it is me and ALarson representing the gay community?  Seriously?  This is the only place you are hearing that SSA is an offensive term?  

Sorry, I have no idea what you are saying here.  I don't think that you and ALarson are representing the gay community.  I'm not sure what I said to give you that idea.  I clearly stated that I only used you as an example of a gay person and was not implying anything personally about you.  Sometimes when people are a member of a group, they start to think that they get to dictate how other members of the group behave or speak.  I was just saying that if a gay person prefers to use the label SSA, then no one else get's to tell them they can't, even another gay person.  

If I want to continue to refer to myself as Mormon,  for example (I don't), no other members of the church can tell me that it's offensive and I can't do that.  They can disagree with me but they can't dictate my choices or actions, or claim that how I label myself, or asked other people to label me, is offensive.  The number of members that disagreed with me also wouldn't mean anything or change anything for me personally.

And I'm having a conversation with ALarson so that's why I was addressing him.  That doesn't mean that I believe he was representing the gay community.

While this is the only place that I am hearing that SSA is offensive I understand that that's only because this is the only place where I am ever in a discussion about such things.  I don't doubt that the majority of gay people feel as you have described.  If you felt that I was calling that into question then you have misunderstood me.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Question:  Since some of the reasoning that "same sex attraction" is offensive is that "same sex attraction" implies for many it is a condition, wouldn't "homosexual attraction" do the same given it is identical in structure..."attraction" modified by "same sex" (which appears to be acceptable in other cases as a modifier such as a  "same sex marriage") or " homosexual"?  Does anyone who rejects "SSA" also reject using "homosexual attraction"?

PS:  I am not trying to defend usage, but understand arguments against usage.  I get the "it has baggage" argument.  I don't get the "implies" at this point as it seems like it might and might not be used that way and so it is more context rather than the term itself that is problematic.

I'm not sure how you would use "homosexual attraction".

Where I understand SSA to be offensive is when someones labels an individual as "having SSA".  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure how you would use "homosexual attraction".

Where I understand SSA to be offensive is when someones labels an individual as "having SSA".  

What if someone says "is SSA" instead of "having"?  

I admit I grow tired of labels myself.  I don't know how I fit in any of them cleanly.  I also grow leery of them (as it seems many use them for offense or political ends), and feel exacerbated by the offenses taken at every turn.  That last part is, no doubt, unfair.  I really fight the urge to be offended myself.  So I struggle to feel offense when offense is taken.  I sat with a close friend of mine the other day.   I mean he didn't say he didn't like it when people talk about someone as having SSA, but did not like the term SSA.  he felt it was an attempt by others to marginalize him (he's gay).  That it's really only people who are religious, and to him that meant mostly LDS people, who use the term so it shouldn't be used.  I asked him what he felt about those who stay loyal to the Church are gay but don't want to be labeled as such, that they perhaps might prefer the term SSA.  I think on this it feels we're at a point where we can't win.  It seems like so many of us, me included, don't like to feel pigeon holed, and labels often give us that feeling.  We also need to give license to people who want to embrace their labels, it seems to me.  I can understand that someone who is gay might take offense to a religious follower saying something like "I struggle with SSA".  But then how do we let someone define him/her/theyself if we take it over? 

On this I again refer to Mormon.  I like that I've lived most of my life as a Mormon.  I like to think of myself a Mormon.  But, that feels a bit stripped from me now that the Church has tried to tell everyone what is and what is not offensive, in terms of labels, nicknames and all of that.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

What if someone says "is SSA" instead of "having"?  

This so reminds me of a phenomenon amongst the handicapped I worked with in So Davis County lifelong scouting years ago.  Most of them were old enough to have grown up when "retarded" or "mentally retarded" were current, and the changeover to "handicapped" occurred.  They referred both to themselves and others as being "a handicap."  My own son did it one better, using "candy-cap."  Your point about "is" vs "has" is quite an important one, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Where I understand SSA to be offensive is when someones labels an individual as "having SSA".  

But they could be using it in the same way as "having brown hair", describing a biological attribute, so again context matters more imo.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

But they could be using it in the same way as "having brown hair", describing a biological attribute, so again context matters more imo.

I'm not really the person to answer... I don't know.  I just know what I've been told and I know how the gay and lesbian people in my life prefer to be identified and what they find offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What if someone says "is SSA" instead of "having"?  

I don't know (same answer as the one above to Calm).

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But then how do we let someone define him/her/theyself if we take it over? 

I don't think we should take it over.  We should let those we interact with indicate their preferences.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

On this I again refer to Mormon.  I like that I've lived most of my life as a Mormon.  I like to think of myself a Mormon.  But, that feels a bit stripped from me now that the Church has tried to tell everyone what is and what is not offensive, in terms of labels, nicknames and all of that.  

Yeah -- I understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure how you would use "homosexual attraction".

To differentiate between attraction and behaviour, such as in this article:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7611844

Quote

Researchers determining the prevalence of homosexuality in nationally representative samples have focused upon determining the prevalence of homosexual behavior, ignoring those individuals whose sexual attraction to the same sex had not resulted in sexual behavior. We examine the use of sexual attraction as well as sexual behavior to estimate the prevalence of homosexuality in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France using the Project HOPE International Survey of AIDS-Risk Behaviors. We find that 8.7, 7.9, and 8.5% of males and 11.1, 8.6, and 11.7% of females in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, respectively, report some homosexual attraction but no homosexual behavior since age 15. Further, considering homosexual behavior and homosexual attraction as different but overlapping dimensions of homosexuality, we find 20.8, 16.3, and 18.5% of males, and 17.8, 18.6, and 18.5% of females in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France report either homosexual behavior or homosexual attraction since age 15. Examination of homosexual behavior separately finds that 6.2, 4.5, and 10.7% of males and 3.6, 2.1, and 3.3% of females in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, respectively, report having had sexual contact with someone of the same sex in the previous 5 years. Our findings highlight the importance of using more than just homosexual behavior to examine the prevalence of homosexuality.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I agree the TBM term can be misused to cause offense so I suggest we just come up with clear lines between the “exalted chosen” and the “terrestrial slacker wannabes” and another for the “hellbound apostate scum” and call it a day so we can avoid any future offense.

If I was given a blessing and told I was chosen, am a big slacker and have soap scum in my bathtub which category do I fall in?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not arguing that it's not.  My point was that it's not offensive to every gay person, and that some gays prefer that label to any other.  SSA isn't either offensive or not, in and of itself.  It completely depends on the person.  That the majority of gay people find it offensive doesn't mean that those who don't are wrong.  The gay community doesn't get to decide that for another person.  

Since one of the examples i gave was of someone who choose to use the label SSA, I'm not sure how 'none of the examples I gave are anything like the issue.'  The issue of the use of the term eskimo also seems to be pretty similar to the SSA issue.  Maybe you can clarify what you mean?

To be clear, I'm not advocating that people should use whatever terms they want regardless of how they are received.  I think that people should generally try to be respectful and use the terms that people request.  I'm just saying that since terms are often received differently depending on the person, a blanket statement of '______ is offensive' is hardly ever accurate regardless of what the term is. 

I have absolutely no problem referring to someone who is gay that wishes to use the term SSA.  I believe Kindley is one of those who prefer the term.  I never refer to him as gay.  But by far, they are the exception, not the rule and the term is rarely used outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and evangelic community.  How many gay web sites use the term SSA.  How many gay magazines use the term SSA.  For that matter how many mainstream newspapers, magazines, radio stations, courts, businesses, petitions, commercials, vacation packages marked to gays, pride events, clubs, non profit organizations, songs, books, plays, motion pictures, television programs, history books, adoption agencies, use the term SSA.  Does that count for ANYTHING?  In no way are both terms on equal footing. 

Unfortunately, some on this board have the notion that all gays should be given that label.  And even though the majority of gays find the term offensive, still have no problem using it.   Knowing that the term SSA is indeed offensive to most gays, their intent is to offend most gays.  

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

But they could be using it in the same way as "having brown hair", describing a biological attribute, so again context matters more imo.

Or having a taste for navel oranges, to go back to an analogy I used earlier. (At least, I think I used that analogy. Sometimes my posts disappear from this board.) 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Seems fine to me.

So “homosexual attraction” is fine, but “same-sex attraction” is not? 

Curiouser and curiouser. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Knowing that the term SSA is indeed offensive to most gays, their intent is to offend most gays.  

 

 

I disagree that using a term that can be seen as offensive automatically means their intent is to offend, but I get what you are saying and it’s reasonable. 😊

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So “homosexual attraction” is fine, but “same-sex attraction” is not? 

Curiouser and curiouser. 

I was referring to how it was used in the paragraph that Calm quoted.  

And I’ve said before on this thread... I see a difference between saying someone is attracted to the same sex and referring to lesbian and gay people as “having SSA”. 

It’s not really a tough concept to wrap your head around. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Rain said:

If I was given a blessing and told I was chosen, am a big slacker and have soap scum in my bathtub which category do I fall in?

You will be the chosen leader of the bathtub cleaning crew of the Terrestrial slacker kingdom. I hope this helps. ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...