“Why not say you’re gay?” Choosing a self-identifier

[Damien the Leper]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He may think it's a mental issue. I believe that he and a few others, IMO, feel it isn't that you are born with it, just like heterosexuals are.

Heterosexuals are in no way born heterosexual (DSA) than homosexuals are born homosexual (SSA). For consistency's sake. 

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

My heterosexual friend has different-sex attraction and experiences different-sex attraction. Just for the sake of consistency, I'll also say that all human attraction is a malady.

That’s funny.  But just to be safe.  Ha!  We all suffer from the disease of attractions.

Edited May 16, 2019 by JulieM

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He may think it's a mental issue. I believe that he and a few others, IMO, feel it isn't that you are born with it, just like heterosexuals are.

The question is off topic, but I suspect Scott's actual views are more nuanced than that.  I myself tend towards nurture rather than nature.  This paper has informed my own thinking more than anything else I've read:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17146141

[alter idem]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm 99% sure that LGBTQ groups have met with church representatives and informed them that SSA is not the preferred way of describing them.  You can even see this in the slow shift away from the use of that term.  I think LGBT was even uttered by a church leader just recently for the very first time if I recall correctly.  The church is slowly moving in this direction, irrespective of people on this board that may be oblivious or in denial about the shifts in rhetoric.  

When the church stops using it, I'll stop using it.  This is a forum which respects the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints and the term is commonly used by the church, and so I see no reason to ban it's use on this forum.  The suggestion on the other thread was that it was universally considered negative by Lgbtq  and so forum members and the church should stop using it.  However, the OP of this thread proved this claim false; it's not universal and some don't want to be called 'gay', but SSA.  Time will tell and this can be re-examined then.

I think individuals who state a preference should be considered, but I'm not going to support a ban of the term same sex attraction. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I felt a little huffy because that kind of question is so loaded and I don't feel its appropriate to ask as there is a judgment implied in the question.  It might not have been your individual intent to judge, but I have seen other posters on this board who try to dismiss people that don't fit their standard of orthodox member.  

There was no judgment implied in the question and no reason for you to assume there was.  I was asking for clarification/information.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

SSA nor DSA are symptoms or disorders to be treated...

I think you left out a "not" given your use of "nor".

[rodheadlee]

sigh, how I long for a good Mayan baseball thread.

[Calm]

Just an FYI, I haven't noticed any change yet in actual names of Church websites.  I get redirected using the new name to "LDS.org".  I am assuming it takes time...they have to redirect links etc.

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/

[Calm]

GLAAD has a list of acceptable and derogatory words on its website.

"Same sex attraction" is not mentioned.  "Homosexual" is as a term to be avoided.

https://www.glaad.org/reference/lgbtq

https://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive

Edited May 16, 2019 by Calm

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

 "Homosexual" is as a term to be avoided.

😂🤣😂

[Calm]

This states "same sex" is the preferred adjective over "homosexual":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_homosexuality

Quote

In particular, the description of individuals as homosexual may be offensive, partially because of the negative clinical association of the word stemming from its use in describing same-sex attraction as a pathological state before homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973.^[1] The Associated Press and New York Times style guides restrict usage of the terms.^[2]...However, the term homosexual and homosexuality is sometimes deemed appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adjective).

Another site suggesting avoidance of "homosexual" and no mention of "same-sex attraction".

https://www.wearefamilycharleston.org/lgbt-glossary-az

Edited May 16, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

GLAAD has a list of acceptable and derogatory words on its website.

"Same sex attraction" is not mentioned.  "Homosexual" is as a term to be avoided.

https://www.glaad.org/reference/lgbtq

https://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive

But if you do a search for "homosexual", there are dozens of results (positive from what I can see....but I'll try to look at all of them).  It appears to be a word that is used often and with a positive connotation.

"Same sex attraction" gets zero results (in the search I did on that site).

Where do they state to avoid the term "homosexual"?  (Just curious....)

Edited May 16, 2019 by ALarson

[Damien the Leper]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you left out a "not" given your use of "nor".

Where do you mean?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

Heterosexuals are in no way born heterosexual (DSA) than homosexuals are born homosexual (SSA). For consistency's sake. 

I now want to get a t-shirt that says “I suffer from DSA”

[Damien the Leper]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I now want to get a t-shirt that says “I suffer from DSA”

Lol. I hear the symptoms of DSA are tragic.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Where do you mean?

In the quoted section you used "nor" instead of "and".

Are you saying they are symptoms or not?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But if you do a search for "homosexual", there are dozens of results (positive from what I can see....but I'll try to look at all of them).  It appears to be a word that is used often and with a positive connotation.

"Same sex attraction" gets zero results (in the search I did on that site).

Where do they state to avoid the term "homosexual"?  (Just curious....)

Top of the page on the second link.

[ALarson]

Just now, Calm said:

Top of the page on the second link.

Thanks.  Interesting....

Because it's certainly used (homosexual) in a positive way from what I can tell (by doing a search).....and used extensively.

[Damien the Leper]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

In the quoted section you used "nor" instead of "and".

Are you saying they are symptoms or not?

They are not symptoms. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

When the church stops using it, I'll stop using it.  This is a forum which respects the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints and the term is commonly used by the church, and so I see no reason to ban it's use on this forum.  The suggestion on the other thread was that it was universally considered negative by Lgbtq  and so forum members and the church should stop using it.  However, the OP of this thread proved this claim false; it's not universal and some don't want to be called 'gay', but SSA.  Time will tell and this can be re-examined then.

I think individuals who state a preference should be considered, but I'm not going to support a ban of the term same sex attraction. 

I think I missed something.

Has someone called for the banning of "SSA" on this forum?  If so, CFR please. I'm sorry I missed it.

If not, I'd say it doesn't take much bravery to stand up to a ban that has never been called for.

[Tacenda]

I asked a question to my friend google, this: "Where did same sex attracted come from?" This article came up with the following quotes which answers the OP, but I'm sure there is always the outliers that think differently.  https://www.newwaysministry.org/2017/01/11/a-question-of-language-same-sex-attraction-vs-gay-or-lesbian/

The language difference is not insignificant.  First of all,  for many gay and lesbian people, the term “same-sex attraction” is offensive because it does not adequately describe themselves or their personal experiences.   To call someone “a person with same-sex attraction” sounds very much like referring to someone who has a disease or condition which is different than the natural way that things should be.   Gay and lesbian people, however, do not experience their sexual identities as something irregular, but as something natural to themselves.

When Jesuit Father James Martin received New Ways Ministry’s Bridge Building Award last autumn, he noted in his acceptance speech that the Catechism calls people to treat lesbian and gay people with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.  He noted that it is a sign of respect to address people in the way in which they identify themselves.  Fr. Martin elaborated:

“. . . [R]espect means calling a group what it asks to be called. On a personal level, if someone says, ‘I prefer to be called Jim instead of James,’ you naturally listen. It’s common courtesy. And it’s the same on a group level. We don’t say ‘Negroes’ any longer. Why? Because that group feels more comfortable with other names: ‘African-Americans’ or ‘blacks.’ . . . Everyone has the right to tell you their name.

“Names are important. Thus, church leaders are invited to be attentive to how they name the L.G.B.T. community and lay to rest phrases like “afflicted with same-sex attraction,” which no L.G.B.T. person I know uses, and even “homosexual person,” which seems overly clinical to many. . . .And if Pope Francis can use the word gay, so can the rest of the church.”

Edited May 16, 2019 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

Fair enough. But what I said still stands for DSA as well then. My heterosexual friend has different-sex attraction and experiences different-sex attraction. Just for the sake of consistency, I'll also say that all human attraction is a malady.

I said on the other thread that I would readily accept being described as having “opposite-sex attraction.” That seemed to amaze rockpond. I still don’t understand why. 

[The Nehor]

Perhaps but the word “gay” was coopted from happy people. Now I cannot even say that I feel pretty and witty and gay without people staring.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

GLAAD has a list of acceptable and derogatory words on its website.

"Same sex attraction" is not mentioned.  "Homosexual" is as a term to be avoided.

https://www.glaad.org/reference/lgbtq

https://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This states "same sex" is the preferred adjective over "homosexual":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_homosexuality

Another site suggesting avoidance of "homosexual" and no mention of "same-sex attraction".

https://www.wearefamilycharleston.org/lgbt-glossary-az

How interesting! Now, I’m wondering what the governing group is (if any) that declared same-sex attraction a pejorative. 

[USU78]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Perhaps but the word “gay” was coopted from happy people. Now I cannot even say that I feel pretty and witty and gay without people staring.

It's not what you say, it's that you completely botch the choreography when you say it.  Jerry Robbins is unforgiving.