Anonymous Mormon Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 6 hours ago, kllindley said: Yes. I am one of those. @kllindley - It sounds like you have a different viewpoint on this topic and are in the audience of those being discussed. Do you care to share more of your background and experience with these terms to help us get a broader perspective? Link to comment
Anonymous Mormon Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Based upon this thread, I have learned that the 'Gay Community' finds the term Same-Sex Attraction to be negative. I appreciate CaliforniaBoy and others who have pointed this out, as I have learned something new and will avoid using this term for someone who considers themselves actively part of the gay community, as my goal is not to offend them. However, I am still not 100% sold on whether or not General Authorities should avoid this term? As was taught by Dallin H Oaks: "We who are General Authorities and general officers are called to teach His general rules. You and we then lead specific lives and must seek the Lord’s guidance regarding specific circumstances. But there would be mass confusion and loss of gospel promises if no general ideal and no doctrinal standard were established and, in our case today, repeated." So coming back to my list of 8 options for how to phrase a statement that might be given by a General Authority, I was told that the least offensive statement if you were speaking to the Gay Community would be "Being gay is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." . But what if you are speaking to members of the church generally in General Conference and not to the Gay Community. What if you were wanting to address that boy or girl that is 12 years old and not sure which gender they are attracted to because there are so many voices out there in the media and they only have more friends of their same gender and they don't have any friends of the opposite gender (this description fit me at the age of 12 - I only had friends who were guys and wasn't yet really attracted to girls). Does a General Authority want to label this young kid as Gay at that point? Maybe that kid will consider themselves bi-sexual some day or maybe it's honestly just an unknown to them because they are still a fairly blank slate because they aren't yet sexually matured. So if a General Authority is teaching, is it less offensives to say statement option a) "Having same-sex attraction is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin" than it is to say my option b) "Being attracted to the same sex is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin"? And if we are completely honest, wouldn't it be fair to say that the statement that was selected as least offensive, which was Option C) "Being gay is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin," would likely still be considered offensive to the Gay Community? I can imagine that many (most?) Gay people will still consider this statement to be offensive and potentially hate speech because this statement negates the true essence and identity of being gay and says that if you act on who you are and who God created you to be, then you are sinner. Most would find that idea to be hate speech and offensive, isn't that right? (for example Buttigieg recently made similar comments) So I guess my question then becomes, if no matter what is said by General Authorities on the topic it's going to offend the Gay Community and could be considered at least offensive and at most Hate Speech, then does it really matter which of these options they choose and shouldn't they choose the one that would resonate the most with the young church members who are trying to figure out their sexual identity in a barrage of messaging from the media? 10 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said: Which of the following would be approved, NOT-offensive statements that a general authority could make at conference: a) "Having same-sex attraction is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." b) "Being attracted to the same sex is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." c) "Being gay is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." d) "Being Lesbian is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." e) "Having gay inclinations is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." f) "Being LGB is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." g) "Being queer is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." h) "Homosexual feelings are not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." i) None of the above - no one should be told to control their sexuality 4 Link to comment
sunstoned Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That the choice is mine (and the church’s, for that matter) is a given. What is at issue is whether the indignation is justified and whether folks ought to be shamed into not using it anymore — the essence of political correctness. The arrogance of this is astounding. It is like you want to go out of your way to offend people. It has been pointed out in this thread (the one you started) over and over again that SSA is generally an offensive term. Yet, this seems to be a hill you want die on because the Q15 continues to use this term, and you are going to defend your heroes to the end. 4 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 12 hours ago, USU78 said: You're hopelessly naive ... or putting one over on us Perhaps you're taking dystopian fiction a little too seriously Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 8 hours ago, kllindley said: But what if the "general term" is fundamentally at odds with how the person or institution sees the situation. For example, many people insist that America is a democracy. Regardless of how large a majority think that IR how offended they get, it would not be wrong to continue to refer to the country as a Republic. Realistically respecting the wishes of the majority of the group is the obviously the correct course of action. Certainly you aren't suggesting that they should intentionally offend the vast majority of people in a group, to preference a small minority? 2 Link to comment
Amulek Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 10 hours ago, california boy said: Every time the church labels someone as having SSA it is offensive to those in the LGBTQ community. Personally, I don't have a problem referring to people by the identifier of their choosing. Well, within reason, of course. However, I am interested in flushing this out a bit more. Is it the expression "same-sex attraction" in and of itself that is considered offensive? Or is it the way people use it that is what causes the offence? For example, when someone says, "So-and-so has same-sex attraction," I understand that this might be considered offensive (as you have explained) because it sounds an awful lot like the way we talk about people who have a disease (e.g., So-and-so has Tuberculosis or, perhaps more poignantly, So-and-so has AIDS). So, even though one may happen to be using the exact same language that is used when talking about other personal attributes (e.g., So-and-so has red hair), the perception is different when it comes to sexual attraction because of the unstated implication that same-sex attraction isn't normal. Or, even if that isn't the intended implication, it's sort of the understood association, right? But what if we don't talk about "having" it? I ran a site search on lds.org this morning, and the only instances I was able to find for "[has/have/having] same sex attraction" were from youth asking questions - never from church leaders. I'm not saying no leader has ever used the expression, but it does seem like the times where the church uses the phrase "same-sex attraction" are generally in situations like this: The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple. So, is speaking about someone "experiencing same-sex attraction" offensive as well? 1 Link to comment
USU78 Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Perhaps you're taking dystopian fiction a little too seriously "Think of all the hate there is in Red China Then turn right around to Selma Alabama Take a look around you, boy, it's bound to scare you, boy. And you tell me over and over and over again, my friend, You don't believe we're on the Eve of Destruction?" Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, USU78 said: "Think of all the hate there is in Red China Then turn right around to Selma Alabama Take a look around you, boy, it's bound to scare you, boy. And you tell me over and over and over again, my friend, You don't believe we're on the Eve of Destruction?" Try mixing in a little less doom and gloom, there are a ton of positives over the course of the human enterprise. https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010/ref=sr_1_2?crid=25T3JCH1O971N&keywords=better+angels+of+our+nature+by+steven+pinker&qid=1558104105&s=gateway&sprefix=better+angels+of%2Caps%2C300&sr=8-2 Link to comment
Anonymous Mormon Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 33 minutes ago, Amulek said: Personally, I don't have a problem referring to people by the identifier of their choosing. Well, within reason, of course. However, I am interested in flushing this out a bit more. Is it the expression "same-sex attraction" in and of itself that is considered offensive? Or is it the way people use it that is what causes the offence? For example, when someone says, "So-and-so has same-sex attraction," I understand that this might be considered offensive (as you have explained) because it sounds an awful lot like the way we talk about people who have a disease (e.g., So-and-so has Tuberculosis or, perhaps more poignantly, So-and-so has AIDS). So, even though one may happen to be using the exact same language that is used when talking about other personal attributes (e.g., So-and-so has red hair), the perception is different when it comes to sexual attraction because of the unstated implication that same-sex attraction isn't normal. Or, even if that isn't the intended implication, it's sort of the understood association, right? But what if we don't talk about "having" it? I ran a site search on lds.org this morning, and the only instances I was able to find for "[has/have/having] same sex attraction" were from youth asking questions - never from church leaders. I'm not saying no leader has ever used the expression, but it does seem like the times where the church uses the phrase "same-sex attraction" are generally in situations like this: The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple. So, is speaking about someone "experiencing same-sex attraction" offensive as well? Great question! That statement written by the church seems to be well thought out and written. For everyone who is saying the church shouldn't use the term SSA, I want to understand if that statement is offensive because it uses the term same-sex attraction? If so, how would it be better written to not be offensive while still capturing the same essence of thought? Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That the choice is mine (and the church’s, for that matter) is a given. What is at issue is whether the indignation is justified and whether folks ought to be shamed into not using it anymore — the essence of political correctness. Yes, you have the choice to use a phrase to describe a community even though the vast majority of that community finds it offensive. The church can do the same thing. Anyone can choose to be offensive toward anyone they want. But even though you have the choice to use an offensive phrase, is it "justified"? You and I will have different answers to that question. No one's stopping you, but that doesn't mean you're right. Would others be justified in shaming you for purposely using an offensive phrase? You and I may have different answers to that question. You don't control what others say, just as they have no control over you. But "justified" is a moral judgement. It sounds like you are attempting to support a different kind of political correctness from the one you are mocking. ETA- I'll add that you seem to be most concerned with how non-LGBTQ should or should not identify the LGBTQ community, and not how the LGBTQ community chooses to self-identify. I haven't seen anyone upset about how a person self-identifies. The argument/debate seems to be centered around whether or not people outside of the community will respect the identification the vast majority people within that community chooses. Edited May 17, 2019 by HappyJackWagon 2 Link to comment
kllindley Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Realistically respecting the wishes of the majority of the group is the obviously the correct course of action. Certainly you aren't suggesting that they should intentionally offend the vast majority of people in a group, to preference a small minority? So, majority rules regardless of accuracy? Certainly you aren't suggesting that Galileo was wrong for offending the majority of people in his day? 3 Link to comment
kllindley Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said: @kllindley - It sounds like you have a different viewpoint on this topic and are in the audience of those being discussed. Do you care to share more of your background and experience with these terms to help us get a broader perspective? I have shared in more depth on the board, but not recently. I will take some time a bit later today to share my experience and perspective in more detail. Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 26 minutes ago, kllindley said: So, majority rules regardless of accuracy? Certainly you aren't suggesting that Galileo was wrong for offending the majority of people in his day? Its not about accuracy and this situation has no parallel with Galileo. Do you feel that people supporting the label of SSA are like Galileo, fighting for the truth against an oppressive and ignorant society? Link to comment
changed Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 26 minutes ago, kllindley said: So, majority rules regardless of accuracy? Certainly you aren't suggesting that Galileo was wrong for offending the majority of people in his day? I think Galileo chose the tactful middle-ground. He did not anger anyone enough to be killed, just house arrest - the pope actually praised him. I think may of those who were killed for their beliefs are not good examples of missionaries - they were killed because they could not communicate, could not connect with people... 1 Link to comment
changed Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Its not about accuracy and this situation has no parallel with Galileo. Do you feel that people supporting the label of SSA are like Galileo, fighting for the truth against an oppressive and ignorant society? Not directed at me, but I think there are parallels. Most people did not understand things such as "it is not a choice" etc. Slowly, through people speaking out, we are all becoming more educated.... at least most are. Link to comment
kllindley Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Its not about accuracy and this situation has no parallel with Galileo. Do you feel that people supporting the label of SSA are like Galileo, fighting for the truth against an oppressive and ignorant society? These are pretty absolute statements that make claims of fact: "Not about accuracy" and "no parallel." Do you mean that is your opinion or are you able to back those statements up with evidence? The truth is that the nature of sexual orientation is far from settled science. Many people on both extremes tend to refuse to accept that and claim that their preferred ideology is "fact." Certainly individuals have a variety of understandings and personal meanings for words/phrases. But there is no question that "gay" carries additional implications about the nature of sexual orientation, sexuality in general, and human nature broadly beyond the more descriptive phrases. 1 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 25 minutes ago, kllindley said: These are pretty absolute statements that make claims of fact: "Not about accuracy" and "no parallel." Do you mean that is your opinion or are you able to back those statements up with evidence? The truth is that the nature of sexual orientation is far from settled science. Many people on both extremes tend to refuse to accept that and claim that their preferred ideology is "fact." Certainly individuals have a variety of understandings and personal meanings for words/phrases. But there is no question that "gay" carries additional implications about the nature of sexual orientation, sexuality in general, and human nature broadly beyond the more descriptive phrases. You brought up the Galileo example. If you find it to be a relevant, please share why, I don't think it is. You didn't answer my question about whether or not you consider your position like a modern day Galileo in defending the use of the term SSA. Saying that the nature of sexual orientation is far from settled science depends on what you mean by settled science. Are you looking for absolute certainty, or are you looking for strong enough evidence that a large majority of the experts have components that they agree upon on this subject. As for the word gay, I believe that when the majority of the people in a group prefer that a label be used to describe them, and when they feel offended by the use of the term SSA, I think we should honor those requests. I don't think accuracy matters when it comes to labels, I think the preferences of the people in the group should be prioritized over any kind of objective criteria. Its not about objectivity here, this is a subjective preference. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Yes, you have the choice to use a phrase to describe a community even though the vast majority of that community finds it offensive. The church can do the same thing. Anyone can choose to be offensive toward anyone they want. But even though you have the choice to use an offensive phrase, is it "justified"? You and I will have different answers to that question. No one's stopping you, but that doesn't mean you're right. Would others be justified in shaming you for purposely using an offensive phrase? You and I may have different answers to that question. You don't control what others say, just as they have no control over you. But "justified" is a moral judgement. It sounds like you are attempting to support a different kind of political correctness from the one you are mocking. ETA- I'll add that you seem to be most concerned with how non-LGBTQ should or should not identify the LGBTQ community, and not how the LGBTQ community chooses to self-identify. I haven't seen anyone upset about how a person self-identifies. The argument/debate seems to be centered around whether or not people outside of the community will respect the identification the vast majority people within that community chooses. I have indicated in this very thread that I have no problem applying terms such as gay or LBGTQ to those who embrace those terms for themselves. I will even apply them broadly to the population of individuals who self-identify using such terms. What I’ve not said I will do — and what I refuse to do — is apply them to each and every person with a homosexual orientation when I know for a fact that some do not accept those terms for themselves. One example is kllindley, whom we are fortunate to have among us to speak for himself. Another example is the writer I quoted in the OP. There might be many, many others whom we will never know about because they prefer to keep their sexual orientation a private matter. The clinical, neutral term same-sex attraction is the best one I know of to apply to such individuals, and I refuse to be browbeaten into eliminating it from my vocabulary. We should bear in mind that terms such as gay and LGBTQ denote more than mere sexual orientation. They refer to a cultural movement, a social tribe, a political pressure group. Some don’t wish to be a part of all that, and we need to respect their desires as well as the desires of those who do. In the final analysis, I suspect the political-correctness bullies, in the furtherance of their narrative, are trying to erase any meaningful public perception or recognition of the existence of such individuals. They do this by trying to control the public vernacular. It’s part and parcel of the of the political correctness modus operandi. Very Orwellian, when you think about it. Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
kllindley Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: You brought up the Galileo example. If you find it to be a relevant, please share why, I don't think it is. You didn't answer my question about whether or not you consider your position like a modern day Galileo in defending the use of the term SSA. I do find it relevant. Like I've said before. I don't have any attachment to "SSA" as a term in this context. SSA should should be a noun, an attraction, and never an adjective to describe a person. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Saying that the nature of sexual orientation is far from settled science depends on what you mean by settled science. Are you looking for absolute certainty, or are you looking for strong enough evidence that a large majority of the experts have components that they agree upon on this subject. I'm not talking about absolute certainty. What sort of components do you believe are agreed upon by the majority of the experts based on strong evidence. Etiology - the official position of the APA is that most experts agree that sexual orientation is the result of a complex interaction between environmental and genetic factors. In any rigorous expert discussion, there is an acknowledgement that attraction, behavior, orientation, and identity are separate (through related) constructs. Gay is an identity. It is the most narrow of the four. That identity is chosen. Gay actually only speaks to a subset of individuals with a homosexual orientation. The total number of individuals with a homosexual orientation is still only a subset of the larger group who experience same-sex attractions or have engaged in same-sex sexual behaviors. So when people like you insist that "gay" is the only acceptable term, I have to conclude that either you really don't know what you are talking about [broadly, not just you personally], or that you are intentionally trying to erase and/or marginalize the rest of us who don't identify as gay despite being attracted to individuals of the same-sex. And really, the numbers are not even close. 1.8% of the US population identifies as gay or lesbian, the number who identify as something other than straight is like 3.8% But when asked about sexual behavior in the last 12 months, 6% have engaged in same-sex sexual activity. When asked about attraction to individuals of the same-sex, the number jumps up to between 10 and 25% depending on the age group. So you want Church leaders to use "Gay" to keep from offending the 1.8% even if they are more accurately talking about the 20% who experience any degree of same-sex attraction or even the 3.8% who identify as something other than straight? It's like getting upset that politicians refer to Christians in America and expecting them to just use Catholic, because some Catholics might be offended that they are not being recognized or feel that referring to them as generic Christians is denying their Catholicism. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: As for the word gay, I believe that when the majority of the people in a group prefer that a label be used to describe them, and when they feel offended by the use of the term SSA, I think we should honor those requests. I don't think accuracy matters when it comes to labels, I think the preferences of the people in the group should be prioritized over any kind of objective criteria. Its not about objectivity here, this is a subjective preference. And what if leaders aren't in fact just talking about those people who identify as gay? The majority of people who experience same-sex attractions do not identify as gay. What about their preferences? 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Share Posted May 17, 2019 5 hours ago, sunstoned said: The arrogance of this is astounding. It is like you want to go out of your way to offend people. It has been pointed out in this thread (the one you started) over and over again that SSA is generally an offensive term. Yet, this seems to be a hill you want die on because the Q15 continues to use this term, and you are going to defend your heroes to the end. Heh. I perceive that the arrogance is on your side of the debate. The response I just posted to HJW would apply here as well. Rather than repeat it, I will refer you to it. It should be one or two posts above this one. Link to comment
kllindley Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: We should bear in mind that terms such as gay and LGBTQ denote more than mere sexual orientation. They refer to a cultural movement, a social tribe, a political pressure group. Some don’t wish to be a part of all that, and we need to respect their desires as well as the desires of those who do. In the final analysis, I suspect the political-correctness bullies, in the furtherance of their narrative, are trying to erase any meaningful public perception or recognition of the acceptance of such individuals. They do this by trying to control the public vernacular. It’s part and parcel of the of the political correctness modus operandi. Very Orwellian, when you think about it. I not only suspect it, I have heard those in the LGBT movement express that very intent. They shared their belief that the existence of those who do not fully adopt the "gay" identity threatens their own political and social goals. Edited May 17, 2019 by kllindley 1 Link to comment
california boy Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 5 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said: Based upon this thread, I have learned that the 'Gay Community' finds the term Same-Sex Attraction to be negative. I appreciate CaliforniaBoy and others who have pointed this out, as I have learned something new and will avoid using this term for someone who considers themselves actively part of the gay community, as my goal is not to offend them. However, I am still not 100% sold on whether or not General Authorities should avoid this term? As was taught by Dallin H Oaks: "We who are General Authorities and general officers are called to teach His general rules. You and we then lead specific lives and must seek the Lord’s guidance regarding specific circumstances. But there would be mass confusion and loss of gospel promises if no general ideal and no doctrinal standard were established and, in our case today, repeated." So coming back to my list of 8 options for how to phrase a statement that might be given by a General Authority, I was told that the least offensive statement if you were speaking to the Gay Community would be "Being gay is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." . But what if you are speaking to members of the church generally in General Conference and not to the Gay Community. What if you were wanting to address that boy or girl that is 12 years old and not sure which gender they are attracted to because there are so many voices out there in the media and they only have more friends of their same gender and they don't have any friends of the opposite gender (this description fit me at the age of 12 - I only had friends who were guys and wasn't yet really attracted to girls). Does a General Authority want to label this young kid as Gay at that point? Maybe that kid will consider themselves bi-sexual some day or maybe it's honestly just an unknown to them because they are still a fairly blank slate because they aren't yet sexually matured. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I just needed a little break. I would still like to give you my perspective on your questions because I think you are actually making an effort to understand the issue. So let me address this part of your question. I don't think it is any secret that the Church is not viewed all that favorably on LGBT issues by most of the country. And that view is not without reason. I am pretty sure I don't have to get into those reasons. If the Church wants to continue this adversarial relationship, then yes, continuing using the term SSA will accomplish the continued animosity. If however, the church wishes to improve relations with the LGBT community and how it is viewed by most of the country, then it should consider using less inflammatory language. For the life of me, I don't understand why the church can't say "Being gay is not a sin. Acting on those desires is." Not inflammatory. Still says what the church wants to get across to those that are gay. Don't act on those impulses. It is basically the same message it gives to ALL youth. Why is inflammatory language needed for those that are gay, but. not needed for those that are straight? Now let's talk about the youth of the Church. Does anyone really believe the kid is going to think, I am not gay, I just have SSA? Is this kid going to come out to their friends and classmates as gay or as having SSA? In most parts of the country, I doubt most of their friends would have any idea what SSA is. Once again, what is so horrible about a kid coming out gay but stating that they don't intend to act upon those desires? 5 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said: So if a General Authority is teaching, is it less offensives to say statement option a) "Having same-sex attraction is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin" than it is to say my option b) "Being attracted to the same sex is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin"? Having SSA is the inflammatory language. Being gay is not a sin. Not a problem. 5 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said: And if we are completely honest, wouldn't it be fair to say that the statement that was selected as least offensive, which was Option C) "Being gay is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin," would likely still be considered offensive to the Gay Community? I can imagine that many (most?) Gay people will still consider this statement to be offensive and potentially hate speech because this statement negates the true essence and identity of being gay and says that if you act on who you are and who God created you to be, then you are sinner. Most would find that idea to be hate speech and offensive, isn't that right? (for example Buttigieg recently made similar comments) I think you are being a bit melodramatic. Yes probably most in the LGBT community and the majority of Americans do not think that being in a gay marriage is sinful. But I also think the majority of the LGBT community and Americans believe that religious organizations can call homosexual relations as sinful and not view it as hate speech. It is a religious belief. Just like religious organizations view sex outside of marriage for straight people sinful. Religion is entitled to their view. It only becomes a problem when religion starts to impose their beliefs on others. 5 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said: So I guess my question then becomes, if no matter what is said by General Authorities on the topic it's going to offend the Gay Community and could be considered at least offensive and at most Hate Speech, then does it really matter which of these options they choose and shouldn't they choose the one that would resonate the most with the young church members who are trying to figure out their sexual identity in a barrage of messaging from the media? The Church seems to come up with statements on a regular basis that offend the LGBT community. I don't see that changing in the near future. The question we are asking is "Would it be in the best interest of the Church to quit using inflammatory language in how they address those within the LGBT community and those within the church. The Church may not be able to modify it's doctrine, but it could modify the language it uses in describing LGBT issues. If the church has no interest in building bridges, then it doesn't really matter does it. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, kllindley said: I do find it relevant. Like I've said before. I don't have any attachment to "SSA" as a term in this context. SSA should should be a noun, an attraction, and never an adjective to describe a person. I'm not talking about absolute certainty. What sort of components do you believe are agreed upon by the majority of the experts based on strong evidence. Etiology - the official position of the APA is that most experts agree that sexual orientation is the result of a complex interaction between environmental and genetic factors. In any rigorous expert discussion, there is an acknowledgement that attraction, behavior, orientation, and identity are separate (through related) constructs. Gay is an identity. It is the most narrow of the four. That identity is chosen. Gay actually only speaks to a subset of individuals with a homosexual orientation. The total number of individuals with a homosexual orientation is still only a subset of the larger group who experience same-sex attractions or have engaged in same-sex sexual behaviors. So when people like you insist that "gay" is the only acceptable term, I have to conclude that either you really don't know what you are talking about [broadly, not just you personally], or that you are intentionally trying to erase and/or marginalize the rest of us who don't identify as gay despite being attracted to individuals of the same-sex. And really, the numbers are not even close. 1.8% of the US population identifies as gay or lesbian, the number who identify as something other than straight is like 3.8% But when asked about sexual behavior in the last 12 months, 6% have engaged in same-sex sexual activity. When asked about attraction to individuals of the same-sex, the number jumps up to between 10 and 25% depending on the age group. So you want Church leaders to use "Gay" to keep from offending the 1.8% even if they are more accurately talking about the 20% who experience any degree of same-sex attraction or even the 3.8% who identify as something other than straight? It's like getting upset that politicians refer to Christians in America and expecting them to just use Catholic, because some Catholics might be offended that they are not being recognized or feel that referring to them as generic Christians is denying their Catholicism. And what if leaders aren't in fact just talking about those people who identify as gay? The majority of people who experience same-sex attractions do not identify as gay. What about their preferences? Very well expressed, kllindley. I was struck by the coincidence that our posts appeared at about the same time and we both spoke of the concept of some trying to “erase” recognition of those who don’t identify as gay. Maybe it’s a matter of great minds thinking alike 😆. At any rate, I feel somewhat validated, because I have immense regard for your opinion. Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Share Posted May 17, 2019 10 minutes ago, kllindley said: I not only suspect it, I have heard those in the LGBT movement express that very intent. They shared their belief that the existence of those who do not fully adopt the "gay" identity threatens their own political and social goals. Thanks for this. I feel more validated still. 😊 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) Sorry. Responded to wrong post Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
Recommended Posts