Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scott Lloyd

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

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Bednar seems to be the favorite whipping boy here. Do you have other examples? How do you account for the mormonandgay.org website? 

You could also search for the term gay in the church's database of conference talks it hasn't been used for very long in any official sense.   Its not just an anomaly with Bednar, although he certainly deserves to be a whipping boy for how egregious his comments were.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

As is all too apparent, 'people' have all kinds of different preferences and it's pretty hard to keep up with it--I'd say it's impossible to NOT offend someone, unless we just don't talk about it.  I don't perceive that in using the term 'same sex attraction', the church is forcing a label on anyone.  I also don't see it as disrespectful to use a term that clinically and unemotionally describes a situation.  The accusation that using this term means the church is suggesting they have some kind of illness or malady is a personal perception. 

Would it be okay to say a person 'experiences' same sex attraction, rather than they 'have' it?   Would that remove the offense being taken?

 

But, I can't help feeling that this is all making others 'an offender for a word', which was not a good thing.

I guess I just don't understand why there is such push back when people are just asking to be identified by a different label.  I recently started working with someone who goes by Kat, but her name is formally Kathleen, and I've heard others call her Kate or Katie or Kathy.  She's very polite about choosing when to correct people.  Most people adjust fairly quickly.  Its really not asking that much to have people adjust their language to the preferences of others.  I honestly don't understand the push back.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Exactly.  

Why even bring this up again?  It was discussed at length in the other thread and no one changed their minds and Scott refused to stop using a term that offends many.

Or have you changed your mind now Scott?

Do you no longer believe those who are gay have a disease?

“Shut up!” she explained. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So?

There are others here who are not members of the church (and never have been).

He has every right to come here and be a part of discussions that are still important to him.  He was a very active member for a great deal of his life and iirc, still has active children and other family members.

This issue also really affected his life and still does.  

I get it.  You're an apologist.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess I just don't understand why there is such push back when people are just asking to be identified by a different label.  I recently started working with someone who goes by Kat, but her name is formally Kathleen, and I've heard others call her Kate or Katie or Kathy.  She's very polite about choosing when to correct people.  Most people adjust fairly quickly.  Its really not asking that much to have people adjust their language to the preferences of others.  I honestly don't understand the push back.  

It’s not as simple as “just asking to be identified by a different label.” You appear to want to impose a single label, “gay,” even on those who don’t accept it for themselves. Isn’t that the intent of your “numbers game” remark? 

That’s not any better than applying “same-sex attraction” to those who don’t like <that> term. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you a member of the church still?  Maybe we need to add that qualifier to all of our posts, just so everybody is informed.  

 Up until that other thread, I'd never heard anything about the description 'same sex attraction' as being offensive to the Gay community(how we determine who exactly speaks for the Gay community, I'm not sure).  I believe three or four on that thread argued against it's use suggesting that the Gay community are offended by it.   I don't think there are many on this forum who are in that community, but if there are three or four who identify as 'gay' and don't want to be called 'same sex attracted', whether they are members or not, I guess we should try not to offend them, but it's going to be hard--not everyone reads these threads and many won't know they are causing offense. 

I pointed out on the other thread that TBM was used negatively on other websites, but It's clear from the discussion, it was not used that way here, and had retained it's positive meaning--so I assume that members on this forum who use it are not trying to be negative. So, I believe it's best not to take offense, when no offense was meant.  I think it would be easier for all involved if the three or four on this forum who don't like the term 'same sex attracted' would cut some slack to the members here since no offense is meant and most importantly, it's a term used by the church--and I can't imagine the church using a universally offensive term.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Shut up!” she explained. 

Wow.

How about you answer her question?

Do you still believe those who are gay have a malady (disease)?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you a member of the church still?  Maybe we need to add that qualifier to all of our posts, just so everybody is informed.  

I said right in my post that it didn't matter either way if he was or wasn't so there's no reason to get huffy.  This topic is tough enough without inventing reasons to be annoyed.

Honestly though, most of the time it would be incredibly helpful to know where other posters were coming from.  It's very easy to misunderstand each other and usually the more information you have about the perspective that another poster is coming from the less that happens.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I get it.  You're an apologist.

Now that is funny coming from you!! 😛

 

I agree that I'm not sure why Scott felt a need to bring this up again.

Scott?  Anything new?

I think all agreed that there are some who did not mind using the term same-sex attraction or being identified in that way (read california boy's posts that I quoted earlier in this thread).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.

How about you answer her question?

Do you still believe those who are gay have a malady (disease)?

 

How about you stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to sow seeds of rancor and hostility? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Now that is funny coming from you!! 😛

I'm gratified you finally get it.  I'm here for your amusement.  You are the center of my world. 

Edited by USU78
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

How about you stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to sow seeds of rancor and hostility? 

Now that is really ironic coming from you.  Why start this thread if not to just rehash all that was stated in the other thread (which turned ugly so the mods locked it)?

And yes, my question is relevant.  If you still sincerely believe those who are gay suffer with an ailment or disease as you posted in previous threads, it does explain why you would refuse to stop saying that a person who is gay "has same-sex attraction" even after many have explained that it's offensive because it's like saying a person who is gay "has a disease".

I do find it remarkable that you would still believe those who are gay do suffer with a malady....I'll be honest about that and had hoped you'd educated yourself more regarding this topic.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I have a sister who is offended every time anyone calls her 'maam'.  She is incensed by it, she obsesses over it and even will refuse to go back to a store because some poor hapless clerk called her 'maam' and this has been going on for at least 20 years.  When she tells me about it, I do not agree and tell her what insensitive jerks they are and how awful it is to have a label forced on her (she believes they call her 'maam' because they perceive her as old), but I tell her, that some were raised to believe this is proper manners and no offense is meant by it.  I'm sorry but it's easier to help my sister understand that being called 'maam' is not meant to offend and she needs to cut others some slack.  My sister is right--sometimes they do call her 'maam' because she's a 45 year old woman--which is 'old' to a sixteen year old, but it's not meant to be rude.  I try to remind her that the Queen of England is called 'maam' and she never takes offense, even when she was 20.

I think most people try to adjust their languages to the preferences of others, when possible--but where does it end?  How do you determine who's preferences to adjust to?  It's easy in a small group, but virtually impossible in a large community with many varying preferences.

The 'push back' is that a handful of people on this forum are insisting that a common,  unemotional descriptive term most often used by the church is now some kind of slur, which I seriously doubt. That's why I'm pushing back. 

What I do believe is that a handful of people on this forum, don't like this term and they see it as negative and are trying to suggest it's universal.  They also don't like that Scott Lloyd used the word 'have' which they interpreted him meaning it is a disease-- and he won't apologize for doing so.

I'm confused. In one sentence you infer that it's good for people to attempt to adjust their language to preferences of others, yet you also seem to defend the church using a description that many/most LGBTQ individuals don't enjoy. I have no personal issue with SSA, except when it is purposely used to describe people who don't like being described as SSA. I think the church is aware that many in the LGBTQ community don't appreciate the exclusive use of SSA, yet they still do it. Why? Why not adjust? Why not use both terms, multiple terms. No one will be pleased all of the time but it sure seems that virtually everyone could be pleased some of the time.

Refusing to call someone gay, even though that's their personal preference, as a matter of policy is offensive. That's why people are pushing against the church's use of it. I don't think anyone would care if they used SSA & gay & h0mosxual.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.

How about you answer her question?

Do you still believe those who are gay have a malady (disease)?

 

Did he SAY he believed gay people have a disease or malady?  You can be upset with him if he did, but if so, I'd like to know where he said it.

Did something else happen??, I don't want to go back and slog through that thread, but what I remember was Scott grammatically said of 'gays'--they 'have same sex attraction'.  From this, others assumed from the use of the word 'have' that he thinks of being gay as having a disease--I didn't read that because I can use the word 'have' and it doesn't mean disease.  I say I 'have' brown eyes or I 'have' light colored skin and it's simply explaining something about me.  I think too many react negatively to Scott and perceived his use of the word 'have' to be negative rather than neutral.

Share this post


Link to post

I have no problem with SSA so long as it isn't used to describe a symptom a person has.

Examples:

a) I experience different sex attraction.

b) I experience Bipolar I Disorder.

c) I experience same sex attraction.

Example b is exactly how homosexuality should not be treated. It's not a disorder or malfunction to be temporally or externally fixed. Examples a and c are perfectly fine because they are naturally occurring and do not require treatment.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not as simple as “just asking to be identified by a different label.” You appear to want to impose a single label, “gay,” even on those who don’t accept it for themselves. Isn’t that the intent of your “numbers game” remark? 

That’s not any better than applying “same-sex attraction” to those who don’t like <that> term. 

No, I said they should use the general term that is respectful of the majority, and make individual exceptions and accommodations for people that prefer otherwise.  A blend of utility and respect for individual wishes.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about you stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to sow seeds of rancor and hostility? 

If you can't answer the question...don't reply at all....speak YOUR truth..not those for whom you admire...but yours!!!!  Do you not have a mind of your own??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks, Bluebell. That's exactly what I was saying.

The opposition I'm seeing from Scott, and others, still seems to center on the misunderstanding that I (and others) are stating the church should exclusively use "gay". Why use exclusive language at all? I understand the argument to go with the majority position (ie- 90% of LGBTQ population prefers 1 phrase, then use that phrase). This would generally work, yet it would still upset some people and it's really unnecessary. There's no need to use only one phrase. Simply accept that people have different preferences and incorporate both. Refusing to incorporate one sends the message that the speaker knows better than the person being identified. Bednar's talk was highly problematic, but beyond that, there really seems to be a church style guide that uses SSA over gay (almost) exclusively.

But didn't scott point out in a response to me that the church doesn't use same sex attraction 'exclusively'?  At least they didn't--he pointed out the site 'mormonandgay.org' but I haven't checked to see if they've changed it since they've been trying to not use 'mormon' these last couple of months.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Jeanne said:

If you can't answer the question...don't reply at all....speak YOUR truth..not those for whom you admire...but yours!!!!  Do you not have a mind of your own??

There’s no such thing as “your truth.” There’s THE truth and your opinion. 

But that’s a subject for another thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Did he SAY he believed gay people have a disease or malady?  

Yes, he's stated this in the past on here (I linked to it in the last thread).  He used the word "malady".  

Quote

 

mal·a·dy

noun

a disease or ailment.

"an incurable malady"

synonyms:illness, sickness, ailment, disorder, complaint, disease, infection, indisposition, affliction, infirmity;

 

And, when asked about it (on this thread and the other one), he refuses to answer and just continues to avoid answering ....which does imply he still believes this is true.  

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, alter idem said:

 Up until that other thread, I'd never heard anything about the description 'same sex attraction' as being offensive to the Gay community(how we determine who exactly speaks for the Gay community, I'm not sure).  I believe three or four on that thread argued against it's use suggesting that the Gay community are offended by it.   I don't think there are many on this forum who are in that community, but if there are three or four who identify as 'gay' and don't want to be called 'same sex attracted', whether they are members or not, I guess we should try not to offend them, but it's going to be hard--not everyone reads these threads and many won't know they are causing offense. 

I pointed out on the other thread that TBM was used negatively on other websites, but It's clear from the discussion, it was not used that way here, and had retained it's positive meaning--so I assume that members on this forum who use it are not trying to be negative. So, I believe it's best not to take offense, when no offense was meant.  I think it would be easier for all involved if the three or four on this forum who don't like the term 'same sex attracted' would cut some slack to the members here since no offense is meant and most importantly, it's a term used by the church--and I can't imagine the church using a universally offensive term.

Talk to the people that are a part of the group in question.   Thats how you can find out how they want to be identified.  Adjust accordingly where individuals share their preferences.  Its not that hard really.  Like my example earlier, people have preferred names they want to be called, and pretty much everyone adjusts without a problem. 

  • 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...