Dating Website For Mormons With Same-Sex Attraction

[smac97]

SMAC, I am just curious why you even started this thread? You have gone on for post after post proclaiming that homosexuality is the same and adultery and fornication and other sexual sins..

No, I have not. They are all serious sins, but they are not "the same."

-Smac

Edited January 16, 2013 by smac97

[Calm]

Um, no. They are not incapable of having sex with someone other than a "willing marriage partner."

As should be obvious since fornication does not just occur among heterosexuals between engaged couples. There is also the unfortunate existence of an industry full of 'willing' partners.

[Sethbag]

Because the Christ, and hence His Church, is a "physician." We are all sinners in one way or another. We are also all children of God. All of us belong in the Church. The only question is whether we want to do what is necessary to enter and stay in it.

This is easy for someone like me or you to say. That's because you and I could go on our missions, get the marriage prep-talk, come home, get married probably unreasonably quickly (I freely cop to that, I was married 10 months or so after I returned, and to someone I had only known for like 5 or 6 months by the time of the marriage). We get to live reasonably normal lives, just the Mormon version. We get to fulfill those needs to which nature has attuned us. Nobody's asking us to forgo something as powerful as the sex drive is in most people for the rest of our natural lives with the hope and promise that if we succeed at it, the Lord will change us and we can enjoy an eternal relationship with someone who would probably never be attractive to us during the here and now.

I admire the Church's efforts toward people with SSA. They have a great burden to deal with' date=' particularly when the Restored Gospel prohibits same-sex behavior in an era with many voices in the World telling them that same-sex behavior is perfectly acceptable.[/quote']

Speaking of which, I've come to detest the term SSA. Why is that? Because, as far as I can tell, the LDS church made up this term are, as far as I can tell, the only ones who use it. What's wrong with just calling it homosexuality? Does the church feel like using the same word for it as everyone else will somehow legitimize it? What is the payoff here? What is the church gaining, or what is the church refusing to concede, by insisting on using its own made-up term for something that already has a perfectly good English language word?

I disagree that protracted celibacy is "a living hell." There are plenty of people in the Church who are celibate (divorced' date=' widowed, never-married, gay, etc.). It can be done.[/quote']

Just ask for how many male LDS teenagers what kind of living hell it is to be unable to stop "abusing" themselves, and how badly it sucks to want to stop doing it, to stop feeling guilty, to stop thinking they are lower than the scum of the earth, for being unable to resist what probably 90-100% of men, and nearly as many women, do naturally. At least you and I had the hope of marriage to someone sexually attractive to us, offering "legitimate" release.

You honestly don't see how taking a gay guy and sitting him down and saying ok, you can be in this church, but you need to understand that you can never masturbate, never hug or kiss, or date, or hold hands with, anyone you are sexually attracted to (another guy), and you can never marry anyone you are sexually attracted to, nor have any legitimate sexual release of any sort, ever, during your entire life, is going to be a very, very hard sell? And if you achieve this, you continue, your grand prize will be to marry and spend eternity with a woman. A woman whom you now would consider repellant.

I'll tell you what, I'm attracted to women. I also love sex. If you told me that if I joined your church, I could never have sex with a woman again, never masturbate, nor even hug nor hold hands with a woman for the rest of my life, and if I achieved that, my grand prize would be that I would be turned gay and have gay sex eternally with another man forever and ever, well, let me tell you that would be a very, very, very hard sell indeed.

But I suppose you will respond by saying yeah, but if the Holy Spirit told you it was right, you'd be OK with that. Knock yourself out. I long ago ceased to accept "the Holy Ghost" as a real phenomenon having sound epistemological value. I've just seen too many people claim the Holy Ghost told them stuff I know to be completely bogus, contradictory, etc.

Meanwhile' date=' "who needs that," you ask? Well, those who believe in the promises of the Restored Gospel. The Old Testament's Job had his trials, but he endured them because he knew that blessings were in store if he did so.[/quote']

In the end Job got a new wife and kids. But it was a woman, just like the woman he'd been married to before God let Satan kill her in order to **** around with Job. Do you think Job would have endured so well if God had promised him an eternity of gay sex if he only endured to the end? I rather doubt it.

Ah. Now we're racists' date=' too.[/quote']

I didn't say that, and for the record, I have no reason to believe you're a racist. I don't think I'm a racist either, but I'll freely admit I can't count a single black friend amongst my close circle of aquaintences, the only black person I can think of that I'd describe as a friend being a black female fellow officer I served with in a unit a couple years ago, and haven't seen in about that amount of time. In other words, more of a friendly aquaintance than a friend. And it's not that I have no black friends because I don't like black people either. I just haven't associated with many black people in recent years in the very limited social circles I participate in. I have no doubt similiar things would be said by most people on this board, and about other races too. How many Chinese people am I friends with? Well offhand, I can't think of any. Does that make me a racist? Or just not very socially connected?

There were a couple of black guys living in my student ward my first year back at BYU after my mission. The funny thing is I thought that to prove to myself, or God, or whatever, I should attempt to befriend them and treat them nicely (wasn't that righteous of me to act as if these guys were a charity case?). You know what happened? I sucked at it. I probably insulted them without even knowing it. They probably rolled their eyes when they saw me coming and thought oh no, not another Mormon guy wanting to be nice to the token black guys as an act of charity. I was really terrible at it. I'd say my heart was in the right place, but I had too little experience at this sort of thing, and just am too socially inept, that I couldn't genuinely be a good friend to these guys. Does that make me a racist? I don't think so. I think there are tons and tons of people who would suck at this about as much as I did in the church, and for that reason I said what I said. And not everyone sucks at this, either.

[Sethbag]

Btw, I don't think you're a bad guy, Smac, nor do I fail to understand your thinking on this issue. I was pretty anti-gay for much of my life. I'm sure if I'd participated on a board like this in my 20s or maybe even early 30s I might have written exactly the same things you have, and believed them all wholeheartedly.

I simply disagree with that now. And, for the record, I think that gay people who are unwilling to accept self-loathing and a lifetime of absolute sexual denial would be far better off leaving the LDS church, or not joining it in the first place. For such a person it's a terrible match. For a gay person consumed with self-loathing, or willing to commit to a lifetime of absolute sexual denial, I suppose the LDS church might be as good a church as any, probably better than some and worse than others.

[Ahab]

Btw, I don't think you're a bad guy, Smac, nor do I fail to understand your thinking on this issue. I was pretty anti-gay for much of my life. I'm sure if I'd participated on a board like this in my 20s or maybe even early 30s I might have written exactly the same things you have, and believed them all wholeheartedly.

I simply disagree with that now. And, for the record, I think that gay people who are unwilling to accept self-loathing and a lifetime of absolute sexual denial would be far better off leaving the LDS church, or not joining it in the first place. For such a person it's a terrible match. For a gay person consumed with self-loathing, or willing to commit to a lifetime of absolute sexual denial, I suppose the LDS church might be as good a church as any, probably better than some and worse than others.

You don't have to loathe yourself if you're gay or have gay desires. You just need to learn that being gay is bad for you and then resist your desire to do what is bad, even if you like or would like to do what is bad for you. And not only should you learn to avoid what is bad for you, but you should also learn to enjoy what is good for you, as you try to do only good things in your life.

That's part of the "burden" of following Jesus Christ, ya know. You have to learn to deny yourself of all lthings that are bad for you, even if you like what is bad.

[Sethbag]

You don't have to loathe yourself if you're gay or have gay desires. You just need to learn that being gay is bad for you and then resist your desire to do what is bad, even if you like or would like to do what is bad for you.

So, you don't have to loathe yourself if you're gay. You just have to loathe that part of yourself that is gay.

Btw, I think this is why the church introduced the term SSA or Same Sex Attraction. In common English vernacular, a person is gay, while in LDS vernacular, a person suffers from SSA. I guess the thinking is that the term SSA resists saying that homosexuality is a part of someone's identity. Ahab, for the record, do you believe that being homosexual is a choice people make?

That's part of the "burden" of following Jesus Christ, ya know. You have to learn to deny yourself of all things that are bad for you, even if you like what is bad.

Part of the burden of following Christ is not being gay? Or, if you prefer, if suffering from SSA, choosing not to act on the natural inclinations this "condition" entails?

[Kemara]

Btw, I think this is why the church introduced the term SSA or Same Sex Attraction.

CFR that the church introduced this term. Also CFR that the Church "made up this term" and is the only organisation to use the term as per your post #103.

[Ahab]

So, you don't have to loathe yourself if you're gay. You just have to loathe that part of yourself that is gay.

It's not a part of yourself. It's a thought which is a temptation for some because they associate those thoughts with something that's good, but in this case it's not good and you're supposed to resist all things that are bad for you, if you want to be good.

Btw, I think this is why the church introduced the term SSA or Same Sex Attraction. In common English vernacular, a person is gay, while in LDS vernacular, a person suffers from SSA.

There's a right way to think about it, and a wrong way to think about it. Just because something is in common English vernacular doesn't mean it is good.

I guess the thinking is that the term SSA resists saying that homosexuality is a part of someone's identity. Ahab, for the record, do you believe that being homosexual is a choice people make?

You're falling into the same trap by thinking someone is "being homosexual". We're all the same sex, individually, so in that way we are all homosexual, but here we're talking about giving into thoughts of having sexual relations with someone of the same sex than we are, individually. We should resist those thoughts, because they are bad, or not good, for us.

Part of the burden of following Christ is not being gay?

Not giving into thoughts of having sexual relations with someone of the same sex, yes.

Or, if you prefer, if suffering from SSA, choosing not to act on the natural inclinations this "condition" entails?

They're not "natural" inclinations. The word "abomination" applies because those thoughts are an affront to our nature, meaning those thoughts don't lead to the best results for the kind of being we are.

Have you noticed how men who give in to thoughts of having sexual relations with other men don't act like natural, or normal, men? Those thoughts, and the behaviors they lead to, affect more than their sexual desires. They think and act very differently than natural men, almost as if they're another kind of man than a natural man. i know all men aren't the same in every particular, but there is a difference between a normal man and what you would probably refer to as a "gay" man. One is natural, the other is an abomination opposed to the natural man.

For the perfect example of a man look to Jesus Christ. He is the type of man men should be, and women should be a complement to a man, naturally.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Ahab

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps you might want to try reading the opening post, it seemed obvious to me and most everyone else.

I believe he did.

Everyone know's that? Really? Then why on earth are people going on for post after post arguing with Smac about this exact point?

If others have kept up with the thread then they should know. And yes, really.

Please remember your previous calls for civility when discussing topics such as these. Its simply not good enough for someone to call on others to be civil while not being prepared to do the same.

I don't see civillity in California Boy's post.

I am curious why you even made this post, it wasnt to deflect attention away from Smac's masterful handling of the topic was it?

I don't believe it was.

[jwhitlock]

SMAC, I am just curious why you even started this thread? You have gone on for post after post proclaiming that homosexuality is the same and adultery and fornication and other sexual sins.. Everyone knows that. What? Were people just giving way too much empathy to gays? Is that the point of your posting this?

Please qualify "homosexuality" with "behavior" if you want to be accurate.

[california boy]

Perhaps you might want to try reading the opening post, it seemed obvious to me and most everyone else.

Everyone know's that? Really? Then why on earth are people going on for post after post arguing with Smac about this exact point?

Please remember your previous calls for civility when discussing topics such as these. Its simply not good enough for someone to call on others to be civil while not being prepared to do the same.

I am curious why you even made this post, it wasnt to deflect attention away from Smac's masterful handling of the topic was it?

I have read and reread the op. So let's look at what Smac said in the OP

I think Affirmation is headed into open apostasy territory with its support of this website

I do not agree with Affirmation's stance on "compatibility."

Neither Origins nor Affirmation is unofficially sanctioned by the LDS Church, either.

And unlike Origins and Affirmation, the LDS Church's website is not about rationalizing same-sex behavior. However, it is not unexpected, as advocacy groups of this ilk are of the "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" school of thought.

I am glad the article has this admission in it, though it is very much soft-pedaled. Origins is a website intended to facilitate homosexual activity between Latter-day Saints.

Yep. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile. The camel's nose in the tent. The boiling frog. The slippery slope. Pick your metaphor.

It will be interesting to see how those active Latter-day Saints who purport to support Affirmation will justify their support from here on out.

So not only is the website specifically designed to facilitate excommunicable behavior, its creator has been disfellowshipped.

Something tells me that this website is not going to go over well amongst the active set of Latter-day Saints.

From what I gather by the OP is the Smac disagrees with Affirmation, Origins and the concept of this web site. I personally have no problem with that. I also disagree with Affirmation's goals I don't know anything about Origins. But that is not what Smac has been posting about. He is saying over and over again that homosexual behavior is a chastity sin. Who doesn't agree that the church look upon homosexual behavior as a sin. Has anyone posted here that homosexual behavior is not view as a sin by the church?? So yes, I stand by my statement, everone knows that homosexual behavior is a sin according to the churches position.

Do you think I am being uncivil by asking why Smac started this thread?? Strange.

I thought it was obvious why I posted. I wanted to know why Smac started this thread? Sorry you took such offense in asking this question. But I would still like to know why he started the thread.

[california boy]

No, I have not. They are all serious sins, but they are not "the same."

-Smac

You didn't really answer my question. Why did you start this thread? What issue did you want discussed?

[california boy]

Please qualify "homosexuality" with "behavior" if you want to be accurate.

Thank you. So noted. I do realize that in the church, the behavior is the issue.

[Kemara]

I have read and reread the op. So let's look at what Smac said in the OP...From what I gather by the OP is the Smac disagrees with Affirmation, Origins and the concept of this web site.

So you do know why Smac started the thread. Strange that you asked and continue to ask.

But that is not what Smac has been posting about.

Smac has been addressing other posters comments, have you even read the thread?

So yes, I stand by my statement, everone knows that homosexual behavior is a sin according to the churches position.

That is not what you said Caliboy. You said:

You have gone on for post after post proclaiming that homosexuality is the same and adultery and fornication and other sexual sins.

The whole "homosexual behavior is a sin according to the churches position" is a strawman of your creation (not a very civil thing to do). As such you failed to answer my question which I will repeat now. If everyone knows that homosexuality is the same as adultery, fornication and other sexual sins then why are people arguing with Smac about it?

Do you think I am being uncivil by asking why Smac started this thread??

No, not at all. I think your lack of civility was in this statement:

Were people just giving way to much empathy to gays? Is that the point of your posting this?

Becuase this quote was immediately above my comment regarding your lack of civility I would have thought it was rather obvious what I considered uncivil. What exactly was the point of that little dig?

[california boy]

So you do know why Smac started the thread. Strange that you asked and continue to ask.

I still don't. He didn't answer my question.

Smac has been addressing other posters comments, have you even read the thread?

Yes I have read the thread.

That is not what you said Caliboy. You said:

See appology above

The whole "homosexual behavior is a sin according to the churches position" is a strawman of your creation (not a very civil thing to do). As such you failed to answer my question which I will repeat now. If everyone knows that homosexuality is the same as adultery, fornication and other sexual sins then why are people arguing with Smac about it?

As far as I can tell, some posters are saying that what the church asks of a gay person is far more than what the church asks of any heterosexual member (not being allowed to hold hands with someone that they are attracted to, not go on any dates with somone they are attracted to, not allowing any close ties with anyone they might be attracted to, with a promise that in the next life they can spend eternity with someone they would never be attracted to in this life. Smac seems to disagree and has been posting multiple times that the same thing is asked of married men who want to commit adultery, or single women that never marry. This is just a summation, but at least that is what I am getting out of this thread.

What do you find in what Smac is posting?

No, not at all. I think your lack of civility was in this statement:

Becuase this quote was immediately above my comment regarding your lack of civility I would have thought it was rather obvious what I considered uncivil. What exactly was the point of that little dig?

Smac seemed to be attacking anyone who felt like gay members are asked to carry a very unique burden. (see statement above). And I wondered if that was the whole reason he started this tread is to make sure people did not think that the chruch asks more of gay members than straight members. You find that a dig???? I find it an interestng question and there is nothing uncivil about the question.

[The Nehor]

So, you don't have to loathe yourself if you're gay. You just have to loathe that part of yourself that is gay.

Btw, I think this is why the church introduced the term SSA or Same Sex Attraction. In common English vernacular, a person is gay, while in LDS vernacular, a person suffers from SSA. I guess the thinking is that the term SSA resists saying that homosexuality is a part of someone's identity. Ahab, for the record, do you believe that being homosexual is a choice people make?

Part of the burden of following Christ is not being gay? Or, if you prefer, if suffering from SSA, choosing not to act on the natural inclinations this "condition" entails?

Yes, you do have to loathe oart of yourself. Is this new to you? It applies to everyone who deals with temptation. I admit we are not as good at making people loathe the gossiper in themselves or the philanderer or the arrogant git or our hardheartedness or our greed or our contempt of others. The Savior talked about cutting off your own hand or plucking out your own eye. The gospel is in large part self-rejection. It is not a pleasant process to rip off parts of yourself and burn them on the altar or to graft in parts you do not possess and are even awkward or distasteful at first (charity, faith, temperance, humility, consecration, sacrifice, etc).

[go_utes01]

Yes, you do have to loathe oart of yourself. Is this new to you? It applies to everyone who deals with temptation. I admit we are not as good at making people loathe the gossiper in themselves or the philanderer or the arrogant git or our hardheartedness or our greed or our contempt of others. The Savior talked about cutting off your own hand or plucking out your own eye. The gospel is in large part self-rejection. It is not a pleasant process to rip off parts of yourself and burn them on the altar or to graft in parts you do not possess and are even awkward or distasteful at first (charity, faith, temperance, humility, consecration, sacrifice, etc).

Such a good point.

Edited January 17, 2013 by go_utes01

[Kemara]

What do you find in what Smac is posting?

No, no, no Caliboy, that is not how this is done in a civil manner. First you answer my question, which you have uncivily refused to do, and I will answer yours. I will ask the question for the third time. If everyone knows that homosexuality is the same as adultery, fornication and other sexual sins then why are people arguing with Smac about it?

See appology above

I see no apology from you in relation to the strawman you created.

Smac seemed to be attacking anyone who felt like gay members are asked to carry a very unique burden.

I find accusing Smac of attacking people to be rather uncivil and quite ironic considering your attack on him. I didnt see Smac attacking anyone, are you sure you read the thread?

And I wondered if that was the whole reason he started this tread is to make sure people did not think that the chruch asks more of gay members than straight members. You find that a dig???? I find it an interestng question and there is nothing uncivil about the question.

I suppose it is an interesting question but that is not what you asked was it Caliboy? Yours was a snide remark and quite uncivil, please remember your previous call for civility.

[smac97]

Btw, I don't think you're a bad guy, Smac, nor do I fail to understand your thinking on this issue. I was pretty anti-gay for much of my life. I'm sure if I'd participated on a board like this in my 20s or maybe even early 30s I might have written exactly the same things you have, and believed them all wholeheartedly.

I am not anti-gay.

I simply disagree with that now.

Right. Disagreement with homosexuality is for provincial rubes.

And, for the record, I think that gay people who are unwilling to accept self-loathing

The LDS Church does not teach or encourage such a concept. To the contrary, we are taught that we are literally children of God, a concept hardly compatible with "self-loathing."

and a lifetime of absolute sexual denial would be far better off leaving the LDS church, or not joining it in the first place.

I can understand that. Absent strong spiritual confirmation of the truth claims of the LDS Church, I'm not sure I'd stay. The Church would be merely some sort of social club, with dues requiring substantial time, money and effort.

For such a person it's a terrible match. For a gay person consumed with self-loathing, or willing to commit to a lifetime of absolute sexual denial, I suppose the LDS church might be as good a church as any, probably better than some and worse than others.

I think we're getting better.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

From what I gather by the OP is the Smac disagrees with Affirmation, Origins and the concept of this web site.

Yep.

I personally have no problem with that. I also disagree with Affirmation's goals I don't know anything about Origins. But that is not what Smac has been posting about. He is saying over and over again that homosexual behavior is a chastity sin.

And if you re-read the thread, there are some who, expressly or impliedly, disagree with my position.

Do you think I am being uncivil by asking why Smac started this thread?? Strange.

Your question was not uncivil, just irrelevant. I'm ignoring it because I don't want this thread to devolve into being about me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Sethbag]

CFR that the church introduced this term. Also CFR that the Church "made up this term" and is the only organisation to use the term as per your post #103.

I did a little research and it turns out the term isn't exclusive to the LDS church. As this link to the Urban Dictionary points out, ""Same sex attraction" (SSA) is a term used mostly by conservative Christians to avoid using the term gay when referring to men who are attracted to men or men who have sex with men (MSM).", and "Those who use the term SSA deny the reality that the vast majority of LGBT people can't be "cured" of their sexual orientation."

The apparent reason why I associated this term with the LDS church is that the LDS are the only conservative Christians with whom I very often have anything to do, at least involving discussions, arguments about issues like this, etc.

Here's another article, this one titled "Why I Loathe the Term Same-Sex Attraction (SSA)". The first line of this reads, "Personally, I don’t like the bogus term “SSA”, which stands for “same-sex attraction.” There is no such thing (or diagnosis) as SSA and it is a manipulative attempt to separate LGBT people from their natural, inborn sexuality." That accords with my feel of the term as well, which is why I brought it up earlier.

Anyhow, thanks for making me look further into this, and realizing that while the LDS certainly did not actually invent the term, they almost certainly use it for the same reasons the other fundamentalist Christian gay-bashers do, which is the delegitemize homosexuality as something that is part of who someone is, rather than some condition that a person has, or suffers from.

Btw, if you agree with the church's recent website on the gays, which seems to attempt a bit of a reconciliation with homosexuals at least on some level, while not condoning any homosexual practice, then it seems any LDS who continue the use of the term SSA is subtly undermining this reconciliation attempt, since it seems to be pretty accepted now that SSA is the term used by those hostile to homosexuality.

So while I was wrong in assuming that the LDS had made this term up, they're the only ones I ever interact with who use it, and they seem to use it for about the same reasons I suspected, and which caused me to dislike the term in the first place.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Sethbag

[Sethbag]

Yes, you do have to loathe oart of yourself. Is this new to you? It applies to everyone who deals with temptation. I admit we are not as good at making people loathe the gossiper in themselves or the philanderer or the arrogant git or our hardheartedness or our greed or our contempt of others. The Savior talked about cutting off your own hand or plucking out your own eye. The gospel is in large part self-rejection. It is not a pleasant process to rip off parts of yourself and burn them on the altar or to graft in parts you do not possess and are even awkward or distasteful at first (charity, faith, temperance, humility, consecration, sacrifice, etc).

This is pretty much why I think gay folks are a lot better off, or would be, if they just jettison the LDS church. Teaching a gay person that they have to hate their gayness is, IMHO, an exceedingly unhealthy thing to do. If their homosexuality is something they are born with, for whatever reason, then that really will lead to self-loathing and despair. I don't believe that homosexuality can be "cured", so if they loathe the homosexual part of themselves, it will be a lifelong loathing. That's just a crazy thing to advocate. To paraphrase Boyd K. Packer, "Why would a loving God do that to anyone?"

[california boy]

No, no, no Caliboy, that is not how this is done in a civil manner. First you answer my question, which you have uncivily refused to do, and I will answer yours. I will ask the question for the third time. If everyone knows that homosexuality is the same as adultery, fornication and other sexual sins then why are people arguing with Smac about it?

I see no apology from you in relation to the strawman you created.

I find accusing Smac of attacking people to be rather uncivil and quite ironic considering your attack on him. I didnt see Smac attacking anyone, are you sure you read the thread?

I suppose it is an interesting question but that is not what you asked was it Caliboy? Yours was a snide remark and quite uncivil, please remember your previous call for civility.

Whatever. If you wish to not participate in answering questions I ask, then fine, That is your choice. I answered yours. Efivently you didn't like my answer or something. Not sure what your problem is.

As far as I can tell, some posters are saying that what the church asks of a gay person is far more than what the church asks of any heterosexual member (not being allowed to hold hands with someone that they are attracted to, not go on any dates with somone they are attracted to, not allowing any close ties with anyone they might be attracted to, with a promise that in the next life they can spend eternity with someone they would never be attracted to in this life. Smac seems to disagree and has been posting multiple times that the same thing is asked of married men who want to commit adultery, or single women that never marry. This is just a summation, but at least that is what I am getting out of this thread.

Evidently Smac didn't find it to be uncivil.

Your question was not uncivil, just irrelevant. I'm ignoring it because I don't want this thread to devolve into being about me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kemara]

I did a little research and it turns out the term isn't exclusive to the LDS church. As this link to the Urban Dictionary points out, ""Same sex attraction" (SSA) is a term used mostly by conservative Christians to avoid using the term gay when referring to men who are attracted to men or men who have sex with men (MSM)."

So it is a term "mostly" used by conservative Christians. Just for arguements sake lets say I accept that its "mostly" used by conservative Christians, this implies that there are others who use the term who are not conservative Christians, out of curiosity can you name any?

The apparent reason why I associated this term with the LDS church is that the LDS are the only conservative Christians with whom I very often have anything to do, at least involving discussions, arguments about issues like this, etc.

And as you discovered apprently with just a “little research” you were wrong. Word to the wise?

..."Personally, I don’t like the bogus term “SSA”, which stands for “same-sex attraction.” There is no such thing (or diagnosis) as SSA and it is a manipulative attempt to separate LGBT people from their natural, inborn sexuality." That accords with my feel of the term as well, which is why I brought it up earlier.

Really? That is the reason why you brought it up earlier? Hang on a moment, this is what you said when you originally brought it up:

Speaking of which, I've come to detest the term SSA. Why is that? Because, as far as I can tell, the LDS church made up this term are, as far as I can tell, the only ones who use it. What's wrong with just calling it homosexuality? Does the church feel like using the same word for it as everyone else will somehow legitimize it? What is the payoff here? What is the church gaining, or what is the church refusing to concede, by insisting on using its own made-up term for something that already has a perfectly good English language word?

.

Hmmm, your most recent explanation on why you brought it up smells a bit fishy.

Anyhow, thanks for making me look further into this, and realizing that while the LDS certainly did not actually invent the term, they almost certainly use it for the same reasons the other fundamentalist Christian gay-bashers do, which is the delegitemize homosexuality as something that is part of who someone is, rather than some condition that a person has, or suffers from.

CFR that the Church uses the term for the reason of "gay-bashing".

Btw, if you agree with the church's recent website on the gays, which seems to attempt a bit of a reconciliation with homosexuals at least on some level, while not condoning any homosexual practice, then it seems any LDS who continue the use of the term SSA is subtly undermining this reconciliation attempt, since it seems to be pretty accepted now that SSA is the term used by those hostile to homosexuality.

According to your research the term is used mostly by conservative Christians but is also used by others. CFR that all others are hostile to homosexuality. CFR that all conservative Christians are hostile to homosexuality. CFR that you can read the minds of LDS who use the term SSA. Good luck with those.

So while I was wrong in assuming that the LDS had made this

Yes you were wrong, completely and utterly. Word to the wise?

[Kemara]

Whatever. If you wish to not participate in answering questions I ask, then fine, That is your choice. I answered yours. Efivently you didn't like my answer or something. Not sure what your problem is.

My problem is that you didnt answer the question and still havent, do I really need to ask it a fourth time? Not very civil on your part.

Evidently Smac didn't find it to be uncivil.

Who said Smac found it uncivil? I said I found it uncivil and I called you on it. I would appreciate it if you refrained from this behaviour and took heed of your previous call for civility.