Origin Of Religion's Use Of The "same-Sex Attraction"?

[Ham Clam]

You all know tons more than me. I'm curious if anyone could explain to me/lead to to sources explaining how people began to use "same-sex attraction" as a label and concept (a negotiation of identity).

I asked this question in a FB group and got one good response on starting points:

"1973 is the first use in general, according to Google: http://goo.gl/NBjNAo

Perhaps not coincidentally, this is the same year that the American Psychiatric Association "removed homosexuality from its DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders]". It had been on that list since 1952"

"As far as *Christians* using the term, there is one example that google gives of a booklet published in 1980 (at the bottom of the page): http://goo.gl/Ae5GQf . But it looks like serious sociologists were also using the term around that time."

People also kept responding that this started with the Mormons, or that they never heard it outside Mormon circles (I've found it in used in different publications in different conservative religions). Did the Mormons start it?
 

[BCSpace]

I believe that was the year the APA was hijacked by it's own NAMBLA wing.  More than 70% of psychologists at the time, and for some time after until honest research became politically incorrect, understood homosexuality to be a mental disorder and it was merely fate that allowed this small group to answer some news reporters in D.C. as if they were speaking for the whole organization.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe that was the year the APA was hijacked by it's own NAMBLA wing.  More than 70% of psychologists at the time, and for some time after until honest research became politically incorrect, understood homosexuality to be a mental disorder and it was merely fate that allowed this small group to answer some news reporters in D.C. as if they were speaking for the whole organization.

 

Le Sigh.

[Scott Lloyd]

You all know tons more than me. I'm curious if anyone could explain to me/lead to to sources explaining how people began to use "same-sex attraction" as a label and concept (a negotiation of identity).

I asked this question in a FB group and got one good response on starting points:

"1973 is the first use in general, according to Google: http://goo.gl/NBjNAo

Perhaps not coincidentally, this is the same year that the American Psychiatric Association "removed homosexuality from its DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders]". It had been on that list since 1952"

"As far as *Christians* using the term, there is one example that google gives of a booklet published in 1980 (at the bottom of the page): http://goo.gl/Ae5GQf . But it looks like serious sociologists were also using the term around that time."

People also kept responding that this started with the Mormons, or that they never heard it outside Mormon circles (I've found it in used in different publications in different conservative religions). Did the Mormons start it?

 

I don't understand the objection to it in any case. It strikes me as a fairly neutral term.

[rockpond]

I don't understand the objection to it in any case. It strikes me as a fairly neutral term.

 

I think it could be considered neutral if the corresponding term "opposite sex attraction" was used with any degree of regularity.

[The Nehor]

I believe that was the year the APA was hijacked by it's own NAMBLA wing.  More than 70% of psychologists at the time, and for some time after until honest research became politically incorrect, understood homosexuality to be a mental disorder and it was merely fate that allowed this small group to answer some news reporters in D.C. as if they were speaking for the whole organization.

CFR

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it could be considered neutral if the corresponding term "opposite sex attraction" was used with any degree of regularity.

I wouldn't object to that term in any case.

 

But why would it have to be used regularly for same-sex attraction to be regarded as neutral? That's not self-evident to me.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I wouldn't object to that term in any case.

 

But why would it have to be used regularly for same-sex attraction to be regarded as neutral? That's not self-evident to me.

 

It has always come across to me as a term used to invalidate or de-legitimize homosexual individuals.

 

Think...

 

straight & gay

 

heterosexual & homosexual

 

SSA & ...

 

It separates them out.  As far as I can tell, the term is used primarily by those opposed to societal acceptance of gays and lesbians.  And by using SSA to describe "them" without using OSA to describe "us" it makes them the abnormal ones, the people with a condition that we'll describe as SSA.

 

Additionally, don't you think that anytime you use a term to describe a group of people when the majority of that group doesn't prefer that term, it comes across as insulting?  (Not relevant to your specific question but worth thinking about.)

[Ham Clam]

I haven't looked further into the links that person replied to me with, but his statement "But it looks like serious sociologists were also using the term around that time" is quite interesting.

[Daniel2]

I don't understand the objection to it in any case. It strikes me as a fairly neutral term.

Refering to gays as "individuals with Same-Sex Attraction" is about as neutral (and non-offensive) as it would be to refer to Latter-day Saints as "individuals with Mormon-Mythology Inclinations."

Edited April 20, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

Refering to gays as "individuals with Same-Sex Attraction" is about as neutral (and non-offensive) as it would be to refer to Latter-day Saints as "individuals with Mormon-Mythology Inclinations."

This makes no sense at all.

[Scott Lloyd]

It has always come across to me as a term used to invalidate or de-legitimize homosexual individuals.

Whether it comes across to you that way and whether there is anything inherent within that term that reasonably would give such an interpretation are separate and distinct.

Think...

 

straight & gay

 

heterosexual & homosexual

 

SSA & ...

 

Yes, those things describe dichotomies, which, like it or not, do exist. Are the terms gay and homosexual inherently "delegitimizing," then? Because that's what you seem to be saying here.

 

 

 

It separates them out.  As far as I can tell, the term is used primarily by those opposed to societal acceptance of gays and lesbians.

 

I think you would have a hard time documenting that. It seems to be more a clinical term than anything else.

 

 

 And by using SSA to describe "them" without using OSA to describe "us" it makes them the abnormal ones, the people with a condition that we'll describe as SSA.

 

As I said, I don't object to either term; both strike me as neutral, regardless of how frequently one or the other is used.

 

 

Additionally, don't you think that anytime you use a term to describe a group of people when the majority of that group doesn't prefer that term, it comes across as insulting?  (Not relevant to your specific question but worth thinking about.)

 

 

Well that's the point: It surprises me that a group of people would object to such a term, and it would mystify me if they did. 

 

I mean, what a horrible thing! Referring to one who is sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex as having "same-sex attraction."

 

That's as bad as referring to individuals who adhere to the Mormon faith as Mormons.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Yes, those things describe dichotomies, which, like it or not, do exist. Are the terms gay and homosexual inherently "delegitimizing," then? Because that's what you seem to be saying here.

 

No, you missed my point.  SSA does not have a counterpart term like gay & homosexual.

 

 

I think you would have a hard time documenting that. It seems to be more a clinical term than anything else.

 

Clinical?  Here's what you get when you google "same sex attraction" (using an incognito browser that wouldn't be biased by my browsing history):  https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=same+sex+attraction

 

And yahoo:  https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0SO8xsveDVV7RQA4bRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE4MTVxdTVrBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVklQNjEyXzEEc2VjA3Fzcy1xcnc-?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-901&fp=1&p=same+sex+attraction&fr2=12642

 

Doesn't appear to be clinicial.  Search results support my hypothesis quite well.

 

 

Well that's the point: It surprises me that a group of people would object to such a term, and it would mystify me if they did.

 

I've tried to explain to you why they don't like it.  But you can continue to be mystified if you like.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have heard that there is a movement to come up with a term for homosexuality that gives the idea but removes the "sex" from it all. The latest is that gays find it offensive to be called homosexual.

 

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

 

I find it to be an apt word.

 

SSA goes even a step further in trying not to offend. But once again it contains that nasty word "sex". We can't have perfectly valid words being used to describe peoples life styles.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, you missed my point.  SSA does not have a counterpart term like gay & homosexual.

 

And you missed my point. It wouldn't bother me in the least -- nor should it -- if you started using a term like opposite-sex attraction, any more than it would if you used the term straight.

Clinical?  Here's what you get when you google "same sex attraction"... 

 

Doesn't appear to be clinicial.  Search results support my hypothesis quite well.

 

 

So one segment of society has taken it into their heads to be offended by it merely because certain other people use it. That makes it neither unreasonable nor inaccurate. And it doesn't make it inherently offensive.

 

 

Well that's the point: It surprises me that a group of people would object to such a term, and it would mystify me if they did.

 

I've tried to explain to you why they don't like it.  But you can continue to be mystified if you like.

 

 

It mystifies me because your explanation doesn't make sense.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

And you missed my point. It wouldn't bother me in the least -- nor should it -- if you started using a term like opposite-sex attraction, any more than it would if you used the term straight.

 

No, I got that.  And if OSA were used routinely and clinically I wouldn't argue against the use of SSA.  But it isn't.

 

But if you looked at my links, you noticed who tends to be using the term SSA and in what context.  So you can imagine why it doesn't appear to be preferred by the gay community.

[mnn727]

Don't know where it started but to me it indicates someone who is attracted to the same sex but  is not currently sexually active.

[rockpond]

I have heard that there is a movement to come up with a term for homosexuality that gives the idea but removes the "sex" from it all. The latest is that gays find it offensive to be called homosexual.

 

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

 

I find it to be an apt word.

 

SSA goes even a step further in trying not to offend. But once again it contains that nasty word "sex". We can't have perfectly valid words being used to describe peoples life styles.

 

It's not uncommon for groups to provide guides of how they like to be referred to.  Here's ours:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide

[rockpond]

Don't know where it started but to me it indicates someone who is attracted to the same sex but  is not currently sexually active.

 

I think that is how it is commonly understood among LDS church members.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I got that.  And if OSA were used routinely and clinically I wouldn't argue against the use of SSA.  But it isn't.

 

But if you looked at my links, you noticed who tends to be using the term SSA and in what context.  So you can imagine why it doesn't appear to be preferred by the gay community.

I don't get what they're objecting to.

 

Do they not want it commonly acknowledged that there is a difference in sexual orientation among people? If so, why use the terms "gay" and "straight"?

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that is how it is commonly understood among LDS church members.

That's not my perception. I see it as applying whether the individual is sexually active or not.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have heard that there is a movement to come up with a term for homosexuality that gives the idea but removes the "sex" from it all. The latest is that gays find it offensive to be called homosexual.

 

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

 

I find it to be an apt word.

 

SSA goes even a step further in trying not to offend. But once again it contains that nasty word "sex". We can't have perfectly valid words being used to describe peoples life styles.

Yeah.

 

If anything, using the term SSA seems to be going out of one's way to be polite, even value-neutral in one's expression.

 

If they don't like it merely because a lot of conservatives use it or a lot of people of faith, well, that strikes me as irrational.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I don't get what they're objecting to.

 

Do they not want it acknowledged that there is a difference? If so, why use the terms "gay" and "straight"?

 

I've explained it the best I can -- it's a term used to make a group of people seem outside of the norm or as if they have a condition.  You might have to re-read my posts on it.  And, please look at the search results I provided links to... that alone should explain it.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not uncommon for groups to provide guides of how they like to be referred to.  Here's ours:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide

But the Church of Jesus Christ can provide a reasonable explanation for its preferences -- unlike those who object to value-neutral, accurate terminology.

[rockpond]

That's not my perception. I see it as applying whether the individual is sexually active or not.

 

I've been told many times on this discussion board that gay/homosexual describes someone who is "acting on it" while SSA describes someone who has those feelings but has not acted on them.

 

But I certainly admit that there is a lot fluidity in understanding & use of the term.