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

[rockpond]

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.

 

It doesn't seem polite to me if the individual being described doesn't prefer or use the term.

 

When the people who use the term are also most often the people who wish to deny you certain rights, it's not irrational.

[rockpond]

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

 

Oh my.  I give up.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Well they are outside the norm.

 

A survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to a Google search I just did, says that 96.6 percent of adults self-identify as straight. That makes the rest pretty well outside the norm.

 

Why must it be regarded as offensive to point out they are outside the norm?

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I've never seen anyone assert that until just now on this thread.

[Ham Clam]

Maybe one day I'll be a fancy scholar and trace the origin myself. Hmmmmm ... 

[Scott Lloyd]

It doesn't seem polite to me if the individual being described doesn't prefer or use the term.

 

When the people who use the term are also most often the people who wish to deny you certain rights, it's not irrational.

So it goes back to trying to control the narrative -- right down to controlling the very terminology that is used, whether or not such terminology could not reasonably be regarded as inherently offensive or inaccurate.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Ham Clam]

I've never seen anyone assert that until just now on this thread.

From my perspective others use "same-sex attraction" to mean both individuals who are sexually active/looking to date and not (and places in-between), but when an individual labels themselves "same-sex attracted" rather than gay, it applies that they don't "act on it".

[Ham Clam]

It can be used as an adjective, but there is an implied identity tangled in with the words.

[rockpond]

So it goes back to trying to control the narrative -- right down to controlling the very terminology that is used, whether or not such terminology could not reasonably be regarded as inherently offensive or inaccurate.

Exactly... And who first started using SSA in an effort to control the narrative? Edited April 20, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Well they are outside the norm.

A survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to a Google search I just did, says that 96.6 percent of adults self-identify as straight. That makes the rest pretty well outside the norm.

Why must it be regarded as offensive to point out they are outside the norm?

I wasn't speaking statistically.

Take a look at the search results I linked to. Step outside of yourself and try to look from the perspective of a gay person. What do those who most commonly use the term, tell you about yourself and why might that be hurtful?

[Scott Lloyd]

Exactly... And who first started using SSA in an effort to control the narrative?

As I said, it strikes me more as an effort to be polite, if not value-neutral.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wasn't speaking statistically.

 

Well isn't that what "norm" means?

 

Take a look at the search results I linked to. Step outside of yourself and try to look from the perspective of a gay person. What do those who most commonly use the term, tell you about yourself and why might that be hurtful?

 

Probably not much, if the term itself is accurate and value-neutral.

 

I don't object to being called a Mormon or a journalist, even if it's by someone who doesn't particularly like me or Mormons or journalists.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

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"?

The objection is not noting the difference--it's the way the difference is minimized for gays as being something they "have" (ssa) vs something straights are (.... obviously straight).

Gay isn't something I have, nor suffer from... it's something I am.

SSA sounds like the diagnosis of a disease. It's use is usually limited to groups and people that wish to diminish sexual orientation as an innate aspect of gays' and lesbians' personhood... and said groups and individuals are often against equating gay rights as worthy of civil rights on par with religious affiliation, gender, or race.

It's easier to deny Mormons civil rights if I dent that no one is "born Mormon," you just "suffer from MMA" ("Mormon-Mythology Inclinations") which can be cured through proper counseling--so Mormons shouldn't be granted civil rights. Right?

Scott, it appears you're being deliberately obtuse on this.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

As I said, it strikes me more as an effort to be polite, if not value-neutral.

Do you feel that the church acted appropriately by publishing a guide for others on how to appropriately refer to the church and it's members?

Do you believe others should respect the church's request on how to be referred to?

[rockpond]

As I said, it strikes me more as an effort to be polite, if not value-neutral.

I think those who originated the term may have felt that it was neutral and free from the baggage of other terminology that could have been used in its place.

But is it polite and if the recipient is offended by its use?

Is it value neutral if it is most commonly used by a group that shares common values with respect to the population it describes?

[Scott Lloyd]

The objection is not noting the difference--it's the way the difference is minimized for gays as being something they "have" (ssa) vs something straights are (.... obviously straight).

Gay isn't something I have, nor suffer from... it's something I am.

 

And having same-sex attraction is a characteristic of someone who is gay.

 

If we self-identify as being something, it is because we possess certain characteristics (I "am" something because I have a certain set of characteristics).

 

As already noted, it wouldn't bother me to be characterized as having opposite-sex attraction, nor should it.

 

SSA sounds like the diagnosis of a disease.

 

Only if you regard the condition as being a disease.

 

It's use is usually limited to groups and people that wish to diminish sexual orientation as an innate aspect of gays' and lesbians' personhood... and said groups and individuals are often against equating gay rights as worthy of civil rights on par with religious affiliation, gender, or race.

 

 

As I said, if it's an accurate and value-neutral term, that need not bother anyone. I don't care if someone calls me a Mormon or a journalist, even if that person doesn't like me or Mormons or journalists.

 

It's easier to deny Mormons civil rights if I dent that no one is "born Mormon," you just "suffer from MMA" ("Mormon-Mythology Inclinations") which can be cured through proper counseling--so Mormons shouldn't be granted civil rights. Right?

 

The term same-sex attraction does not have anything to do with denial of civil rights. It describes a condition -- no more, no less.

 

Scott, it appears you're being deliberately obtuse on this.

 

I think I'm being quite lucid, actually.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you feel that the church acted appropriately by publishing a guide for others on how to appropriately refer to the church and it's members?

 

Yes. But the Church articulated some good reasons for doing so -- unlike those who object to the term same-sex attraction.

 

Do you believe others should respect the church's request on how to be referred to?

 

It would be nice if they did -- but I'm not going to get militant about it if they don't.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think those who originated the term may have felt that it was neutral and free from the baggage of other terminology that could have been used in its place.

 

That strikes me as obvious.

 

But is it polite and if the recipient is offended by its use?

 

It depends on whether those who take offense do so rationally.

 

 

Is it value neutral if it is most commonly used by a group that shares common values with respect to the population it describes?

 

As I've already said, a term can be value-neutral regardless of the attitude of the one who is using it. I gave "Mormon" and "journalist" as two examples.

 

 

To take an example from yesteryear, there was a certain segment of society in the 1960s and 1970s that decreed unilaterally that words such as spokesman and spokeswoman thenceforth and forever would be deemed as offensive and were to be replaced by the odious and awkward term spokesperson. There were those in society, including me, who refused to knuckle under to such linguistic tyranny. We, along with the Associated Press and most news organs around the country, continue to say "spokesman" if it's a man and "spokeswoman" if it's a woman. It has nothing to do with civil rights or oppression or anything of the sort, because, you see, spokesman is not inherently offensive if applied to a man, and spokeswoman is not inherently offensive if applied to a woman. The use of those terms is perfectly sensible with proper application.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

Yes. But the Church articulated some good reasons for doing so -- unlike those who object to the term same-sex attraction.

What "good reasons" are those?

Are you saying other religions don't have "good reasons" for refusing to call the Mormon church "Christian"?

It would be nice if they did -- but I'm not going to get militant about it if they don't.

Please define what you mean by "militant" here...

Who is being "militant" about Mormons refering to gays as "having same-sex attraction"?

Would you consider it "militant," say, if a given subculture was spending lots of time and effort (writing essays, publishing books, offering speeches in semi-annual broadcasts, publishing open-ed pieces in ongoing magazines, sending out a door-to-door salesforce, issuing press releases from an online newsroom... etc) in trying to convince others not only to call them by a specific designation that others in the broader culture would consider blasphemous, but encouraging them to join their organization?

Or would you say that "militant" is something less/more than that...?

Edited April 21, 2015 by Daniel2

[Calm]

So is the preferred form "homosexual attraction" when talking about just the internal experience and not external behaviour or is there something else that is preferred?

[Daniel2]

So is the preferred form "homosexual attraction" when talking about just the internal experience and not external behaviour or is there something else that is preferred?

Depends on the context.

For example, I think it's fine to say "gay men are attracted to members of their own gender" or "Lesbian woman experience attraction to other women."

Straight or gay, I know of no medical/professional organization or indivudals that refer to sexual orientation as something that we "have," but as something that we "are" or as attractions that we "experience/feel."

Edited April 21, 2015 by Daniel2

[Calm]

I am thinking in the context of explaining lds belief.
 
How would one explain but not be seen as offensive in terms of the language at least the LDS doctrine/policy "homosexuals that have feelings of attraction but do not act on them are viewed as abiding by the law of chastity" or as explained on lds.org:
 

While maintaining that feelings and inclinations toward the same sex are not inherently sinful, engaging in homosexual behavior is in conflict with the “doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture …”

 

or as stated on mormonsandgays.org:

 

The [homosexual] attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is.

[Daniel2]

I am thinking in the context of explaining lds belief.

How would one explain but not be seen as offensive in terms of the language at least the LDS doctrine/policy "homosexuals that have feelings of attraction but do not act on them are viewed as abiding by the law of chastity" or as explained on lds.org:

or as stated on mormonsandgays.org:

From my perspective, both of the quotes you provided use the terms correctly and non-offensively, with the first being the better worded of the two.

On the whole, I think the church itself is making great strides in being more precise in the language it uses regarding issues of sexual orientation. My perception is that leaders and spokespersons are moving away from the use of "suffering from same-sex attraction" or "have same-sex attraction" and are demonstrating a willingness to use less offensive/provocative language. The two quotations you offer are examples of such.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Daniel2

[Calm]

Thank you.

[rockpond]

That strikes me as obvious.

It depends on whether those who take offense do so rationally.

As I've already said, a term can be value-neutral regardless of the attitude of the one who is using it. I gave "Mormon" and "journalist" as two examples.

To take an example from yesteryear, there was a certain segment of society in the 1960s and 1970s that decreed unilaterally that words such as spokesman and spokeswoman thenceforth and forever would be deemed as offensive and were to be replaced by the odious and awkward term spokesperson. There were those in society, including me, who refused to knuckle under to such linguistic tyranny. We, along with the Associated Press and most news organs around the country, continue to say "spokesman" if it's a man and "spokeswoman" if it's a woman. It has nothing to do with civil rights or oppression or anything of the sort, because, you see, spokesman is not inherently offensive if applied to a man, and spokeswoman is not inherently offensive if applied to a woman. The use of those terms is perfectly sensible with proper application.

If you are seeking to justify your use of the term, it's not necessary.

But if you want to be polite (a word you referenced several times) you need to respect the wishes of those you are addressing.