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

[sethpayne]

 

 

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.

 

Hey Scott,

 

Do you use the term negro?  Especially in reference to those of African descent (be they new immigrants or descendants of African slaves) who live in the Salt Lake Valley?

 

I suspect that you probably don't.  That you, like most folks who are keen on the fact that the use of the term "negro" today is derogatory and offensive, employ terms such as "African-American" or "black."  The term "negro" is, of course, technically correct.  If we rely on just the dictionary we can easily show how it is a perfectly correct use of the word.  But I also have noticed that some dictionaries list the term as being "dated and offensive."

 

I imagine the DN style-guide touches on this subject.  But perhaps not, as the use of this term is so obviously and widely understood to be offensive it wouldn't need to be discussed explicitly.

 

It's also worth noting that when a group expresses that a term applied to them is offensive (think "cult", for example) it is merely polite to use terminology the group applies to itself (think "Christian", for example).  To do otherwise would only be to intentionally and knowingly cause offense (think: "Ed Decker").

 

Seth

Edited April 21, 2015 by sethpayne

[california boy]

Almost all slurs could be considered true.  It doesn't mean that they are not offensive.  Scott wants to stick to a term that those he uses that term on finds offensive because he rightly declares that the term he uses is true.

 

So like Seth asked, do you use the term negro?  Why would someone be offended by being called negro?  Aren't their skins black?  You don't care if someone calls you white.  So they shouldn't be offended if someone calls them negro.  Is all you are doing is distinguishing them from us.  They are just being militant and irrational.

 

How about wet back?  It is true that some Mexicans sneaking into this country had wet backs from crossing the Rio Grand.  Doesn't it describe those people with some accuracy?  There is nothing offensive about having a wet back.  Your back is wet on a regular basis.  You don't get offended if someone tells you that you have a wet back.  So it can't possibly be an offensive description.  Are you going to continue to use the term wet back even though you know that Mexicans find that term offensive just because you don't find someone calling you a wet back offensive?

 

How about slant eyes?  Yes Asians eyes do slant more than western eyes.  Do you use those terms as well?  If not, then why not?  Do you call Asians slant eyes because if they called you round eyes it wouldn't offend you?  After all, you do have a more rounded eye then they do  So is all you are doing is pointing out the difference between "them" and you.  

 

Seriously Scott, sometimes you go off the rail.  It has been explained to you quite clearly that gays find the term SSA offensive.  It has also been explained to you WHY they find that term offensive.  Yet your defense for continuing the use of that offensive expression is because you are not offended by it.  Whether you are offended by a similar term is completely irrelevant as you can see from the examples above.  

Edited April 21, 2015 by california boy

[Nofear]

Here is a 2010 blog post by somebody who dislikes the term: https://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/02/6983/
 

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.

The term SSA is skillfully employed to make it appear as if fundamentalist bigots are not attacking the person, just their sexual feelings. It is a diabolical method of creating a medical-sounding term to deliver Anita Bryant’ hateful “love the sinner, hate the sin” message. At least Bryant had the courage to say what she believes and not hide behind euphemisms and phony pop psychology.

In short, the term is disliked because LGBT advocates want sexual attraction to define the person but the term same sex attraction separates inclinations from identity and behavior -- and that is anathema.  Kind of like saying can one have SSA and not be gay? Or can one have SSA and not be a homosexual?

[thesometimesaint]

Here is a 2010 blog post by somebody who dislikes the term: https://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/02/6983/

 

In short, the term is disliked because LGBT advocates want sexual attraction to define the person but the term same sex attraction separates inclinations from identity and behavior -- and that is anathema.  Kind of like saying can one have SSA and not be gay? Or can one have SSA and not be a homosexual?

 

Entirely possible. Just like it is entirely possible to be straight and not engage in sexual activity.

[sethpayne]

Here is a 2010 blog post by somebody who dislikes the term: https://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/02/6983/

 

In short, the term is disliked because LGBT advocates want sexual attraction to define the person but the term same sex attraction separates inclinations from identity and behavior -- and that is anathema.  Kind of like saying can one have SSA and not be gay? Or can one have SSA and not be a homosexual?

 

No.  What it's saying is that SSA implies a changeable defect in a person.  Like Alcoholism.   

 

Is your heterosexuality separate from you identity?  I doubt it.  I'm a heterosexual male.  As such, I'm married to a woman.  Sexuality #1 is not a preference and #2, is not something that needs to be "fixed."

 

None of that impacts the Church in any way, of course.  There is no doctrinal reason to deny the inborn nature of homosexuality.  The Law of Chastity covers the rest.

[Nofear]

Is your heterosexuality separate from you identity? I doubt it.

My sexuality informs and is a part of my identity but, no, they are not indistinguishable. They are separable. Some individuals with attraction towards the same gender have chosen to separate that attraction from their identity. We must let them do so. Not all those with SSA are "gay" culturally, socially, or behaviorally. It is this latter freedom that many of those who are disgusted by the term same-sex attraction wish to deny others.

 

As a hypothetical, even though I have different-gender attraction, I could choose to associate with, identify with, live a homosexual lifestyle. I could be "gay" if I chose to do so, despite having different-gender attraction.

[sethpayne]

My sexuality informs and is a part of my identity but, no, they are not indistinguishable. They are separable. Some individuals with attraction towards the same gender have chosen to separate that attraction from their identity. We must let them do so. Not all those with SSA are "gay" culturally, socially, or behaviorally. It is this latter freedom that many of those who are disgusted by the term same-sex attraction wish to deny others.

 

As a hypothetical, even though I have different-gender attraction, I could choose to associate with, identify with, live a homosexual lifestyle. I could be "gay" if I chose to do so, despite having different-gender attraction.

 

Not really.  You could imitate those characteristics we most often associate with homosexuality but you would wouldn't be gay.  Just pretending.

 

In one of my wards a few years back we had an openly gay ward member who was choosing to remain celibate.  By looking at him he certainly didnt look "gay."  But he was gay.  Loud, proud, and celibate.

 

Do you really think YOU could separate your sexuality from your identity?  Just think of how many things you do every day because your sexuality.  The way you embrace your spouse.  The way you think about your spouse.  The way you choose to interact with those who are NOT your spouse.  Even before you were married you thought about the opposite sex.  Came to understand to what characteristics you liked or didn't like in a potential partner.  If you were like me, my late teens and twenties were *consumed* by such thoughts.  

 

Of course, given that I'm heterosexual I can't speak from experience.  But I don't see any reason to think homosexuality is any different.  It is, as the Church admits, an inborn characteristic.  So I'm not sure they could decouple their sexuality from their identity any more than you or I could.

Edited April 21, 2015 by sethpayne

[california boy]

My sexuality informs and is a part of my identity but, no, they are not indistinguishable. They are separable. Some individuals with attraction towards the same gender have chosen to separate that attraction from their identity. We must let them do so. Not all those with SSA are "gay" culturally, socially, or behaviorally. It is this latter freedom that many of those who are disgusted by the term same-sex attraction wish to deny others.

As a hypothetical, even though I have different-gender attraction, I could choose to associate with, identify with, live a homosexual lifestyle. I could be "gay" if I chose to do so, despite having different-gender attraction.

I was married to a woman for a number of years. I even had children. Most everyone thought I was straight But I was never straight. I was gay pretending to be straight.

Just because you are in a garage doesn't make you a car.

[Calm]

deleted because I really don't want to get involved in this conversation at this level at this time and posting this post and then not responding to responses wouldn't be polite.

Edited April 21, 2015 by calmoriah

[Nofear]

Not really.  You could imitate those characteristics we most often associate with homosexuality but you would wouldn't be gay.  Just pretending.

 

In one of my wards a few years back we had an openly gay ward member who was choosing to remain celibate.  By looking at him he certainly didnt look "gay."  But he was gay.  Loud, proud, and celibate.

 

Do you really think YOU could separate your sexuality from your identity?  Just think of how many things you do every day because your sexuality.  The way you embrace your spouse.  The way you think about your spouse.  The way you choose to interact with those who are NOT your spouse.  Even before you were married you thought about the opposite sex.  Came to understand to what characteristics you liked or didn't like in a potential partner.  If you were like me, my late teens and twenties were *consumed* by such thoughts.  

 

I concede that you define your identity by your sexuality. Many do. It is not my inclination to attempt to persuade you otherwise. I,  and I believe the Church's authorities similarly hold, the perspective that sexuality is not synonymous with identity. Hence, the term. Given that the use of the term "same sex attraction" in many ways expresses an unspoken opinion about things, I can understand the offense others feel.

 

Unfortunately, at present there does not seem to be a term/phrase/expression that is truly on neutral ground concerning the sexuality/identity position. Until such time, I would anticipate continued use of the phrase that implies the speaker's position.

 

I was married to a woman for a number of years. I even had children. Most everyone thought I was straight But I was never straight. I was gay pretending to be straight.

Just because you are in a garage doesn't make you a car.

Sorry being/behaving/acting straight didn't work out. It is a tough scenario to be in and I am grateful it is not a cross I have to bear.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not really.  You could imitate those characteristics we most often associate with homosexuality but you would wouldn't be gay.  Just pretending.

 

In one of my wards a few years back we had an openly gay ward member who was choosing to remain celibate.  By looking at him he certainly didnt look "gay."  But he was gay.  Loud, proud, and celibate.

 

Do you really think YOU could separate your sexuality from your identity?  Just think of how many things you do every day because your sexuality.  The way you embrace your spouse.  The way you think about your spouse.  The way you choose to interact with those who are NOT your spouse.  Even before you were married you thought about the opposite sex.  Came to understand to what characteristics you liked or didn't like in a potential partner.  If you were like me, my late teens and twenties were *consumed* by such thoughts.  

 

Of course, given that I'm heterosexual I can't speak from experience.  But I don't see any reason to think homosexuality is any different.  It is, as the Church admits, an inborn characteristic.  So I'm not sure they could decouple their sexuality from their identity any more than you or I could.

Has the Church admitted that it <is> inborn or that it <might> be inborn? I thought the Church hadn't come down definitely on one side or the other.

I could be wrong, of course.

[sethpayne]

Has the Church admitted that it <is> inborn or that it <might> be inborn? I thought the Church hadn't come down definitely on one side or the other.

I could be wrong, of course.

 

I got the impression from the quote of Elder Oaks:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng

 

“All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel ofJesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior” 

 

 

I think the disagreement I have with Elder Oaks is one similar NoFear and I have.  But he does seem to indicate that people don't choose to be gay.  That's a much different tone and position that those taken by (then) Elder Kimball and Elder Packer.  I'm very thankful the Church edited Elder Packer's October 2010 talk to remove the implication that being gay is a choice that one can somehow modify.

Edited April 22, 2015 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

I got the impression from the quote of Elder Oaks:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng

 

 

I think the disagreement I have with Elder Oaks is one similar NoFear and I have.  But he does seem to indicate that people don't choose to be gay.  That's a much different tone and position that those taken by (then) Elder Kimball and Elder Packer.  I'm very thankful the Church edited Elder Packer's October 2010 talk to remove the implication that being gay is a choice that one can somehow modify.

I don't see Elder Oaks being as definitive about it as you read him. I see him saying that the principle holds true <whether or not> homosexuality is inborn.

Furthermore, it's my understanding science hasn't proven one way or the other. It would be foolhardy for the Church to "admit" what science has not proven.

And regarding President Packer, it cannot be inferred that "the Church" made a change that by official accounts President Packer made himself. I would caution against reading an unwarranted conclusion into that incident.

[Ham Clam]

So, no one knows the answer to my question then?

[sethpayne]

I don't see Elder Oaks being as definitive about it as you read him. I see him saying that the principle holds true <whether or not> homosexuality is inborn.

Furthermore, it's my understanding science hasn't proven one way or the other. It would be foolhardy for the Church to "admit" what science has not proven.

And regarding President Packer, it cannot be inferred that "the Church" made a change that by official accounts President Packer made himself. I would caution against reading an unwarranted conclusion into that incident.

 

Don't conference talks go through correlation before publication?  Is not Elder Packer a leader of "the Church?"  Is he not a representative of "the Church?"

 

I understand that what you were taught as a young man is now being contradicted.  But that's the whole point of continuing revelation, isn't it?  We now have at least two solid examples of the Church stating that being ay is NOT a choice but you continue to parse words in order to avoid the clear meaning.  

[sethpayne]

So, no one knows the answer to my question then?

 

I think the answer is pretty clear, even if the original source can't be identified.

 

The term SSA has come to be used by those who oppose homosexuality in an effort to marginalize them and keep them distinct and separate from others.  

 

Just like some EVs like to marginalize and delegitimize the Church by calling it a "cult" and balk when Mormons call themselves "Christian."  If we say homosexual then we have to admit that it is an inborn trait (of course influenced by environmental factors just like every human being who has ever lived).  As this thread demonstrates, some people are not comfortable with that established fact.

[rodheadlee]

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.

That's because they are outside of the norm and they do have a condition. That's why it's called deviant sex, it deviates from the norm.

 

[rockpond]

That's because they are outside of the norm and they do have a condition. That's why it's called deviant sex, it deviates from the norm.

 

Newsflash for you:  As far as we can tell, the union of one man and one woman has always produced (and likely will always produce) a certain ratio of homosexual offspring.  That is the norm.

Edited April 22, 2015 by rockpond

[Gray]

Left handed people and redheads must also be deviants then, as they're outside the norm

[thesometimesaint]

Left handed people and redheads must also be deviants then, as they're outside the norm

 

True, but not very helpful. The emotional connotations of any deviation are what get us into trouble.

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't conference talks go through correlation before publication?  Is not Elder Packer a leader of "the Church?"  Is he not a representative of "the Church?"

 

What I recall from the published response of a Church spokesman when this incident happened is that President (note the correct title) Packer exercised the prerogative that all the conference speakers have which is to revise the content of their talks for the printed version.

 

In our office, we interact face-to-face with Correlation on a weekly basis as they give prior scrutiny to our publication. On one occasion, someone on our staff asked about the very assumption you are making here: whether conference talks "go through Correlation." The response was that Correlation examines a talk only when specifically and incidentally requested to do so by the speaker, and that doesn't happen often.

 

Correlation works for the Brethren, not the other way around. Contrary to critics' fantasizing, there is no shadow government that exercises unseen control over what the prophets and apostles say. Public Affairs doesn't do it; Correlation doesn't do it.

 

As president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, President Packer is very highly placed in the Church hierarchy. I can think of only one person on earth who might be dictating to him the content of his conference talk, and my hunch is that didn't happen here.

 

 

 

I understand that what you were taught as a young man is now being contradicted.

 

 

Seth, this has nothing to do with what I may or may not have been "taught as a young man," a thing you would have no way of knowing in any event.

 

 

 

But that's the whole point of continuing revelation, isn't it?  We now have at least two solid examples of the Church stating that being ay is NOT a choice but you continue to parse words in order to avoid the clear meaning.  

 

Slow down here. Let's review what happened.

 

You made an unqualified assertion about the Church's position that didn't square with what I had understood, so I asked for substantiation. You responded by drawing a highly questionable inference from a statement Elder Oaks made. He spoke generically about all of us having "feelings we did not choose." This could refer to any number of conditions that may or may not be inheritable: the tendency to fly of the handle over trivial matters, inability to control rage, kleptomania, pedophilia, obsessive-compulsive behavior, etc.

 

Furthermore, I think you would have a very tough time reconciling your inference with a statement made by Elder Oaks in a Q and A setting published more than a decade after what you cited:

 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

 

Here we have Elder Oaks defining the Church's position -- or more correctly, its lack of position -- on this question.

 

Finally, I opined that it would be foolish for the Church to "admit" something that had not been scientifically proven. Every credible source I turned up from a Google search I did reflects that the question of whether homosexuality is inborn is not settled. Even the sources that favor this position purported only to give evidence, not definitive proof.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

The Leadership of the Church, and the scriptures have been clear enough that homosexual desire could be inborn in some people.

 

Ether 12:27; weakness are given unto men

 

 

1 Corinthians 10:13: There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man:

 

Same-Gender Attraction
By Elder Dallin H. Oaks, October 1995

"Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn."

"All of us have some feelings we did not choose,..."

"We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either,..."

"Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called “a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure”"

“Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others."

"We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another,..."


Seems clear that Elder Oaks is discussing inborn characteristics. It is not blasphemy to acknowledge the thorns in our flesh - a point which Elder Oaks repeatedly discussed.

Edited April 22, 2015 by tonie

[Nofear]

My understanding of the Church's position is that it really doesn't matter if homosexual tendencies or innate, inborn, or learned. The expectations of behavior from us are the same in either case.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Leadership of the Church, and the scriptures have been clear enough that homosexual desire could be inborn in some people.

 

Ether 12:27; weakness are given unto men

 

 

1 Corinthians 10:13: There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man:

 

Same-Gender Attraction

By Elder Dallin H. Oaks, October 1995

"Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn."

"All of us have some feelings we did not choose,..."

"We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either,..."

"Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called “a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure”"

“Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others."

"We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another,..."

Seems clear that Elder Oaks is discussing inborn characteristics. It is not blasphemy to acknowledge the thorns in our flesh - a point which Elder Oaks repeatedly discussed.

Elder Oaks here is saying maybe and maybe not -- which is what I have maintained all along (see the quotation from Elder Oaks in my prior post, and see my post #61, where I asked sethpayne to substantiate his assertion).

 

It is sethpayne, not I, who is erroneously claiming the Church or Elder Oaks has taken a position on one side or the other of the question.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Newsflash for you:  As far as we can tell, the union of one man and one woman has always produced (and likely will always produce) a certain ratio of homosexual offspring.  That is the norm.

And indications are that ratio is very, very low -- which puts them outside the norm.