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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Yes. I understand that.

 

I only raised the question after sethpayne asserted:

 

It is, as the Church admits, an inborn characteristic.

 

As I said, this did not square with my recollection, so I asked for substantiation.

 

As it turns out, my recollection was correct.

[rockpond]

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

 

If you're saying that they are not the majority so they are outside the norm.  I'd agree.  They are a minority.

 

But rodheadlee is stating that because they are not "the norm" they are "deviant".  That's a subjective statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you're saying that they are not the majority so they are outside the norm.  I'd agree.  They are a minority.

 

But rodheadlee is stating that because they are not "the norm" they are "deviant".  That's a subjective statement.

Online dictionary definition: "departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior."

 

Deviant is an adjective stemming from the verb to deviate.

[Nofear]

Deviant sometimes has negative connotations but doesn't have to. After all, Mormons are very much a deviant people.

[rockpond]

Online dictionary definition: "departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior."

 

Deviant is an adjective stemming from the verb to deviate.

 

By that definition, homosexuality is no longer deviant.  Polygamy, on the other hand, still is.

[Scott Lloyd]

By that definition, homosexuality is no longer deviant.  Polygamy, on the other hand, still is.

As with so many other things, this depends on milieu and context.

[rockpond]

As with so many other things, this depends on milieu and context.

 

Exactly.

[Gray]

An experiment: contact your stake president this week and let him know that he is a deviant. Explain to him that the vast majority of people are not called to be stake presidents, and so he technically fits one definition of the word deviant. Let us know how he reacts, and if you think that reaction was reasonable. 

[rockpond]

An experiment: contact your stake president this week and let him know that he is a deviant. Explain to him that the vast majority of people are not called to be stake presidents, and so he technically fits one definition of the word deviant. Let us know how he reacts, and if you think that reaction was reasonable. 

 

While you are at it, refer to him as a sectarian and a cultist because those terms are technically accurate, like "SSA", and there is no rational reason that he should find them disagreeable.

[Scott Lloyd]

While you are at it, refer to him as a sectarian and a cultist because those terms are technically accurate, like "SSA", and there is no rational reason that he should find them disagreeable.

Actually, "sectarian" would not be accurate, as the Church of Jesus Christ is not a sect as that word might be applied to any of the many Protestant denominations of historical Christianity, but rather, is a restoration of the original Church established by Christ.

 

And unlike "cult" which has taken on a normatively negative connotation through many years of usage, SSA is not inherently negative.

[rockpond]

Actually, "sectarian" would not be accurate, as the Church of Jesus Christ is not a sect as that word might be applied to any of the many Protestant denominations of historical Christianity, but rather, is a restoration of the original Church established by Christ.

 

Well, since less than one percent of the world agrees with you that our church is a restoration of the original Church established by Christ, I'm gonna have to say that your conclusion is out of the norm and deviant.

 

And unlike "cult" which has taken on a normatively negative connotation through many years of usage, SSA is not inherently negative.

 

... to you!

 

Sinking in at all yet?

[Nofear]

... to you!

 

Sinking in at all yet?

 

As pointed out SSA allows for the perspective that homosexual urges need not be tied intrinsically with one's identity, though it does not disallow it. It is that lack of positive affirmation via the connotations of language that many LGBT find offensive -- that it is a negative/offense/insult to LGBT for one to use language that might even hint at a different perspective.

[rockpond]

As pointed out SSA allows for the perspective that homosexual urges need not be tied intrinsically with one's identity, though it does not disallow it. It is that lack of positive affirmation via the connotations of language that many LGBT find offensive -- that it is a negative/offense/insult to LGBT for one to use language that might even hint at a different perspective.

 

Yes... when that different perspective contradicts what the recipient knows about themselves, it is offensive.  And if it is offensive to those being called such, it doesn't really seem very compassionate to continue to use the term.

 

Similarly, if someone calls me a cultist or a sectarian because of my membership in the LDS church, it represents a different perspective.  As accurate as the term may be, it is still off-putting to me.  And the continued use of such a term by someone who is aware of how it impacts me shows a lack of concern and compassion.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes... when that different perspective contradicts what the recipient knows about themselves, it is offensive.  And if it is offensive to those being called such, it doesn't really seem very compassionate to continue to use the term.

 

Similarly, if someone calls me a cultist or a sectarian because of my membership in the LDS church, it represents a different perspective.  As accurate as the term may be, it is still off-putting to me.  And the continued use of such a term by someone who is aware of how it impacts me shows a lack of concern and compassion.

Again, somebody could call me a Mormon and I wouldn't be put off by it, regardless of how sneeringly he said it. Not by the word itself, though I might not like his manner of expression.

 

But "cultist" or "sectarian" would not be accurate.

 

Words are either accurate or inaccurate, and no one has standing to object to a name that is accurate and inherently value-neutral.

[Scott Lloyd]

As pointed out SSA allows for the perspective that homosexual urges need not be tied intrinsically with one's identity, though it does not disallow it. It is that lack of positive affirmation via the connotations of language that many LGBT find offensive -- that it is a negative/offense/insult to LGBT for one to use language that might even hint at a different perspective.

Or to put it another way, they don't like terms that are neutral. They only accept terms that connote favortism to their political perspective.

 

Again, it's all about trying to control the narrative.

 

That's what the feminists did a couple of generations ago with their insistence on "spokesperson" and "chairperson" and "businessperson."

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

Again, somebody could call me a Mormon and I wouldn't be put off by it, regardless of how sneeringly he said it. Not by the word itself, though I might not like his manner of expression.

But "cultist" or "sectarian" would not be accurate.

Words are either accurate or inaccurate, and no one has standing to object to a name that is accurate and inherently value-neutral.

Most Mormons are at least somewhat slighted when people say they are not Christian.

Accuracy is sometimes subjective, such as whether or not Mormons should accurately be called "Christians."

The answer, of course, depends on how you define "Christian," and given the way some Protestant and Evangelical groups refine it, they would say it's simply bring accurate and neutral to acknowledge that Mormons simply aren't Christians.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

Again, somebody could call me a Mormon and I wouldn't be put off by it, regardless of how sneeringly he said it. Not by the word itself, though I might not like his manner of expression.

 

But "cultist" or "sectarian" would not be accurate.

 

Words are either accurate or inaccurate, and no one has standing to object to a name that is accurate and inherently value-neutral.

 

Cultist and sectarian are only inaccurate terms in your perception... under your belief system.  They are accurate by definition for the vast majority of the world.  Your opposition to being called a cultist or a sectarian is similar to the opposition of a gay person in being referred to as SSA.

[Scott Lloyd]

Most Mormons are at least somewhat slighted when people say they are not Christian.

Accuracy is sometimes subjective, such as whether or not Mormons should accurately be called "Christians."

The answer, of course, depends on how you define "Christian," and given the way some Protestant and Evangelical groups refine it, they would say it's simply bring accurate and neutral to acknowledge that Mormons simply aren't Christians.

The reason I object to it is that it is potentially confusing.

 

To an average person, Christian implies a follower of Christ, nothing more and nothing less. Most people don't attach the esoteric definition to it that those do who refuse to allow Mormons to be regarded as Christians.

 

Yet another instance of trying to control the narrative to match one's agenda.

[rockpond]

Or to put it another way, they don't like terms that are neutral. They only accept terms that connote favortism to their political perspective.

 

Again, it's all about trying to control the narrative.

 

That's what the feminists did a couple of generations ago with their insistence on "spokesperson" and "chairperson" and "businessperson."

 

You think SSA is neutral.  Many do not.  Again, if you want to use the term SSA, that's fine.  Just understand that many (if not most) of those you refer to as SSA do not find it to be a neutral term.  It's "controlling the narrative" only in the way that we try to control the narrative (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide).

[Scott Lloyd]

Cultist and sectarian are only inaccurate terms in your perception... under your belief system.  They are accurate by definition for the vast majority of the world.  Your opposition to being called a cultist or a sectarian is similar to the opposition of a gay person in being referred to as SSA.

They connote or imply characteristics that are not accurately applied to members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

I don't know about "a majority of the world." I'm guessing "a majority of the world" doesn't care one way or the other enough to have an opinion.

 

But those who regard Mormons as cultists or sectarians likely do so because they lack understanding or they have been misled by others.

[Scott Lloyd]

You think SSA is neutral.  Many do not.  Again, if you want to use the term SSA, that's fine.  Just understand that many (if not most) of those you refer to as SSA do not find it to be a neutral term.  It's "controlling the narrative" only in the way that we try to control the narrative (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide).

Who is "we" white man?

 

I for one don't even get all that upset when I see outsiders referring to "the Mormon church," although I wish they wouldn't uppercase "Church" when they do it, as though it were a formal, proper name, which it is not. And I do wish they would recognize the formal and proper title of the Church; many do.

 

It does sadden me, though, when I see purportedly faithful and active members of the Church saying "Mormon Church," thus refusing to follow the counsel of the anointed servants of God.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

You think SSA is neutral.  Many do not.  Again, if you want to use the term SSA, that's fine.  Just understand that many (if not most) of those you refer to as SSA do not find it to be a neutral term. 

It is neutral. Someone sexually attracted to others of the same sex can accurately be noted as having, well, same-sex attraction.

[rockpond]

Who is "we" white man?

I for one don't even get all that upset when I see outsiders referring to "the Mormon church," although I wish they wouldn't uppercase "Church" when they do it, as though it were a formal, proper name, which it is not. And I do wish they would recognize the formal and proper title of the Church; many do.

It does sadden me, though, when I see purportedly faithful and active members of the Church saying "Mormon Church," thus refusing to follow the counsel of the anointed servants of God.

"We" is members of the LDS church -- thus the link to the Mormon Newsroom style guide.

[rockpond]

It is neutral. Someone sexually attracted to others of the same sex can accurately be noted as having, well, same-sex attraction.

Myself and others here have explained to you why SSA is not considered neutral. As I've said, you don't have to justify your continued use of the term. But you don't get to declare it to be neutral to those who are find it offensive to be labeled as such. It is not neutral to them, you may respect that or you may be considered impolite. Entirely your choice.

[Scott Lloyd]

Myself and others here have explained to you why SSA is not considered neutral. As I've said, you don't have to justify your continued use of the term. But you don't get to declare it to be neutral to those who are find it offensive to be labeled as such. It is not neutral to them, you may respect that or you may be considered impolite. Entirely your choice.

If it is not neutral to them, it does not necessarily render the term not neutral or inherently impolite.

 

Incidentally, myself should not be used in the nominative case. It is a reflexive pronoun referring to I, as in "I've injured myself."

 

You could have said, "I and others here have explained to you ..." and it would have been grammatical and acceptable.

 

And easy way to figure it out and remember it is to reduce a compound subject to a simple subject. Thus:

 

You wouldn't say, "Myself has explained it to you."

 

But you would say, "I have explained it to you."

 

The same construction applies whether the subject is simple or compound.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd