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

[rockpond]

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

Exactly, just as sectarian is a neutral term but not to you.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I'm well acquainted with the style guide. I see it as an expression of preference and a request, primarily directed at news media organizations, who tend to be more careful about such things.

 

I don't see here any militancy or irritableness about perfectly reasonable and logical terms that could not in any rational way be viewed as inherently offensive.

[Scott Lloyd]

Exactly, just as sectarian is a neutral term but not to you.

It's a neutral term when applied accurately.

 

It is not accurately applied to the Church of Jesus Christ, for the reason I've already explained.

 

Even Christian sects would not view The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a sect.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

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.

Actually, if you use a term to describe someone after they have explained to you that the term is offensive, it's impolite regardless of how neutral you believe the term to be. I think you understand that concept and are being intentionally obtuse.

Thanks for the tip. I've always been more of a numbers guy (degree and career)... Grammar is not a strong suit for me.

[rockpond]

I'm well acquainted with the style guide. I see it as an expression of preference and a request, primarily directed at news media organizations, who tend to be more careful about such things.

I don't see here any militancy or irritableness about perfectly reasonable and logical terms that could not in any rational way be viewed as inherently offensive.

Well, now you are acquainted with expressed preferences and requests of gays and lesbians to not be called by the term SSA.

[rockpond]

It's a neutral term when applied accurately.

It is not accurately applied to the Church of Jesus Christ, for the reason I've already explained.

Even Christian sects would not view The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a sect.

The reason you've explained is based in your perception and belief system. But the term is still neutral.

The neutrality of these words (cult, sect, same sex attracted), when used to describe individuals, is relative to their own understanding of their identity. So as I've said: you can respect that or you can be considered impolite. It's rather simple.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, if you use a term to describe someone after they have explained to you that the term is offensive, it's impolite regardless of how neutral you believe the term to be. I think you understand that concept and are being intentionally obtuse.

 

 

Well, now you are acquainted with expressed preferences and requests of gays and lesbians to not be called by the term SSA.

I tend to evaluate such things on a case-by-case basis. If they make sense, I abide by them; if they don't I ignore them.

 

I value the language, and I refuse to stand by and let it be corrupted by the tyranny of political correctness. Hence, my rejection of spokesperson, chairperson and businessperson. 

 

Blech!

[Scott Lloyd]

The reason you've explained is based in your perception and belief system. But the term is still neutral.

No, it's based on an accurate understanding of historical reality.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ did not break off from Catholicism or any other existing faith group and thus is not properly regarded as a sect as a Protestant denomination might be.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for the tip. I've always been more of a numbers guy (degree and career)... Grammar is not a strong suit for me.

It's a common error.

 

But if you use the technique I gave you (reduce the compound subject to a simple subject), it should make it easier to understand and use the proper grammar.

 

I think most people who get hung up with it do so because they are not used to hearing the proper grammar.

 

For example, it feels awkward to them to say (borrowing here from song lyrics I heard in my youth):

 

"I and my friend will travel for miles with our Saturday smiles."

 

They've known for a long time that it is incorrect to say "Me and my friend will travel for miles."

 

So they try too hard to be correct and end up being wrong with "Myself and my friend will travel for miles."

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I tend to evaluate such things on a case-by-case basis. If they make sense, I abide by them; if they don't I ignore them.

I value the language, and I refuse to stand by and let it be corrupted by the tyranny of political correctness. Hence, my rejection of spokesperson, chairperson and businessperson.

Blech!

If you valued the language, you'd recognize that the term SSA is used by religious groups to promote their views rather than using the term homosexual which has been around longer and is the term that it used in the medical and scientific communities.

[rockpond]

No, it's based on an accurate understanding of historical reality.

The Church of Jesus Christ did not break off from Catholicism or any other existing faith group and thus is not properly regarded as a sect as a Protestant denomination might be.

Sect: a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.

It fits, Scott. You just don't like the connotation. Why won't you respect that same feeling coming from the gay community?

And that's not a rhetorical question.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you valued the language, you'd recognize that the term SSA is used by religious groups to promote their views rather than using the term homosexual which has been around longer and is the term that it used in the medical and scientific communities.

I'm not certain the people who use SSA would object to homosexual. I know I don't.

 

In fact, ironically SSA might have come into being because some thought homosexual sounded too harsh, and hence, objectionable.

[rockpond]

I'm not certain the people who use SSA would object to homosexual. I know I don't.

In fact, ironically SSA might have come into being because some thought homosexual sounded too harsh, and hence, objectionable.

I see no evidence to warrant such a conclusion, but if that was the case and those who use the term SSA do so out of concern for being "objectionable" than it's time for them to stop using it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sect: a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.

 

It doesn't fit. The Church of Jesus Christ did not break off from or does not belong to "a larger group."

 

It's a matter of accuracy. If it were accurate, I would not object.

 

It fits, Scott. You just don't like the connotation. Why won't you respect that same feeling coming from the gay community?

And that's not a rhetorical question.

 

Because it doesn't make sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see no evidence to warrant such a conclusion, but if that was the case and those who use the term SSA do so out of concern for being "objectionable" than it's time for them to stop using it.

If they don't like it because groups they don't like use it, it occurs to me that most any term used by such groups would be objectionable to them, regardless of how accurate or apt the term might be.

 

In short, it appears from your narrative that they are trying to use language as a weapon in ideological warfare, just as the feminists of yesteryear did.

 

I for one won't put up with it.

[california boy]

I'm not certain the people who use SSA would object to homosexual. I know I don't.

 

In fact, ironically SSA might have come into being because some thought homosexual sounded too harsh, and hence, objectionable.

 

This is such baloney.  People use the term SSA have an agenda has nothing to do with homosexual sounding harsh".  The gay community NEVER expressed any problem with being called gay or homosexuals.   SSA is a term that is clearly offensive to gay people for reasons that have been explained to you very clearly.  You have been shown that gay people find the term offensive.  You continue to use offensive language when using that term.  Now you can not plead some kind of ignorance.  You will know in your heart that EVERY TIME you use the term SSA, you are using a term that is offensive to the gay population.  Now if you continue to use that word, that is your choice.  You are free to be as offensive to the gay population as you want to be.  But just know that when you type SSA, you are using s slur similar to "slant eyes" or "wet back" or "Negro".  Yeah you are one of those guys.

 

End of discussion as far as I am concerned.  The next move is entirely up to you.

 

Knock it off. You are out of line. 

[Calm]

This is such baloney. People use the term SSA have an agenda has nothing to do with homosexual sounding harsh"..

Whether or not the gay community has expressed opposition to a term wouldn't necessarily be relevant if someone had experience with "homosexual" being used as an insult in their community. And it certainly was in my various communities growing up (not Utah). "Queer" is another term that has such a negative connotation for me (though I don't recall anyone using it as an insult around me once i became an adult, so over 30 years) that if I hadn't seen it being used widely by the gay community, I would find it almost impossible to write even in this kind of context as an example and I suspect I will never use it in casual conversation even while being aware it has been used for self labelling for 30, 40 years or so.

I started using the label "SSA" because it appeared to me to be emotionally neutral (and it was shorter than writing out "homosexual attraction as opposed to homosexual behaviour"...in part because it seemed to me there was still confusion whether or not I intended "homosexual attraction" to involve any acting on the attraction at the time, I think the distinction has been made enough that for most people they get the difference without the additional 5 words, still see the assumption "homosexual" means behaviour if "attraction" isn't added though). When I learned that it wasn't for everyone and saw opposition to the term grow, I have tried to stop the use, but it still feels safer to me gut wise and so if I am not thinking, I will use it at times.

I can see why Scott resists changing language if based on trying to control the dialogue. You are protesting the use of "SSA" for the very same reason...that you see it as an attempt to manipulate.

If I was as certain as you that "SSA" was being used to diminish the value of identity, to attach an appearance of a disorder to someone, then I would most likely fully support attempts to change it. But having seen it used by others and using it myself without that intent and with the intent to increase precision, I am not going to label someone who uses the term as a bigot...I will take the context into account.

Edited April 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

PS:  I had a black teacher tell me she preferred being called "Negro".  She was also probably 30-40 years older than I was so it may have only been her generation or just her individual background that saw it as preferrable.  She was also very proud of her heritage and was against interracial marriage because she saw it as encouraging the loss of distinctiveness, a rejection of that heritage and she saw interracial marriage as contributing to inequality as opposed to leading to it.

[Skylla]

This thread is done.

 

Skylla