MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

It's not the usage of "same-sex" that is offensive.

Yes indeedie: that is why the article states, “…same-sex is the preferred adjective…”

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you.

It struck me as weird when I first saw california boy assert that the so-called "Mormon church" were the only ones who ever used the phrase same-sex attraction. I guess if you assert a falsehood often enough, people begin to accept it as fact. Or so the conventional reasoning goes.

Yes. And "conservative Christian" is a political term / label: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right

So it also strikes me as additionally weird when political labels color a person's understanding of a perfectly good term such as "same-sex attraction" to the point that it becomes offensive, narrowing it down from general use to conservative Christian use to Mormon use. Such narrowing blurs things considerably! Or maybe it just sets up a straw man for those so colored.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As stated, the current law of chastity could apply to those who enter into a SSM:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=en

Unless the person who wrote it assumed heterosexual marriage was a given and did not need to be made explicit. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

It's not the usage of "same-sex" that is offensive.

So what is offensive? "Attraction"?

This is getting yet weirder.

We're entering into a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind control. We're entering a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. We have just crossed over into ...

 

THE PC ZONE! 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

It's not the usage of "same-sex" that is offensive.

So what is offensive? "Attraction"?

This is getting yet weirder.

 

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unless the person who wrote it assumed heterosexual marriage was a given and did not need to be made explicit.

And I think that goes all the way back to the ten commandments. It was always about Adam-Eve pairings and nothing else for this covenant, no matter what orientation either spouse might identify with. We don't know what orientation, or how strongly oriented, Adam and Eve were. If it were important, a record would have been kept of it.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unless the person who wrote it assumed heterosexual marriage was a given and did not need to be made explicit. 

 

Who is "the person who wrote it", do you know?  Maybe they can clarify rather than having to make assumptions.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unless the person who wrote it assumed heterosexual marriage was a given and did not need to be made explicit. 

 

Or the signatories to the proclamation -- namely, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So what is offensive? "Attraction"?

The entire phrase.  What's odd is your objection to using the term "gay".  That is just so bizarre unless I'm missing something here.  I would never use a term that I knew was offensive to even one person once I was made aware of it.

.

Edited October 27, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or the signatories to the proclamation -- namely, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

They wrote the law of chastity?  Is that what you're saying?

The proclamation does not address homosexuality either.

Edited October 27, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, it could.
Should have left the original wording and not emphasized civil marriages.

Ha!  True, but for the men there would still have been one word included that some may have objected to!

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Who is "the person who wrote it", do you know?  Maybe they can clarify rather than having to make assumptions.

 

 

I don't know. I agree that clarification would be good. I wouldn't be surprised though if the Brethren believe everything they have taught about SSM is clarification. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I don't know. I agree that clarification would be good. I wouldn't be surprised though if the Brethren believe everything they have taught about SSM is clarification. 

Yes, possibly.   I guess we don't know unless one of them have addressed it.  

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You need to work on your conversation skills because your tone makes it impossible to have a discussion.

Your entire comment is extremely mean spirited and personal. Instead of answering a couple of questions so I can better understand your point, you accuse me of being unfair. You accuse me of being "determined to get Bednar". You accuse me of never considering the question about what he meant. You accuse me of "slinging invective" and being uncharitable. You accuse me of making "demands". You are engaging in a standard political and debate maneuver when you can't debate the merits of the argument.

Don't bother responding to this. I'm done trying to talk with you on this thread. Maybe we can speak like grown ups another time.

Your additional invective here merely proves my point.  You need to work on that beam in your own eye, HappyJack.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

It’s pretty crazy. According to this Wikipedia (which seems to use ‘same-sex” as the preferred term) article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_homosexuality, “some style guides recommend that the terms homosexual and homosexuality be avoided altogether, lest their use cause confusion or arouse controversy. In particular the description of individuals as homosexual may be offensive, partially because of the negative clinical association of the word stemming from its use in describing same-sex attraction [n acceptable term] as a pathological state before homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973. The Associated Press and New York Times style guides restrict usage of the terms.”

 

“…same-sex is the preferred adjective…”

 

“People with a same-gender sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian and bisexual. The most common terms are gay (both men and women) and lesbian (women only). Other terms include same gender loving and same-sex-oriented.”

 

“Adhesive love was frequently used by Walt Whitman in his Calamus poems, a term the poet borrowed from phrenology's adhesiveness, which he associated with "comradeship", manly bonding and male same-sex attraction.”

 

And in this article (redirected from Same-sex attraction)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality :

 

“Some synonyms for same-sex attraction or sexual activity include men who have sex with men or MSM (used in the medical community when specifically discussing sexual activity) and homoerotic (referring to works of art)”

 

“Many people, despite having same-sex attractions, may be reluctant to identify themselves as gay or bisexual. The research must measure some characteristic that may or may not be defining of sexual orientation. The number of people with same-sex desires may be larger than the number of people who act on those desires, which in turn may be larger than the number of people who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”

 

“…some use same-sex behavior and not same-sex attraction as the operational definition of homosexuality (e.g., Billy et al., 1993); many sex researchers (e.g., Bailey et al., 2000; Bogaert, 2003; Money, 1988; Zucker and Bradley, 1995) now emphasize attraction over overt behavior in conceptualizing sexual orientation." (p. 33) Also: "...the prevalence of male homosexuality (in particular, same-sex attraction) varies over time and across societies (and hence is a "moving target")…”

 

But, Oh be still my heart! if “conservative Christians” use the term, it is simply awful!

 

Thank you for doing this research.  I think I need to clarify a few things.  Of course I am attracted to the same sex.  That isn't entirely the issue.  The issue is somehow labeling someone with SSA and refusing to call them gay whether they have acted on those feelings  or not.  In other words, a person is gay whether he has ever had sex or not if he is attracted to the same sex.  I will certainly be willing to be corrected, but as far as I know labeling someone with SSA to distinguish them from being gay as if there are two SEPARRATE conditions is something only the Mormon church and a few other christian churches do.  Implying that one goes from SSA to becoming gay.  Most people make no distinction between SSA and gay.  It is not a separate condition The information you posted does not make such a distinction.  Quoting from what you posted.

Quote

 

People with a same-gender sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian and bisexual. The most common terms are gay (both men and women) and lesbian (women only). Other terms include same gender loving and same-sex-oriented.^[2]

 

When same sex attraction is used, it is synomomis with the word gay.  It is not some other condition

Quote

 

Likewise, the use of homosexuality to describe human sexual behaviors between people of the same sex may be inaccurate, although it is not perceived as being as offensive as homosexual.^{[citation needed]}

 

 

Another quote from the article you posted.

Quote

Gay' man or lesbian are the preferred nouns which stress cultural and social matters over sex.^[4]

I will leave it to you if you want to continue to use the term.  I have certainly been called way for offensive words by the church and others.  I will live.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you.

It struck me as weird when I first saw california boy assert that the so-called "Mormon church" were the only ones who ever used the phrase same-sex attraction. I guess if you assert a falsehood often enough, people begin to accept it as fact. Or so the conventional reasoning goes.

See above post.  Falsehood?  Really Scott?  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes indeedie: that is why the article states, “…same-sex is the preferred adjective…”

Well actually the article states that same-sex is the preferred adjective to homosexuality.  But it does not make a distinction between one or the other.  It is saying they mean the same thing, not some made up meaning that you first have SSA and they you only become gay if you act upon it.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I will continue to use same-sex attraction as a generic term in reference to the general population of individuals who are, well, sexually attracted to the same sex. That has been and continues to be my consistent position.

As for california boy, his choice to take offense at use of a term that is facially obvious in application is just that, his choice.

And your choice to offend is just that, your choice. 

 

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well actually the article states that same-sex is the preferred adjective to homosexuality.

You mean "same sex homosexuality"? That don't make no sense.

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

But it does not make a distinction between one or the other.  It is saying they mean the same thing, not some made up meaning that you first have SSA and they you only become gay if you act upon it.

For this reason the Church is free to use it to refer to orientation. CFR that the Church teaches on the OP link that people "become gay."

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Thank you for doing this research.  I think I need to clarify a few things.  Of course I am attracted to the same sex.  That isn't entirely the issue.  The issue is somehow labeling someone with SSA and refusing to call them gay whether they have acted on those feelings  or not.  In other words, a person is gay whether he has ever had sex or not if he is attracted to the same sex.  I will certainly be willing to be corrected, but as far as I know labeling someone with SSA to distinguish them from being gay as if there are two SEPARRATE conditions is something only the Mormon church and a few other christian churches do.  Implying that one goes from SSA to becoming gay.  Most people make no distinction between SSA and gay.  It is not a separate condition The information you posted does not make such a distinction.  Quoting from what you posted.

When same sex attraction is used, it is synomomis with the word gay.  It is not some other condition

Another quote from the article you posted.

I will leave it to you if you want to continue to use the term.  I have certainly been called way for offensive words by the church and others.  I will live.

I'm approaching this conversation as being about the Church's use of the term, not mine.

You should be corrected, because the term "same-sex" can be used flexibly when the situation calls for distinguishing between orientation, behavior and identity. Some find it convenient to roll these up together (is that the "blurring" we've seen discussed?), but in deeper treatments of the subject, differentiation needs to be made and "same sex attraction" can be used to do that.

My point is, "same sex attraction" is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to use in its prescribed usage for encyclopedic purposes and allows for its use in describing orientation, behavior or identity as the case requires. I think common sense tells us that voluntary behavior typically arises from orientation, though it is possible I suppose that orientation can arise from imposed behaviors. In either case, behavior and orientation don't drive identity, or the fact of being what a p[person actually is.

If Wikipedia can do it, anyone, including the Church, can.

Edited October 28, 2016 by CV75

[VideoGameJunkie]

Why does the term same sex attraction matter so much?

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Why does the term same sex attraction matter so much?

Because we are supposed to be reaching out in love and kindness. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Because we are supposed to be reaching out in love and kindness. 

What would gays and lesbians rather be called? Besides sticks and stones.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

What would gays and lesbians rather be called? Besides sticks and stones.

You should ask them. 

When such a label is even necessary, all the gay and lesbian people in my life prefer to be called gay and lesbian.  

I think "gay" is the broadest and most widely accepted term which is why the Brethren chose to use it as the URL. 

 

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Thank you for doing this research.  I think I need to clarify a few things.  Of course I am attracted to the same sex.  That isn't entirely the issue.  The issue is somehow labeling someone with SSA and refusing to call them gay whether they have acted on those feelings  or not.  In other words, a person is gay whether he has ever had sex or not if he is attracted to the same sex.  I will certainly be willing to be corrected, but as far as I know labeling someone with SSA to distinguish them from being gay as if there are two SEPARRATE conditions is something only the Mormon church and a few other christian churches do.  Implying that one goes from SSA to becoming gay.  Most people make no distinction between SSA and gay.  It is not a separate condition The information you posted does not make such a distinction.  Quoting from what you posted.

When same sex attraction is used, it is synomomis with the word gay.  It is not some other condition

 

Another quote from the article you posted.

I will leave it to you if you want to continue to use the term.  I have certainly been called way for offensive words by the church and others.  I will live.

Why do you never answer or acknowledge the distinction between orientation and identity?  Even the APA makes it clear that while the former is unchosen, the latter is not only chosen but socially constructed.  

I also asked earlier, but apparently need to issue a CFR that anywhere on the website uses SSA as an identity rather than a description of an experience.