MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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. 

 

So I'm really curious, do you think I'm gay?

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

 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 

Seriously, read some of the literature.  There is a huge distinction.  Maybe most lazy, uninformed people don't make the distinction, but the CDC sure does, as do the numerous research articles into sexuality.  How else do you explain that over 50% of youth in a recent study indicated feeling some degree of "same-sex attraction, but still less than 5% identified as gay?  Or that a significant percentage of men who identify as "exclusively gay" still report their attractions to be more bisexual?  You are wrong that it is only religious motivation to accurately describe what people experience (i.e. that sexual attraction and orientation DO NOT always or even often match sexual identity).  To pretend otherwise is either uninformed or deceitful.  I wish I knew which one applies here.     

 

I forgot the most recent CDC data that showed 20 % of adults experiencing sexual attraction to the same sex, but only 1.7 identifying as gay or lesbian and less than 4% as bisexual.  What else do you call those 14%?  

Edited October 28, 2016 by kllindley
To add an additional study

[VideoGameJunkie]

20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

 

I forgot the most recent CDC data that showed 20 % of adults experiencing sexual attraction to the same sex, but only 1.7 identifying as gay or lesbian and less than 4% as bisexual.  What else do you call those 14%?  

Those 14 percent are called in the closet and scared.

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Those 14 percent are called in the closet and scared.

In an anonymous survey they happily marked "yeah, I;m sexually attracted to other dudes," but were too scared to check the gay, lesbian, or bisexual boxes?

[california boy]

Why I loath the term 'Same-Sex Attraction' (SSA)

Quote

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.

If you think I am wrong, ask yourself: Why does disgraced “sexual reorientation coach” Richard Cohen (pictured) love the term SSA so much? It is all over his website and his books. He is basically turning you into a sick patient rather than a real person. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) also loves SSA.

We should not help our enemies by adopting their language, which is specifically designed and employed to portray us as freaks with a problem that needs to be fixed. SSA — much like STD — sounds like you have a disease that can be cured by running to the local doctor for a shot, the pharmacy for a prescription, or the shrink for a session.

If you don’t think language is important, consider yesterday’s CBS/New York Times News poll. It found a significantly higher level of support for “gays” in the military rather than “homosexuals” in the armed services. Here is an excerpt:A New York Times/CBS News poll finds that a majority of the public support allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military.There’ less support, however, for allowing homosexuals to serve openly.Confused?The results highlight the importance of wording on the issue. In a test, half of the poll’ respondents were asked their opinion on permitting “gay men and lesbians” to serve, and the other half were asked about permitting “homosexuals” to serve.The wording of the question proved to make a difference. Seven in 10 respondents said they favor allowing “gay men and lesbians” to serve in the military, including nearly 6 in 10 who said they should be allowed to serve openly. But support was somewhat lower among those who were asked about allowing “homosexuals” to serve, with 59 percent in favor, including 44 percent who support allowing them to serve openly.

At Truth Wins Out, we are not the word police. We allow a great divergence of opinion and if you love to use the phrase SSA, then keep doing so. It’s a free country. Please realize, however, that you are making Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and Richard Cohen quite happy by adhering to their slick public relations scheme.

More than 35 years after homosexuality was erased from the DSM (list of mental disorders) why voluntarily describe yourself in sterile, medical terms, as if you have a “problem” that quacks can “fix” for a hefty fee?

My new phrase of the week:

“It’s Gay, Not SSA”.

 

 

 

Quote

 

SSA is really offensive

SO from someones comment.
It is so offensive to say "he has same sex-attraction". It's not a f*****g disease. Sexuality is not something you possess or that possesses you. It is part of you. To speak about a person's sexuality as if it in and of itself is a burden is so ignorant and offensive. 
It is up to the individual to decide if their sexuality is a burden on their life based on their own experiences. It is not ok for a PR department of a multibillion dollar coporation to decide to turn "being gay is a sin" to "being gay is kinda sorta like a disease" to appeal to more liberal converts in an attempt to gain 10% of their income. It marginalizes people and their experiences. The gay community doesn't want mormon pity for their sad "trials". They want to be treated as equals not pariahs. Every time I see "SSA" on the board I'm reporting it as bigotry because that is what it is and it drives me nuts that some creep out in SLC came up with this cutesy homophobic, inaccurate, offensive term to futher marginalize gays, their lives, and their relationships while maintaining a fake smile and a sympathetic gaze.

 

 

And some comments about how gay people feel about the church web site.  Their number one issue??

 

Quote

 

I'm lesbian, and this is the view I have as well when it comes to "SSA". I often hear it as part of the phrase "... those who struggle with same gender attraction". That phrase drives me up a wall: one, it implies I'm struggling with it. I'm not. Two, it implies it's not my default setting, but rather a "personal temptation" issue. If it's a personal temptation issue, then I'm actually not lesbian at all, but a heterosexual person having some nasty gay thoughts. It allows you to disconnect your sexuality from you as a person, which isn't going to lead to you accepting yourself and making peace. It promotes compartmentalization and internalized homophobia.

I view that phrase as steeped in religious homophobia. I have a problem that I've never heard an LGBT person who wasn't Mormon use it; that's why most gay sites avoid it (I doubt they know about it). I've brought it up to quite a few non-LDS gay friends of mine to judge their reactions and they're all as disgusted as I am by it.

However, not every gay person is as adverse to it as I am. There's a few days who prefer SSA, and from my own personal experience they're usually the ones having the worst time trying to accept themselves. And there's quite a few Mormon gays who know that their families are going to use SSA, and they just shut up and accept it so as to not cause problems.

 

 

Quote

 

In my experience, it allows them to say things like "suffer from same-sex attraction" while thinking it is somehow less offensive...

The bottom line is that they DO think we are afflicted with a disorder ー one that can be cured through the love of Christ.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

SSA reminds me of the old times, before gay was used. Everyone including Psychology books used the word homosexual. To me it always refered to sex, sex sex. When gay became trendy, Gays became more normalized, real folks in love. Now SSA brings sex back into the conversation. With narrow minded folks, that can't think for themselves, SSA brings sex to the for front throws normal, in love folks just like everyone else out the window. 

And yes I think They are trying to get the world to use SSA for just this purpose so gay folks are looked at as a diagnosis not a human. They don't want gay folks to have any human rights like the rest of them. Edit some sentences.

 

 

 

 

Quote

it's going to set some people off and not others, just like "flamer" or "homo". i guess you could say "SSA" is factually correct but it definitely implies that people are straight by default unless there's something wrong with them.

 

 

Quote

 

I have less of a problem with the SSA term and more of a problem with "Have" SSA. Same-sex-attracted is accurate. "have" same sex attraction isn't. 

As far as the SSA term itself, I think thats a term that was coined by places like North Star and the Church (I think) as a way to control the label. After all, once you say the "G" word (gay), you'll probably catch the gay bug. Just feels like when my mom told me not to tell anyone I'm gay. Being called Same-Sex-Attracted feels like its trying to hide me with a label. It's probably just semantics though.

 

 

 

There are way more comments if you still think the term is not offensive.  I would be happy to continue to copy and past them for you if you enjoy reading these kinds of comments.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by california boy

[kllindley]

CB, instead of citing a bunch of disgruntled people, to which I could match comment for comment counters,  Why not simply answer the questions I ask? 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

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."

I will repeat again.  The church can use whatever term it wants on their web site.  I am only pointing out that a lot of gays find the term SSA offensive.  If you want more examples I will be happy to provide them.

It is my understanding that the church teaches that someone who is attracted to the same sex has Same Sex Attraction (SSA)  Once they act upon that attraction, they are considered gay.  Or is there just no such thing as a gay person.

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

It is my understanding that the church teaches that someone who is attracted to the same sex has Same Sex Attraction (SSA)  Once they act upon that attraction, they are considered gay.  Or is there just no such thing as a gay person.

I have never heard this. It's ridiculous. Did you even read the explanation on the website as to why they use the language. Hint: it's science.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I have never heard this. It's ridiculous. Did you even read the explanation on the website as to why they use the language. Hint: it's science.

Can someone explain to kilindy why the church uses the term SSA

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Can someone explain to kilindy why the church uses the term SSA

I could, but you haven't liked my explanations in the past, so I sincerely doubt you'd approve of them now...

Edited October 28, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm very interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this. Do you see anything besides or other than this part, which I agree is not emphasized or talked about any more?

 

Our patriarch's wife used to work for our current stake president in the 80s. Following a general conference talk by President Benson where he emphasized women not working, she called him and tendered her resignation. Imagine that happening today! I can't remember the last time I heard men providing/women nurturing in talks.  

My family is very traditional, and my wife has been a homemaker our family's whole life, but we are the exception and not the norm. I haven't emphasized it as a bishop because a lot of it is due to economics. And, while a lot of families could be as frugal as mine so that mom doesn't have to work, in reality, most won't and will just feel bad or be resentful if encouraged strongly. And, there are women who, for their own well-being, are much better off working. While it's ideal, in our changing world it's harder and harder to realize the ideal.

It still happens. About 6 years ago while I was serving on the HC I was assigned a ward that was having a particularly tough time. The bishop was BIG on the "women should stay at home" theme to the point that he challenged every woman in the ward to quit their jobs so they could follow the prophet. He insinuated that any woman working outside the home (who still had children at home) was not sustaining priesthood leaders. He didn't overtly threaten temple recommends but I know some women took it that way.

I remember sitting in their ward council meeting where this Bishop was flabbergasted by the lack of obedience when it came to this issue. Some of the men in the room followed his lead and piled on. The women in the room were dead silent. It was one of the most awkward meetings I've ever been in. After the meeting I expressed my concerns with the bishop. He looked at me like I was the devil. The bishop complained to the SP and by the next Sunday I was assigned to a different ward, which suited me fine.

I'm glad you don't emphasize this as a bishop because it is wholly a cultural/economic issue and not a doctrinal one.

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Can someone explain to kilindy why the church uses the term SSA

With the persistent refusal to address the APA's clarification between orientation and identity, the refusal to address science about attraction vs. Identity, quoting a hate website, and now not even having the respect to  address me personally, I'm concluding your motivation is a particularly nasty combination of willful ignorance and intentional deceit in order to protect your fragile narrative of being a victim while also striving to pull as many people into your worldview as possible. 

I get in trouble at work for being too trusting and assuming the best in people. I see I've fallen into that mistake again here. To your credit you can be very convincing that you just want to dialogue and understand. So congratulations for fooling me. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by kllindley

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

I agree that "gay" is a perfectly good general term for labeling people when it is necessary to do so.

But "same sex attraction" is not a label. "Same-sex" labels the attraction and not the person that has the attraction.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I will repeat again.  The church can use whatever term it wants on their web site.  I am only pointing out that a lot of gays find the term SSA offensive.  If you want more examples I will be happy to provide them.

It is my understanding that the church teaches that someone who is attracted to the same sex has Same Sex Attraction (SSA)  Once they act upon that attraction, they are considered gay.  Or is there just no such thing as a gay person.

I understand. But I can't find on the link where it says that, so I'm inviting you to update / inform your understanding (or mine if I overlooked something on the site).

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It still happens. About 6 years ago...

Six years ago seems and awfully long time to quality as "still"...

[CV75]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Can someone explain to kilindy why the church uses the term SSA

"Why Use the Term “Same-Sex Attraction”? Why Not Just Say “Gay”?

"Same-sex  attraction  (SSA)  refers to  emotional,  physical,  romantic,  or  sexual  attraction  to  a  person of the same gender. If you experience same-sex attraction, you may or may not choose to use a sexual orientation label to describe yourself. Either way, same-sex attraction is a technical term  describing  the  experience  without  imposing  a  label.  This  website  uses  this  term  to  be  inclusive  of  people  who  are  not  comfortable  using  a  label,  not  to  deny  the  existence  of  a  gay,  lesbian, or bisexual identity."

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/topics/same-sex-attraction/14416_000_FAQ.pdf

I think you need to get out more...

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Six years ago seems and awfully long time to quality as "still"...

Really? Are you 12? You feel the need to argue about "still".

6 years ago, Barrack Obama was still President

6 years ago, the Big Bang Theory was still my favorite show

6 years ago, Lebron James was still the best player in the NBA

6 years ago ... you get the point. The world doesn't always change dramatically in 6 years.

 

Well- this particular bishop continued to serve as bishop for another 4 years which takes us to just 2 years ago. Is that recent enough to use "still"?

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, kllindley said:

So I'm really curious, do you think I'm gay?

I don't know you so it's tough to answer that but assuming I remember correctly you have stated that you have same-sex attraction.  You also prefer to identify as SSA rather than gay.

For me, SSA, homosexual orientation, and gay are all synonymous.  But I acknowledge your SSA identity and honorable choice to live in a manner that fits your belief system.

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

In an anonymous survey they happily marked "yeah, I;m sexually attracted to other dudes," but were too scared to check the gay, lesbian, or bisexual boxes?

Being gay and identifying as gay are separate things.  There are many examples of gay men who married women and are living a heterosexual lifestyle.  They would consider themselves gay but not identify as gay because that's not the life they are living.

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Why I loath the term 'Same-Sex Attraction' (SSA)

 

And some comments about how gay people feel about the church web site.  Their number one issue??

There are way more comments if you still think the term is not offensive.  I would be happy to continue to copy and past them for you if you enjoy reading these kinds of comments.

 

Thanks for providing those examples.

[Jeanne]

CB..enjoyed the link above and it gave me even a better understanding.  Thank you.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I understand. But I can't find on the link where it says that, so I'm inviting you to update / inform your understanding (or mine if I overlooked something on the site).

I have no problem with that.  Kin is asking why the church uses the term SSA.  I answered him the best to my knowledge.  He is now telling me I am particularly nasty combination of willful ignorance and intentional deceit.  So perhaps someone else can explain why the church uses the term SSA which is clearly offensive to some gays and was the number one negative reaction in people commenting on the site.  The church must have a pretty darn good reason to use such offensive language.

Edited October 28, 2016 by california boy

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

"Why Use the Term “Same-Sex Attraction”? Why Not Just Say “Gay”?

 

"Same-sex  attraction  (SSA)  refers to  emotional,  physical,  romantic,  or  sexual  attraction  to  a  person of the same gender. If you experience same-sex attraction, you may or may not choose to use a sexual orientation label to describe yourself. Either way, same-sex attraction is a technical term  describing  the  experience  without  imposing  a  label.  This  website  uses  this  term  to  be  inclusive  of  people  who  are  not  comfortable  using  a  label,  not  to  deny  the  existence  of  a  gay,  lesbian, or bisexual identity."

 

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/topics/same-sex-attraction/14416_000_FAQ.pdf

I think you need to get out more...

Thank you for clarifying this for us.  So does that mean that the church thinks there are no gays?  Only people with SSA?  

I think part of the problem for the misunderstanding is the church chooses to not only use language that some gays find offensive, they have also use definitions that are not generally understood,  The entire world uses the term gay for people who are attracted to someone of their own gender.  Somehow the church thinks they can use the term SSA and everyone will all the sudden understand why they are using that term.  I am sure I am not the only one that is confused by this approach.  Most people don't live in the church bubble.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

So perhaps someone else can explain why the church uses the term SSA which is clearly offensive to some gays and was the number one negative reaction in people commenting on the site.  The church must have a pretty darn good reason to use such offensive language.

You know why they use it.
It is used to differentiate between the notion that being homosexual is a permanent biological characteristic like race or gender and the idea that being attracted to the same sex is a more psychological condition like many other personality traits.

Is that offensive to many in the LGBT community?  Probably.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You know why they use it.
It is used to differentiate between the notion that being homosexual is a permanent biological characteristic like race or gender and the idea that being attracted to the same sex is a more psychological condition like many other personality traits.

Is that offensive to many in the LGBT community?  Probably.

I thought that the church walked away from the idea that being gay just a psychological condition.  Psychological conditions can change.  Permanent characteristics can not.