MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

To do so would open up so many doctrinal cans of worms I don't think they will ever walk away from that completely.
 

Edited October 28, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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"?

If the world hasn't changed that much, why don't you have a more recent example (whether this bishop changed his mind or not)?

[Oliver_Cowdery]

16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Why does the term same sex attraction matter so much?

Even if one disagrees with another's ideas, it is generally good idea to respect their identity and accord them basic respect for how they'd like to be addressed.

The Old Testament law required an eye for an eye.

In the New Testament, Jesus said to treat other's like you'd like to be treated.

But there is still yet a higher standard of morality.  I discovered it when I left religion but I hope we can all be striving towards it.  It is not enough to treat other like you'd like to be treated.  It is better still to treat others as they would prefer to be treated.

 

[Daniel2]

On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 7:56 AM, kllindley said:

Now that marriage equality is settled, researchers are actually starting to investigate the reality of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and sexual identity. Mainstream researchers and it is widely accepted that identity is not directly correlated with attraction.  

Yet some (a subset of the 1.7 % of self identified gays and lesbians) are still stuck in a mentality where they interpret everything and anything from a perspective of outraged, persecuted victims.  This does nothing to advance our cause. 

I'm confused by your first sentence... Researchers have been investigating "the reality of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and sexual identity" for decades...  So, the comment that they're starting to do so "now that marriage equality is settled" seems inaccurate to me.

Additionally, can you please provide references (CFR) for your assertion that "Mainstream researchers and it is widely accepted that identity is not directly correlated with attraction"....?  I'm not arguing otherwise (at least, not yet...), but I would like to understand a bit more of what your suggesting by that statement.

I agree that it's unhelpful to any cause to be "stuck in a mentality where one interprets everything and anything from a perspective of outraged, persecuted victims.

It appears that by using the "subset of the 1.7%" is data you're quoting from somewhere... so it would probably help if you provided some of those sources.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours 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

 

Thank  you for posting this.

It's a reasonable statement that  encapsulates my position. And why I refuse to be browbeaten into ceasing to use it.

"...describing the experience without imposing a label." I still don't see why anyone should have a problem with that -- unless they insist on imposing the label on anyone who has the experience, whether those having the experience like it or not.

To those who object to the generic use of this clinical term, why do you want to impose an identity label on everyone who has this experience whether they want the label or not?

 

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

  It is not enough to treat other like you'd like to be treated.  It is better still to treat others as they would prefer to be treated.

 

OK, then why insist on imposing an identity label (gay or lesbian) on those who don't want it?

Edited October 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Oliver_Cowdery]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK, then why insist on imposing an identity label (gay or lesbian) on those who don't want it?

I wouldn't do that.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank  you for posting this.

It's a reasonable statement that  encapsulates my position. And why I refuse to be browbeaten into ceasing to use it.

"...describing the experience without imposing a label." I still don't see why anyone should have a problem with that -- unless they insist on imposing the label on anyone who has the experience, whether those having the experience like it or not.

To those who object to the generic use of this clinical term, why do you want to impose an identity label on everyone who has this experience whether they want the label or not?

Hopefully those who object have an open mind and listen to reason after asking about or challenging it. 

Have a great weekend; see you next week!

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank  you for posting this.

It's a reasonable statement that  encapsulates my position. And why I refuse to be browbeaten into ceasing to use it.

"...describing the experience without imposing a label." I still don't see why anyone should have a problem with that -- unless they insist on imposing the label on anyone who has the experience, whether those having the experience like it or not.

To those who object to the generic use of this clinical term, why do you want to impose an identity label on everyone who has this experience whether they want the label or not?

 

 

First, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've used/heard both terms interchangeably, depending the audience. But I do think it's important to know the context of a word and an identity to understand the weight of the word used for a minority group/community. For LGB folks the context of the term is a history of being viewed as having sometime inherently wrong with them. This entailed legal discrimination, psychological labeling, religious condemnation, hate crimes, social isolation, etc. so a lot of the lgbt identity is often centered around narratives of accepting oneself and learning to love oneself and be ones full true self in society. It entails pushing back culturally and personally on messages that label them as inherently deficient/unacceptable in some way. And though same sex attraction is technically descriptive of the experience. The language is bulky and more likely to be used from an age and time where who they were was medicalized and ergo stigmatized. Part of the struggle of any minority identity is having ones identity be seen and known as the minority sees themselves. There are often clashes as to what that means, parameters, and how others picture them. And words/labels have power to paint the picture.

Even using the term SSA is having minor transformations. For example I've heard people say "this person has ssa" similar in terms as this person "has depression." It often follows those that see something inherently wrong with ssa or are more likely to make parallels to disorders, addictions, sexual variant behaviors, etc. instead there's move to say "they experience SSA" and to give any comparisons more neutral or at least compassionate experiences that are just part of life. 

I'm not LGBT, but I do get the power of labels and the desire for self-determination in how you are seen and understood in the world. I get the irritation of having another describe you in terms you are jot comfortable with. Like I've said, I've used both terms interchangeably, depending. The depending part is on who I was talking to. For CB who ID's as a gay man, I would never say CB experiences SSA because that's not how he describes himself and it feels like I'm dishonoring his personal journey and experience. For my friends who don't ID as LGB but experience SSA I wouldn't place a label on them they didn't want because again it's dishonoring their experience and journey. I can understand the church's use because they're more likely to have a more mixed group that will label differently and more, proportionately, who will not be comfortable with an LGB description. But insisting on using a label for a group or person who doesn't want that description after they've stated so to me just seems disrespectful. I hate when people do it to me. So I'm not about to do it to another. 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by BlueDreams

[california boy]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

First, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've used/heard both terms interchangeably, depending the audience. But I do think it's important to know the context of a word and an identity to understand the weight of the word used for a minority group/community. For LGB folks the context of the term is a history of being viewed as having sometime inherently wrong with them. This entailed legal discrimination, psychological labeling, religious condemnation, hate crimes, social isolation, etc. so a lot of the lgbt identity is often centered around narratives of accepting oneself and learning to love oneself and be ones full true self in society. It entails pushing back culturally and personally on messages that label them as inherently deficient/unacceptable in some way. And though same sex attraction is technically descriptive of the experience. The language is bulky and more likely to be used from an age and time where who they were was medicalized and ergo stigmatized. Part of the struggle of any minority identity is having ones identity be seen and known as the minority sees themselves. There are often clashes as to what that means, parameters, and how others picture them. And words/labels have power to paint the picture.

Even using the term SSA is having minor transformations. For example I've heard people say "this person has ssa" similar in terms as this person "has depression." It often follows those that see something inherently wrong with ssa or are more likely to make parallels to disorders, addictions, sexual variant behaviors, etc. instead there's move to say "they experience SSA" and to give any comparisons more neutral or at least compassionate experiences that are just part of life. 

I'm not LGBT, but I do get the power of labels and the desire for self-determination in how you are seen and understood in the world. I get the irritation of having another describe you in terms you are jot comfortable with. Like I've said, I've used both terms interchangeably, depending. The depending part is on who I was talking to. For CB who ID's as a gay man, I would never say CB experiences SSA because that's not how he describes himself and it feels like I'm dishonoring his personal journey and experience. For my friends who don't ID as LGB but experience SSA I wouldn't place a label on them they didn't want because again it's dishonoring their experience and journey. I can understand the church's use because they're more likely to have a more mixed group that will label differently and more, proportionately, who will not be comfortable with an LGB description. But insisting on using a label for a group or person who doesn't want that description after they've stated so to me just seems disrespectful. I hate when people do it to me. So I'm not about to do it to another. 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

You summed up my feelings exactly. I have absolutely no problem saying someone in the church that is trying to be celibate and active in the church as being or having SSA. But that is mostly because the church has put that label on them and the one they are most comfortable with. For a lot of people outside the church it is an offensive term for the very reasons you have written. That certainly becomes apparent in the comments that I posted about the website.  How one uses that knowledge after it has been explained to them is largely determined by what kind of person they are and how they wish to treat others. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

But insisting on using a label for a group or person who doesn't want that description after they've stated so to me just seems disrespectful. I hate when people do it to me. So I'm not about to do it to another. 

This.  You summed up perfectly what so many were trying to get a few here to understand.

Edited October 29, 2016 by JulieM

[VideoGameJunkie]

I don't see how being called same sex attraction instead of being called gay would hurt more than being called a Mormon instead of being called a Latter day Saint.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't see how being called same sex attraction instead of being called gay would hurt more than being called a Mormon instead of being called a Latter day Saint.

Read the quotes I posted on the previous page.

[kllindley]

On 10/28/2016 at 0:29 PM, Daniel2 said:

I'm confused by your first sentence... Researchers have been investigating "the reality of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and sexual identity" for decades...  So, the comment that they're starting to do so "now that marriage equality is settled" seems inaccurate to me.

Additionally, can you please provide references (CFR) for your assertion that "Mainstream researchers and it is widely accepted that identity is not directly correlated with attraction"....?  I'm not arguing otherwise (at least, not yet...), but I would like to understand a bit more of what your suggesting by that statement.

I agree that it's unhelpful to any cause to be "stuck in a mentality where one interprets everything and anything from a perspective of outraged, persecuted victims.

It appears that by using the "subset of the 1.7%" is data you're quoting from somewhere... so it would probably help if you provided some of those 

The point was that previous research had been politically motivated and as a matter of public record research deemed a threat to political goals was suppressed.  It is amazing how in the last year they're had been so much "new" research on fluidity and identity vs orientation.  

 

I am willing to find and cite the studies I reference, but most of it can be found on the APA webpage. I have cited these sources on previous threads with you.  I don't have the time to repeat the process of me citing and then you ignoring my response and I sincerely question what good it would do. I have tried to share and explain my perspective and I truly don't feel that most in this conversation are even participating in good faith. They don't read responses or answer sincere questions.  Like I said earlier, I am generally pretty trusting, but after getting burned so many times. . . Maybe I need to learn my lesson and focus my time and efforts on more constructive conversations. 

I believe it was you who referred to the Mormon discussion 4 part podcast as a fair look at what "science" says. So I listened and even kept a list of logical errors, omitted studies, misrepresented studies, biased emotional charge words, etc.  If that is anywhere near your views, you've already made up your mind.  

Edited October 30, 2016 by kllindley

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

First, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've used/heard both terms interchangeably, depending the audience. But I do think it's important to know the context of a word and an identity to understand the weight of the word used for a minority group/community. For LGB folks the context of the term is a history of being viewed as having sometime inherently wrong with them. This entailed legal discrimination, psychological labeling, religious condemnation, hate crimes, social isolation, etc. so a lot of the lgbt identity is often centered around narratives of accepting oneself and learning to love oneself and be ones full true self in society. It entails pushing back culturally and personally on messages that label them as inherently deficient/unacceptable in some way. And though same sex attraction is technically descriptive of the experience. The language is bulky and more likely to be used from an age and time where who they were was medicalized and ergo stigmatized. Part of the struggle of any minority identity is having ones identity be seen and known as the minority sees themselves. There are often clashes as to what that means, parameters, and how others picture them. And words/labels have power to paint the picture.

Even using the term SSA is having minor transformations. For example I've heard people say "this person has ssa" similar in terms as this person "has depression." It often follows those that see something inherently wrong with ssa or are more likely to make parallels to disorders, addictions, sexual variant behaviors, etc. instead there's move to say "they experience SSA" and to give any comparisons more neutral or at least compassionate experiences that are just part of life. 

I'm not LGBT, but I do get the power of labels and the desire for self-determination in how you are seen and understood in the world. I get the irritation of having another describe you in terms you are jot comfortable with. Like I've said, I've used both terms interchangeably, depending. The depending part is on who I was talking to. For CB who ID's as a gay man, I would never say CB experiences SSA because that's not how he describes himself and it feels like I'm dishonoring his personal journey and experience. For my friends who don't ID as LGB but experience SSA I wouldn't place a label on them they didn't want because again it's dishonoring their experience and journey. I can understand the church's use because they're more likely to have a more mixed group that will label differently and more, proportionately, who will not be comfortable with an LGB description. But insisting on using a label for a group or person who doesn't want that description after they've stated so to me just seems disrespectful. I hate when people do it to me. So I'm not about to do it to another. 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Thanks for this.  As always, your posts are full of compassion, understanding and reason.  

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

First, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've used/heard both terms interchangeably, depending the audience. But I do think it's important to know the context of a word and an identity to understand the weight of the word used for a minority group/community. For LGB folks the context of the term is a history of being viewed as having sometime inherently wrong with them. This entailed legal discrimination, psychological labeling, religious condemnation, hate crimes, social isolation, etc. so a lot of the lgbt identity is often centered around narratives of accepting oneself and learning to love oneself and be ones full true self in society. It entails pushing back culturally and personally on messages that label them as inherently deficient/unacceptable in some way. And though same sex attraction is technically descriptive of the experience. The language is bulky and more likely to be used from an age and time where who they were was medicalized and ergo stigmatized. Part of the struggle of any minority identity is having ones identity be seen and known as the minority sees themselves. There are often clashes as to what that means, parameters, and how others picture them. And words/labels have power to paint the picture.

Even using the term SSA is having minor transformations. For example I've heard people say "this person has ssa" similar in terms as this person "has depression." It often follows those that see something inherently wrong with ssa or are more likely to make parallels to disorders, addictions, sexual variant behaviors, etc. instead there's move to say "they experience SSA" and to give any comparisons more neutral or at least compassionate experiences that are just part of life. 

I'm not LGBT, but I do get the power of labels and the desire for self-determination in how you are seen and understood in the world. I get the irritation of having another describe you in terms you are jot comfortable with. Like I've said, I've used both terms interchangeably, depending. The depending part is on who I was talking to. For CB who ID's as a gay man, I would never say CB experiences SSA because that's not how he describes himself and it feels like I'm dishonoring his personal journey and experience. For my friends who don't ID as LGB but experience SSA I wouldn't place a label on them they didn't want because again it's dishonoring their experience and journey. I can understand the church's use because they're more likely to have a more mixed group that will label differently and more, proportionately, who will not be comfortable with an LGB description. But insisting on using a label for a group or person who doesn't want that description after they've stated so to me just seems disrespectful. I hate when people do it to me. So I'm not about to do it to another. 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Thank you. 

You said you had heard and used both terms interchangeably depending on the audience. It has been stated or implied here that Mormons along with members of a few other conservative religious groups are the only ones who use the phrase same-sex attraction. Has your experience borne that out?

Further, my understanding is and has been that, rather than being a label, it is a technical term describing an experience. So that raises the question: If this  is not acceptable for generic use as a technical description of the experience, what is, bearing in mind that gay or lesbian are labels that not all accept for themselves due to the associated behavioral connotations?

 

Edited October 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

You summed up my feelings exactly. I have absolutely no problem saying someone in the church that is trying to be celibate and active in the church as being or having SSA.

Why do you limit your allowance to those who are "in the Church" and "trying to be celibate and active in the Church"?

You seem by implication to reject any possibility that there are non-Mormons with same-sex attraction who reject the gay or lesbian label for themselves because of the associated connotation. And why would they have to be "trying to be celibate"? One of the important messages from gayandmormon.org and other content provided by the Church is that there are varied conditions and that some who experience same-sex attraction also have hetero-sexual attraction, conceivably to the point that they could build a fulfilling marriage and have a family based on such attraction.

[kllindley]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you limit your allowance to those who are "in the Church" and "trying to be celibate and active in the Church"?

You seem by implication to reject any possibility that there are non-Mormons with same-sex attraction who reject the gay or lesbian label for themselves because of the associated connotation. And why would they have to be "trying to be celibate"? One of the important messages from gayandmormon.org and other content provided by the Church is that there are varied conditions and that some who experience same-sex attraction also have hetero-sexual attraction, conceivably to the point that they could build a fulfilling marriage and have a family based on such attraction.

Scott, what's funny is that there are an estimated 2 million "mixed orientation marriages"  in the US right now - not all of those can be Mormons!.  Maybe I'm wrong about the intent of some of the commenters here, and they really are blinded by their own biases.  Given the data on sexual attraction, orientation, behavior, and identity, (and the fluidity of each of those!), it really is sad to see people clinging so tightly to a false narrative that they have repeated so many times, they believe is true.  (Though, I'm sure they say the same thing about us crazy believers--the difference to me is that for the most part we are able to acknowledge where we exercise faith and base our beliefs and respect that others may not accept some of those foundational beliefs.) 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you limit your allowance to those who are "in the Church" and "trying to be celibate and active in the Church"?

You seem by implication to reject any possibility that there are non-Mormons with same-sex attraction who reject the gay or lesbian label for themselves because of the associated connotation. And why would they have to be "trying to be celibate"? One of the important messages from gayandmormon.org and other content provided by the Church is that there are varied conditions and that some who experience same-sex attraction also have hetero-sexual attraction, conceivably to the point that they could build a fulfilling marriage and have a family based on such attraction.

I didn't say anything about limiting this to those who are in the church.  

I hesitate to make this post because my post seem to irritate you more than help explain the issues being brought up.  If you aren't interested in my point of view, feel free to just ignore my post. So here goes.

I think the thing that the church has chosen to do is to play this little game with words.  They use the term SSA as a label for those that are gay, but doesn't like to use the term gay. As I understand it, they feel the label gay implies a lifestyle choice connected with the identification as gay.  What I have been saying is that most people do not make that same distinction.  The two terms have no distinction between them.  Someone who is gay is attracted to their same sex.  They don't have "SSA" as if it is something different than being gay.  They simply refer themselves as being gay or lesbian.  That is the preferred term to use when someone is attracted to their same sex.  Fortunately, the church seems to be moving away from this kind of divisive terminology.

 If you google the term gay and lesbian, you get over two billion hits. If you google Same Sex Attraction, you only get about 2.6 million.  Yet the church prefers to use Same Sex Attraction rather then the more accepted term gay.  The media rarely uses the term Same Sex Attraction to describe someone who is gay.

 

[BlueDreams]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you. 

You said you had heard and used both terms interchangeably depending on the audience. It has been stated or implied here that Mormons along with members of a few other conservative religious groups are the only ones who use the phrase same-sex attraction. Has your experience borne that out?

Further, my understanding is and has been that, rather than being a label, it is a technical term describing an experience. So that raises the question: If this  is not acceptable for generic use as a technical description of the experience, what is, bearing in mind that gay or lesbian are labels that not all accept for themselves due to the associated behavioral connotations?

 

I live surrounded by mormons for most of my adult life and went to BYU. So it's hard to get a picture of outside of this subset. Even within the subset the term I hear most among my generation is still gay, bi, or lesbian. But I would err on the side of saying yes. You could test this out with google and searching "same-sex attraction" and you'll notice that basically all of the references, both in the news and the general search come from conservative religious sources. The times that I've heard SSA used were usually more therapy related settings and/or when I attended a couple of LDS LGBT/SSA conferences, such as northstar. On google scholar, out of curiosity, I googled SSA, LGBT, and homosexuality references since 2012 to see what terms were used more. Homosexuality was used slightly more (~23K), LGBT was second (~22K), and SSA last (16K). So even in the research world, it's not used as much as the other two terms. The growing trend, from what I've heard (emphasis heard....don't know the prevalence), among younger people who experience diverse attractions is to go without labels period.     

SSA can be both a label and a technical description, depending. 

And there isn't one perfect overarching label. That's the point of following the individual's lead. In circumstances where there are a group of people comfortable with a range of labels, usually the more apt presenters I've seen acknowledge the variations of personal identity (LGBTQ, experiencing SSA, Preferring nothing, etc) and then sticking to one (usually LGBT, if that's the case) or interchanging depending on context of what they're saying or who's experience they're describing. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 30, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Nofear]

Gosh, all this talk of LGBT vs SSA. Both are behind the ''times'' and both are, of coure, needlessly discriminatory.

From 2014: http://now.org/blog/now-updates-acronym-lgbtqia/

But maybe it really should be LGBTQIAH to be inclusive of that minority of hetero folk too.

Here is a handy diagram to see what is involved:

Edited October 30, 2016 by Nofear

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 11:42 AM, CV75 said:

If the world hasn't changed that much, why don't you have a more recent example (whether this bishop changed his mind or not)?

Well...I can't really control when I have certain experiences. I'm sorry that my experience from 6 years ago doesn't meet your requirements. Actually, no I'm not.

Also, if you read my posts you know that this bishop continued teaching these same things until he was released 2 years ago. (2 years is more recent than 6 in case you were confused). But the particular experience I was sharing was 6 years ago. You are acting mighty petty on this issue.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Well...I can't really control when I have certain experiences. I'm sorry that my experience from 6 years ago doesn't meet your requirements. Actually, no I'm not.

Also, if you read my posts you know that this bishop continued teaching these same things until he was released 2 years ago. (2 years is more recent than 6 in case you were confused). But the particular experience I was sharing was 6 years ago. You are acting mighty petty on this issue.

Just yankin' your chain... Happy Halloween!

[JLHPROF]

20 hours ago, Nofear said:

Gosh, all this talk of LGBT vs SSA. Both are behind the ''times'' and both are, of coure, needlessly discriminatory.

From 2014: http://now.org/blog/now-updates-acronym-lgbtqia/

But maybe it really should be LGBTQIAH to be inclusive of that minority of hetero folk too.

Here is a handy diagram to see what is involved:

[Daniel2]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 3:15 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

To those who object to the generic use of this clinical term, why do you want to impose an identity label on everyone who has this experience whether they want the label or not?

In answer to the above, Scott, several of us have said that we are happy to use the term "SSA" when referring to individuals who use it to self-identify, while asking for the same consideration, in return.  My earlier post on page two of this thread said as much:

"From my perspective so far as minimizing an "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to what we call one another, the most inclusive stance is to acknowledge and respect the labels that each one of us chooses as important and valuable for ourselves.  That's why, when I meet someone who self identifies by saying "I have SSA," that's the term I use when discussing their sexual attractions/identity with them, regardless of my own feelings on the matter.  I appreciate it when others do the same with me.  To me, that's the inclusive 'win/win.' "

I echo BlueDream's similar approach earlier on this same page:

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 5:30 PM, BlueDreams said:

I'm not LGBT, but I do get the power of labels and the desire for self-determination in how you are seen and understood in the world. I get the irritation of having another describe you in terms you are jot comfortable with. Like I've said, I've used both terms interchangeably, depending. The depending part is on who I was talking to. For CB who ID's as a gay man, I would never say CB experiences SSA because that's not how he describes himself and it feels like I'm dishonoring his personal journey and experience. For my friends who don't ID as LGB but experience SSA I wouldn't place a label on them they didn't want because again it's dishonoring their experience and journey. I can understand the church's use because they're more likely to have a more mixed group that will label differently and more, proportionately, who will not be comfortable with an LGB description. But insisting on using a label for a group or person who doesn't want that description after they've stated so to me just seems disrespectful. I hate when people do it to me. So I'm not about to do it to another. 

 

With luv,

BD