MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've explained the objection to you at least a couple times.  

Regarding the quote from LDS.org that you provided:  not everyone agrees with the Church's logic and definitions of these terms. 

Whether everyone agrees with the Church's logic and definition is a matter separate and apart from whether they are reasonable and make good sense -- which they do.
 

Quote

 

If someone identifies as SSA and prefers that term, we ought to use it. 

If someone (or some group) tells you that they find SSA to be an offensive description or label and that they prefer "gay" or "lesbian" we ought respect that. Would you agree?

 

The opposition I have encountered is over  use of the term at all, not just use of it in reference to a specific individual.

[Scott Lloyd]

Computer glitch. Ignore.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Church policy isn't going to change any time soon.  We all have to just be patient and see how all of this plays out.  Most on both sides believe that in 38 years and how many days this will be resolved one way or the other.  Until then, it feels like we are on a repeating loop on this subject.  In the mean time the majority of gay members leave the church and find a happy and fulfilling life outside the gospel.  God doesn't seem to much care about what is happening.  Through all of this, He evidently has been silent.  If God doesn't care, why should we?

Does this mean you are stepping out of the loop on this subject and not allow it to matter to you anymore? I think there is plenty happening in the world that God does care about, and speaks to quite clearly, namely the fundamental principles of our religion, and the appendages, which are the key-driven doctrines, covenants and ordinances that realize in the lives of all who accept them the testimony of the Lord's victory over sin and death.

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've explained the objection to you at least a couple times.  

Regarding the quote from LDS.org that you provided:  not everyone agrees with the Church's logic and definitions of these terms. 

If someone identifies as SSA and prefers that term, we ought to use it. 

If someone (or some group) tells you that they find SSA to be an offensive description or label and that they prefer "gay" or "lesbian" we ought respect that. Would you agree?

Scott knows that the term SSA is offensive to gays.  He likes using the term because the church uses that term.  It is completely in keeping with Scott's world view of life.

I am guessing that the church also knows that the term SSA is offensive to gays.  They don't live in a vacuum  It is just another way the church has found to be offensive to the gay community.  And really, it is not the worse term the church uses towards the gay community.  As others have pointed out, the church likes to fire shots across the bow.  This is just one of those shots.  I don't think the church or Scott cares about showing respect.  That is pretty obvious. If they did, they would have quit using an offensive term towards gays a long time ago.

[california boy]

Just now, CV75 said:

Does this mean you are stepping out of the loop on this subject and not allow it to matter to you anymore? I think there is plenty happening in the world that God does care about, and speaks to quite clearly, namely the fundamental principles of our religion, and the appendages, which are the key-driven doctrines, covenants and ordinances that realize in the lives of all who accept them the testimony of the Lord's victory over sin and death.

I quit worrying about whether or not the church  embraces gay marriage a long time ago.  I have said for a number of years that the church can obviously do whatever it wants on this or any other subject when it comes to their doctrine.  I really don't care what the church does.

That doesn't mean that I don't from time to time point out some of the consequences of the decisions the church makes.  Same goes with the Oct policy.  Of course the church can have such a policy.  But with that policy comes consequences.   I hope I provide a perspective from someone who is gay and a former member.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether everyone agrees with the Church's logic and definition is a matter separate and apart from whether they are reasonable and make good sense -- which they do.
 

The opposition I have encountered is over  use of the term at all, not just use of it in reference to a specific individual.

If someone (or some group) tells you that they find SSA to be an offensive description or label and that they prefer "gay" or "lesbian" we ought respect that. Would you agree?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether everyone agrees with the Church's logic and definition is a matter separate and apart from whether they are reasonable and make good sense -- which they do.
 

The opposition I have encountered is over  use of the term at all, not just use of it in reference to a specific individual.

What it comes down to, is that your disrespect for gays comes through loud and clear.  Why else would you (who is so precise and insistent on others calling people by their proper and respectful terms or titles), continue using a label you now know and have been told numerous times, is offensive?

Edited October 27, 2016 by JulieM

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

What it comes down to, is that your disrespect for gays comes through loud and clear.  Why else would you (who is so precise and insistent on others calling people by their proper and respectful terms or titles), continue using a label you now know and have been told numerous times, is offensive?

Maybe Scott is simply choosing to respect the reality of those of us who experience same-sex attraction as very different from identifying as gay.

Your contempt and disrespect for any person choosing to prioritize Faith and spiritual revelation over sexuality is coming through loud and clear. 

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

If someone (or some group) tells you that they find SSA to be an offensive description or label and that they prefer "gay" or "lesbian" we ought respect that. Would you agree?

I've expressed here that referring to all those who experience same sex attraction as gay is invalidating of my experience. But you continue to insist on doing that with the charitable exception of when you specifically refer to me or others who have made that request. 

Why is that so different from Scott using SSA as a general rule, and honoring individual requests? Should I really point out every time you or any one else uses gay generally because I feel invalidated? 

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Your contempt and disrespect for any person choosing to prioritize Faith and spiritual revelation over sexuality is coming through loud and clear. 

I'm not sure how you think asking Scott  to be respectful is asking him to prioritize sexuality over faith and spirituality.  That makes no sense whatsoever.

[kllindley]

And while I'm here, I'll add that I have seen at least three people deeply, profoundly, and eternally impacted by the policy. 

Research consistently shows that bisexual individuals are 3 to 10 times more common than exclusively homosexual individuals. (Even among individuals who identify as exclusively homosexual!).  

These young men (just three I've know personally, to say nothing of the countless youth who experience some degree of same-sex attraction) cited the policy as a major factor in their decision to choose to focus on their heterosexual potential. They realized the effect it would have not only on them, but on their posterity for generations. In two cases this has led to eternal marriages, which even according to Dehlin's skewed study are likely to succeed due to the bisexuality of the young men. 

But surely no prophet, seer, or revelator could have foreseen something like that! 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I'm not sure how you think asking Scott  to be respectful is asking him to prioritize sexuality over faith and spirituality.  That makes no sense whatsoever.

You want him to stop using the phrase same-sex attraction. But that is the best term for the thousands of us who live happily in the Church and don't identify as gay.  How is that respectful? 

Edited October 27, 2016 by kllindley

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You want him to stop using the phrase same-sex attraction. But that is the best term for the thousands of us who live happily in the Church and don't identify as gay.  How it's that respectful? 

You can speak for yourself of course and request Scott and others to use that phrase for you.  But others have asked that it not be used and find it personally offensive.  Their request and wishes should he respected.  That shouldn't be too hard to do.

Edited October 27, 2016 by JulieM

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You can speak for yourself of course and request Scott and others to use that phrase for you.  But others have asked that it not be used and find it personally offensive.  Their request and wishes should he respected.  That shouldn't be too hard to do.

Their request should but ours shouldn't.  Could you help me understand your reasoning that isn't just what I see as blatant hypocrisy? 

[JulieM]

33 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Their request should but ours shouldn't.  Could you help me understand your reasoning that isn't just what I see as blatant hypocrisy? 

Did you even read what I wrote?  I said you could speak for yourself and request Scott and others to refer to you with that phrase.

But that others find it offensive and have asked it not be used to describe them and then expecting that request to be respected is not "blatant hypocrisy".  

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

And while I'm here, I'll add that I have seen at least three people deeply, profoundly, and eternally impacted by the policy. 

Research consistently shows that bisexual individuals are 3 to 10 times more common than exclusively homosexual individuals. (Even among individuals who identify as exclusively homosexual!).  

These young men (just three I've know personally, to say nothing of the countless youth who experience some degree of same-sex attraction) cited the policy as a major factor in their decision to choose to focus on their heterosexual potential. They realized the effect it would have not only on them, but on their posterity for generations. In two cases this has led to eternal marriages, which even according to Dehlin's skewed study are likely to succeed due to the bisexuality of the young men. 

But surely no prophet, seer, or revelator could have foreseen something like that! 

Thank you for this. 

And I'll say for the record I have profound admiration for those with same-sex attraction who hold it in check out of devotion to God and determination to obey His commandments, whether or not they find themselves able to pursue a heterosexual marriage in mortality. 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Did you even read what I wrote?  I said you could speak for yourself and request Scott and others to refer to you with that phrase.

But that others find it offensive and have asked it not be used to describe them and then expecting that request to be respected is not "blatant hypocrisy".  

 

The problem is when speaking of or to both categories at the same time.  For example on this thread we have klindley who is reading as well as posting who prefers the phrase "same sex attraction" and we have cb who prefers the phrase "gay".  So if Scott uses one phrase because he knows it is preferred by a certain reader/poster, is he automatically disrespecting those posters/readers who prefer the term "gay"?

[Scott Lloyd]

If the motive isn't what I suspect, an ideologically driven desire to blur the distinction between people with same-sex attraction who do act on it and those who don't, why object to the generic use of "same-sex attraction" out of consideration for those who don't want it automatically assumed or implied that everyone who has SSA acts on it?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The problem is when speaking of or to both categories at the same time.  For example on this thread we have klindley who is reading as well as posting who prefers the phrase "same sex attraction" and we have cb who prefers the phrase "gay".  So if Scott uses one phrase because he knows it is preferred by a certain reader/poster, is he automatically disrespecting those posters/readers who prefer the term "gay"?

I have to say I am a bit surprised at you defending this offensive expression. If a black persons told you he had no problem you calling him the n word would that give you or the church a signal that it is ok to call all blacks the n word?  Of course not

have you ever heard a gay group use the terms SSA?  Have you ever seen the press use the term SSA when referring to a gay person? Have you ever heard a politician use the term SSAwhen referring to a gay person?   Actually have you ever heard anyone besides a handful of religious groups use the term SSA when referring to gay people?  Now can you really make the case that gay people might want to be referred to as having SSA?

what you do know is that a lot of gays are offended by that term because they don't consider being gay as some kind of condition   So which term do you really feel is offensive to most gays?

 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the motive isn't what I suspect, an ideologically driven desire to blur the distinction between people with same-sex attraction who do act on it and those who don't, why object to the generic use of "same-sex attraction" out of consideration for those who don't want it automatically assumed or implied that everyone who has SSA acts on it?

I think that has been explained to you numerous times. I know you don't care whether it is offensive or not. Neither does the church. So go ahead. It makes you feel you are doing what the church wants you to do and that is all that matters to you.

I am sure the church will continue using offensive language directed at the gay community.  It is not the most offensive word they throw around to the gay community.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I have to say I am a bit surprised at you defending this offensive expression. If a black persons told you he had no problem you calling him the n word would that give you or the church a signal that it is ok to call all blacks the n word?  Of course not

have you ever heard a gay group use the terms SSA?  Have you ever seen the press use the term SSA when referring to a gay person? Have you ever heard a politician use the term SSAwhen referring to a gay person?   Actually have you ever heard anyone besides a handful of religious groups use the term SSA when referring to gay people?  Now can you really make the case that gay people might want to be referred to as having SSA?

what you do know is that a lot of gays are offended by that term because they don't consider being gay as some kind of condition   So which term do you really feel is offensive to most gays?

I have a couple of homosexual friends who have told me they prefer the term same sex attraction when discussing motivation or behaviour.  Same sex attraction is a behaviour, not a person.  I would use it in the same way I would use teenage attraction, romantic affection, senior sex, etc.

I have had friends who told me they find being called "black" highly offensive as it means they are being identified by the colour of their skin which isn't even black at all, while the individual I talk to next tells me she calls herself black and she wants her friends to use that term.  My memory being what it is, unless I am around a person a lot, I no longer am able to retain which preferences go with which people on pretty much any topic unfortunately.  Makes me avoid some topics or at least keep quiet until I can pick up some hints.pl

I generally develop habits of speech from those who I am around the most and the first homosexual who mentioned a preference preferred "same sex attraction" (iirc he said it didn't carry the baggage the other words did, he was an academic type; perhaps he doesn'tfeel that way anymore, but I am no longer in contact with him) as well as some lesbians back a number of years that felt ignored by gay and homosexual iabels and didn't like to be lumped into those terms or ignored and I saw "same sex" as gender neutral and able to be respectful of their wish to be included under a nonmale label.  I didn't realize it was an issue till much later (don't get out as much as I used to and no longer live or even visit San Francisco where these kinds of discussions were more common when I lived there andwere devoid of religious context for the most part), especially given I saw quite a bit of use of "same sex marriage" by gay and lesbian activists.  Why is same sex marriage acceptable to so many and apparently not same sex attraction? (serious question)

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

  Now can you really make the case that gay people might want to be referred to as having SSA?

So where are those like kllindley in this post?  Are his feelings to be discounted because he sees himself as religious as well as experiencing same sex/homosexual attraction?

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, kllindley said:

I've expressed here that referring to all those who experience same sex attraction as gay is invalidating of my experience. But you continue to insist on doing that with the charitable exception of when you specifically refer to me or others who have made that request. 

Why is that so different from Scott using SSA as a general rule, and honoring individual requests? Should I really point out every time you or any one else uses gay generally because I feel invalidated? 

I've made no such insistence.  

My question here is if Scott would honor individual requests. 

And if I say something that makes you feel invalidated, I would appreciate it if you would let me know. 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I quit worrying about whether or not the church  embraces gay marriage a long time ago.  I have said for a number of years that the church can obviously do whatever it wants on this or any other subject when it comes to their doctrine.  I really don't care what the church does.

That doesn't mean that I don't from time to time point out some of the consequences of the decisions the church makes.  Same goes with the Oct policy.  Of course the church can have such a policy.  But with that policy comes consequences.   I hope I provide a perspective from someone who is gay and a former member.  

So you're not stepping out of the loop as you suggested "we" do. OK! You are not patiently waiting to see how this plays out after all, despite having found found a happy and fulfilling life outside the gospel, and not having any reason to care about what the Church does. What kind of perspective is it to speak out of both sides of the mouth?

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've made no such insistence.  

My question here is if Scott would honor individual requests. 

And if I say something that makes you feel invalidated, I would appreciate it if you would let me know. 

My gay friends and I have far bigger fish to fry. This is goofy.