Groundbreakng Same Sex Survey for Same Sex Mormons

[Darren10]

Here a new approach to survey Mormons with same sex attraction. It was formulated by people of different backgrounds as to establish some sort of balance on the topic. 

Quote

He continues, "The study seeks to understand the profiles of individuals in a number of different relationship statuses, but within that we really want to better understand how people do single or mixed-orientation marriage in the healthiest way possible. There isn’t a lot of research that helps us to understand the differences between why some are healthy and thrive being single and why some really struggle, or why some have healthy, thriving mixed-orientation marriages and why others struggle or end in divorce. The more we can understand about these life options, the better information we can have as we’re seeking to help Latter-day Saints who want to stay committed to their gospel covenants understand how they can do so in the healthiest, most resilient way possible."

In addition, the study can help family members of those experiencing same-sex attraction better understand what their loved ones are experiencing and better understand their life choices."[We] hope the results can help friends and family be more informed and supportive of same-sex attracted family and church members," Beckstead says. "The results overall have the potential to reduce potential fears, prejudice, and shame related to experiencing same-sex attractions."

And apparently there are already some positive results of feeling more empowered to talk about Mormons with same sex attractions. 

Groundbreaking Study Seeks to Support Mormons Experiencing Same-Sex Attraction

 

[kllindley]

20 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Here a new approach to survey Mormons with same sex attraction. It was formulated by people of different backgrounds as to establish some sort of balance on the topic. 

And apparently there are already some positive results of feeling more empowered to talk about Mormons with same sex attractions. 

This is phenomenal work. It has taken thousands and thousands of hours on the parts of the researches to achieve some common ground and mutual respect. They have already published some guidelines and recommendations.

I'm excited to see what the data shows. Thanks for sharing this. 

[Calm]

The survey is here, includes the authors, they have extended it until June 11

http://4optionssurvey.com/

Authors are here:

http://4optionssurvey.com/authors/

Edited June 3, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

This is a self selected survey.  Who takes it is going to skew the results a lot.  Not sure how reliable the data is that is being collected other than how people feel who took the survey.  It is also quite a long survey.  Takes over an hour to fill it out.  If you don't really care about how the church feels about this issue, it is hard to see how that group is going to bother with doing the survey.

I am not saying that it is not an interesting survey.  I am just saying that I question how the data could be reliably used.

[cinepro]

18 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Here a new approach to survey Mormons with same sex attraction. It was formulated by people of different backgrounds as to establish some sort of balance on the topic. 

And apparently there are already some positive results of feeling more empowered to talk about Mormons with same sex attractions. 

Groundbreaking Study Seeks to Support Mormons Experiencing Same-Sex Attraction

 

The most interesting thing is the razor-sharp line they are walking on semantics.  People don't "have" same-sex attraction (so you wouldn't say "Mormons with same sex attraction").  No, to be specific, they must always say "experience same-sex attraction."  And people are never actually "gay" or "lesbian" (or etc.)  They only identify as such.

So instead of saying it's a survey for "LGB+ Mormons", it's a survey for "Mormons who experience same-sex attractions and identify as LGB+." 

I guess if we never admit that peoples' same-sex attractions are usually a core part of their identity, the problem might go away.  At least now I understand that I'm just a person who experiences different-sex attractions and identifies as heterosexual.  Hopefully I won't wake up tomorrow and find it's changed.

Of course, from what I've seen people are much more likely to change their religion than their "attractions", so from now on I'll be identifying myself and fellow Church members as "people experiencing Mormon feelings" and those who "identify as Latter-day Saint."

Edited June 3, 2017 by cinepro

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

The most interesting thing is the razor-sharp line they are walking on semantics.  People don't "have" same-sex attraction (so you wouldn't say "Mormons with same sex attraction").  No, to be specific, they must always say "experience same-sex attraction."  And people are never actually "gay" or "lesbian" (or etc.)  They only identify as such.

So instead of saying it's a survey for "LGB+ Mormons", it's a survey for "Mormons who experience same-sex attractions and identify as LGB+." 

I guess if we never admit that peoples' same-sex attractions are usually a core part of their identity, the problem might go away.  At least now I understand that I'm just a person who experiences different-sex attractions and identifies as heterosexual.  Hopefully I won't wake up tomorrow and find it's changed.

Of course, from what I've seen people are much more likely to change their religion than their "attractions", so from now on I'll be identifying myself and fellow Church members as "people experiencing Mormon feelings" and those who "identify as Latter-day Saint."

My take is that gay rights activists have for very long controlled the semantics over the issue of homosexuality. It's not "gay marriage" but "marriage equality". It's not a choice of being gay but who one is/born with. This razir sharp semantics you identified I think is only an offshoot or extension of that, is it not? If new semantics help discussions than so be it and I do hope this new study leads to positive results. It may or may not. 

[california boy]

43 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

My take is that gay rights activists have for very long controlled the semantics over the issue of homosexuality. It's not "gay marriage" but "marriage equality". It's not a choice of being gay but who one is/born with. This razir sharp semantics you identified I think is only an offshoot or extension of that, is it not? If new semantics help discussions than so be it and I do hope this new study leads to positive results. It may or may not. 

Actually, it is the other way around.  The church has tried desperately to control a narrative that is just not there.  Very few people outside the church and a handful of other conservative christians refer to someone who is gay as having same sex attraction.  Actually very few people outside the church have even heard the term same sex attraction.  Just Google Same Sex Attraction, definition and see what you get.  The church itself doesn't even refer to someone as having opposite sex attraction.  It is only the gays that get singled. out.  

Marriage equality means just that.  Everyone is treated equally under the laws of this country.  Gays didn't get the right to marry because they are gay.  They got the right to marry because equal protection under the laws is a civil right.  

 

[Calm]

While I understand that "same sex attraction" is not seen as an appropriate description, I don't get the intensity of rejection considering everyone uses "same sex marriage"more often than "homosexual marriage" these days even when "opposite sex marriage" isn't used from what I have seen.

If you are going to reject the first, why not the second?

Edited June 4, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

While I understand that "same sex attraction" is not seen as an appropriate description, I don't get the intensity of rejection considering everyone uses "same sex marriage"more often than "homosexual marriage" these days even when "opposite sex marriage" isn't used from what I have seen.

If you are going to reject the first, why not the second?

Well at least you can see why the term same sex attraction is not really used outside of some religions and is quite offensive to some people who view it as a label that is trying to impose a ideology on a group that is not shared by them.  The whole reason the church uses the term same sex attraction is because they used to believe more than they do now that it was just a phase that with enough prayer and marrying a woman, a guy would get over it.  Even the church doesn't believe that any more.  And to the church's credit, they have started moving away from that term and actually using the word gay.  That is a big shift that has only happened in the past couple of years.

When you talk about same sex attraction, it is referring to how a church views it's ideology as it relates to an individual.  It is trying to impose it's ideology on a person who may not want that ideology placed upon them.  The person views themselve as gay and that is not going to change no matter what a religion wants to think.  

When you refer to same sex marriage, it refers to an institution or relationship.  There is a difference between an individual and a relationship.  You can't describe an individual as having same sex attraction when it implies that can change.  You can describe a relationship as being a same sex relationship because the relationship will always be with the same sex.  One of the individuals is not going to all the sudden change into the opposite sex.  Does that help?

[Calm]

"The whole reason the church uses the term same sex attraction is because they used to believe more than they do now that it was just a phase that with enough prayer and marrying a woman, a guy would get over"

"Homosexual" means the same thing as "same sex".

Why would "same sex" mean something temporary if "homosexual" did not?

Would you find the use of "same sex love" to be offensive?

I am not trying to argue, just curious about the reasoning.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Calm

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Actually, it is the other way around.  The church has tried desperately to control a narrative that is just not there.  Very few people outside the church and a handful of other conservative christians refer to someone who is gay as having same sex attraction.  Actually very few people outside the church have even heard the term same sex attraction.  Just Google Same Sex Attraction, definition and see what you get.  The church itself doesn't even refer to someone as having opposite sex attraction.  It is only the gays that get singled. out.  

Marriage equality means just that.  Everyone is treated equally under the laws of this country.  Gays didn't get the right to marry because they are gay.  They got the right to marry because equal protection under the laws is a civil right.  

 

Gay activists and the LDS Church both serve it's own specific agenda, correct? 

Now, how come same sex marriage was routinely shot down by American voters yet marriage equality routinely accepted? It used to be that marriage equality was associated with same sex marriage and rejected but now that same sex marriage is associated with marriage equality, it is accepted. And certainly you do nit recognize all marriages as equal and thus deserving if equal protection. Here in Texas there is an effort to raise the minimal age to marry consent up to 18. It's currently allowed as low as 14 with oarental consent and 18 and older eithout parental consent. Do you oppose that effort? 

[Darren10]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

The most interesting thing is the razor-sharp line they are walking on semantics.  People don't "have" same-sex attraction (so you wouldn't say "Mormons with same sex attraction").  No, to be specific, they must always say "experience same-sex attraction."  And people are never actually "gay" or "lesbian" (or etc.)  They only identify as such.

So instead of saying it's a survey for "LGB+ Mormons", it's a survey for "Mormons who experience same-sex attractions and identify as LGB+." 

I guess if we never admit that peoples' same-sex attractions are usually a core part of their identity, the problem might go away.  At least now I understand that I'm just a person who experiences different-sex attractions and identifies as heterosexual.  Hopefully I won't wake up tomorrow and find it's changed.

Of course, from what I've seen people are much more likely to change their religion than their "attractions", so from now on I'll be identifying myself and fellow Church members as "people experiencing Mormon feelings" and those who "identify as Latter-day Saint."

Here's from the LDS.org:

Quote

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

I guess then , by the same standard, you can identify as Mor on without participating in church functions. Would gou say that this is accurate? 

[Calm]

CB:  "with same sex attraction"

So you would view this usage as allowing for permanent attributes since you seem to see "experience same sex attraction" as meaning something different since you contrast the phrasings?

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

Gay activists and the LDS Church both serve it's own specific agenda, correct? 

Now, how come same sex marriage was routinely shot down by American voters yet marriage equality routinely accepted? It used to be that marriage equality was associated with same sex marriage and rejected but now that same sex marriage is associated with marriage equality, it is accepted. And certainly you do nit recognize all marriages as equal and thus deserving if equal protection. Here in Texas there is an effort to raise the minimal age to marry consent up to 18. It's currently allowed as low as 14 with oarental consent and 18 and older eithout parental consent. Do you oppose that effort? 

We are talking about two different things.  So let me address the first one.  Same Sex Attraction is a term that is not used by the general public.  It is a term only used by the Mormon church and a few other fundamental christian churches.  So it has nothing to do with what gay activists do or say.  We are talking about virtually everyone not using that term.  

As for gay marriage or marriage equality, I guess now it is time for a little civics lesson.  Voters can vote on anything that is put on the ballot whether it is constitutional or not. However if voters vote on something that is against the constitution of the United States, then the injured party has the right to bring it before our court system.  That is exactly why the court system acts as a check and balance.  It protects those rights guaranteed by the Constitution,

I think you know the rest.  Starting with Prop 8, the restriction on gay couples from marrying was deemed unconstitutional by the federal courts.  Subsequently law suits in every state that had passed such laws by vote were challenged in the federal court system.  In virtually every court that gay marriage was heard, it was ruled constitutional on legal grounds.  This, as you know, was finally challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.  It also ruled gay marriage as civil right guaranteed by the constitution.  

This had NOTHING to do with what gay marriage was called by the press, those supporting it or those against it.  The marriage itself was ruled a civil right under the 14th amendment of equal protection clause.  Therefore, in fact, the courts literally ruled on marriage equality.  What it was called was not ruled a civil right.  You can continue to call it anything you want.  

 

[california boy]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

"The whole reason the church uses the term same sex attraction is because they used to believe more than they do now that it was just a phase that with enough prayer and marrying a woman, a guy would get over"

"Homosexual" means the same thing as "same sex".

Why would "same sex" mean something temporary if "homosexual" did not?

Would you find the use of "same sex love" to be offensive?

Perhaps to answer that, you can first tell me why you think the church was so adamant for so many years in not using the term gay but insisted on the term same sex attraction.  Especially since it is a term that virtually everyone else doesn't use.

Edited June 4, 2017 by california boy

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

The most interesting thing is the razor-sharp line they are walking on semantics.  People don't "have" same-sex attraction (so you wouldn't say "Mormons with same sex attraction").  No, to be specific, they must always say "experience same-sex attraction."  And people are never actually "gay" or "lesbian" (or etc.)  They only identify as such.

So instead of saying it's a survey for "LGB+ Mormons", it's a survey for "Mormons who experience same-sex attractions and identify as LGB+." 

I guess if we never admit that peoples' same-sex attractions are usually a core part of their identity, the problem might go away.  At least now I understand that I'm just a person who experiences different-sex attractions and identifies as heterosexual.  Hopefully I won't wake up tomorrow and find it's changed.

Of course, from what I've seen people are much more likely to change their religion than their "attractions", so from now on I'll be identifying myself and fellow Church members as "people experiencing Mormon feelings" and those who "identify as Latter-day Saint."

Nicely said, the surveyors seem to not be ready to accept that someone can be born gay. I haven't read the survey yet, sad that they don't understand at least that.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Perhaps to answer that, you can first tell me why you think the church was so adamant for so many years in not using the term gay but insisted on the term same sex attraction.  Especially since it is a term that virtually everyone else doesn't use.

It is possible they wanted to avoid using a term they saw as having a lot of baggage attached to it both in and outside the Church, thus their changing to same sex in about 1995 from homosexual.

I am not claiming this, but there might have been such a decision made knowing there was going to be more discussion about homosexuality given the political climate.  In my youth in the 70s in the San Francisco area, generally homosexual was still being used as an insult in my high school while gay was seen as more political.

I don't know when "same sex marriage" became a more common usage than homosexual marriage, but if it was before 1995, using "same sex" in front of other nouns seems a natural usage to me.

I don't see a significant difference between using "same sex love" and "same sex attraction" or "homosexual attraction" and "same sex attraction" unless one has specifically defined one term as something that the other is not.  Did the Church do so, or it is just assumed it meant something different than when it used homosexual attraction?

----

It makes sense to me why many are offended by the view of homosexual attraction that the Church holds.  Where there is a disconnect for me is this offense focused on the use of the qualifier "same sex" in this one case.  Since it seems perfectly acceptable to the LGB+ community in other cases, why does it matter what is used when it is the definition that is the problem and that definition/perception is consistent for the Church whether they choose to use "homosexual", "gay", or "same sex"?

Edited June 4, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Nicely said, the surveyors seem to not be ready to accept that someone can be born gay. I haven't read the survey yet, sad that they don't understand at least that.

I wouldn't assume that all the authors held that position.  From the description they were attempting a survey all could agree upon and it is likely all could accept that gays "experienced" their feelings while there might not have been agreement on the source of those feelings or what type of attribute they were.

It is also possible they chose those terms based on what a group of their target subjects used to describe themselves.

If so, it is quite possible their subjects use this language because of the way the Church talks about homosexual feelings and behaviour.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Nicely said, the surveyors seem to not be ready to accept that someone can be born gay. I haven't read the survey yet, sad that they don't understand at least that.

It's not about readiness but respondents willingness to identify with specific labels and terms. For example last week I was talking two different people who fall somewhere on the LGB orientation. One interchangeably describes themselves as bisexual, lesbian, or something else depending the day. Her identity is in flux (and a little bit her sexuality, which is somewhat tied to her emotional landscape). The first strongly disliked the words "having same-sex attraction." Another described himself as bisexual, currently feeling more attracted to men than women, and having same sex attraction. It was pretty clear he was far more comfortable as describing it as "having same sex attraction" for himself. I wasn't and We discussed a bit about having more integration to his sexuality as parts of him while chilling in my backyard. I have met others who are more integrated with their sexuality/orientation and just aren't a fan of labels. As a general rule I follow their lead as to how they describe themselves. 

The problem with research is that sticking with one label can inadvertently lead to selection bias where certain subsets are missed. The words used can be flags for "will hear me and my story out" and "safe." Some people will simply skip out because LGBT or experiencing SSA doesn't describe them in their minds. In short identity politics limits research/surveys and makes it hard to peer into groups rarely seen. Catering to it can come at accepting a major blind spot...particularly if you're wanting a larger net of LDS folk. 

 

 

 

with luv,

BD 

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I think this approach still is doomed to failure.  Assuming that the human population naturally, biologically has a certain percentage that are LGTB, their behaviors are expected.  They cannot be changed and it seems like a waste of time to do so.  Sure, it's good to attempt to understand but it is still coming from a place of condescension.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It's not about readiness but respondents willingness to identify with specific labels and terms. For example last week I was talking two different people who fall somewhere on the LGB orientation. One interchangeably describes themselves as bisexual, lesbian, or something else depending the day. Her identity is in flux (and a little bit her sexuality, which is somewhat tied to her emotional landscape). The first strongly disliked the words "having same-sex attraction." Another described himself as bisexual, currently feeling more attracted to men than women, and having same sex attraction. It was pretty clear he was far more comfortable as describing it as "having same sex attraction" for himself. I wasn't and We discussed a bit about having more integration to his sexuality as parts of him while chilling in my backyard. I have met others who are more integrated with their sexuality/orientation and just aren't a fan of labels. As a general rule I follow their lead as to how they describe themselves. 

The problem with research is that sticking with one label can inadvertently lead to selection bias where certain subsets are missed. The words used can be flags for "will hear me and my story out" and "safe." Some people will simply skip out because LGBT or experiencing SSA doesn't describe them in their minds. In short identity politics limits research/surveys and makes it hard to peer into groups rarely seen. Catering to it can come at accepting a major blind spot...particularly if you're wanting a larger net of LDS folk. 

 

 

 

with luv,

BD 

 

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I wouldn't assume that all the authors held that position.  From the description they were attempting a survey all could agree upon and it is likely all could accept that gays "experienced" their feelings while there might not have been agreement on the source of those feelings or what type of attribute they were.

It is also possible they chose those terms based on what a group of their target subjects used to describe themselves.

If so, it is quite possible their subjects use this language because of the way the Church talks about homosexual feelings and behaviour.

Both good points.

I just know from what I've read.

I have niece (my side) and a nephew on my husband's side. If I ever get the nerve maybe I'll ask them. It could be they'd just like to be known as individuals like those that are hetersexual. Do we go around saying "Oh, they're hetersexual"? Very interesting and I want to see the test questions to see if this might be a question, what the LGBT would like to be called or not called. 

After reading the comments to the survey they reacted like I did. Here's what they said: 

Quote: " 'Same sex attraction' = alarm bells ringing. This is a loaded term primarily used by those who either explicitly or implicitly believe that sexual attraction is an affliction that can be fixed.

I don't buy the claim that previous studies are flawed but this just happens to be the groundbreaking study that will sort it all out. I do however agree that studies can be flawed, depending on the attitudes and training of the researchers, and their resultant study design. What are the religious affiliations of the researchers? Is there a mix of believers and non-believers? Who is the study group and how are they sampled? What are the hypotheses to be tested?

Apologies Marybeth and co. if you have this all under control, but it is hard to tell from the article. If this study can actually help people with diverse sexual identities then great!"

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

It is possible they wanted to avoid using a term they saw as having a lot of baggage attached to it both in and outside the Church, thus their changing to same sex in about 1995 from homosexual.

I am not claiming this, but there might have been such a decision made knowing there was going to be more discussion about homosexuality given the political climate.  In my youth in the 70s in the San Francisco area, generally homosexual was still being used as an insult in my high school while gay was seen as more political.

I don't know when "same sex marriage" became a more common usage than homosexual marriage, but if it was before 1995, using "same sex" in front of other nouns seems a natural usage to me.

I don't see a significant difference between using "same sex love" and "same sex attraction" or "homosexual attraction" and "same sex attraction" unless one has specifically defined one term as something that the other is not.  Did the Church do so, or it is just assumed it meant something different than when it used homosexual attraction?

----

It makes sense to me why many are offended by the view of homosexual attraction that the Church holds.  Where there is a disconnect for me is this offense focused on the use of the qualifier "same sex" in this one case.  Since it seems perfectly acceptable to the LGB+ community in other cases, why does it matter what is used when it is the definition that is the problem and that definition/perception is consistent for the Church whether they choose to use "homosexual", "gay", or "same sex"?

I think Tacenda's friend says it exactly  This is what they said

Quote

Quote: " 'Same sex attraction' = alarm bells ringing. This is a loaded term primarily used by those who either explicitly or implicitly believe that sexual attraction is an affliction that can be fixed.

This is what it says on LDS.org that Darren quoted.

Quote

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

The church states that the reason for the term is that they are distinguishing between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior.  This is part of what I find offensive by the church using the term same-sex attraction.  That that mean that if you are homosexual then it has to be assumed that you participate in homosexual behavior?  Why would they assume that about someone who is gay and not someone who is straight.  Does the church label someone who is straight and not married as having opposite sex attraction to distinguish them from straight people that engage in straight behavior?

It is just another of a long list of digs aimed towards those of us that are gay.  

I think my previous post talked about the difference between saying an individual has same-sex attraction and calling a relationship a same sex relationship.  I think you are smart enough to figure out the differences that I already explained.  I am surprised you are still asking.  

 

 

[USU78]

Control the definitions, control the argument and its outcome.

Edited June 5, 2017 by USU78

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

Both good points.

I just know from what I've read.

I have niece (my side) and a nephew on my husband's side. If I ever get the nerve maybe I'll ask them. It could be they'd just like to be known as individuals like those that are hetersexual. Do we go around saying "Oh, they're hetersexual"? Very interesting and I want to see the test questions to see if this might be a question, what the LGBT would like to be called or not called. 

After reading the comments to the survey they reacted like I did. Here's what they said: 

Quote: " 'Same sex attraction' = alarm bells ringing. This is a loaded term primarily used by those who either explicitly or implicitly believe that sexual attraction is an affliction that can be fixed.

I don't buy the claim that previous studies are flawed but this just happens to be the groundbreaking study that will sort it all out. I do however agree that studies can be flawed, depending on the attitudes and training of the researchers, and their resultant study design. What are the religious affiliations of the researchers? Is there a mix of believers and non-believers? Who is the study group and how are they sampled? What are the hypotheses to be tested?

Apologies Marybeth and co. if you have this all under control, but it is hard to tell from the article. If this study can actually help people with diverse sexual identities then great!"

I'm reading further into the study and was curious if I'd recognize any names. I've heard from two of them (Beckstead and Mansfield). Both, from very different identities and personal journeys (at least on the surface) are both the sort who seek more to find understanding than anything else. Lee is openly gay and has a partner, was raised mormon....you can hear his identity experience in his own words here...and Ty's right below his.

 

I honestly don't see a lot on the survey itself to assume that they're not really trying to have a balance in bias and just gain information on LDS LGBT/SSA peoples. Whether one likes a term or not or feels that one or another has serious baggage isn't really the point of the survey. It's just to get as many people from the wide spectrum or experience to respond. Which is easier said than done. Their bulky language to catch as many as may apply is indicative of that. 

 

with luv,

BD

Edited June 5, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Control the definitions, control the argument and its outcome.

The Church uses its own definitions, just as the activists do.