Groundbreakng Same Sex Survey for Same Sex Mormons

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

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?

I didn't get this from the quote you mentioned. From the groups I've participated in and the seminars that I've seen that focus on LDS populations and LGBT issues, I get the sense that they're trying to bridge all potential forms of identification and experience in as neutral a way as possible. I won't say that was always the goal, but I think that's where they've been going for the last while based on what I've been seeing. Note that they don't say "have same-sex attraction" at all in the blurb, but state "experience same-sex attraction." This is fitting with the most recent evolution and feedback from others that's gone the rounds where those who may fall somewhere on the LGB spectrum of experience but have problems labeling themselves in such a way for one reason or another have talked about. They disliked "having SSA" or because it sounded too much as having a disease or disability. There is also a move to avoid the sense that the SSA is a problem in and of itself for simply being there. Just as you are offended by the term use, there are others who experience some form of same sex attraction who don't like the labels of Lesbian, Gay, or Bi for varying reasons. Sometimes they're not at a place to fully apply that to themselves, some find it limiting or just not an accurate way to describe their experience, others for something else all together. At least from what I've seen.

It's not a perfect dialogue, obviously. But I actually don't think this is as top-down as you're describing when deciding and explaining identity and sexuality. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Also of interest for the survey itself. I click on "begin survey" without going into the actual survey (don't want to mess up their data as someone who is straight identified). It also stated this:

Quote

As one reviewer asserted, “This survey is riddled with terms and phrases that will likely offend some—even many. A virtual minefield, to be sure.” For example, terms like “same-sex attraction” and “mixed-orientation marriage” may offend or feel aversive to different groups. The authors of this study have attempted to use such phrases respectfully to be inclusive and more accurate or intentionally to assess participants’ attitudes.

The terms SSA and LGBT+ are used throughout this survey; however, we acknowledge that there are other sexual/gender identities not represented by those terms. For example, many who experience same-sex attractions (SSA) do not identify with a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) identity. As such, if you experience same-sex attractions and do not identify as LGBT, for the purposes of this study, please respond to LGBT+ as if it includes your identity. You will have a chance in the survey to provide which label fits best for you.

Also probably helpful for the discussion being had. 

 

With luv,

BD

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

Not a problem, is it? 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Not a problem, is it? 

Not sure what you mean.

I don't have an issue with people trying to control the conversation in general in communities when discussing policies, etc.  It would be foolish not to in many cases.

There are methods of control that go too far for me.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I didn't get this from the quote you mentioned. From the groups I've participated in and the seminars that I've seen that focus on LDS populations and LGBT issues, I get the sense that they're trying to bridge all potential forms of identification and experience in as neutral a way as possible. I won't say that was always the goal, but I think that's where they've been going for the last while based on what I've been seeing. Note that they don't say "have same-sex attraction" at all in the blurb, but state "experience same-sex attraction." This is fitting with the most recent evolution and feedback from others that's gone the rounds where those who may fall somewhere on the LGB spectrum of experience but have problems labeling themselves in such a way for one reason or another have talked about. They disliked "having SSA" or because it sounded too much as having a disease or disability. There is also a move to avoid the sense that the SSA is a problem in and of itself for simply being there. Just as you are offended by the term use, there are others who experience some form of same sex attraction who don't like the labels of Lesbian, Gay, or Bi for varying reasons. Sometimes they're not at a place to fully apply that to themselves, some find it limiting or just not an accurate way to describe their experience, others for something else all together. At least from what I've seen.

It's not a perfect dialogue, obviously. But I actually don't think this is as top-down as you're describing when deciding and explaining identity and sexuality. 

 

With luv,

BD

I really don't care much whether the church uses the term same-sex attraction.  It is totally up to church leadership how the address gay members.  The truth is, it is a term that really isn't used among the gay population.  Most find it offensive.  Quite honestly, compared to the other actions the church has taken towards the gay community, this is just a small issue.  It seems like it is just another wall that the church continues to put up against the gay community.  I think most gay Mormons are used to the term by now. If they haven't been offended enough by the other actions the church continues to do against gays, I doubt this is a big deal to them.

I agree with you that the church has made some efforts recently to reach out to those that are gay within the church.  But continuing to use this name doesn't really help building bridges. With current policies the church has put into place against gay families, it is pretty obvious that the only gay members that will even be able to stay in the church are those that want to live a life that isolates them from any meaningful long term relationship with anyone.  That usually doesn't last that long.  Most leave the church and find a full and fulfilling life outside the church.  Perhaps that is how it should be.

 

[Calm]

"from any meaningful long term relationship with anyone.

I assume you mean meaningful long term romantic and sexual relationship and not all meaningful long term relationships, but just double checking I am reading you correctly.

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

"from any meaningful long term relationship with anyone.

I assume you mean meaningful long term romantic and sexual relationship and not all meaningful long term relationships, but just double checking I am reading you correctly.

yes.  

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I really don't care much whether the church uses the term same-sex attraction.  It is totally up to church leadership how the address gay members.  The truth is, it is a term that really isn't used among the gay population.  Most find it offensive.  Quite honestly, compared to the other actions the church has taken towards the gay community, this is just a small issue.  It seems like it is just another wall that the church continues to put up against the gay community.  I think most gay Mormons are used to the term by now. If they haven't been offended enough by the other actions the church continues to do against gays, I doubt this is a big deal to them.

I trust your assessment that it is offensive within the gay community. In such a setting I would just use the term lgbtq, because it is what is appropriate and preferred due to the context. The LGB who use this term and prefer it I'm talking about are the people who are often still inside the church and may not feel entirely integrated,are part of, or feel differ from the usual gay community for one reason or another. They also have a right to self identify. I'm not sure what came first when it came to the term. I'm aware that it's used a bit in research papers....so I doubt it solely originated from the church. And I don't know the dialogue or how it morphed from there. But whoever came up as using the phrase "experiencing SSA," it doesn't matter to me if the people using it want it for themselves. Considering this is reaching for the gay Mormon population who may be LGBT identified or not but still experience SSA in some meaningful way, I think it's appropriate to use the term most common in this minority of a minority community. 

I don't know if it's "a wall"...I think it's listening to THEIR folks who run this spectrum first, in someways. I think the chasm between the LGBT community and the LDS one can also go both ways. Mainly because I've heard as much from people who felt they somewhat had to distance themselves from the gay community when returning to the church due to the reactions many of those who were LGBT gave them to their choice. I'm not saying that there isn't legitimate reasons for this tension for LGBT. There obviously are. But on the micro level, it means that LGBT who are active in the church and plan to stay that way may also feel out of place in said LGBT communities made of the general populace or those who are at least more disaffected from the church. 

4 hours ago, california boy said:

agree with you that the church has made some efforts recently to reach out to those that are gay within the church.  But continuing to use this name doesn't really help building bridges. With current policies the church has put into place against gay families, it is pretty obvious that the only gay members that will even be able to stay in the church are those that want to live a life that isolates them from any meaningful long term relationship with anyone.  That usually doesn't last that long.  Most leave the church and find a full and fulfilling life outside the church.  Perhaps that is how it should be.

 

That's the thing, we don't exactly know. The evidence is anectdotal. And it may in part have been influenced by the fact that identity and labeling oneself was far more stratified in the past. Gay then meant not just a sexual orientation but in someways separation from a church identity. That's lessened now I think and continues to. But that in and of itself would have led to a very severe cut. On another note I know people who would fall under the radar when it comes to experiencing SSA in some meaningful way but may not actively ID as LGB that are not living the life you describe. Even the ones who are celebate may not describe their lives as desolately as you describe. (And I would wager may not like it described as such). Again, there are stories of what makes this work for them but there isn't a good survey around to really give a landscape or even direction to someone like this. There are surveys and research a plenty about how it fails. But the lives I've had the privilege to meet and interact with aren't failures. Many have found happiness and stability in their own way. Inspite of few guide posts to really work with in a course that was antithetical to both the overarching LGBT community and at times the LDS one as well. I think in someways the research is trying to shine a light into choices and lives that do not fit the usual mold(s). And because they don't fit no one really sees them. 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

[Darren10]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 5:28 AM, california boy said:

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.  

 

Prop 8 was struck down by a gay judge interested in marrying his gay partner. The US Supreme Court upheld his ruling but judge Roberts correctly identified the upholding as anti-constitutional. That the court used something external to the Constitution to uphold gay marriage.

As for your first paragraph I think you're trying to debate something we agree on. I said that both the LDs church and gay activists both have their agendas. Both use terminologies to achieve the end of their agendas. both use terms that are no-threatening in order to achieve their respective goals. My guess is by avoiding provocative terms, focus is placed on the end goal, not the terms themselves. 

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Prop 8 was struck down by a gay judge interested in marrying his gay partner. The US Supreme Court upheld his ruling but judge Roberts correctly identified the upholding as anti-constitutional. That the court used something external to the Constitution to uphold gay marriage.

As for your first paragraph I think you're trying to debate something we agree on. I said that both the LDs church and gay activists both have their agendas. Both use terminologies to achieve the end of their agendas. both use terms that are no-threatening in order to achieve their respective goals. My guess is by avoiding provocative terms, focus is placed on the end goal, not the terms themselves. 

Irrelevant. One judge doesn't get to decide what is Constitutional or not. No the USSC did not go outside the Constitution. It correctly applied the 14th Amendment. Loving v Virginia is instructive here.

[Darren10]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Irrelevant. One judge doesn't get to decide what is Constitutional or not. No the USSC did not go outside the Constitution. It correctly applied the 14th Amendment. Loving v Virginia is instructive here.

Not what Roberts said. And he's the chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He didn't "decide" that they violated the Constitution as you seem to apply the word but rendered that opinion in his dissent.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Darren10

[cinepro]

34 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Prop 8 was struck down by a gay judge interested in marrying his gay partner.

Are you sure about that?

Quote

  [Judge Vaughn Walker who overturned Prop 8 in CA] went public with his orientation only in April 2011, more than two months after his retirement.

Few members of the Bay Area legal community were taken aback by his disclosure. But it added fuel to Prop. 8 proponents' claims of judicial bias, and opened another avenue of appeal of his ruling.

The book says Walker wasn't surprised by the accusations, but concluded there was nothing wrong with presiding over a case in which he had nothing personal at stake. He recounts that he had never discussed marriage with his partner, and hadn't even considered marrying during the five-month period in 2008 when same-sex nuptials were legal in California, under a state Supreme Court ruling that Prop. 8 overturned.

"African American judges hear race discrimination cases all the time, while female judges hear cases charging gender bias. ... Why shouldn't a gay man hear the challenge to Prop. 8?" Becker quotes Walker as asking. Federal appelate courts used the same reasoning when they found no grounds to disqualify him.

http://www.sfgate.com/lgbt/article/Judge-Vaughn-Walker-tells-his-side-of-Prop-8-5416851.php

 

Even more interesting is what happened to Charles Cooper, the lawyer who defended Prop 8 in front of the Supreme Court (from this story written before the final decision):

Quote

Cooper has since said that his views on gay marriage are evolving. Cooper's stepdaughter Ashley plans to marry her partner in Massachusetts in June. Gay marriage is now legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia.

"My views evolve on issues of this kind the same way as other people's do, and how I view this down the road may not be the way I view it now, or how I viewed it ten years ago," Cooper said in journalist Jo Becker's upcoming book Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Becker's book, Coooper's family began to look to the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, as models for their own daughter. 

http://time.com/67528/prop-8-lawyer-charles-cooper-gay-marriage-views/

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by cinepro

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Are you sure about that?

 

If he says it's true, it must be true

[cinepro]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If he says it's true, it must be true

I'm not sure it "must" be true.  But if someone makes an accusation about someone and the accused has spoken to the contrary, there's nothing wrong with allowing that person to defend themselves. 

Darren's accusation was presented as if it were a de facto truth, when it was already argued and considered by an additional federal judge and appeals court.  Sure, maybe they are all just a bunch of flaming homos, but at some point you just start to sound like a conspiracy theorist who's a sore loser.

Edited June 7, 2017 by cinepro

[cinepro]

On 6/4/2017 at 8:42 PM, USU78 said:

Not a problem, is it? 

That's an interesting question (regarding each group using their own terminology), because it really asks what each side is trying to accomplish (and what they have to lose)?

I'm pretty sure the gay community fears alienating LDS less than the LDS fears alienating the gay community.  The gay community doesn't really have anything to lose if gay people can't reconcile their orientation with being Mormon.

But the fallout for the LDS Church could be a concern if gay Mormons decide they can't reconcile their orientation with LDS teachings and culture and leave en masse.  While their total numbers might be small, the effect on their LDS friends and family members could be catastrophic, as well as the effect on the younger generations of Church members as they grow older.  The LDS Church needs to find a middle ground where gay Mormons can be happy being both Mormon and gay, whereas the gay community probably doesn't really care whether gay Mormons stay Mormon.

To the degree that the different terminology is illustrative of this point, it could be a problem.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by cinepro

[USU78]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure it "must" be true.  But if someone makes an accusation about someone and the accused has spoken to the contrary, there's nothing wrong with allowing that person to defend themselves. 

Darren's accusation was presented as if it were a de facto truth, when it was already argued and considered by an additional federal judge and appeals court.  Sure, maybe they are all just a bunch of flaming homos, but at some point you just start to sound like a conspiracy theorist who's a sore loser.

Every homosexually inclined person is perforce reliable and is, therefore, believable.  I get it.  He said it so it must be true.  

Every person in the public eye is perforce reliable and, therefore, believable.  I get it.  He said it so it must be true.

[USU78]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

That's an interesting question (regarding each group using their own terminology), because it really asks what each side is trying to accomplish (and what they have to lose)?

If you have to redefine nouns and adjectives and, in short, recast language to win the argument, you lack integrity.

I'm pretty sure the gay community fears alienating LDS less than the LDS fears alienating the gay community.  The gay community doesn't really have anything to lose if gay people can't reconcile their orientation with being Mormon.

Since theirs is the permissible sin, they have nothing to lose no matter what they say or do:  being pets of the trendylefties has its perqs.

But the fallout for the LDS Church could be a concern if gay Mormons decide they can't reconcile their orientation with LDS teachings and culture and leave en masse.  While their total numbers might be small, the effect on their LDS friends and family members could be catastrophic, as well as the effect on the younger generations of Church members as they grow older.  The LDS Church needs to find a middle ground where gay Mormons can be happy being both Mormon and gay, whereas the gay community probably doesn't really care whether gay Mormons stay Mormon.

Yup.  Not being pets of the trendylefties has its drawbacks.

To the degree that the different terminology is illustrative of this point, it could be a problem.

This makes no sense.

 

 

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited June 8, 2017 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

On 6/4/2017 at 11:09 PM, Calm said:

Not sure what you mean.

I don't have an issue with people trying to control the conversation in general in communities when discussing policies, etc.  It would be foolish not to in many cases.

There are methods of control that go too far for me.

 

 

[Storm Rider]

On 6/4/2017 at 10:06 AM, 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 missed the scientific research that verified that individuals are born gay.  Can you point that out to me?

What you have done is accept the hypothesis born solely by individuals that have absolutely no memory of their birth, the sexual feelings they had at birth, or anything else about the entire experience.  I have never met any human that has those kind of verifiable memories.  So now, why is it so preposterous to assume that individuals are not born gay?

I don't take a position on this specific topic.  More importantly, I am not going to be brainwashed by either side to think one way or another.  My question will always be, "Prove it" and that has not been done.  What has been done is to demonstrate that human sexuality is rather flexible and learned.  If you do something once it is likely you will do it again.  The path from what a moral society says is acceptable sexual behavior to sexual perversion can be a very short trip.  

I recognize the same type of process for almost all sin. If we give an inch to the Evil One he will take a mile.  As I have said before about my mom's advice, "Mike, you cannot go down the chimney without getting any soot on you."  Before long we don't even recognize soot as soot; we become normalized to its presence.  

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

Are you sure about that?

 

Even more interesting is what happened to Charles Cooper, the lawyer who defended Prop 8 in front of the Supreme Court (from this story written before the final decision):

 

"The book says Walker wasn't surprised by the accusations, but concluded there was nothing wrong with presiding over a case in which he had nothing personal at stake. He recounts that he had never discussed marriage with his partner, and hadn't even considered marrying during the five-month period in 2008 when same-sex nuptials were legal in California, under a state Supreme Court ruling that Prop. 8 overturned. "

That's extremely convenient. You honestly buy that? Not even "considering" marriage? I'm told time and time again about the firm drive (no pun intended) between homosexual lovers and how strongly they want "marriage equality". When it became legal in California Judge Walker and his homosexual lover did not even "consider" marrying.  Even if that is true (they are still not married to me knowledge and that does go to his credit, don't you think he "feels" like he should have the right to marry if he wanted to? Isn't that what "marriage equality" is about?

"Cooper has since said that his views on gay marriage are evolving. "

Whose isn't nowadays?

Edited June 8, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

18 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure it "must" be true.  But if someone makes an accusation about someone and the accused has spoken to the contrary, there's nothing wrong with allowing that person to defend themselves. 

Darren's accusation was presented as if it were a de facto truth, when it was already argued and considered by an additional federal judge and appeals court.  Sure, maybe they are all just a bunch of flaming homos, but at some point you just start to sound like a conspiracy theorist who's a sore loser.

From your "federal judge" link:

Quote

The chief judge said all Californians share an interest in having the the Constitution enforced. The "single interest" Walker shared with the same-sex couples who challenged Proposition 8 "gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits that would exist for any other judge or citizen," Ware wrote.

Yahhuh. All interests are the same. Single homosexuals, committed to a relation homosexuals, heterosexuals: single or committed it's all the same interest.

/My head's spinning 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Darren10

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"The book says Walker wasn't surprised by the accusations, but concluded there was nothing wrong with presiding over a case in which he had nothing personal at stake. He recounts that he had never discussed marriage with his partner, and hadn't even considered marrying during the five-month period in 2008 when same-sex nuptials were legal in California, under a state Supreme Court ruling that Prop. 8 overturned. "

That's extremely convenient. You honestly buy that? Not even "considering" marriage? I'm told time and time again about the firm drive (no pun intended) between homosexual lovers and how strongly they want "marriage equality". When it became legal in California Judge Walker and his homosexual lover did not even "consider" marrying.  Even if that is true (they are still not married to me knowledge and that does go to his credit, don't you think he "feels" like he should have the right to marry if he wanted to? Isn't that what "marriage equality" is about?

"Cooper has since said that his views on gay marriage are evolving. "

Whose isn't nowadays?

You really believe gay marriage is legal because of the one ruling by judge Walker?

ridiculous conclusion. You are ignoring the fact that virtually single court in this country that heard a gay marriage case ruled in favor of gay marriage on constitutional grounds. Those rulings also include at least one Mormon judge and numerous conservative right wing judges that ruled in favor of gay marriage. 

Your position is solely based on what you want to believe and not the facts. 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I missed the scientific research that verified that individuals are born gay.  Can you point that out to me?

What you have done is accept the hypothesis born solely by individuals that have absolutely no memory of their birth, the sexual feelings they had at birth, or anything else about the entire experience.  I have never met any human that has those kind of verifiable memories.  So now, why is it so preposterous to assume that individuals are not born gay?

I don't take a position on this specific topic.  More importantly, I am not going to be brainwashed by either side to think one way or another.  My question will always be, "Prove it" and that has not been done.  What has been done is to demonstrate that human sexuality is rather flexible and learned.  If you do something once it is likely you will do it again.  The path from what a moral society says is acceptable sexual behavior to sexual perversion can be a very short trip.  

I recognize the same type of process for almost all sin. If we give an inch to the Evil One he will take a mile.  As I have said before about my mom's advice, "Mike, you cannot go down the chimney without getting any soot on you."  Before long we don't even recognize soot as soot; we become normalized to its presence.  

 Don't have a position on how a person becomes gay either. I just know that o always have been gay. I totally disagree with your assertment that human sexuality is fluid and learned.  With SOME people it may me fluid but not all  

and it is not learned. I knew I was gay long before any sexual experience. If you really think it is learned then perhaps if only gay would marry they will learn to become straight

oh wait we tried that already. How did that turn out?

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You really believe gay marriage is legal because of the one ruling by judge Walker?

ridiculous conclusion. You are ignoring the fact that virtually single court in this country that heard a gay marriage case ruled in favor of gay marriage on constitutional grounds. Those rulings also include at least one Mormon judge and numerous conservative right wing judges that ruled in favor of gay marriage. 

Your position is solely based on what you want to believe and not the facts. 

I think it's legal because the courts, yet again, upsurped the vote of the people and because there are enough people now who do support it, yes. Bad Mormon and conservative judges. 

Quote

"If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Chief Justice Roberts: Bad on Affordable Care Act, good on gay marriage.