An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

I can't speak for them. I can say that I do not understand their comments that way at all. Hopefully they will clarify. 

I think the question is and has been how to refer to the larger group of non-heterosexual individuals. Again, I'm generally cool with LGBT (+). But I also understand that many - especially those still in the Church - aren't comfortable being lumped into that label due to the perceived ideology. How do we respectfully include them?

Does anyone here have a problem with "LGBT/SSA?" 

For my part, I only object to the unilateral declaration that same-sex attraction, a heretofore value-neutral term, is now taboo and is to be avoided like a racial or ethnic slur, intended that way or not. 

That insistence reeks of political correctness and attempt to control the public discourse, a thing I detest. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

At least you're being honest.  I can't say I understand how you hold this position.  

Seems eminently reasonable to me. Would you want someone, with no good reason to do so, controlling how you express yourself?

Edited August 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For my part, I only object to the unilateral declaration that same-sex attraction, a heretofore value-neural term, is now taboo and is to be avoided like a racial or ethnic slur, intended that way or not. 

That insistence reeks of political correctness and attempt to control the public discourse, a thing I detest. 

Isn't the renewed insistence on the church's name along the same lines?

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

In the section I quoted, your sources include Daily Wire and Daily Caller. Enough said.

No, it’s not enough said. It reflects ideological bias on your part. Nothing more. That’s not reason enough to reject out of hand selected content from those sources. Let it be judged on its merits, not on the ideology-based antipathy some have toward the sources.

There is an expression for what you are doing here: well-poisoning. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think "same-sex attraction" is respectful.  GLAAD uses the term.  So does the APA.  So does the New York Times.  And the LA Times.  And numerous federal judges in formal, published opinions.

If you were using it to write journal and newspaper articles, then there is a good chance it would not be a problem (if you left out other phrases that implied it was a disorder or affliction).  However, you are not writing to them on the board, but to board members among who are individuals who have expressed their preference. 

I don't believe it is respectful of the individual to ignore their expressed wishes by waving to a different context where something is acceptable.  It is treating the individual as if they should be some cookie cutter image of everyone else one chooses to label a certain way.

If I had told someone I couldn't eat chocolate or strawberries because of allergies, would it be respectful or unthinking for them to show up for my birthday with a plate of chocolate covered strawberries because they loved them and knew many others who did as well?  Should it make a difference if I just said I didn't like them?

Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Isn't the renewed insistence on the church's name along the same lines?

I don’t see it as the same. From the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ, it is an effort to be clear and accurate about its self identity. 

And while there has been a reasoned and polite request that outsiders conform to these guidelines, I’ve seen nothing in the way of insistence or coercion to do so, or of disparagement or implications of bigotry toward those who choose not to do so. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

If the terms ....are mutually and empathetically understood, I think there is freedom for all involved to use either term.

But it has been made clear that for many on the board, they aren't mutually understood.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you were using it to write journal and newspaper articles, then there is a good chance it would not be a problem (if you left out other phrases that implied it was a disorder or affliction).  However, you are not writing to them on the board, but to board members among who are individuals who have expressed their preference. 

I don't believe it is respectful of the individual to ignore their expressed wishes by waving to a different context where something is acceptable.  It is treating the individual as if they should be some cookie cutter image of everyone else one choose to label a certain way.

If I had told someone I couldn't eat chocolate or strawberries because of allergies, would it be respectful or unthinking for them to show up for my birthday with a plate of chocolate covered strawberries because they loved them and knew many others who did as well?

You use the example of newspaper articles. A message board such as this is somewhat comparable to a newspaper in that it is accessible by the general public and the implied audience is the general public. Therefore, the same principles as to discourse would apply. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or even if they are used in a context of mutual respect. Automatically imputing disrespect to another just because he uses a value-neutral term that one doesn’t like does not strike me as very respectful. 

Refusing to accept individual preferences does not strike me as respectful.  Call it standing on principles you hold, sure, but respectful in the face of someone specifically asking you not to do it because the term means something negative to them even if value neutral to you....that is not respectful in my view.

Respect is, imo, being willing to take the time and make the effort look at an individual as an individual and to try and understand what is and isn't important to them.

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not saying that.  Never have.  To the contrary, I use these terms all the time.  You don't have to take my word for it.  Look at my posting history.

What I oppose is the dictum that "same-sex attraction" is out of bounds.  That it is offensive or uncivil or inappropriate.

I insist on saying saying what I think.  I can only do that through words.  Words are not always pitch-perfect in conveying a message, but they're all we've got.

If GLAAD and the American Academy of Family Physicians  and federal judges and the New York Times can use words phrases like "same-sex couple" and "same-sex marriage" and "same-sex attraction," then so can I.

If GLAAD can say things like "The study compared people raised by opposite-sex parents in committed relationships to people raised by (often single) parents who had at one time or another experienced same-sex attraction.", then so can I.

If the AAFP can say things like "Non-inclusive language in clinical encounters may be viewed as microaggressions that convey negative impressions and imply it is not safe to disclose same-sex attraction or behavior," then so can I.

If the Huffington Post can publish an article entitled "New Ideas About the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction", then I can use that term too.

If the BBC can say things like "If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction," then so can I.

If the Bisexual Resource Center can say things like "Human sexuality is sometimes seen as a continuum, with same-sex attractions on one end and different-sex attractions on the other...", then so can I.

I will not alter my vocabulary simply because I am using it while being a religious person.  If how I use it matters, I will certainly take that into account.  But asking me to not use it at all is not reasonable.  I will not submit.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

It seems that none of those sources are using those terms as an adjective, as a substitute for gay/lesbian/LGBT. That's the difference. If you go out of your way to use it as an adjective describing the person, it is usually done in bad faith as a way of negating someone's sexual orientation. Saying someone is gay is admitting that it's a part of them and it's permanent. It's affirming their identity as a gay person. Saying they are "same-sex attracted" makes it sound transitory, as if it could be "cured" somehow.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Refusing to accept individual preferences does not strike me as respectful.  Call it standing on principles you hold, sure, but respectful in the face of someone specifically asking you not to do it because the term means something negative to them even if value neutral to you....that is not respectful in my view.

Respect is, imo, being willing to take the time and make the effort look at an individual as an individual and to try and understand what is and isn't important to them.

If someone unilaterally endeavors to control my discourse by insisting I not use this or that term or expression, I will entertain and consider his reasoning. That is being respectful. But the reasoning has to be solid, and yes, I am the determiner of what I find solid or reasonable. I don’t cede that privilege to anyone. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You use the example of newspaper articles. A message board such as this is somewhat comparable to a newspaper in that it is accessible by the general public and the implied audience is the general public. Therefore, the same principles as to discourse would apply. 

You are directly interacting with individuals who can respond directly back and you are responding directly back to them, you are not just putting your words out to the general public.  Equating this board to a newspaper simply because it is public and claiming the implied audience is the public when you are responding to personal posts that carry individual names is, imo, ignoring the value of the individual interaction you are engaging in to focus on the generic impact of your words to a public you can't even know is reading your words.  I find that disrespectful of the effort people put in to correspond to you.  Write a blog if you don't care what others are saying to you, if your words are meant for "the public".  Don't waste people's time who think you care about the content and meaning of their posts.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If someone unilaterally endeavors to control my discourse by insisting I not use this or that term or expression, I will entertain and consider his reasoning. That is being respectful. But the reasoning has to be solid, and yes, I am the determiner of what I find solid or reasonable. I don’t cede that privilege to anyone. 

Then you can hardly protest if someone else finds your reasoning faulty and determines for them you are not respectful, etc and states publicly you are not and they believe you are a bigot or whatever they have determined.

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

If you were using it to write journal and newspaper articles, then there is a good chance it would not be a problem (if you left out other phrases that implied it was a disorder or affliction).  

I don't think it's a problem in every-day discourse, either.

I also would have to disagree that we are obligated to self-censor as far as it being an "affliction" or something to be resisted or worked through.  I get that many gay people take pride in their sexual orientation (hence the extensive use of the very word "pride").  But some want to resist it. 

Some people use sexual orientation to define themselves in a very fundamental way.  Others choose not to do so.

Some people do not have a moral or religious concerns or objections about acting on feelings of being sexually attracted to members of the same sex.  But others do have such concerns/objections.

There is no easy solution here.  There is no way to please everyone.  Me categorically abstaining from using the phrase "same-sex attraction" may please JK, but it is offensive to me.  Conversely, my using it in some ways may be offensive to him.

As between the two, I have to go with that I think is reasonable and correct.  "To thine own self be true" and all that.  And mine own self wants to resist, strongly, unreasoned and unreasonable requests about vocabulary.

Just now, Calm said:

However, you are not writing to them on the board, but to board members among who are individuals who have expressed their preference. 

And I have expressed mine.  But since it's my vocabulary that is to be potentially curtailed, the ultimate call has to be mine.  I have taken JK's preference into account, though.

Just now, Calm said:

I don't believe it is respectful of the individual to ignore their expressed wishes by waving to a different context where something is acceptable.  

I am not ignoring his expressed wishes.  I am declining to subjugate myself to them.

Just now, Calm said:

It is treating the individual as if they should be some cookie cutter image of everyone else one choose to label a certain way.

With respect, I disagree. 

Just now, Calm said:

If I had told someone I couldn't eat chocolate or strawberries because of allergies, would it be respectful or unthinking for them to show up for my birthday with a plate of chocolate covered strawberries because they loved them and knew many others who did as well?

Allergies are a health condition.  Showing up at your house with an allergen would be inappropriate.

But what if you had a chocolate/strawberry allergy, and told me about it with the expectation that I not eat chocolate/strawberries in my own home?  As long as I am not asking you to eat them, why would it be appropriate for you to expect me to abstain?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If someone unilaterally endeavors to control my discourse by insisting I not use this or that term or expression, I will entertain and consider his reasoning. That is being respectful. But the reasoning has to be solid, and yes, I am the determiner of what I find solid or reasonable. I don’t cede that privilege to anyone. 

I have asked for clarifications on when use of SSA is acceptable to many on the board who have expressed problems with it.  None of them have responded "never", but have clarified how it works and doesn't work for them.  Presenting it as "unilateral" is not accurate and it appears to me to be a strawman.

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see it as the same. From the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ, it is an effort to be clear and accurate about its self identity. 

And while there has been a reasoned and polite request that outsiders conform to these guidelines, I’ve seen nothing in the way of insistence or coercion to do so, or of disparagement or implications of bigotry toward those who choose not to do so. 

It seems to me that it is the same in that individuals or groups want to retain the right to self-identify.  In any event, churches have claimed moral authority and a church making a label invariably includes a moral judgment that cuts to the core for those so labeled.  So, the mere fact that the church is labeling a group is maybe where the problem lies.  I think the same thing applies to the outside world and the name of the church.  Persecution has been a big part of the name of the church and if the outside world won't accede and still call the church "mormon," I am sure there might be some implicit reminders of the persecution of the past and some spirited responses.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are directly interacting with individuals who can respond directly back and you are responding directly back to them, you are not just putting your words out to the general public.  Equating this board to a newspaper simply because it is public and claiming the implied audience is the public when you are responding to personal posts that carry individual names is, imo, ignoring the value of the individual interaction you are engaging in to focus on the generic impact of your words to a public you can't even know is reading your words.  I find that disrespectful of the effort people put in to correspond to you.  Write a blog if you don't care what others are saying to you, if your words are meant for "the public".  Don't waste people's time who think you care about the content and meaning of their posts.

On the contrary, I <am> putting my words out to the general public, not just those I am conversing with. That is the nature of a public message board. Were it otherwise, I would choose some private medium, such as email or text message. 

I categorically reject and resent your accusation that I am being disrespectful of or wasting the time of those who interact with me here. I find that absurd. 

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seems eminently reasonable to me. Would you want someone, with no good reason to do so, controlling how you address yourself?

Its not about regulation and control, its about courtesy, tolerance and respect.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I have asked for clarifications on when use of SSA is acceptable to many on the board who have expressed problems with it.  None of them have responded "never", but have clarified how it works and doesn't work for them.  Presenting it as "unilateral" is not accurate and it appears to me to be a strawman.

I have a different perception. 

On one occasion, I was compared unfavorably by a frequent participant here to those who use ethnic slurs. “Yes, you’re one of those,” he snarled. 

He was sanctioned by a moderator for that remark, but to this day he has not apologized. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Its not about regulation and control, its about courtesy, tolerance and respect.  

It’s about demands as opposed to reasoned and polite request. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

It seems that none of those sources are using those terms as an adjective, as a substitute for gay/lesbian/LGBT. That's the difference.

I disagree.  I see no meaningful difference, other than grammatical categories, between "same-sex attracted" (an adjective) and "same-sex attraction" (a noun).

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you go out of your way to use it as an adjective describing the person, it is usually done in bad faith as a way of negating someone's sexual orientation.

I disagree.  I think you are just making this up whole cloth.

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Saying someone is gay is admitting that it's a part of them and it's permanent.

"Admitting" being the key word there.

Thank you for pointing out, I think, a substantial problem.  The argument over vocabulary is an attempt to force an admission of a contested premise.

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's affirming their identity as a gay person.

I can affirm that a person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex.  I don't have to use coercively-prescribed vocabulary to do it.

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Saying they are "same-sex attracted" makes it sound transitory, as if it could be "cured" somehow.

I disagree.  There are plenty of people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender, but who believe it is a transitory condition (in this life or the next).

Moreover, I don't "same-sex attraction" carries any connotation of duration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s about demands as opposed to reasoned and polite request. 

... as the demands are for ever more and more, with no reasonable hope of ever ceasing:  drama is at heart of every demand.

[USU78]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Admitting" being the key word there.

Thank you for pointing out, I think, a substantial problem.  The argument over vocabulary is an attempt to force an admission of a contested premise.

Bingo!

[jkwilliams]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

Refusing to accept individual preferences does not strike me as respectful.  Call it standing on principles you hold, sure, but respectful in the face of someone specifically asking you not to do it because the term means something negative to them even if value neutral to you....that is not respectful in my view.

Respect is, imo, being willing to take the time and make the effort look at an individual as an individual and to try and understand what is and isn't important to them.

I guess I follow the golden rule here. If someone tells me that referring to them by a specific term is disrespectful or inappropriate, I won't use that term with them. It absolutely is disrespectful to say, "Nope, I'm not going to do that because I think your reasons are absurd or motivated by a tyrannical desire to silence other people." 

As I said, it was a huge mistake to wade into this subject. Thank you for expressing what I have struggled to communicate. 

[jkwilliams]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thank you for pointing out, I think, a substantial problem.  The argument over vocabulary is an attempt to force an admission of a contested premise.

It's simply a request that you don't take sides over a contested premise. Is that so much to ask?

Thank heavens I get to hold my grandson to wash all this unpleasantness out of my brain. 

ETA: he just spit up on me, and even that was more pleasant than the attacks on this thread.

Edited August 21, 2018 by jkwilliams