An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[USU78]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is Mr. Mansfield part of a progression that culminates in compelled speech and suppression and punishment of free speech?

No, I don't.  Not even a smidge.

Thanks,

-Smac

This conversation reminds me of something from Mencken:

[kllindley]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So "gay identity" is a new concept?  Do you agree with Mr. Mansfield on this point?

Yes. And yes, I do agree with it. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I understand that some feel that being "gay" is a permanent and immutable (and perhaps even eternal) "eternal identity and state of being."  But I still don't understand what that means.

I'm not being obtuse.  I just don't understand it.  If "being gay" means more than "experienc[ing] romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex," then what is that "more?"

I don't believe you are being obtuse. I also struggle to understand it completely

There is a whole field studying identity. What is it? How is it formed? However can it change? Which identities are more helpful than others? How does the intersectionality of various identities impact individuals? It's a complex construct. 

I think it has something to do with what you mentioned about racial identity.  Like you, I don't fully get why that is such a big deal for some people. But for some, especially those who have felt discriminated against, left out, or like they don't belong, it can be extremely comforting and empowering to discover that they aren't alone and that they have a place. 

In my experience, the gay identity offers that sense of belonging and a way to make sense of one's experience.  But like Ty, I don't believe that identity is really compatible with our identity as children of God.  

Edited August 22, 2018 by kllindley

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There's no pique on my end. You are asking me to define the undefinable,

"Gay" identity is "undefinable?"

Well, okay.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

to weigh in on whether sexual orientation is an immutable trait or an aspect or whatever,

Not really. 

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

and I'm obviously not capable of doing that.

Well, we can have an opinion about it, I suppose.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not upset with you, just trying to make the point that you are asking questions that are impossible to answer. kllindley doesn't think his sexual orientation is immutable, but I have ex-Mormon friends who do believe that. I don't think identifying as gay or bisexual or any of the other possibilities depends on believing things will never change. 

I'm not particularly interested in pursuing that line of inquiry.  I am seeking to better understand the concept of gay "identity" or "being" gay.  It apparently means something so much more than "experienc[ing] romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex."  But that "more" is "undefinable?"  Questions as to even the basic gist of it "are impossible to answer?"

I had no idea.  Live and learn.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In short, the answer to "why do you identify as gay" is as varied as the answers to "why do you identify as a father, an American, a white person, a socialist, or a cat person."

I didn't ask that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Gay" identity is "undefinable?"

Well, okay.

Not really. 

Well, we can have an opinion about it, I suppose.

I'm not particularly interested in pursuing that line of inquiry.  I am seeking to better understand the concept of gay "identity" or "being" gay.  It apparently means something so much more than "experienc[ing] romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex."  But that "more" is "undefinable?"  Questions as to even the basic gist of it "are impossible to answer?"

I had no idea.  Live and learn.

I didn't ask that.  

Fair enough. I'll go back to your original question:

Quote

 

I would like to better understand the "gay as an identity" concept.

For me, being "straight" or "heterosexual" is not an "identity."  It is part of who I am, yes.  But it's an attribute of the whole, not an identity of the whole.

 

I don't know anyone who says that being gay is "an identity of the whole." I've likewise never met anyone who says that being heterosexual is "an identity of the whole." Everyone I have ever met describes their identity as being made up of a lot of things. That "being gay" or "having same-sex attraction" is one of those things seems rather uncontroversial to me.   

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, kllindley said:

In explaining why the Church chooses to use the term same-sex attraction, Ty gives a clear explanation:

"In terms of functional discourse, my understanding of the Church’s approach (which I happen to agree with and favor) is that they’ve opted for a vernacular that speaks to the base denominator, the most inclusive term—same-sex sexual/romantic attraction/desires—which may or may not be persistent to the point that it would be termed a “sexual orientation,” and which may or may not ever be acted out on sexually, and which may or may not be incorporated into a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity.

At the end of the day, Latter-day Saints have a unique worldview that provides the lens through which we view and interpret our experiences. Take that framing narrative away, however, and reasonable and sincere people may come to different conclusions about how sexual and gender variation might best be understood and responded to."

It has nothing to do with being disrespectful or dismissive of an individual who might identify as gay. In fact, the point is that it's not just about them. It's a conscious choice to be more inclusive. 

Thanks for citing this. It is a good explanation — perhaps the best I’ve seen. 

It explains why I, for one, refuse to be browbeaten into into abandoning a reasonable and serviceable expression. 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

That was an unfortunate post. You should get new friends. 

Or are you now trying to make the case all the gays talk like this?

I am assuming he is talking about a limited group who deal with disagreement among themselves in aggressive ways on this topic.  Latter-day Saints are taught not to use extreme language, but I have seen arguments among Saints where the intensity is significantly higher than if the argument had been with nonmembers (it appears to matter more to people that someone 'like them' disagrees with them or perhaps one feels safer letting loose in one's group).  This type of intragroup conflict rising to more intense levels is not uncommon in my understanding.  That we on the board are currently more civil in our conflict probably has a lot to do with our culture emphasizing 'nice language' and our mods banning anyone prone to argue at that level.  There are undoubtedly plenty of nonLGBT+ groups that argue amongst themselves with greater viciousness.  I am not particular concerned about the language, but how people feel about it.  Someone not used to aggressive, vulgar, or vicious (in the view of those who post here generally) will see such as disgusting etc and very offensive, someone who is used to it will see no more real conflict than we have here perhaps...unless their group acts out on the language.  Group dynamics are highly varied, language is just part of it.

I think recognizing that the intensity of conflict in this case here is rather low and therefore accusations of aggressiveness or whatever are probably out of place would help remove more terminology that results in miscommunication rather than contributes.

Perhaps Loudmouth meant something else, but this is where I went after reading his comment.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

Yes, people can be foul or un-Christlike on both sides of the issue.  After revealing that I have a gay son and two gay BIL’s on the LDSFF board, some posters referred to them as “sodomites” and/or evil sinners.  I contacted the mods and indicated that this was offensive and against board rules, and they said they didn’t see anything wrong. 

I am grateful for the balance the board moderators insist upon here.  It probably inflates the appearance of the conflict that does appear here, but I would rather that happen then the extremes.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm aware of that. You seem to be associating my simple request with the "broader societal problem." If you aren't doing that, perhaps you could clarify.

Can you remind us again what your “simple request” is? I’m not sure I recall. 

And can you make it concise, preferably expressed in a single sentence? 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you remind us again what your “simple request” is? I’m not sure I recall. 

And can you make it concise, preferably expressed in a single sentence? 

I'll quote myself:

Quote

I have asked you not to use [variations of "he has same-sex attraction"] to describe me. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I'll quote myself:

 

I don’t recall describing you as having been a substantial part of the dialogue here. But whatever. 

Does that request apply solely to you, or are you asking that people altogether avoid using “variations of ‘he has same-sex attraction’” in any context or setting, the way one might eschew obscene language or racial or ethnic epithets? 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t recall describing you as having been a substantial part of the dialogue here. But whatever. 

Does that request apply solely to you, or are you asking that people altogether avoid using “same-sex attraction” in any context or setting the way one might eschew obscene language or racial or ethnic epithets? 

Have I said anything even remotely like "asking that people altogether avoid using 'same-sex attraction' in any context or setting the way one might eschew obscene language or racial or ethnic epithets?" If I have, I must  have missed it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Have I said anything even remotely like "asking that people altogether avoid using 'same-sex attraction' in any context or setting the way one might eschew obscene language or racial or ethnic epithets?" If I have, I must  have missed it. 

Others certainly have. On the occasion I recounted when I was compared to those who use vile racial or ethnic epithets and told, “Yes, you’re one of those,” the message I got was that it was an attempt to shame me into not using that expression. 

I have seen The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members derided on the absurd premise that it is almost exclusively they who use that expression. 

It has been an example of political correctness run amok. 

Furthermore, I remind you that the opening post of this thread asserts that the expression is “extremely disrespectful to LGBT people,” so the central point of this thread seems to be to shame us all into ceasing to use this expression. Ever. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am assuming he is talking about a limited group who deal with disagreement among themselves in aggressive ways on this topic.  Latter-day Saints are taught not to use extreme language, but I have seen arguments among Saints where the intensity is significantly higher than if the argument had been with nonmembers (it appears to matter more to people that someone 'like them' disagrees with them or perhaps one feels safer letting lose in one's group).  This type of intragroup conflict rising to more intense levels is not uncommon in my understanding.  That we on the board are currently more civil in our conflict probably has a lot to do with our culture emphasizing 'nice language' and our mods banning anyone prone to argue at that level.  There are undoubtedly plenty of nonLGBT+ groups that argue amongst themselves with greater viciousness.  I am not particular concerned about the language, but how people feel about it.  Someone not used to aggressive, vulgar, or vicious (in the view of those who post here generally) will see such as disgusting etc and very offensive, someone who is used to it will see no more real conflict than we have here perhaps...unless their group acts out on the language.  Group dynamics are highly varied, language is just part of it.

I think recognizing that the intensity of conflict in this case here is rather low and therefore accusations of aggressiveness or whatever are probably out of place would help remove more terminology that results in miscommunication rather than contributes.

Perhaps Loudmouth meant something else, but this is where I went after reading his comment.

I just want to thank you for this.  Sometimes you say just the right thing to me at just the right time.  I found Loudmouth's remark as just another in a long line of remarks on this thread as well as others that are designed to justify absolutely no respect for gays by church members.  My only thought was, you definitely belong to the right church where smearing gays and justifying the lack of respect seems to be a badge of honor.  

I really don't have a problem with how members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view and treat anyone who is gay.  I expect it. Honestly I would have been much more surprised if someone would have seen what the original post was referring to and acknowledged it. Your post reminds me that within all groups there are those that enjoy the conflict.  I was more offended by yet again a comment that seemed to be only meant to disparage gays when Loudmouth felt it was the perfect time to dump more vilification on the gay community as a whole.  Perhaps Loudmouth did mean something else by his comment.  That is why I thank you for your post. You remind me that perhaps I should withhold judgement and let him respond.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Others certainly have. On the occasion I recounted when I was compared to those who use vile racial or ethnic epithets and told, “Yes, you’re one of those,” the message I got was that it was an attempt to shame into not using that expression. 

I have seen The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members derided on the premise that it is almost exclusively they who use that expression. 

It has been an example of political correctness run amok. 

Thank you for explaining. There is a huge difference between the way you say were treated and a simple request from a particular person not to be labeled with something they find inaccurate or ideologically motivated. I know why I don't like the phrase, and it has nothing to do with political correctness or anti-LDS sentiment. But you are free to reject a request that you find unreasonable or offensive. 

But I was really asking the question of smac: does a polite request for people not to label someone in a way they dislike constitute part of a larger campaign to silence people and control their thoughts? Saying that one isn't "solely" talking about the person making the request suggests the answer is yes. 

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But I was really asking the question of smac: does a polite request for people not to label someone in a way they dislike constitute part of a larger campaign to silence people and control their thoughts? Saying that one isn't "solely" talking about the person making the request suggests the answer is yes. 

Your request may very well not be any part of the larger campaign. But the campaign is nonetheless active and ascendant. It seems like you don't think it's real?

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, I remind you that the opening post of this thread assets that the expression is “extremely disrespectful to LGBT people,” so the central point of this thread seems to be to shame us all into ceasing to use this expression. Ever. 

Participation in a thread does not imply agreement with the OP. In my first comments in the thread, I mentioned how I see it, which was quite different from the way the OP had it. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, kllindley said:

Your request may very well not be any part of the larger campaign. But the campaign is nonetheless active and ascendant. It seems like you don't think it's real?

Where are you getting that?

[kllindley]

The way you made fun of any references to Orwellian speech control. I got the impression you thought the idea was nonsense. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, kllindley said:

The way you made fun of any references to Orwellian speech control. I got the impression you thought the idea was nonsense. 

I was making fun of the idea that my puny contribution to this thread constituted a step toward Orwellian tyranny. It's absurd. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Have you somehow missed the Canadian sanctions against those who refuse or fail to use recently made-up pronouns?

For those who don't know what USU is talking about:

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

On a side note, USU, unless you provide some sort of quote or reference for an accusation, I suspect most posters assume you are commenting upon those posting in the thread, but that would make your comment nonsense, I believe, since there has been no one espousing sanctions for pronoun use that I have seen.  More extreme positions held by lawmakers in another country (I don't remember any Canadians posting in this thread, my apologies if I missed you) do not invalidate by their existence less extreme ones held by the people currently present in this thread, including requests to cease using terms in what amounts to interpersonal conversation.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was making fun of the idea that my puny contribution to this thread constituted a step toward Orwellian tyranny. It's absurd. 

Well, according to progressive identity politics, every story and voice is part of the revolution. . .

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

For those who don't know what USU is talking about:

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

Thank you for that. I kind of figured it was something like that. Here's the criminalizing part:

Quote

 

The second thing that the Bill does is add the words “gender identity or expression” to two sections of the Criminal Code. So surely this must be what Peterson is getting at?  Criminalizing something?  Well, lets take a closer look.

It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred”  It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.

Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes.   The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing.  The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.

 

 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, according to progressive identity politics, every story and voice is part of the revolution. . .

That seems to be the implication from some people in this thread. 

And for the record, I am not a progressive, and I really dislike identity politics. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, according to progressive identity politics, every story and voice is part of the revolution. . .

Think how long the thread would be if it was expected that each poster was a representive of all those whose position held a hint of their own, no matter how extreme or unusual.

[kllindley]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Think how long the thread would be if it was expected that each poster was a representive of all those whose position held a hint of their own, no matter how extreme or unusual.

So true.