An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[jkwilliams]

Just now, USU78 said:

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

Oh, I thought you were talking about this thread. 

[USU78]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Oh, I thought you were talking about this thread. 

Snark noted.  It is the same phenomenon, you see:  make up new words and sanction or cause to be sanctioned those who negligently, ignorantly, or in frustration at the insanity of it all fail or refuse to use those new words "appropriately."

Words as weapons:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-strawhand/weaponized-language_b_1380788.html

That's what I believe is going on here.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Who is making someone do anything?

At present, the government of Canada is situating itself to use the force of law to coerce the citizenry of that country to speak in prescribed ways.  And if a citizen chooses to not be compelled to speak in the ways required by the government, the government will have the authority to punish that citizen.  

According to this website, Bill C-16 "has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law."  

Bill C-16 was the culmination of an effort to curtail free speech.  To compel speech.  To punish speech.

And the great country to the north of us is the lesser for it.

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not at all.  And I would be happy to explain (I'm not asking anyone to "justify" anything - just explain).  My faith and my family are the most important things in my life.  Most of my time and means and efforts go toward providing for my wife and children, helping them, etc.  Moreover, my identity as husband and father is tightly interwoven with my identity as a son of God, and my membership in the Church.  So these identities fold in on each other and strengthen each other.

My status as an American is simply happenstance, but I am grateful for it.  I love my country.  I am proud of it.  I have served in its military.  I vote in its elections.  I pay taxes.  I (try to) abide by its laws.

My gender has an effect on many aspects of my life.  My status as a husband and father is dependent on it.  My outlook on life appears to be affected by it.  

Imagine being told all your life by your family, your church, and broader society that there's some aspect of your life that makes you different or an outsider, and not in a good way. You naturally try to suppress that aspect of yourself, and you certainly don't talk about it in public because you understand the risks of doing so. You cannot help but feel different, that this one aspect of yourself has affected your outlook, your relationships, your self-image--because it has. Then, suppose you finally come to accept that part of yourself and no longer feel you need to hide or suppress it. It makes sense to me that you might identify with that part of you that has had such an impact on your life.

Edited August 22, 2018 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Snark noted.  It is the same phenomenon, you see:  make up new words and sanction or cause to be sanctioned those who negligently, ignorantly, or in frustration at the insanity of it all fail or refuse to use those new words "appropriately."

Words as weapons:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-strawhand/weaponized-language_b_1380788.html

That's what I believe is going on here.

No snark intended. Why would you say that?

[USU78]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

No snark intended. Why would you say that?

I wasn't remotely irritated by the snark.  Indeed, I found and find it amusing.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At present, the government of Canada is situating itself to use the force of law to coerce the citizenry of that country to speak in prescribed ways.  And if a citizen chooses to not be compelled to speak in the ways required by the government, the government will have the authority to punish that citizen.  

According to this website, Bill C-16 "has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law."  

Bill C-16 was the culmination of an effort to curtail free speech.  To compel speech.  To punish speech.

And the great country to the north of us is the lesser for it.

-Smac

Again, I'm not seeing the relevance. Are you suggesting my request is akin to a nation's adopting speech codes, etc.? I've said how I feel and why, and you guys have given me a resounding "no" in response. It's not a big deal. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

I wasn't remotely irritated by the snark.  Indeed, I found and find it amusing.

I still don't understand why you think I was being snarky. I wasn't.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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 "identify" myself by relation (son of God, husband, father, son, brother, friend), by faith (Latter-day Saint), by nationality (American), and by gender (male).

There are other aspects of myself which are important to me, but not as an "identity."  These include sexual orientation (heterosexual), political ideology (conservative/libertarian), residence (Utahn), profession (attorney), and so on.

And then there are aspects of myself which are not as important to me.  These include racial category (caucasian), physical attributes (height, weight, hair and eye color, right-handed, etc.), sports fan (lukewarm for BYU and the Jazz), artistic preferences and tastes (music, literature, movies, etc.), and so on.

I understand that some people have their "identity" tied up in their politics, or their job, or their creative efforts.  And some identify themselves predominantly by their race. 

And, it seems, some identify themselves predominantly by their sexual orientation.  I do not seek to criticize or find fault with this.  I want to understand it better.

Thanks,

-Smac

 I feel like one of the best explanations of this idea was given by Ty Mansfield at a FAIR conference: 

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay

This is the section on identity, but the whole thing is well worth reading. 

IDENTITY

“Being gay” is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The “gay” person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.

In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be “same-sex attraction,” which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or “gay,” “lesbian,” or “LGBT,” which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the “self” and “self-hood” through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms “gay,” “lesbian,” and “bisexual” aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as “gay” simply as shorthand for the mouthful “son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality,” while another person experiences themselves as “gay” as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.

An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of “selfhood”—what it means to have a self, and what it means to “be true to” that self. The question of what it means to be “true to ourselves” is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self, award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of “selves” who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, “You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!”

As a final note here, however one chooses to self-identify here in a fallen, temporal world limited by human culture and human language, I firmly believe that, like Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in which all social and political constructs were swallowed up in the gospel stone that rolled forth to consume the nations, so will the spiritual ideals and identities of the kingdom of God and the Celestial nature swallow up all of our social identity constructs that blur eternal identity (see Daniel 2:31-45).

While I identified as gay for a time, at one point I had a very strong spiritual prompting that if I continued to identify as gay, it would limit my progression. I believe that the more deeply we understand and feel spiritually connected to eternal realities and our eternal identity, the less meaningful any proximate, mortal identities feel to us. If others refer to me as gay, I typically tolerate it for practical purposes, but it’s not how I see myself, and occasionally it can feel particularly oppressive when others seem to insist on projecting and LGBT identity construct on me even after I’ve specified that that is not how I see myself. It’s not a construct that adequately captures who I am, what I believe, or how I feel.

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I still don't understand why you think I was being snarky. I wasn't.

Perhaps I don't understand what you believe "snarky" means.  I know what I think it means.

I'm thinking we would both be in agreement that the "you're off topic and trying to drag me down a rabbit hole" post was smartalecky.  Would that work for you?

[kllindley]

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. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Perhaps I don't understand what you believe "snarky" means.  I know what I think it means.

I'm thinking we would both be in agreement that the "you're off topic and trying to drag me down a rabbit hole" post was smartalecky.  Would that work for you?

Now we are getting off topic, but suffice it to say I didn't mean to say anything like that at all. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 I feel like one of the best explanations of this idea was given by Ty Mansfield at a FAIR conference: 

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay

This is the section on identity, but the whole thing is well worth reading. 

Interesting stuff.  A few thoughts:

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

IDENTITY

“Being gay” is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us.

I agree with this.

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The “gay” person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.

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

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be “same-sex attraction,” which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or “gay,” “lesbian,” or “LGBT,” which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the “self” and “self-hood” through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms “gay,” “lesbian,” and “bisexual” aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity.

Hmm.  Honestly, this does not illuminate much for me.  It presupposes, but does not explain what is meant by "the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the 'self' and 'self-hood'..." that is entailed in "being" gay.  And then it goes on to say that this "identity" is "highly fluid," and that key terms (“gay,” “lesbian,” and “bisexual”) are not uniformly understood within the group of people claiming that identity.

The parameters of my "identities" are fairly easy to discern.  My "identity" in terms of relation (son of God, husband, father, son, brother, friend) is readily understood, and not particularly fluid.  I will always be a son of God.  I will always be a husband to my wife (unless we get a divorce, which I hope never happens).  I will always be a father to my children, son to my parents, and brother to my siblings.  I will be a friend to my friends as long as we both choose to remain as such.

The parameters of my "identity" as a Latter-day Saint are likewise pretty easy to understand.  I claim that identity.  I have received the ordinance of baptism.  I attend church services.  I profess belief in its precepts.  I am on its membership rolls.  I have a membership number unique to me.  I have a temple recommend.  I have a calling in it.

The parameters of my "identity" as an American are also pretty easy to sort out.  I have a certified copy of my birth certificate stating that I was born in Kahuku, Hawai'i.  I have a social security number.  I have served in the American military.  I pay taxes.  I live here.  I vote in elections.

The parameters of my "identity" as a male is also pretty straightforward.  I am biologically and genetically male.  I have all the, um, external indicators, of being male.  I am the genetic father to six children, four of whom are male, and who therefore inherited my Y chromosome.  If I were to leave trace genetic evidence at a crime scene, the test results would show me to be male.

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

One person might identify as “gay” simply as shorthand for the mouthful “son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality,” while another person experiences themselves as “gay” as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.

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?"

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

While I identified as gay for a time, at one point I had a very strong spiritual prompting that if I continued to identify as gay, it would limit my progression. I believe that the more deeply we understand and feel spiritually connected to eternal realities and our eternal identity, the less meaningful any proximate, mortal identities feel to us.

I can really relate to this.  I have long abandoned any feeling of having a caucasian "identity."  The color of my skin is nore more significant to me than my hair color or eye color.  I feel no particular afinity for other "white" people, nor any particular feeling of "otherness" as pertaining to people of other races.  Some of that has been a philosophical progression on my part, but some of it is undoubtedly attributable to my family.  I have a Hawaiian sister (who has three children who share her skin color), a Taihitian brother, a Filipino brother-in-law, and a Samoan sister-in-law (who has three children who share her skin color).  My parents and my biological siblings are caucasian.  My brother is raising two Afghani refugee boys.  I love all of these people, and do not differentiate between them based on skin color.

That said, I understand and respect that other people have a strong feeling of race-based "identity."

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If others refer to me as gay, I typically tolerate it for practical purposes, but it’s not how I see myself, and occasionally it can feel particularly oppressive when others seem to insist on projecting and LGBT identity construct on me even after I’ve specified that that is not how I see myself. It’s not a construct that adequately captures who I am, what I believe, or how I feel.

That is how I feel about "heterosexual."  It's technically true.  And I certainly "tolerate it for practical purposes."  But it's not an "identity" for me.  It's not "how I see myself."

So Mr. Mansfield, in the end, appears to reject the "gay" identity as being "oppressive" and not reflective of how he sees himself.  It does not capture who he is, what he believes, or how he feels.

But that's what the "gay" identity does not do.  I'm afraid I still don't really understand what it does do.  What it is.

I'll read the entire article in more detail this evening.  Thank you for pointing me to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I'm not seeing the relevance.

Tyranny about fabricated pronouns has just been ensconced in the laws of Canada.  But it very likely started with innocuous (and perhaps even well-intended) "requests."  But then "requests" became "demands."  And the "demands" became "policy" in schoools and governmental organs.  Then "policy" became "law."  And the "law" now compels government-mandated speech and punishes those who choose to not submit to such compulsion.

I think are in the earlier stages of similar progressions as pertaining to compelled speech and suppressed speech here in the United States.  And yes, I think this progression includes efforts to outlaw words like "same-sex attraction."

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Are you suggesting my request is akin to a nation's adopting speech codes, etc.?

Again, my comments are not focused solely on you.  I am addressing the broader societal problem that you happen to be raising.

That is the third time I have said this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Tyranny about fabricated pronouns has just been ensconced in the laws of Canada.  But it very likely started with innocuous (and perhaps even well-intended) "requests."  But then "requests" became "demands."  And the "demands" became "policy" in schoools and governmental organs.  Then "policy" became "law."  And the "law" now compels government-mandated speech and punishes those who choose to not submit to such compulsion.

I think are in the earlier stages of similar progressions as pertaining to compelled speech and suppressed speech here in the United States.  And yes, I think this progression includes efforts to outlaw words like "same-sex attraction."

Again, my comments are not focused solely on you.  I am addressing the broader societal problem that you happen to be raising.

That is the third time I have said this.

Do you think Mr. Mansfield is doing the same kind of thing in rejecting the label "gay"?

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that's what the "gay" identity does not do.  I'm afraid I still don't really understand what it does do.  What it is.

It appears to be at best a result of magical thinking [assuming no profit motive].

I myself can't help my cynical cui bono analysis of its use and the reasons for the insistence on its recognition.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Imagine being told all your life by your family, your church, and broader society that there's some aspect of your life that makes you unacceptable or an outsider.

What aspect?  Is it an immutable trait?  A preference?  A form of conduct?

The nature of the "aspect" matters.  A lot.

As for feeling sexually attracted to people of the same sex, the Church has long taught that this "aspect" of such persons in no way diminishes their innate worth and standing before God.  So the Church is not telling such persons that they are "unacceptable."  Quite the contrary, in fact.

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You naturally try to suppress that aspect of yourself, and you certainly don't talk about it in public because you understand the risks of doing so. You cannot help but feel different, that this one aspect of yourself has affected your outlook, your relationships, your self-image--because it has. Then, suppose you finally come to accept that part of yourself and no longer feel you need to hide or suppress it. It makes sense to me that you might identify with that part of you that has had such an impact on your life.

You appear to be referencing feeling sexually attracted to people of the same sex as an "aspect" of your life.  Okay, I can understand that.

But you seem to be saying it's more than a matter of feeling or inclination, but rather of being.  That's the part I don't get.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Do you think Mr. Mansfield is doing the same kind of thing in rejecting the label "gay"?

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

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

What aspect?  Is it an immutable trait?  A preference?  A form of conduct?

The nature of the "aspect" matters.  A lot.

As for feeling sexually attracted to people of the same sex, the Church has long taught that this "aspect" of such persons in no way diminishes their innate worth and standing before God.  So the Church is not telling such persons that they are "unacceptable."  Quite the contrary, in fact.

You appear to be referencing feeling sexually attracted to people of the same sex as an "aspect" of your life.  Okay, I can understand that.

But you seem to be saying it's more than a matter of feeling or inclination, but rather of being.  That's the part I don't get.

You asked why people might thus identify. I gave you my perspective. I am not going to argue about immutable traits or preferences or states of being, which are entirely irrelevant to what I said.

I identify as a husband, a father, and a grandfather. Imagine being questioned on whether those are "aspects" of my life or part of my "being." It's a nonsensical question.

[jkwilliams]

2 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.

But you think I am part of such a progression. Got it.

[Rock_N_Roll]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Just a quick dose of perspective.  Here we are on page 15 on a CoJCoLDS discussion forum, happily arguing away about who should use what term to describe what.  Tossing around terms like "facile" and "insulting" and "unreasonable", and a few more.

You want to know where else I've seen the issue discussed?  In social circles peopled mainly by lgbtq/non-binary/gender fluidity folks.  Those can get very vicious.  Tossing around terms like "die in a hole" and "drink bleach" and "go kill yourself", plus no end of foul language. 

No seriously.  You think people here are being rude or disrespectful when trying to figure out what word to use for these various folks?  Go watch a fight when these various folks start arguing among themselves about the same thing.  Not only do they tell you you're using the wrong word, they often deny you the word you're trying to claim for yourself.  It often gets real nasty, real fast.

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. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Rock_N_Roll

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

What aspect?  Is it an immutable trait?  A preference?  A form of conduct?

The nature of the "aspect" matters.  A lot.

As for feeling sexually attracted to people of the same sex, the Church has long taught that this "aspect" of such persons in no way diminishes their innate worth and standing before God.  So the Church is not telling such persons that they are "unacceptable."  Quite the contrary, in fact.

You appear to be referencing feeling sexually attracted to people of the same sex as an "aspect" of your life.  Okay, I can understand that.

But you seem to be saying it's more than a matter of feeling or inclination, but rather of being.  That's the part I don't get.

You asked why people might thus identify. I gave you my perspective. I am not going to argue about immutable traits or preferences or states of being, which are entirely irrelevant to what I said.

I am not looking for an argument.  I am not trying to change your mind.  I am looking for clarification.

I am attempting to engage you in a discussion.  You brought up an unnamed "aspect" in a very broad, generalized way.  I asked that you explain the nature of that "aspect."  That's all.

Perhaps there is a bit of pique between us at the moment.  I will withdraw my requests for clarification for the time bing.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I identify as a husband, a father, and a grandfather. Imagine being questioned on whether those are "aspects" of my life or part of my "being." It's a nonsensical question.

As you like.  I'm seeking to understand a concept that I have difficulty in grasping.  I was not criticizing.  I was not arguing.  I was not trying to change your mind.  I was asking questions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

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.

But you think I am part of such a progression. Got it.

Again, my comments are not focused solely on you.  I am addressing the broader societal problem that you happen to be raising.

That is the fourth time I have said this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not looking for an argument.  I am not trying to change your mind.  I am looking for clarification.

I am attempting to engage you in a discussion.  You brought up an unnamed "aspect" in a very broad, generalized way.  I asked that you explain the nature of that "aspect."  That's all.

Perhaps there is a bit of pique between us at the moment.  I will withdraw my requests for clarification for the time bing.

There's no pique on my end. You are asking me to define the undefinable, to weigh in on whether sexual orientation is an immutable trait or an aspect or whatever, and I'm obviously not capable of doing that. I can't speak for anyone but myself. Is my sexual orientation an immutable trait? Beats the heck out of me, so I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else. 

Quote

As you like.  I'm seeking to understand a concept that I have difficulty in grasping.  I was not criticizing.  I was not arguing.  I was not trying to change your mind.  I was asking questions.

I'm not upset with you, just trying to make the point that you are asking questions that are impossible to answer. kllindley apparently doesn't think his sexual orientation is immutable, but I have gay 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. 

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."

Edited August 22, 2018 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, my comments are not focused solely on you.  I am addressing the broader societal problem that you happen to be raising.

That is the fourth time I have said this.

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.