An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

I will repeat what I said to Calm so there is no confusion on this issue

It is how it is used that is irritating to the gay community.  

Meh.  It is who is using it that is irritating to some people in the gay community.

If GLAAD, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Californai Breastfeeding Coalition, the Huffington Post, the Stanf ord Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the New York Times , the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the BBC, the LA Times, and the Bisexual Resource Center can all use "same-sex attraction," then so can anyone else.

To target religionists for their use of this neutral and clinical term, while, ignoring the plethora of other groups and organizations that use it in the same way, is inappropriate and wrong.

Quote

I am sexually attracted to the same sex is different than saying I HAVE same sex attraction.

I disagree.  

Quote

But honestly, even saying I am sexually attracted to the same sex is not something that people say.  For most of the rest of the world, when someone is attracted to someone of the same sex, they simply say I am gay.  

And "gay" used to be a pejorative.  Now it's not.

"Same-sex attraction" is not a pejorative.  It is a clinical and neutral term.

Quote

That is exactly what the word means.  

No, that's not "exactly" what the word means.  

The etymology of "gay" stems from the 12th-14th centuries:

Quote

gay (adj.)
late 14c., "full of joy, merry; light-hearted, carefree;" also "wanton, lewd, lascivious" (late 12c. as a surname, Philippus de Gay), from Old French gai "joyful, happy; pleasant, agreeably charming; forward, pert; light-colored" (12c.; compare Old Spanish gayo, Portuguese gaio, Italian gajo, probably French loan-words). Ultimate origin disputed; perhaps from Frankish *gahi (related to Old High German wahi "pretty"), though not all etymologists accept this.

Meaning "stately and beautiful; splendid and showily dressed" is from early 14c. Of things, "sumptuous, showy, rich, ornate," mid-14c. of colors, etc., "shining, glittering, gleaming, bright, vivid," late 14c.; of persons, "dressed up, decked out in finery," late 14c.

Then, in the 18th-19th centuries:

Quote

In the English of Yorkshire and Scotland formerly it could mean "moderately, rather, considerable" (1796; compare sense development in pretty (adj.)).

The word gay by the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a gay house was a brothel. The suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back at least to the 1630s, if not to Chaucer:

Quote

But in oure bed he was so fressh and gay
Whan that he wolde han my bele chose.

 

Then the 1930s-1940s, as a disparaging reference to people who are attracted to members of the same-sex:

Quote

Slang meaning "homosexual" (adj.) begins to appear in psychological writing late 1940s, evidently picked up from gay slang and not always easily distinguished from the older sense:

Quote

After discharge A.Z. lived for some time at home. He was not happy at the farm and went to a Western city where he associated with a homosexual crowd, being "gay," and wearing female clothes and makeup. He always wished others would make advances to him. ["Rorschach Research Exchange and Journal of Projective Techniques," 1947, p.240]

The association with (male) homosexuality likely got a boost from the term gay cat, used as far back as 1893 in American English for "young hobo," one who is new on the road, also one who sometimes does jobs.

Quote

"A Gay Cat," said he, "is a loafing laborer, who works maybe a week, gets his wages and vagabonds about hunting for another 'pick and shovel' job. Do you want to know where they got their monica (nickname) 'Gay Cat'? See, Kid, cats sneak about and scratch immediately after chumming with you and then get gay (fresh). That's why we call them 'Gay Cats'." [Leon Ray Livingston ("America's Most Celebrated Tramp"), "Life and Adventures of A-no. 1," 1910]

Quoting a tramp named Frenchy, who might not have known the origin. Gay cats were severely and cruelly abused by "real" tramps and bums, who considered them "an inferior order of beings who begs of and otherwise preys upon the bum -- as it were a jackal following up the king of beasts" [Prof. John J. McCook, "Tramps," in "The Public Treatment of Pauperism," 1893], but some accounts report certain older tramps would dominate a gay cat and employ him as a sort of slave. In "Sociology and Social Research" (1932-33) a paragraph on the "gay cat" phenomenon notes, "Homosexual practices are more common than rare in this group," and gey cat "homosexual boy" is attested in Noel Erskine's 1933 dictionary of "Underworld & Prison Slang" (gey is a Scottish variant of gay).

Self-application of the term apparently started in the 1920s:

Quote

The "Dictionary of American Slang" reports that gay (adj.) was used by homosexuals, among themselves, in this sense at least since 1920. Rawson ["Wicked Words"] notes a male prostitute using gay in reference to male homosexuals (but also to female prostitutes) in London's notorious Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889. Ayto ["20th Century Words"] calls attention to the ambiguous use of the word in the 1868 song "The Gay Young Clerk in the Dry Goods Store," by U.S. female impersonator Will S. Hays, but the word evidently was not popularly felt in this sense by wider society until the 1950s at the earliest.

Quote

"Gay" (or "gai") is now widely used in French, Dutch, Danish, Japanese, Swedish, and Catalan with the same sense as the English. It is coming into use in Germany and among the English-speaking upper classes of many cosmopolitan areas in other countries. [John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality," 1980]

As a teen slang word meaning "bad, inferior, undesirable," without reference to sexuality, from 2000.

As a teenager in the 1980s, I remember "gay" meaning "bad, inferior, undesirable," and did not understand it as referencing sexuality (but perhaps I was just oblivious).

Gay has only recently, in the last few decades, been "reclaimed" from its pejorative application.  And its use as a pejorative reference to people who are sexually attracted to members of their own sex was, in turn, fairly recent as well.

Quote

That is exactly how the word is understood to everyone else.

"To everyone else."

You can speak authoritatively as to how "everyone else" understands the word "gay?"

I think . . . not.

I have a friend who is sexually attracted to members of his own sex.  He categorically rejects the term "gay" in favor of "same-sex attraction."  Who are you to say he cannot do that?  Who are you to say that he is wrong to prefer the latter term and reject the former?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 20, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

It is interesting that, if you google "same sex attraction," you get pages and pages of links to conservative Christian and LDS pages. My impression is that the term is designed to avoid defining a person by their sexual orientation. A lot of gay people I know say that being gay is much more than merely what one finds sexually attractive, and that makes sense to me. But it also makes sense that conservative religions would want to reduce it to sexual attraction. I don't know any gay people who use the term "same-sex attraction," so I tend not to use it, either. But I don't find it necessarily offensive when people do use it. I just recognize that there's an agenda behind it. 

 

[JAHS]

23 hours ago, Jeanne said:

23 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

In a private FB group I participate in, there has been a lot of discussion about the new revelation about the name of the Church.  Honestly, I'm surprised at how strongly some people feel about the issue.

One of the things that came up in discussion was the importance of calling people the name(s) they chosen for themselves.  I personaly didn't have strong feelings on the name of the Church until someone mentioned that ignoring this directive from President Nelson is extremely disrespectful to him, and the Lord's Church.  If we don't want to be called Mormons -- because it incorrect -- then others should be respectful of President Nelson's wishes and desire to get rid of the name Mormon.

But someone in our discussion brought up the term "Same-sex attracted" the term we use in the Church to describe Gay and Lesbian members.  I did a little googling and realized that, for the most part, we are the only ones who use this term.  I now believe that using this term is extremely disrespectful to LGBTQ saints.  They have expressed a desire to be called Gay and Lesbian.  And I think it shows greater respect to call someone by what they wish to be called.

So I want to apologize to LGBTQ saints for using the term "same sex attracted."  I was being disrespectful.  From now on I will only use Gay, Lesbian, or LGBTQ.

Given the recent discussion on the Church's name, is there anyone else who is going to change how they refer to gay members?

From my gay friend members of your church...I thank you.

But was he really being disrespectful before he found out that using that term was being disrespectful? 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

It is interesting that, if you google "same sex attraction," you get pages and pages of links to conservative Christian and LDS pages.

And plenty of other sources that use it as well.

And of those "religious" sites that use the term, their usage is clinical and neutral, not desparaging or insulting.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

My impression is that the term is designed to avoid defining a person by their sexual orientation.

That's certainly part of it, yes.

"Gay" used to be pejorative and acceptable.  Now it's been "reclaimed" and is acceptable.  Weird.

"Homosexual" used to be clinical and acceptable.  Now it's been deemed by some to be unacceptable.  Weird.

If Cynthia Burack (Professor of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Ohio State University) can speak of "same-sex attracted people" without being accused of bigotry and hatred, then so we can we.

If the Washington Post can use "same-sex attraction" to clinically and objectively describe a group of people, then so can we.

And on and on and on.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

A lot of gay people I know say that being gay is much more than merely what one finds sexually attractive, and that makes sense to me.

Gay:

Quote

adjective
1. (of a person, especially a man) homosexual.
"that friend of yours, is he gay?"
synonyms:    homosexual, lesbian; informal queer
"gay men and women"
...
noun
1. a homosexual, especially a man.

And here:

Quote

adjective, gay·er, gay·est.
1. of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex; homosexual:
a gay couple.
2. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues:
a gay organization.

...

noun
Sometimes Offensive. a homosexual person, especially a male.

If someone wants to use their sexual orientation as one of their predominant means of self-identification, then have at it.  But I have a hard time understanding the notion that "being gay is much more than merely what one finds sexually attractive."  What other aspects of life and behavior, other than sexual attraction and behavior, are intrinsically "gay?"

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

But it also makes sense that conservative religions would want to reduce it to sexual attraction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reduce it to."  

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know any gay people who use the term "same-sex attraction," so I tend not to use it, either.

I have known some who use it.  

GLAAD, for example, would probably have more than a few gay people in it.  GLAAD uses "same-sex attraction" in a clinical, objective way.  So why can't we?

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

But I don't find it necessarily offensive when people do use it. I just recognize that there's an agenda behind it. 

I think the same thing can be said with making "gay" acceptable and outlawing "homosexual."  There's an agenda there, too.

Meanwhile, my use of the term "same-sex attraction" or "SSA" is to be a clinical and value-neutral descriptor (or as close to that as we can get).

Thanks,

-SMac

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But was he really being disrespectful before he found out that using that term was being disrespectful? 

Intentions to change or to move forward in anyway..is a plus.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And plenty of other sources that use it as well.

And of those "religious" sites that use the term, their usage is clinical and neutral, not desparaging or insulting.

That's certainly part of it, yes.

"Gay" used to be pejorative and acceptable.  Now it's been "reclaimed" and is acceptable.  Weird.

"Homosexual" used to be clinical and acceptable.  Now it's been deemed by some to be unacceptable.  Weird.

If Cynthia Burack (Professor of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Ohio State University) can speak of "same-sex attracted people" without being accused of bigotry and hatred, then so we can we.

If the Washington Post can use "same-sex attraction" to clinically and objectively describe a group of people, then so can we.

And on and on and on.

Gay:

And here:

If someone wants to use their sexual orientation as one of their predominant means of self-identification, then have at it.  But I have a hard time understanding the notion that "being gay is much more than merely what one finds sexually attractive."  What other aspects of life and behavior, other than sexual attraction and behavior, are intrinsically "gay?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "reduce it to."  

I have known some who use it.  

GLAAD, for example, would probably have more than a few gay people in it.  GLAAD uses "same-sex attraction" in a clinical, objective way.  So why can't we?

I think the same thing can be said with making "gay" acceptable and outlawing "homosexual."  There's an agenda there, too.

Meanwhile, my use of the term "same-sex attraction" or "SSA" is to be a clinical and value-neutral descriptor (or as close to that as we can get).

Thanks,

-SMac

As I said, it may sound neutral, but it's almost always used from a particular ideological perspective, and that's fine. That you can find a few examples of people using the term without that ideological point of view doesn't change anything. But I don't think apologies are necessary, as it's hardly a pejorative. I haven't accused anyone of bigotry and hatred, so I don't know what you're referring to. 

As to what is "intrinsically" gay, you would have to ask someone who is gay, and even then it would probably vary. The point my gay friends are making, at least to me, is that there is much more to being gay than merely what arouses you sexually, just as being "Mormon" cannot be reduced to a set of doctrines one accepts. I take them at their word. 

[hope_for_things]

23 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

In a private FB group I participate in, there has been a lot of discussion about the new revelation about the name of the Church.  Honestly, I'm surprised at how strongly some people feel about the issue.

One of the things that came up in discussion was the importance of calling people the name(s) they chosen for themselves.  I personaly didn't have strong feelings on the name of the Church until someone mentioned that ignoring this directive from President Nelson is extremely disrespectful to him, and the Lord's Church.  If we don't want to be called Mormons -- because it incorrect -- then others should be respectful of President Nelson's wishes and desire to get rid of the name Mormon.

But someone in our discussion brought up the term "Same-sex attracted" the term we use in the Church to describe Gay and Lesbian members.  I did a little googling and realized that, for the most part, we are the only ones who use this term.  I now believe that using this term is extremely disrespectful to LGBTQ saints.  They have expressed a desire to be called Gay and Lesbian.  And I think it shows greater respect to call someone by what they wish to be called.

So I want to apologize to LGBTQ saints for using the term "same sex attracted."  I was being disrespectful.  From now on I will only use Gay, Lesbian, or LGBTQ.

Given the recent discussion on the Church's name, is there anyone else who is going to change how they refer to gay members?

Yes, we should be respectful of others and how they would prefer to be identified.  I think society as a whole is on board with this, and it was a good sign when the church first used the LGBTQ acronym in an official statement in support of the LoveLoud concert in 2017 in Orem, that the church is also making steps to be more respectful.  I think it would be best to put the same sex attraction language in the rear view mirror.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

We Mormons members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do love to use unnecessarily use long and convoluted descriptors when a shorter and clearer one would work better, don't we?

Being unnecessarily verbose or prolix is not a positive quality.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, it may sound neutral, but it's almost always used from a particular ideological perspective, and that's fine.

I dunno.  GLAAD, the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Southern Poverty Law Center don't seem to share "a particular ideological perspective" with conservative religionists.

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That you can find a few examples of people using the term without that ideological point of view doesn't change anything.

I think it changes quite a bit.  And it's not just "a few."  "Same-sex attraction" is used all over the place. 

That it is the preferred term used by groups of religious people doesn't change anything.

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But I don't think apologies are necessary, as it's hardly a pejorative. I haven't accused anyone of bigotry and hatred, so I don't know what you're referring to. 

Oh, it'll come along (not from you, I'm sure).

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As to what is "intrinsically" gay, you would have to ask someone who is gay, and even then it would probably vary. The point my gay friends are making, at least to me, is that there is much more to being gay than merely what arouses you sexually, just as being "Mormon" cannot be reduced to a set of doctrines one accepts. I take them at their word. 

I still don't understand what is meant by "there is much more to being gay than merely what arouses you sexually."

Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, it may sound neutral, but it's almost always used from a particular ideological perspective, and that's fine. That you can find a few examples of people using the term without that ideological point of view doesn't change anything. But I don't think apologies are necessary, as it's hardly a pejorative. I haven't accused anyone of bigotry and hatred, so I don't know what you're referring to. 

As to what is "intrinsically" gay, you would have to ask someone who is gay, and even then it would probably vary. The point my gay friends are making, at least to me, is that there is much more to being gay than merely what arouses you sexually, just as being "Mormon" cannot be reduced to a set of doctrines one accepts. I take them at their word. 

The bolded seems kind of an odd statement to me.  Is there more to being straight that what arouses a person sexually?  If there is, what exactly is it? 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I dunno.  GLAAD, the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Southern Poverty Law Center don't seem to share "a particular ideological perspective" with conservative religionists.

I think it changes quite a bit.  And it's not just "a few."  "Same-sex attraction" is used all over the place. 

That it is the preferred term used by groups of religious people doesn't change anything.

Oh, it'll come along (not from you, I'm sure).

I still don't understand what is meant by "there is much more to being gay than merely what arouses you sexually."

Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm just saying that, despite what you mean when you use a certain term, you must understand that it may come with a lot of baggage. Lots of people say they use the term "cult" in a clinical and neutral way to describe a particular type of religious group, but we all know that the term generally has negative connotations. Using a word that has such baggage doesn't make you a hateful bigot, but it does mean you may not communicate well with the people for whom it is a loaded term. A lot of people, myself included, may assume that people who routinely use the term "same-sex attraction" have a particular ideological frame of reference. It always reminds me of a past poster here who had a website devoted to Same-Sex Attracition Disorder (SAD). Is that a fair judgment? Not necessarily, but as I noted, when that term is used, it's almost always in a conservative religious context, so you might want to recognize that. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

The bolded seems kind of an odd statement to me.  Is there more to being straight that what arouses a person sexually?  If there is, what exactly is it? 

I don't know. Do I approach the world differently because of my sexual orientation? I probably do. 

[bluebell]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I don't know. Do I approach the world differently because of my sexual orientation? I probably do. 

Maybe, but what does that even mean?  No two people approach the world the same way, so to say that there is more to being gay or straight than who someone is sexually attracted to seems like a technically true but useless point.  (I don't expect you to answer these questions for a statement you didn't make).

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Maybe, but what does that even mean?  No two people approach the world the same way, so to say that there is more to being gay or straight than who someone is sexually attracted to seems like a technically true but useless point.  (I don't expect you to answer these questions for a statement you didn't make).

I think it's more a question of self-identification. The point of using the term "same-sex attraction" is to make it less about self-identification, sort of like how Elder Oaks talked about "homosexual" as an adjective but not a noun. My point, once again, is that use of "same-sex attraction" carries some ideological connotations because of who usually uses it and why. It's best to recognize that using the term is going to carry that association with a lot of people. Depending on whom you're talking to, that might not be a good way to communicate. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I think it's more a question of self-identification. The point of using the term "same-sex attraction" is to make it less about self-identification, sort of like how Elder Oaks talked about "homosexual" as an adjective but not a noun. My point, once again, is that use of "same-sex attraction" carries some ideological connotations because of who usually uses it and why. It's best to recognize that using the term is going to carry that association with a lot of people. Depending on whom you're talking to, that might not be a good way to communicate. 

Other than asking before ever speaking with a LGTBQ person what term they prefer, I don't think there is a good way to communicate (if by good you are referring to communicating in a way that every LGTBQ person will agree with and none will be offended by).  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Other than asking before ever speaking with a LGTBQ person what term they prefer, I don't think there is a good way to communicate (if by good you are referring to communicating in a way that every LGTBQ person will agree with and none will be offended by).  

Of course, but there are certain terms that are loaded, and like it or not, "same-sex attraction" seems to be one of them. Often it's used in the phrase "struggling with same-sex attraction," which is going to be a non-starter with some people. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm just saying that, despite what you mean when you use a certain term, you must understand that it may come with a lot of baggage.

I agree with that.  My point is that "gay," either as a noun or as an adjective, also comes with "a lot of baggage."

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Lots of people say they use the term "cult" in a clinical and neutral way to describe a particular type of religious group, but we all know that the term generally has negative connotations. Using a word that has such baggage doesn't make you a hateful bigot, but it does mean you may not communicate well with the people for whom it is a loaded term.

Agreed.

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

A lot of people, myself included, may assume that people who routinely use the term "same-sex attraction" have a particular ideological frame of reference.

And a lot of people like myself also assume that people who insist and demand that we not use the term "same-sex attraction" and instead use some other happens-to-be-acceptable-to-some-folks-in-some-contexts term may also have "a particular ideological frame of reference."

Take a look at "gay":

Quote

The meaning “homosexual” for the word gay has become so prevalent that people hesitate to use the term in its original senses of “merry, lively” and “bright or showy.” But the word's association with sexuality is not new. The word gay has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included homosexuals too, and gay as an adjective meaning “homosexual” goes back at least to the late 1930s. After World War II, as social attitudes toward sexuality began to change, gay was applied openly by homosexuals to themselves, first as an adjective and later as a noun. It is no longer considered slang. Today, the noun often designates only a male homosexual and is usually used as a collective plural: gays and lesbians . Usage as a singular noun is uncommon and is sometimes perceived as insulting: He came out as a gay. 

So it's acceptable as an adjective and plural noun when referencing men, but not as a singular noun?

Take a look at "homosexual":

Quote

Up until 1986, homosexuality was listed in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychiatry's standard reference on the classification of mental illness. People aware of this former categorization may feel that the term homosexual stills carries a negative connotation. And some feel that this word places undue emphasis on sexual activity, or that it sounds overly clinical. In fact, homosexual as an adjective and noun is somewhat dated, except in medical and other formal contexts; the term gay has mostly replaced it. People who still use homosexual are usually unaware that the term may be a sensitive one, although some do use it with intent to cause offense. However, not all members of the gay community object to it.

So is "homosexual" innocuous or not?  Is it offensive or not?

As I see it, "same-sex attraction" is descriptive.  It is clinical.  It is value-neutral.  The APA uses it in a clinical sense, as do many, many other non-religious groups.

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It always reminds me of a past poster here who had a website devoted to Same-Sex Attracition Disorder (SAD). Is that a fair judgment? Not necessarily, but as I noted, when that term is used, it's almost always in a conservative religious context, so you might want to recognize that. 

"Homosexuality" is being tossed by the wayside because of its association with being a "disorder."

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

23 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Using the term "same sex attraction" is not, and will never be insulting, except for those who are always seeking to feel insulted.

I know many who disagree with you on this... and not because they are seeking to feel insulted.

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course, but there are certain terms that are loaded, and like it or not, "same-sex attraction" seems to be one of them. Often it's used in the phrase "struggling with same-sex attraction," which is going to be a non-starter with some people. 

Once again I find it instructive to switch the target in order to understand the impact of this kind of language:

"Struggling with heterosexuality"

"Struggling with unwanted Mormon belief"

"Struggling with Juggalo identity."

 

Okay, the last one is maybe more appropriate. 😛

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course, but there are certain terms that are loaded, and like it or not, "same-sex attraction" seems to be one of them. Often it's used in the phrase "struggling with same-sex attraction," which is going to be a non-starter with some people. 

I understand what you are saying.  But gay is loaded for some people, and homosexual is loaded for some people, and queer is loaded for some people.

http://www.france24.com/en/20171217-dont-call-me-gay-says-italy-designer-stefano-gabbana

http://www.losangelesblade.com/2018/06/05/dont-call-me-queer/

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by bluebell

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I understand what you are saying.  But gay is loaded for some people, and homosexual is loaded for some people, and queer is loaded for some people.

It’s a question of knowing your audience. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s a question of knowing your audience. 

I get that too, but that is also not that easy.  If you don't know any LGBTQ people personally,  or you're speaking in general terms, then knowing your audience is kind of a minefield.  

Edited August 20, 2018 by bluebell

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Read this article and it may help you understand california boy's resistance to SSA. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-q-and-a/sexuality/same-sex-attractions-and-sexual-identity 

Since I don't, nor ever have used the term, as it is not a term that ever comes in discussion, and only from the stand during Conference, I see no point. For those who wish, and turn over ever stone to be offended, any term we used will be offensive. But, thanks for the advice anyway, Bur I don't need a link to know how to be kind to others. As I stated before, when i talk to family or friends, there sexuality never comes up, just as they would bring up mine. I know there are many who are obsessed with theirs and other sexuality. But I am not.   

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s a question of knowing your audience. 

So, how are we to know every audience, as I pointed out in another response, do we to have others fill out a questionable? 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I still don't understand what is meant by "there is much more to being gay than merely what arouses you sexually."

For some, there is definitely more to being gay than just sexual orientation...just sayin'