An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I get that.  But even just to say that someone "has" same-sex attraction gives the impression you think it's a condition or maybe even an illness.  I don't think that's hard to see.  Rather than just stating someone has same-sex attraction, why not just simply say that they are gay or lesbian?  It just seems like a no brainer to me....especially if we know it's being more respectful of their wishes.

As far as discussing the findings  or studies (that use the term "same-sex attraction"), I think you could clarify that since you are discussing their findings, you'll use their terms to avoid confusion....but that those are not necessarily your own words or terms.

I tend to agree with calling people what they want to be called. But I also think that most people here are glossing over bisexuality, and mostly heterosexual individuals (who make up by far the largest sexual minority group). Labeling anyone with any degree of same-sex attraction as gay is just as disrespectful and invalidating as refusing to use the term. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by kllindley

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Given that the vast majority of citations of "same-sex attraction" are to conservative (Catholic, Protestant, LDS) religions, it's not hard to see the connotation, consensus or not. Seems like an odd hill to die on, anyway. If someone objects to a word or phrase I use, I usually stop using it. Our language is good enough to compensate for the loss of potentially offensive terms. 

The term "same-sex attraction" occurs 5 times in the Wikipedia article on Homosexuality.  A number of source articles including some from scientific journals used as references use "same-sex attraction" extensively.  The WP article's "Talk" page has archives going back to 2004 (about 24 pages), and it is an extensive archive discussing all aspects of the article as consensus over its content has developed.  "Same-sex attraction" is used frequently in these discussions, but only one time, in a conversation occurring in 2006, did a gay person involved in the editing process express any negative opinion over the term "same-sex attraction".  NOBODY else gave a darn, apparently.  And you better believe that gay folks were involved in editing the article.  But now, suddenly, it's those darned conservative religions?

I'm fed up to the max, John.  Let's just outlaw language, K?  Everything is offensive.  Or soon will be.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 8/19/2018 at 11:43 AM, 6EQUJ5 said:

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 end I don't think any apology is necessary. I support LGTB cause all the way, I don't see anything wrong calling "Same sex attraction". 

[Stargazer]

56 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've never heard a gay/lesbian person, IRL, refer to themselves as SSA.  I try to be sensitive to those on here who identify as SSA but otherwise, I generally use the terms gay, lesbian, and LGBTQ.

I agree with the OP... If we as a church want to be called by certain names, we ought to do our best to respect others' similar wishes.

I am opposite-sex attracted.  That's how I want to be described.  Call me "straight" and I may punch you.  My preferred pronouns are zhou, zhis, and zhe.  I better not hear anyone say to zem, "How are you today?"  That's "How are zhou today?"  If we were in Canada you might get fined.

Not really, but come on.  The world has gone crazy.  

All right, crazier.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The term "same-sex attraction" occurs 5 times in the Wikipedia article on Homosexuality.  A number of source articles including some from scientific journals used as references use "same-sex attraction" extensively.  The WP article's "Talk" page has archives going back to 2004 (about 24 pages), and it is an extensive archive discussing all aspects of the article as consensus over its content has developed.  "Same-sex attraction" is used frequently in these discussions, but only one time, in a conversation occurring in 2006, did a gay person involved in the editing process express any negative opinion over the term "same-sex attraction".  NOBODY else gave a darn, apparently.  And you better believe that gay folks were involved in editing the article.  But now, suddenly, it's those darned conservative religions?

I'm fed up to the max, John.  Let's just outlaw language, K?  Everything is offensive.  Or soon will be.

Language is constantly changing, and I’m not sure why recognizing that means I think everything is offensive. Use whatever words work for you. I’m not offended by “same-sex attraction,” just noting that I understand why some people are. 

[california boy]

52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I guess I was sloppy when I was writing.

I was complaining that every descriptor commonly used for people seems to be becoming an offensive word.  I don't know how I can describe anyone any longer.  One day at work, someone asked me where Larry Johnson's desk was.  They had never met him, and didn't know what he looked like.  I said his desk was on the western end of this floor, in the group of desks occupied by the members of the project manager group.  He was the only black person among them, but I didn't know whether it was going to be offensive to say he was black.  So I decided to be safe and not describe what he looked like.  I was watching a YouTube video a couple of days ago, about not offending people by use of labels, and among the scenes shown was one of a man who claimed it was offensive to call him "Oriental".  I would have said that he appeared to be of Asian descent, but is this offensive now, too? I sure as hell don't know any longer.   A couple of years ago a guy in my ward got all bent out of shape about how everyone was talking about Jews.  In a lesson on Judaism.  I guess he thought "Jew" was an insult or racial slur.  I don't know what's next.  

Were you thinking I was worried I would have to act offended if someone called me a Mormon?  Because of what President Nelson said?  The answer to that is "no," of course.

I honestly don't understand what this has to do with what we have been discussing.  You have known for 48 years that gay is a common term for those that are attracted to the same sex.  It is still acceptable.  If you bothered to look at the Gladd useage of terms, you would have found gay continues to be a very acceptable word to use.  So how does this fit into the whole "I don't know what to call people nowadays" part of your post?

Your complaint is much more valid of a complaint about the recent directive from President Nelson than using a term you have been familiar with for 48 years.

I intended to not really say a lot on this thread.  When this thread started, I thought it was pretty pointless to try and get some understanding between the gay community and the church.  As this thread continues to play out, my beliefs have been pretty much confirmed.  I don't really care what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints calls the gay community.  My comment was only to explain why the phrasing "he HAS SSA" was offensive to a lot of gays.  Obviously even this little gesture is just way too much for some members of the church to honor.  So hey, continue to  use whatever term you feel comfortable with and don't worry about offending others.  Honestly, there are way more offensive things that the church does towards the gay community then the use of "has SSA".  I had no idea the difference between "gays have same sex attraction."  and "gays are attracted to the same sex"  or "those attracted to the same sex" would be so difficult to understand.

Edited August 20, 2018 by california boy

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The term "same-sex attraction" occurs 5 times in the Wikipedia article on Homosexuality.  A number of source articles including some from scientific journals used as references use "same-sex attraction" extensively.  The WP article's "Talk" page has archives going back to 2004 (about 24 pages), and it is an extensive archive discussing all aspects of the article as consensus over its content has developed.  "Same-sex attraction" is used frequently in these discussions, but only one time, in a conversation occurring in 2006, did a gay person involved in the editing process express any negative opinion over the term "same-sex attraction".  NOBODY else gave a darn, apparently.  And you better believe that gay folks were involved in editing the article.  But now, suddenly, it's those darned conservative religions?

I'm fed up to the max, John.  Let's just outlaw language, K?  Everything is offensive.  Or soon will be.

Notice that not once in your link is the term ever used to describe a gay person. It is only used to describe relationships, attraction, or sex.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, california boy said:

I honestly don't understand what this has to do with what we have been discussing.  You have known for 48 years that gay is a common term for those that are attracted to the same sex.  It is still acceptable.  If you bothered to look at the Gladd useage of terms, you would have found gay continues to be a very acceptable word to use.  So how does this fit into the whole "I don't know what to call people nowadays" part of your post?

Your complaint is much more valid of a complaint about the recent directive from President Nelson than using a term you have been familiar with for 48 years.

I intended to not really say a lot on this thread.  When this thread started, I thought it was pretty pointless to try and get some understanding between the gay community and the church.  As this thread continues to play out, my beliefs have been pretty much confirmed.  I don't really care what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints calls the gay community.  My comment was only to explain why the phrasing "he HAS SSA" was offensive to a lot of gays.  Obviously even this little gesture is just way too much for some members of the church to honor.  So hey, continue to  use whatever term you feel comfortable with and don't worry about offending others.  Honestly, there are way more offensive things that the church does towards the gay community then the use of "has SSA".  

Yup. I don’t HAVE same-sex attraction, nor do I suffer from it or struggle with it. I’m not offended if people say I do, but it seems inaccurate and unhelpful to say that. 

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Notice that not once in your link is the term ever used to describe a gay person. It is only used to describe relationships, attraction, or sex.

Evidently way too difficult of concept for someone to get when they don't really want to. or have any intention of understanding the issue.  

[Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

I honestly don't understand what this has to do with what we have been discussing.  You have known for 48 years that gay is a common term for those that are attracted to the same sex.  It is still acceptable.  If you bothered to look at the Gladd useage of terms, you would have found gay continues to be a very acceptable word to use.  So how does this fit into the whole "I don't know what to call people nowadays" part of your post?

Your complaint is much more valid of a complaint about the recent directive from President Nelson than using a term you have been familiar with for 48 years.

I intended to not really say a lot on this thread.  When this thread started, I thought it was pretty pointless to try and get some understanding between the gay community and the church.  As this thread continues to play out, my beliefs have been pretty much confirmed.  I don't really care what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints calls the gay community.  My comment was only to explain why the phrasing "he HAS SSA" was offensive to a lot of gays.  Obviously even this little gesture is just way too much for some members of the church to honor.  So hey, continue to  use whatever term you feel comfortable with and don't worry about offending others.  Honestly, there are way more offensive things that the church does towards the gay community then the use of "has SSA".  I had no idea the difference between "gays have same sex attraction."  and "gays are attracted to the same sex"  or "those attracted to the same sex" would be so difficult to understand.

Yeah, well, I'm just venting about things not really directly related to the OP.  I should have just kept it all to myself.  My apologies, I'm just frustrated about the whole "offense" thing.  I think I will go quiet on this one.  It's not really germane.

[Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Notice that not once in your link is the term ever used to describe a gay person. It is only used to describe relationships, attraction, or sex.

Of course.  That's what it's for.  But some people still don't like it, even as a noun used to describe attraction.  Whatever.

Maybe some people are using it as an adjective?  

Edited August 20, 2018 by Stargazer

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course.  That's what it's for.  But some people still don't like it, even as a noun used to describe attraction.  Whatever.

Maybe some people are using it as an adjective?   

Yes, it gets used as an adjective a lot in certain religious circles, not as a way to be clinical or academic, but as a way to negate an identity and orientation they don't like.

[USU78]

When one cedes definition of terms and permission to outlaw perfectly good terms and definitions, one has already lost the debate.

Why bother trying to have it all if that's the rules by which one is compelled to play?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

When one cedes definition of terms and permission to outlaw perfectly good terms and definitions, one has already lost the debate.

Why bother trying to have it all if that's the rules by which one is compelled to play?

Kind of like when the Church says the appropriate way for the media to refer to Mormonism is "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ?" I totally know what you mean. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I tend to agree with calling people what they want to be called. But I also think that most people here are glossing over bisexuality, and mostly heterosexual individuals (who make up by far the largest sexual minority group). Labeling anyone with any degree of same-sex attraction as gay is just as disrespectful and invalidating as refusing to use the term. 

I agree we should be respectful of whatever labels and pronouns people would prefer to be identified as in general. I also suspect the number of people who would prefer the label of gay to the label of same sex attracted is pretty significant.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours 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."

Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you really are curious in understanding, perhaps you should listen to Tom Christofferson's interview with Doug Febrizio. He talks about identifying as gay and talks about how the word for him encompasses some core elements of how he sees and engages the world and goes far beyond the sexual attraction aspect. Starts a bit after minute 18. 

When I identify as a father, it includes so much more than just the fact that I have kids. When I identify as male, it includes more than just my boy parts. When I identify with my Latter-day Saint (corrected per Calm from Mormon)* heritage, it includes more than just who my parents are and what their religion was. I don't think the concept is really all that difficult if you put your mind to it.

 

*No disrespect intended. I'm not sure how to phrase this in a way that keeps with the updated style guide. I'm open to suggestions.

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/conversation-tom-christofferson

  

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I am opposite-sex attracted.  That's how I want to be described.  Call me "straight" and I may punch you.  My preferred pronouns are zhou, zhis, and zhe.  I better not hear anyone say to zem, "How are you today?"  That's "How are zhou today?"  If we were in Canada you might get fined.

Not really, but come on.  The world has gone crazy.  

All right, crazier.

It’s not crazy because we’re becoming more aware of variations in human experiences including sexuality and gender identity.  

Was it crazy when we started to treat other races as equals?  Or gave women the right to vote?  Whats so crazy about being more respectful of people that have different experiences than the average?  How crazy is it to be loving and tolerant?  Crazy like all those crazy Christians?!?!? 

[Calm]

 

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

*No disrespect intended. I'm not sure how to phrase this in a way that keeps with the updated style guide. I'm open to suggestions.

 

I may have misunderstood because I haven't taken the time to read it closely, but my understanding is "Latter-day Saint" is acceptable (just not the abbreviation "LDS").  I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong.

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I also suspect the number of people who would prefer the label of gay to the label of same sex attracted is pretty significant.  

Are you saying that bisexual or "mostly straight" individuals prefer to be labeled gay?  Any basis to this suspicion?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Are you saying that bisexual or "mostly straight" individuals prefer to be labeled gay?  Any basis to this suspicion?

I’m pretty sure he was just talking about gay people. 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Are you saying that bisexual or "mostly straight" individuals prefer to be labeled gay?  Any basis to this suspicion?

No, I compared gay to same sex attracted and it’s not based on any scientific studies just personal experiences I’ve had interacting with people and listening to them.  Are you suggesting more people would prefer the SSA label?  

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m pretty sure he was just talking about gay people. 

That is what it seemed like, so I was confused why he responded that way to my post, which was specifically about people who do not experience attraction exclusively to individuals of the same sex. 

[kllindley]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I compared gay to same sex attracted and it’s not based on any scientific studies just personal experiences I’ve had interacting with people and listening to them.  Are you suggesting more people would prefer the SSA label?  

I am not making any claim about the very small percentage of individuals who experience exclusively homosexual attractions.  I do believe that a significantly larger number of people prefer a description of their sexuality other than being identified as gay. Somewhere between 10 and 20 times larger. That is based on the multiple, large-sample (6,000-20,000) research studies I've previously cited. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I am not making any claim about the very small percentage of individuals who experience exclusively homosexual attractions.  I do believe that a significantly larger number of people prefer a description of their sexuality other than being identified as gay. Somewhere between 10 and 20 times larger. That is based on the multiple, large-sample (6,000-20,000) research studies I've previously cited. 

I’d say let people say for themselves what they want to be called, if anything. I certainly wouldn’t prefer to be called someone with same-sex attraction. 

[kllindley]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’d say let people say for themselves what they want to be called, if anything. I certainly wouldn’t prefer to be called someone with same-sex attraction. 

I can appreciate and respect that. To be clear: Are you saying that you want to be labeled gay?