“Why not say you’re gay?” Choosing a self-identifier

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Let's try to be more realistic when citing scripture ...

And in fact, scripture makes it clear that there is nothing inherently sinful in temptation. The sinless Christ was tempted:

Quote

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted (Hebrews 2:16--18).

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

So, if you had a member of your ward (or family) who is gay, would you identify them as such?  Would you say "they are gay"....or only say "they have same sex attraction" when referring to them?

It would depend on what they wanted, of course. But which of the four words in “I’m OK with it” don’t you understand? 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Ouch.  That's ominous sounding.

When it comes to racism, I think its appropriate.  How else to get a racist to change their perspective without re-education?  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I haven't seen anyone asking for that on here.

Maybe you need to revisit the dialogue in the other thread, where “same-sex attraction” was compared to “the N word.”

But does this mean, when the subject comes up again about generic, non-specific use of the term same-sex attraction, I may expect no more hectoring or shaming from you? 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I think you and a lot of Christians, etc. are on board with the term SSA instead of gay for exactly the same reasons. When I googled about the term SSA, many Christian sites popped up using that word. I believe it's for those that preach against marrying or dating when SSA, and having any kind of sexual relationship.

USU76 responded well to this. Rather than restate, I’ll just refer you to his post. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

When it comes to racism, I think its appropriate.  How else to get a racist to change their perspective without re-education?  

Maybe do what Bill Nye the “science guy” hints at doing to climate-change deniers? Throw them in jail? 

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe that's true.  What I think it comes down to is the attitude of "there are no gay members" and that those who are gay, "have" same-sex attraction....stating it that way implies they are suffering from an illness or malady (Scott's word).  That's where offense is taken.

I think that california boy's voice is important here (he is a gay member of the church) and he has expressed the reasons it is offensive to most gays to say that "they have same-sex attraction" rather just to simply state "they are gay".  

I am no longer a member of the church.  I am gay.  And I don't have SSA.  I don't suffer from any illness or malady.  I am however attracted to the same sex.  

And yes the term SSA has a lot of baggage that goes with it which is why the vast majority of gay people are offended by it's usage.  It is why I said in the previous thread.

I have absolutely no problem referring to someone who is gay that wishes to use the term SSA.  I believe Kindley is one of those who prefer the term.  I never refer to him as gay.  But by far, they are the exception, not the rule and the term is rarely used outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and evangelic community.  How many gay web sites use the term SSA.  How many gay magazines use the term SSA.  For that matter how many mainstream newspapers, magazines, radio stations, courts, businesses, petitions, commercials, vacation packages marked to gays, pride events, clubs, non profit organizations, songs, books, plays, motion pictures, television programs, history books, adoption agencies, use the term SSA.  Does that count for ANYTHING?  In no way are both terms on equal footing. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Why the negative spin to the choice?  There is/has been a movement to separate the person with SSA from the sinful behavior, such that the use of SSA operates as a reminder (a) not to judge because of the monstrous muddle that is the source/cause of the SSA and (b) to love the sinner while hating the sin.  I would think, were I inclined to view the phenomenon positively, that I would welcome the use of the more clinical term that accompanies (a) and (b).

You've no argument from me, I now realize what you and Scott and others mean by using SSA vs. gay. 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see same sex attraction as commonly used in broader society these days.  It might have been years ago.  But why wouldn't people adjust as the preferences of this group adjusts?  Thats what I don't get.  

 

Same sex attraction has NEVER been used in broader society.  It is a term latched on to by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and  a few other Christian churches that wish to marginalize gays and their families. 

SSA is as offensive to the gay community as being called breeders is offensive to the straight community.  Both are terms used in a derogatory maner to insult  and offend the other group.  While there are a few (almost always connected with the church or other Christian church), that identify themselves as having SSA,  it is the exception not the rule.  Just like there are a few in the straight community that don't mind at all being labled as breeders.  It doesn't mean that we should be calling straight people breeders unless they let us know that they prefer the term straight.

Honestly I don't think there is a lot more to talk about on this issue.  Each person has to decide whether they want to respect other groups that are different than they are.  While teaching why something is disrespectful can be discussed, (which clearly was done on the last thread) the choice is still up to each individual what they do with that knowledge.

[Hamba Tuhan]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe do what Bill Nye the “science guy” hints at doing to climate-change deniers? Throw them in jail? 

I love the wonderfulness and purity of the concept of personal agency. I have shared with some in this corner of the world -- and especially as we have watched our local Church of Secular Progressivism grow in its ability to try to force compliance -- that I strongly suspect the Saints need to learn what it feels like on an intimate level not to have their agency respected so that we never make that same mistake as regards others when the balance shifts again.

[Storm Rider]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am no longer a member of the church.  I am gay.  And I don't have SSA.  I don't suffer from any illness or malady.  I am however attracted to the same sex.  

And yes the term SSA has a lot of baggage that goes with it which is why the vast majority of gay people are offended by it's usage.  It is why I said in the previous thread.

I have absolutely no problem referring to someone who is gay that wishes to use the term SSA.  I believe Kindley is one of those who prefer the term.  I never refer to him as gay.  But by far, they are the exception, not the rule and the term is rarely used outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and evangelic community.  How many gay web sites use the term SSA.  How many gay magazines use the term SSA.  For that matter how many mainstream newspapers, magazines, radio stations, courts, businesses, petitions, commercials, vacation packages marked to gays, pride events, clubs, non profit organizations, songs, books, plays, motion pictures, television programs, history books, adoption agencies, use the term SSA.  Does that count for ANYTHING?  In no way are both terms on equal footing. 

and the Catholic community uses it also, but hey, they are only the largest Christian church in the world.....who suffers from having their priesthood overrun with priests who do not have an illness or malady, but are seriously attracted to the same sex, which sounds a lot like same sex attraction. Their choice to act on their same sex attraction has caused enormous pain and suffering for themselves and the adults and young people they have abused, but that is another topic. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Storm Rider

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Same sex attraction has NEVER been used in broader society. It is a term latched on to by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and  a few other Christian churches that wish to marginalize gays and their families.

I realise that Google localises search results, but I just tested your claim by Googling 'same-sex attraction'. The first page of search results for me is all links to government and academic sites. Not a single Church or religious site even came up. 

[USU78]

52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

When it comes to racism, I think its appropriate.  How else to get a racist to change their perspective without re-education?  

You are familiar with the history of government-compelled reeducation, yes?

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Same sex attraction has NEVER been used in broader society.  It is a term latched on to by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and  a few other Christian churches that wish to marginalize gays and their families. 

SSA is as offensive to the gay community as being called breeders is offensive to the straight community.  Both are terms used in a derogatory maner to insult  and offend the other group.  While there are a few (almost always connected with the church or other Christian church), that identify themselves as having SSA,  it is the exception not the rule.  Just like there are a few in the straight community that don't mind at all being labled as breeders.  It doesn't mean that we should be calling straight people breeders unless they let us know that they prefer the term straight.

Honestly I don't think there is a lot more to talk about on this issue.  Each person has to decide whether they want to respect other groups that are different than they are.  While teaching why something is disrespectful can be discussed, (which clearly was done on the last thread) the choice is still up to each individual what they do with that knowledge.

Can you cite even one instance in which the Church of Jesus Christ has used “same-sex attraction” in the derogatory way you claim here (comparable to “breeders” or “the N word)? And if that’s what you think of the term why do you tolerate its use by those such as kllindley or the writer quoted in the OP of this thread?

Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You are familiar with the history of government-compelled reeducation, yes?

That’s why I suggested it would be a lot simpler just to do with them what Bill Nye wants to do to climate-change skeptics. 

[USU78]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

USU76 responded well to this. Rather than restate, I’ll just refer you to his post. 

Ahem. I graduated in '78.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, USU78 said:

Ahem. I graduated in '78.

I beg your pardon, sir. ‘76 was the year I returned from my mission. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe do what Bill Nye the “science guy” hints at doing to climate-change deniers? Throw them in jail? 

 

Ha!  Gotta love short out of context snippets!  Great production value on this too.  

[california boy]

7 hours ago, alter idem said:

When the church stops using it, I'll stop using it.  This is a forum which respects the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints and the term is commonly used by the church, and so I see no reason to ban it's use on this forum.  The suggestion on the other thread was that it was universally considered negative by Lgbtq  and so forum members and the church should stop using it.  However, the OP of this thread proved this claim false; it's not universal and some don't want to be called 'gay', but SSA.  Time will tell and this can be re-examined then.

I think individuals who state a preference should be considered, but I'm not going to support a ban of the term same sex attraction. 

I think it is very possible that some on this site are not understanding my point.  I personally couldn't care less if the church or church members continue to refer to gay people as having SSA.  Heck I didn't care that the church imposed the Nov 2015 policy.  The church and it's members can always do whatever it wants.  

All of my comments have been to clearly affirm that for the vast majority of the gay community SSA is an offensive term.  The Church and it's members including Scott are free to continue to use that term when talking about gay people.  I just think it would be helpful  to know that when the Church and it's members use that term, they are offending most of the gay community.  But hey, it is not like the Church is worried about offending the gay community.

Maybe eventually  the Church will wish to be more civil towards that community sometime in the future.  Right now, it chooses to only on a limited basis and only on their own terms.  Have you ever noticed that when the Church issues press releases about positive things they do for the gay community they never use the term SSA?  When they talk about not discriminating in housing and employment for gays, they don't say not discriminating in housing and employment for those that have SSA?  Why is that? Because there is no SSA community.

Edited May 17, 2019 by california boy

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You are familiar with the history of government-compelled reeducation, yes?

Is the word extra scary because of the two letters RE in front of education?  I’ve had 16+ years of formal government sponsored education, and I’m grateful for all I’ve been able to learn.  Re-education is just correcting mistakes from prior learning (racism and bigotry are bad).  Sounds like a positive thing to me.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Ha!  Gotta love short out of context snippets!  Great production value on this too.  

Everybody’s a critic. 

But I would welcome your contextualizing of this. What did Bill Nye mean if he wasn’t hinting at jailing climate-change skeptics (wasn’t that the point of his comparison to Enron)? 

But more to the point at hand, what precisely do <you> mean by “re-educating” individuals? I agree with USU78: It sounds ominous. 

[Anonymous Mormon]

I am still confused on this. I would appreciate if those who feel that the term 'Same-Sex Attraction' is offensive, please answer for me this specific example.

Which of the following would be approved, NOT-offensive statements that a general authority could make at conference:

a) "Having same-sex attraction is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin."   

b) "Being attracted to the same sex is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin."   

c) "Being gay is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin."   

d) "Being Lesbian is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin."   

e) "Having gay inclinations is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin."   

f) "Being LGB is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin."

g) "Being queer is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin."      

h) "Homosexual feelings are not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." 

i) None of the above - no one should be told to control their sexuality 

 

I honestly want to get answers on this. I am curious to see which of these are offensive and which would be okay to the gay/homosexual/SSA community. 

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you cite even one instance in which the Church of Jesus Christ has used “same-sex attraction” in the derogatory way you claim here (comparable to “breeders” or “the N word)? And if that’s what you think of the term why do you tolerate its use by those such as kllindley or the writer quoted in the OP of this thread?

Both the N word and SSA have emotional baggage attached to them.  Avoiding the use of both terms may be something to consider if one is trying to show respect and trying not to offend either minority group.  If one wishes to offend,, then continuing to use either word to the entire group is a strong way of making that clear.

The key word is group.  In both instances, there may be individuals within that group that has no problem or even prefers using those terms.

[USU78]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I beg your pardon, sir. ‘76 was the year I returned from my mission. 

A year after I did!

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Is the word extra scary because of the two letters RE in front of education?  I’ve had 16+ years of formal government sponsored education, and I’m grateful for all I’ve been able to learn.  Re-education is just correcting mistakes from prior learning (racism and bigotry are bad).  Sounds like a positive thing to me.  

You're hopelessly naive ... or putting one over on us