california boy Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said: I think we are both in agreement that two young boys acting in improper sexual behavior does not make the boy Gay. Would it not make the boy qualify though as having SSA? I now understand and appreciate your viewpoint. If I understand it, you feel that the church should only use the term Gay and never SSA, because SSA is offensive. I can respect that. I still struggle to see how the church can talk candidly to those who do not consider themselves Gay, but still have that attraction or has had those experiences. I guess they would just say, you should not act on Gay Attraction or should have Gay experiences. I just worry that would get them in just as much trouble, as when I write it, it seems harsh and awkward I think the boys are attracted to the sex, not the boy. Kids hear so much about sex. What it must be like. Sometimes they just want to try it. It rarely has anything to do with being sexaully attracted to the other kid.
Anonymous Mormon Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 In an effort to try to figure out if the larger world saw the term 'same-sex attraction' as offensive I found this intriguing website of LGBTQ terminology: https://www.montclair.edu/lgbtq-center/lgbtq-resources/terminology/ To be honest, there are so many terms out there and the terms are so fluid, that I am not sure how the church will ever be cool or not offend people. For example, this entry: Homosexual: The clinical term, coined in the field of psychology, for people with a same-sex sexual attraction. The word is often associated with the idea that same-sex attractions are a mental disorder, and is therefore potentially offensive to some people. This entry seems to prefer the term 'same-sex sexual attraction' and 'same-sex attractions' over the term Homosexual, because Homosexual is 'potentially offensive to some people.' Wow, there seem to be a lot of potential landmines and charged words out there for the church and its members to step on! 1
changed Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 I'm just curious - what TBM's on here believe "choice" should involve when it comes to choosing a partner. If you have chidlren who are nearing the age to be married, what advice is given? *Only marry a return missionary? *Only marry someone active in the church whose family is also active? *Only mary someone with the same political views? How about racial makeup? How many CoJCoLDS marriages are inter-racial I wonder? Health issues? Age differences? Economic differences? and... physically attracted to, how important is that within a marriage? "It is not a choice" ... it is a choice - everyone is has free will, and can make a choice. What does it matter if someone was born that way or chose to live that way? It is a choice - all marriages are hopefully a choice... or should arranged marriages be reinstated?
Calm Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, california boy said: is offensive to most of the LGBT community. They prefer being called gay If they prefer to be called gay, than why the use of LGBTQ+? Why not just stick with gay? Instead there is GLAAD saying “gay community” is inaccurate. Edited May 17, 2019 by Calm 1
hope_for_things Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said: See the post I just posted above. I do believe there are is a larger group of boys who have had sexual interaction with other boys than there are of those who actively identify as Gay or Bisexual. These are boys who would not identify as either of these. How would you suggest the church address this audience (which I believe is sizable)? What terms would you prefer that would both reach these youth and not be offensive to the gay community (ideally you could give a couple of examples as well please)? The simple answer that I can see no reason to change, is that we should use the terms that people prefer to be called. Gay, Straight, Bi, whatever that person wants to be called. How should the church refer to these people? The same way, use the terms they prefer. Talk about fidelity in marriage when you talk about chastity. Simple
Calm Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) As a side note, part of my problem in using “gay” or “homosexual” is in my teens years in the Bay Area, I read and was told by lesbians in no uncertain terms they rejected those labels and saw the application of such on the lesbian community as just another example of male dominance over females, pushing the female voice off stage. As a female, this rather resonated with my own experience at the time. I also knew more lesbians than gays, so that probably made a difference. I see this POV stated still, though usually not as emphatically as I once heard it. Edited May 17, 2019 by Calm
hope_for_things Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 1 hour ago, kllindley said: If you can't understand that an attempt to force the much larger group of people who experience same-sex attraction to be content with the label "gay" because gay people find anything else offensive, is equally offensive to a much larger number of people, I don't think anything I can say will have any impact. This idea that we must ignore the fact that most people who experience same-sex attraction don't identify as gay because some gay people find the idea offensive is very much like expecting Galileo to claim the sun orbits the earth because some people don't like the idea that the earth orbits the sun. Again, who is using SSA as a label? Quotes please. Why do you characterize my use of statistics to demonstrate that individuals who identify as gay are only a subset of those who experience same-sex attraction as trying to "make it look like the people who identify as gay or lesbian are really just a small fraction of the people engaged in same-sex activity?" Either they are or they are not. I am just reporting what data shows. I am not trying to "make it look like anything." What I am showing is that "gay" does not equal "experiences same-sex attraction." The latter is not just an offensive term for the former. It includes a much broader category of individuals only a portion of which would be included in the label "gay." This concern about forcing the label gay on this "larger group of people" isn't a valid criticism because that isn't happening anywhere to my knowledge. Whatever this larger group is, its not a group that wants to be called SSA either. I have said, and will continue to say, that we should respect the labels that people wish to be referred to by. I would be very disheartened to find out if any institutions were promoting referring to people that don't want to be called gay, as gay. Are you suggesting such a problem exists, and if so, please provide some evidence to support that. That would also violate my view that people by respected and that we refer to people with the labels they wish to us to use. Its about respecting others. I don't understand your point about SSA as a label, vs. SSA as a verb or something that you were saying earlier. Sorry...
Calm Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: WHO has said that you must refer to someone as "gay" if they prefer "SSA"? Who? Usage is not restricted to one on one or even small group conversation. And as far as majority rules, it is impossible to determine what percentage of those listening to general conference or reading the Church’s website or church rep in a newspaper account desire to be identified as gay rather than described as experiencing SSA. There are times when people are speaking in abstract, about and not always to a group. If that group includes a small percentage of those who identify as gay and a much larger group of those who do not but who express they have been attracted to someone of the same sex at times, then it seems to me not only inaccurate, but inappropriate to label the whole group as “gay”. The Church in general speaks to the larger group imo, not just the small subsets of gay 1.8% or LGBTQ+ 3.8%, but to all those who have experienced attraction to the same sex to encourage them to avoid moving past the feelings into action. For the Church, at issue is not the difference between exclusive attraction to the same sex vs opposite sex, but any experience of attraction to someone of the same sex. While st times the Church may use “same sex attraction” in referring to solely the people who identify as gay, I think it is much more likely the majority of time they are speaking to and about anyone who has experienced same sex attraction and desired to or did act upon that attraction, which includes a much, much larger group than just those who identify as gay. ( I think klindley posted 20% as opposed to 1.8%). My preference would be to see the Church move towards using both “LGBT+” and “experiencing SSA” at the same time so there is recognition of those who prefer the previous identity and recognition of those who prefer not to see attraction as part of their identity. It is awkward and bulky, so I suspect it won’t go that way, though I have seen the use of “gay or same sex attraction” iirc. I do think when the intent is to talk about those who identify as gay or lgbtq+, those terms should be used by church representatives, but in general I believe they are not speaking solely of those groups when referring to “same sex attraction. Edited May 17, 2019 by Calm 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Posted May 17, 2019 1 hour ago, california boy said: Most of the time Scott, I don't know if you bring these things up just to irritate people or if you have really thought this through. Do you think that every person who identifies themselves as a formerly called Mormon all think and act and agree on everything? You don't even have to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint to be called a Mormon. Well I am not a Mormon, but I think you should all be called Gold Bible Believers because some are offended by using the name Mormon. GBB for short. Not a perfect analogy I admit. But do you see the arrogance of you deciding what the proper name those in the LGBT community should be using? With just a hint of a inflammatory language thrown in just to make you feel better? Are you able to make that leap with me? You’re not getting the point. I’ll repeat it as best I can; maybe you should read more slowly this time. I can’t control that. Maybe if I emphasize some phrases it will help. I have no problem applying terms such as gay and LGBT to those <who accept and embrace those terms for themselves.> Not everyone with a homosexual orientation does. Some people don’t accept the lifestyle, the cultural movement, the sexual behavior, the social tribalism, the political activism that these terms imply. According to numbers cited here by kllindley, there are more who don’t accept them than do. These people do not deserve to be marginalized, erased from public consciousness or lumped into categories into which they do not belong. They have as much claim on your respect as the gay or LGBT people you purport to champion. And no, I don’t cop to your accusation of arrogance. If anything, you are being arrogant with a dismissive attitude toward people with a homosexual orientation who don’t identify as gay or LGBT. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Posted May 17, 2019 44 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said: In an effort to try to figure out if the larger world saw the term 'same-sex attraction' as offensive I found this intriguing website of LGBTQ terminology: https://www.montclair.edu/lgbtq-center/lgbtq-resources/terminology/ To be honest, there are so many terms out there and the terms are so fluid, that I am not sure how the church will ever be cool or not offend people. For example, this entry: Homosexual: The clinical term, coined in the field of psychology, for people with a same-sex sexual attraction. The word is often associated with the idea that same-sex attractions are a mental disorder, and is therefore potentially offensive to some people. This entry seems to prefer the term 'same-sex sexual attraction' and 'same-sex attractions' over the term Homosexual, because Homosexual is 'potentially offensive to some people.' Wow, there seem to be a lot of potential landmines and charged words out there for the church and its members to step on! Yes, Calm pointed this out earlier. Makes me wonder how widespread this purported animus toward the term “same-sex attraction” really is.
USU78 Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 33 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said: In an effort to try to figure out if the larger world saw the term 'same-sex attraction' as offensive I found this intriguing website of LGBTQ terminology: https://www.montclair.edu/lgbtq-center/lgbtq-resources/terminology/ To be honest, there are so many terms out there and the terms are so fluid, that I am not sure how the church will ever be cool or not offend people. For example, this entry: Homosexual: The clinical term, coined in the field of psychology, for people with a same-sex sexual attraction. The word is often associated with the idea that same-sex attractions are a mental disorder, and is therefore potentially offensive to some people. This entry seems to prefer the term 'same-sex sexual attraction' and 'same-sex attractions' over the term Homosexual, because Homosexual is 'potentially offensive to some people.' Wow, there seem to be a lot of potential landmines and charged words out there for the church and its members to step on! What is being urged is, as I see it, either irrationality, where on a whim anybody anywhere is empowered to have veto rights over others' word choices, or highly rational power grabs, where those who wish to project power seize those veto rights. Why should anybody play along? The Viennese Benkert (Kertbeny) coined the term in 1869 and used it in advocacy pamphleteering. He is the one who formulated the notion of "inborn and immutable." And he's mostly forgotten. Now his neologism of advocacy is being attacked by those for whom he advocated, putting forth argumentation and assertions no more based in science than AOC's 12 year doomsday deadline. The mind boggles. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Posted May 17, 2019 38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The simple answer that I can see no reason to change, is that we should use the terms that people prefer to be called. Gay, Straight, Bi, whatever that person wants to be called. How should the church refer to these people? The same way, use the terms they prefer. Talk about fidelity in marriage when you talk about chastity. Simple Unmarried people can and do break the law of chastity as well. And since neither the law of the Lord nor the Church recognize the validity of same-sex marriage, any such marriage will always be viewed as violating the law of chastity.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Posted May 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, USU78 said: What is being urged is, as I see it, either irrationality, where on a whim anybody anywhere is empowered to have veto rights over others' word choices, or highly rational power grabs, where those who wish to project power seize those veto rights. Why should anybody play along? The Viennese Benkert (Kertbeny) coined the term in 1869 and used it in advocacy pamphleteering. He is the one who formulated the notion of "inborn and immutable." And he's mostly forgotten. Now his neologism of advocacy is being attacked by those for whom he advocated, putting forth argumentation and assertions no more based in science than AOC's 12 year doomsday deadline. The mind boggles. Off-topic aside, but have you seen where AOC is now saying her 12-year doomsday deadline was just a joke? She is castigating people for not getting her “dry humor.” 1
california boy Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 38 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said: In an effort to try to figure out if the larger world saw the term 'same-sex attraction' as offensive I found this intriguing website of LGBTQ terminology: https://www.montclair.edu/lgbtq-center/lgbtq-resources/terminology/ To be honest, there are so many terms out there and the terms are so fluid, that I am not sure how the church will ever be cool or not offend people. For example, this entry: Homosexual: The clinical term, coined in the field of psychology, for people with a same-sex sexual attraction. The word is often associated with the idea that same-sex attractions are a mental disorder, and is therefore potentially offensive to some people. This entry seems to prefer the term 'same-sex sexual attraction' and 'same-sex attractions' over the term Homosexual, because Homosexual is 'potentially offensive to some people.' Wow, there seem to be a lot of potential landmines and charged words out there for the church and its members to step on! They aren't labeling someone as having same sex attraction. 36 minutes ago, Calm said: If they prefer to be called gay, than why the use of LGBTQ+? Why not just stick with gay? Instead there is GLAAD saying “gay community” is inaccurate. LGBTQ includes more than just people who are attracted to the same sex. So being gay is specifically for those that are only attracted to the same sex. In general terms, it also includes lesbians. While gay covers both groups, it can also mean just men attracted to men and lesbians women attracted to women. Most lesbians consider themselves gay as well. That is the first two letters. B is for bisexual. So different than gay or lesbian. Calling them gay would be inappropiate since they are attracted to both genders. T for Transgender. They could be attracted to the same sex or opposite sex. So not gay at all Some people add the Q. which is for queer. It is mostly a non specific term used as a broad unbrella and a catch all. There is no specific gender attraction associated with queer. Some still find queer as being offensive due to past usage as a slur, but most have decided to embrace it as an overall term. So I guess technically I am both gay and queer. Don't mind either terms. But gay is more descriptive. If you are talking about. a specific group within the LGBTQ community then the gay community, or the lesbian community or the transgender community is more specific to the individual groups. Hope that helps. I sound like I am trying to explain the difference between a beehive, a laural and a Mia Maid to my partner. He get's very confused and thinks we should just call them all young womens. Then I tell him we do sometimes. 1
hope_for_things Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Unmarried people can and do break the law of chastity as well. And since neither the law of the Lord nor the Church recognize the validity of same-sex marriage, any such marriage will always be viewed as violating the law of chastity. Oh course all of that depends on how one defines the law of chastity. Many church leaders including the founder of the church defined it very differently than you do.
Calm Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: The church is referring to the entire LGBTQ community as SSA, not just those who identify as gay....When I hear the church talk about SSA it comes across to me (an outsider) that they are actually speaking to a much smaller group than the LGBT community. They are actually only speaking to the small minority of the LGBT community who prefer the SSA designation. I think this is probably the core issue. Those who protest the use of “same sex attraction” see the Church using the term for primarily to describe members of the LGBTQ+ community 3.8% Those of us who believe the Church is using it to describe anyone 20% who has experienced same same attraction in any situation appear to be more comfortable with the usage. PS: I use the numbers not to diminish the value of the LGBTQ+ community, but to make it clear what set of people I am talking about because there seems to be assumptions by some that some are equating lgbtq+ with “having ever been attracted to the same sex”. Edited May 17, 2019 by Calm 1
california boy Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 42 minutes ago, Calm said: As a side note, part of my problem in using “gay” or “homosexual” is in my teens years in the Bay Area, I read and was told by lesbians in no uncertain terms they rejected those labels and saw the application of such on the lesbian community as just another example of male dominance over females, pushing the female voice off stage. As a female, this rather resonated with my own experience at the time. I also knew more lesbians than gays, so that probably made a difference. I see this POV stated still, though usually not as emphatically as I once heard it. You are right. There used to be a big division between gays and lesbians. The two groups would hardly talk to each other. They felt like they had a different culture and there was no natural association between the two groups. Things started to change dramatically when the Brigggs Prop started. Both groups realized they were stronger together than they were separate.
USU78 Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 Here's a notion. Is it necessary to credit the irrational demands of the mentally ill? Isn't it rather kinder to ignore irrational ravings and obtain assistance for the condition? A few statistics from here: https://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/lgbt-mental-health - 3.4% of the population of the US self-identifies as homosexual, bisexual, transgender, or something similar - Those among the 3.4% are 3X more likely to suffer from mental illness than those among the 96.6% - Those among the 3.4% are 2.5X more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and drug abuse - The youth among the 3.4% are 4X more likely to suffer from suicidal ideation - As many as 65% of the transgender persons among the 3.4% suffer from suicidal ideation - As many as 30% of the 3.4% are drug/substance abusers (compared to 9% of the 96.6%) Why is it useful, in any case and despite the fact the above stats may be as much as 5 or so years out of date, to spend time beating up on those not up on this week's list of forbidden words when there are so many and much bigger fish that need frying? Why shake shiny objects to divert attention from the real issue? 1
USU78 Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Off-topic aside, but have you seen where AOC is now saying her 12-year doomsday deadline was just a joke? She is castigating people for not getting her “dry humor.” Does "dry" as used in that sentence mean "icky and irrational?"
Calm Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, california boy said: Both groups realized they were stronger together than they were separate. And if political/social power is the reason for some/most in the lesbian community to begin using “gay” as a description, don’t you think there might still be great resentment for having to accept being seen in terms referring to males in their view?
Calm Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: Those among the 3.4% are 3X more likely to suffer from mental illness than those among the 96.6% That is still a small minority of the group. Are you claiming it is only the small subset of LGBTQs with mental illness that are ‘demanding’ the use of gay and other labels in preference to “same sex attraction”? (only the transgender subset is a majority) Edited May 17, 2019 by Calm
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, california boy said: They aren't labeling someone as having same sex attraction. LGBTQ includes more than just people who are attracted to the same sex. So being gay is specifically for those that are only attracted to the same sex. In general terms, it also includes lesbians. While gay covers both groups, it can also mean just men attracted to men and lesbians women attracted to women. Most lesbians consider themselves gay as well. That is the first two letters. B is for bisexual. So different than gay or lesbian. Calling them gay would be inappropiate since they are attracted to both genders. T for Transgender. They could be attracted to the same sex or opposite sex. So not gay at all Some people add the Q. which is for queer. It is mostly a non specific term used as a broad unbrella and a catch all. There is no specific gender attraction associated with queer. Some still find queer as being offensive due to past usage as a slur, but most have decided to embrace it as an overall term. So I guess technically I am both gay and queer. Don't mind either terms. But gay is more descriptive. If you are talking about. a specific group within the LGBTQ community then the gay community, or the lesbian community or the transgender community is more specific to the individual groups. Hope that helps. I sound like I am trying to explain the difference between a beehive, a laural and a Mia Maid to my partner. He get's very confused and thinks we should just call them all young womens. Then I tell him we do sometimes. California Boy, I see you using the phrase “attracted to the same sex.” I have been careful to avoid that in this discussion because I didn’t want to upset you. Instead, I have been using “having a homosexual orientation.” Yet here you are saying “attracted to the same sex,” which, to me, communicates the identical idea as “same-sex attraction,” which you say you hate. Can you see how this would be confusing to me? Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1
california boy Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You’re not getting the point. I’ll repeat it as best I can; maybe you should read more slowly this time. I can’t control that. Maybe if I emphasize some phrases it will help. I have no problem applying terms such as gay and LGBT to those <who accept and embrace those terms for themselves.> Not everyone with a homosexual orientation does. Some people don’t accept the lifestyle, che cultural movement, the sexual behavior, the social tribalism, the political activism that these terms imply. According to numbers cited here by kllindley, there are more who don’t accept them than do. These people do not deserve to be marginalized, erased from public consciousness or lumped into categories into which they do not belong. They have as much claim on your respect as the gay or LGBT people you purport to champion. And no, I don’t cop to your accusation of arrogance. If anything, you are being arrogant with a dismissive attitude toward people with a homosexual orientation who don’t identify as gay or LGBT. I have read this three times because I am trying to not misread what you are saying. Don't accept them? Who is them referring to? And where is the study Klindeley is referring to? What are those numbers? I couldn't find any that Klindley quoted.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 17, 2019 Author Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Oh course all of that depends on how one defines the law of chastity. Many church leaders including the founder of the church defined it very differently than you do. Yes, but we are talking here about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints defines it. You don’t get to casually redefine it for the Church on your own authority. Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1
USU78 Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Calm said: That is still a small minority of the group. Are you claiming it is only the small subset of LGBTQs with mental illness that are ‘demanding’ the use of gay and other labels in preference to “same sex attraction”? I'm saying that the demands are irrational and conflicting, with every group claiming some sort of voice that should be taken as authoritative having a differing opinion and that opinion seems to change weekly. When something doesn't make sense, there's usually a reason it doesn't make sense. What are our choices? 1. Somebody's nuts. 2. Somebody's distracting us from what's really going on. 3. Somebody's projecting power (which always feels great). 4. Somebody's lying. Are there more? 1
Recommended Posts