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

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I said right in my post that it didn't matter either way if he was or wasn't so there's no reason to get huffy.  This topic is tough enough without inventing reasons to be annoyed.

Honestly though, most of the time it would be incredibly helpful to know where other posters were coming from.  It's very easy to misunderstand each other and usually the more information you have about the perspective that another poster is coming from the less that happens.  

 

I felt a little huffy because that kind of question is so loaded and I don't feel its appropriate to ask as there is a judgment implied in the question.  It might not have been your individual intent to judge, but I have seen other posters on this board who try to dismiss people that don't fit their standard of orthodox member.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I have no problem with SSA so long as it isn't used to describe a symptom a person has.

Examples:

a) I experience different sex attraction.

b) I experience Bipolar I Disorder.

c) I experience same sex attraction.

Example b is exactly how homosexuality should not be treated. It's not a disorder or malfunction to be temporally or externally fixed. Examples a and c are perfectly fine because they are naturally occurring and do not require treatment.

So it’s OK to say that someone who identifies as gay “experiences same-sex attraction”? If you can get a few particular folks on this board to accept that, you will have accomplished a monumental deed. 

[alter idem]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm confused. In one sentence you infer that it's good for people to attempt to adjust their language to preferences of others, yet you also seem to defend the church using a description that many/most LGBTQ individuals don't enjoy. I have no personal issue with SSA, except when it is purposely used to describe people who don't like being described as SSA. I think the church is aware that many in the LGBTQ community don't appreciate the exclusive use of SSA, yet they still do it. Why? Why not adjust? Why not use both terms, multiple terms. No one will be pleased all of the time but it sure seems that virtually everyone could be pleased some of the time.

Refusing to call someone gay, even though that's their personal preference, as a matter of policy is offensive. That's why people are pushing against the church's use of it. I don't think anyone would care if they used SSA & gay & h0mosxual.

Of course it's good to not call people names they are offended by, but it can be near impossible.  You can adjust for those you know, but you cannot do so on a large scale, because too many people have too many preferences.  You aren't going to be able to please everyone.  I'm happy to call all on this forum 'gay' who want to be called that term, but what about the one who doesn't want to be called 'gay'?  I'll have caused offense, when trying NOT to cause offense.  It's bound to happen.  That's why I say, it's better for us to try not to take offense when it was not meant.

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I have a sister who is offended every time anyone calls her 'maam'.  She is incensed by it, she obsesses over it and even will refuse to go back to a store because some poor hapless clerk called her 'maam' and this has been going on for at least 20 years.  When she tells me about it, I do not agree and tell her what insensitive jerks they are and how awful it is to have a label forced on her (she believes they call her 'maam' because they perceive her as old), but I tell her, that some were raised to believe this is proper manners and no offense is meant by it.  I'm sorry but it's easier to help my sister understand that being called 'maam' is not meant to offend and she needs to cut others some slack.  My sister is right--sometimes they do call her 'maam' because she's a 45 year old woman--which is 'old' to a sixteen year old, but it's not meant to be rude.  I try to remind her that the Queen of England is called 'maam' and she never takes offense, even when she was 20.

I think most people try to adjust their languages to the preferences of others, when possible--but where does it end?  How do you determine who's preferences to adjust to?  It's easy in a small group, but virtually impossible in a large community with many varying preferences.

The 'push back' is that a handful of people on this forum are insisting that a common,  unemotional descriptive term most often used by the church is now some kind of slur, which I seriously doubt. That's why I'm pushing back. 

What I do believe is that a handful of people on this forum, don't like this term and they see it as negative and are trying to suggest it's universal.  They also don't like that Scott Lloyd used the word 'have' which they interpreted him meaning it is a disease-- and he won't apologize for doing so.

If your sister has expressly asked people that she knows (not strangers) not to call her maam and they continue to do it, would you think that is disrespectful of them?  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You could also search for the term gay in the church's database of conference talks it hasn't been used for very long in any official sense.   Its not just an anomaly with Bednar, although he certainly deserves to be a whipping boy for how egregious his comments were.  

Being judicious in one’s use of terms in a given context such as a conference sermon is not the same as “forcing” a label. I think you are reaching here. 

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Did he SAY he believed gay people have a disease or malady?  You can be upset with him if he did, but if so, I'd like to know where he said it.

Yes, Scott has stated that’s what he believes.  I think he was quoted in the last thread (or the post was linked to...can’t remember).  

And so far, he hasn’t said he’s changed his mind about it.

[Damien the Leper]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it’s OK to say that someone who identifies as gay “experiences same-sex attraction”? If you can get a few particular folks on this board to accept that, you will have accomplished a monumental deed. 

Sure. I can take a walk down a street and find another man attractive. A buddy of mine can walk down said street and find a woman attractive. But again, SSA nor DSA are symptoms or disorders to be treated such as Bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia or any other psychological disorder. That's where we cross the line into idiocy.

[USU78]

31 minutes ago, alter idem said:

The 'push back' is that a handful of people on this forum are insisting that a common,  unemotional descriptive term most often used by the church is now some kind of slur, which I seriously doubt. That's why I'm pushing back. 

My pushback amounts to refusing to say "uncle," 'cause I ain't licked.

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I have a sister who is offended every time anyone calls her 'maam'.  She is incensed by it, she obsesses over it and even will refuse to go back to a store because some poor hapless clerk called her 'maam' and this has been going on for at least 20 years.  When she tells me about it, I do not agree and tell her what insensitive jerks they are and how awful it is to have a label forced on her (she believes they call her 'maam' because they perceive her as old), but I tell her, that some were raised to believe this is proper manners and no offense is meant by it.  I'm sorry but it's easier to help my sister understand that being called 'maam' is not meant to offend and she needs to cut others some slack.  My sister is right--sometimes they do call her 'maam' because she's a 45 year old woman--which is 'old' to a sixteen year old, but it's not meant to be rude.  I try to remind her that the Queen of England is called 'maam' and she never takes offense, even when she was 20.

I think most people try to adjust their languages to the preferences of others, when possible--but where does it end?  How do you determine who's preferences to adjust to?  It's easy in a small group, but virtually impossible in a large community with many varying preferences.

The 'push back' is that a handful of people on this forum are insisting that a common,  unemotional descriptive term most often used by the church is now some kind of slur, which I seriously doubt. That's why I'm pushing back. 

What I do believe is that a handful of people on this forum, don't like this term and they see it as negative and are trying to suggest it's universal.  They also don't like that Scott Lloyd used the word 'have' which they interpreted him meaning it is a disease-- and he won't apologize for doing so.

I tried to explain the usage by using the analogy of <having> a taste for navel oranges, but some folks refuse to be mollified. 

I’m willing to substitute the verb <experience> for <have>, but I doubt that will placate them either. 

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

If you can't answer the question...don't reply at all....speak YOUR truth..not those for whom you admire...but yours!!!!  Do you not have a mind of your own??

I think his refusal to answer IS his answer.  If he no longer believed that gays suffer with a disease, he’d clarify most likely.

If Scott does still believe it, he should just admit it and own it, imo.

But he won’t.  That’s up to him of course!

[Damien the Leper]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I think his refusal to answer IS his answer.  If he no longer believed that gays suffer with a disease, he’d clarify most likely.

If Scott does still believe it, he should just admit it and own it, imo.

But he won’t.  That’s up to him of course!

I honestly don't believe Scott would sink so low as to claim gays suffer from a disease or that he believes anything like that in the slightest.

[alter idem]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Talk to the people that are a part of the group in question.   Thats how you can find out how they want to be identified.  Adjust accordingly where individuals share their preferences.  Its not that hard really.  Like my example earlier, people have preferred names they want to be called, and pretty much everyone adjusts without a problem. 

Yes, of course, we all do this, some are better at it than others.  Being at church or a social gathering are good examples and most of us are able to avoid offending others.  But I don't think that's relevant to what's being discussed here. This tempest in a teapot started because someone on another thread took offense to the commonly used term 'same sex attraction', which I refuse to accept their supposed universally negative perception of.

On this forum, we discuss this 'issue' in terms of members of the church, and the church often uses the term 'same sex attraction', which they obviously do not feel is offensive.  Therefore, I see no reason to accept an unverified perception that we should stop using it completely because a handful of posters say it's offensive.  That would be a tacit agreement that the church is wrong to use this term and the church is offensive when it uses this term.  I'm not going to agree to that.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Now that is funny coming from you!! 😛

 

I agree that I'm not sure why Scott felt a need to bring this up again.

Scott?  Anything new?

I think all agreed that there are some who did not mind using the term same-sex attraction or being identified in that way (read california boy's posts that I quoted earlier in this thread).

Why I brought it up again is explained in the OP. At this point it’s my considered opinion that you and JulieM are trying to shout me down. I cordially invite the two of you to exit the thread if you can’t abide it. I make a practice of avoiding threads that don’t appeal to me. It’s great for preserving peace of mind. I recommend it. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I honestly don't believe Scott would sink so low as to claim gays suffer from a disease or that he believes anything like that in the slightest.

He’s stated he believes it’s a “malady” (his word from reading his past post).  When asked if he really believed that about those who are gay, he replied “Yes.”

He’s entitled to believe as he wishes, but it does shed light on this thread’s topic I think (his views on it).

Edited May 16, 2019 by JulieM

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

He’s stated he believes it’s a “malady” (his word from reading his past post).  When asked if he really believed that about those who are gay, he replied “Yes.”

He’s entitled to believe as he wishes, but it does shed light on this thread’s topic I think (his views on it).

See hectoring.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Sure. I can take a walk down a street and find another man attractive. A buddy of mine can walk down said street and find a woman attractive. But again, SSA nor DSA are symptoms or disorders to be treated such as Bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia or any other psychological disorder. That's where we cross the line into idiocy.

But you just said “same-sex attraction” is OK to use so long as you precede it with “experience” instead of “have.”  I still find this confusing. One can be said to “experience” bi-polar disorder as well as “have” it. No?

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why I brought it up again is explained in the OP. At this point it’s my considered opinion that you and JulieM are trying to shout me down. I cordially invite the two of you to exit the thread if you can’t abide it. I make a practice of avoiding threads that don’t appeal to me. It’s great for preserving peace of mind. I recommend it. 

I never said this thread didn't "appeal to me".....it's just that you've really brought nothing new to the discussion since the last thread was closed, IMO.  HappyJackWagon's post expresses that well.

And I'll continue here if I choose to as long as I remain respectful (which I think I have).  I have not asked you about anything that you have not stated in the past or anything off topic.  But I will drop that part of the discussion because it's obvious now that you still hold to the view that someone who is gay has a malady.  

I get why you don't want to address that and I'll drop it now.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I never said this thread didn't "appeal to me".....it's just that you've really brought nothing new to the discussion since the last thread was closed, IMO.  HappyJackWagon's post expresses that well.

And I'll continue here if I choose to as long as I remain respectful (which I think I have).  I have not asked you about anything that you have not stated in the past or anything off topic.  But I will drop that part of the discussion because it's obvious now that you still hold to the view that someone who is gay has a malady.  

I get why you don't want to address that and I'll drop it now.

You’re welcome to stay, of course. But if you expect to interact with me, you will do so in a civil manner. 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Yes, of course, we all do this, some are better at it than others.  Being at church or a social gathering are good examples and most of us are able to avoid offending others.  But I don't think that's relevant to what's being discussed here. This tempest in a teapot started because someone on another thread took offense to the commonly used term 'same sex attraction', which I refuse to accept their supposed universally negative perception of.

On this forum, we discuss this 'issue' in terms of members of the church, and the church often uses the term 'same sex attraction', which they obviously do not feel is offensive.  Therefore, I see no reason to accept an unverified perception that we should stop using it completely because a handful of posters say it's offensive.  That would be a tacit agreement that the church is wrong to use this term and the church is offensive when it uses this term.  I'm not going to agree to that.

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.  

 

[alter idem]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If your sister has expressly asked people that she knows (not strangers) not to call her maam and they continue to do it, would you think that is disrespectful of them?  

Nobody does that.  We know she is very offended by it.  Of course those who are aware of this don't call her that (we also are not from the south or in the military), Of course it would be disrespectful to call her 'maam' if she's made it clear that she's offended.  It's not family who are the culprits, it's the general population of strangers who cause her offense and they didn't mean to and she should cut them slack;

I tell her, don't take offense when offense is not meant.  It just causes needless anxiety.

And, for sure, if any gay/ssa person on this forum says 'please don't call me SSA', we shouldn't refer to them as SSA(if for some reason we are referring to them personally) though I'm not sure when we would. 

But, on the forum, where the church uses this term, if I get involved in a discussion on this subject, I'm going to use the term same sex attraction to speak of members of the church who experience same sex attraction, in general terms--because IMO, that is the best basic description I know of to use.  In speaking of the 'gay' community outside the church, I usually use 'lgbtq'.

 

 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re welcome to stay, of course. But if you expect to interact with me, you will do so in a civil manner. 

CFR that have not been "civil"   

(I have not posted anything that wasn't relevant to this topic in trying to understand what your views are or if they've changed since you posted what you did.  You have refused to answer the question and I said I'd drop it.)

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Nobody does that.  We know she is very offended by it.  Of course those who are aware of this don't call her that (we also are not from the south or in the military), Of course it would be disrespectful to call her 'maam' if she's made it clear that she's offended.  It's not family who are the culprits, it's the general population of strangers who cause her offense and they didn't mean to and she should cut them slack;

I tell her, don't take offense when offense is not meant.  It just causes needless anxiety.

And, for sure, if any gay/ssa person on this forum says 'please don't call me SSA', we shouldn't refer to them as SSA(if for some reason we are referring to them personally) though I'm not sure when we would. 

But, on the forum, where the church uses this term, if I get involved in a discussion on this subject, I'm going to use the term same sex attraction to speak of members of the church who experience same sex attraction, in general terms--because IMO, that is the best basic description I know of to use.  In speaking of the 'gay' community outside the church, I usually use 'lgbtq'.

I'm 99% sure that LGBTQ groups have met with church representatives and informed them that SSA is not the preferred way of describing them.  You can even see this in the slow shift away from the use of that term.  I think LGBT was even uttered by a church leader just recently for the very first time if I recall correctly.  The church is slowly moving in this direction, irrespective of people on this board that may be oblivious or in denial about the shifts in rhetoric.  

[Tacenda]

37 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I honestly don't believe Scott would sink so low as to claim gays suffer from a disease or that he believes anything like that in the slightest.

He may think it's a mental issue. I believe that he and a few others, IMO, feel it isn't that you are born with it, just like heterosexuals are.

[alter idem]

6 minutes 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.  

 

I really don't care what terms the rest of society uses because that's not relevant to this discussion.  If you have a problem with the term 'same sex attraction', you have a problem with the church, since this is a term they commonly use(not exclusively, but common).  I come to this forum for discussion because it is a forum which supports the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I am not going to agree to condemn a term that I and obviously the church believe is perfectly acceptable and does NOT make the assumption that attraction to one's own sex is a disease or malady.  Some of you have accused Scott of using it in that manner, but that has nothing to do with others who use the term or the church using the term.  The church's stand on SSA and the use of the term does not include a teaching that it is a disease. I use the term 'SSA' and I don't believe it's a disease.  Either way, the term 'same sex attraction' does NOT identify it as a disease. 

We should not purposefully set about to offend others.  But, to not use this term on this forum, when discussing this topic, would be difficult, since it's the term the church and church members are comfortable with.

If I was on a website for LDS members who identify as gay/ssa, I'd naturally try to use terms that were acceptable to them.

[Damien the Leper]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But you just said “same-sex attraction” is OK to use so long as you precede it with “experience” instead of “have.”  I still find this confusing. One can be said to “experience” bi-polar disorder as well as “have” it. No?

Fair enough. But what I said still stands for DSA as well then. My heterosexual friend has different-sex attraction and experiences different-sex attraction. Just for the sake of consistency, I'll also say that all human attraction is a malady.