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

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think I missed something.

Has someone called for the banning of "SSA" on this forum?  If so, CFR please. I'm sorry I missed it.

If not, I'd say it doesn't take much bravery to stand up to a ban that has never been called for.

No strict ban has been called for. Rather, some, such as ALarson and California boy (and to some extent, rockpond) have seemed to promote what I would call a soft ban through attempted public shaming. 

It happened on the other thread. You’re welcome to explore it yourself; I’m disinclined to look up individual posts at the moment. 

[USU78]

Never mind.

Edited May 16, 2019 by USU78
Never mind.

[blueglass]

Can someone help me with the history of when identifying as gay or queer within the church went from being sinful to being ok?  

After Elder Bednar's statement in 2016 that "There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction.  We are not defined by sexual behavior.  We are sons and daughters of God.  And all of us have different challenges in the flesh.  There are many different types of challenges."  

He said, "simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin."   "It is when we act on the inclination or attraction"  "That's when it becomes a sin".   Elder David B Bednar, 23-Feb 2016

A few scriptures would counter this, 

Mosiah4:30
30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

Alma12:14
14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No strict ban has been called for. Rather, some, such as ALarson and California boy (and to some extent, rockpond) have seemed to promote what I would call a soft ban through attempted public shaming. 

Once again, you are misrepresenting here.

We've only stated that when one has asked you not to use that term when describing them, that you be respectful and honor their request.  If something offends someone, most people will avoid doing that.  

No one has asked that it never be used (from what I've seen here).  However, you do seem to not want to refer to someone as "being gay".  Or are you ok with stating that someone "is gay"?

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No strict ban has been called for. Rather, some, such as ALarson and California boy (and to some extent, rockpond) have seemed to promote what I would call a soft ban through attempted public shaming. 

It happened on the other thread. You’re welcome to explore it yourself; I’m disinclined to look up individual posts at the moment. 

Ok. Good. I didn't think so.

And it's fine that you don't answer the CFR since it was directed at Alter Diem. You shouldn't feel the responsibility of answering his CFR.

IF it happened on the other thread (which I also doubt) I find it odd to make claims on this thread about it.

@alter idem  CFR still stands. I think there is a gross mischaracterization of what poster's have written as well as an obvious straw man you took glee in knocking down. IF there have been calls for a "ban" of the use of the phrase "SSA", I'd like to see it. Otherwise, you should retract your claims.

[hope_for_things]

2 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. 

Your choice, there are some people in the church that still use racist rhetoric as well because the church has not effectively re-educated members to be more sensitive on that subject as well.  You will frequently be able to find a sub segment of any group that continues to hold onto things from the past, no matter how insensitive.  

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your choice, there are some people in the church that still use racist rhetoric as well because the church has not effectively re-educated members to be more sensitive on that subject as well.  You will frequently be able to find a sub segment of any group that continues to hold onto things from the past, no matter how insensitive.  

CFR that the Church does anything to encourage or acquiesce to the use of racist rhetoric or to racism in any form. 

You have the entire churchofjesuschrist.org website to draw from. Happy hunting!

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Once again, you are misrepresenting here.

We've only stated that when one has asked you not to use that term when describing them, that you be respectful and honor their request.  If something offends someone, most people will avoid doing that.  

No one has asked that it never be used (from what I've seen here).  However, you do seem to not want to refer to someone as "being gay".  Or are you ok with stating that someone "is gay"?

I’m OK with it.

But you, yourself, have reproachfully questioned why I would use any other term. There are good reasons that have been given on these threads, including the OP of this thread. Not everyone with same-sex attraction embraces the social, cultural and political baggage that comes with terms such as gay, LGBTQ or homosexual. For those who don’t get triggered by it, same-sex attraction is a good generic term. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that the Church does anything to encourage or acquiesce to the use of racist rhetoric or to racism in any form. 

You have the entire churchofjesuschrist.org website to draw from. Happy hunting!

I didn't say they encourage it, that is very different, I said they haven't "effectively re-educated members".  One fairly recent high profile example was the Randy Bott fiasco.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't say they encourage it, that is very different, I said they haven't "effectively re-educated members".  One fairly recent high profile example was the Randy Bott fiasco.  

Randy Bott was not representing the Church in that episode and, in fact, the Church officially and immediately disavowed his statements. 

Whether or not the Church has “effectively re-educated members” strikes me as a very subjective judgment and could be interpreted to mean “has done it to my liking or in a way that meets my approval.” I don’t know who, if anyone, appointed you the Grand Arbiter of such things. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Reflecting on a side discussion that emerged in the “TBM” thread, I just did a Google browse and ran across the essay linked below. The writer’s sexual orientation is homosexual, but for reasons expressed in the piece, he is not comfortable calling himself gay, though he doesn’t mind when others embrace that label for themselves. For him, “same-sex attraction” and it’s similar forms is the the term that works best. .....................

I don't find that my gender preference comes up very often in conversation, and I seldom even think about it.  So too, when I consider great artists such as Picasso or Da Vinci, I just don't care or think about their gender-preference.  I think instead of their great artistic genius.  I have always felt that someone who concentrates on their sexual lives is probably missing the point, and is perhaps unbalanced and a bit infantile.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You yourself have reproachfully questioned why I would use a term other than gay. There are good reasons that have been given on these threads, including the OP of this thread. Not everyone with same-sex attraction embraces the social, cultural and political baggage that comes with terms such as gay, LBGTQ or homosexual. For those who don’t get triggered by it, same-sex attraction is a good generic term. 

You're funny Scott....I see you still refuse to answer certain questions here and it appears you are actually the one who will never use certain language or terms (such as saying that someone "is gay").

That's fine and your choice, of course.  But I have not issued some sort of ban on using the term "same sex attraction".  That is a misrepresentation on your part.  Even california boy posted that he knows some are fine identifying with that term (or even prefer it).

Edited May 16, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have always felt that someone who concentrates on their sexual lives is probably missing the point, and is perhaps unbalanced and a bit infantile.

I think a great deal depends on the context.  Someone who concentrates on their educational level in contexts that are unrelated (say someone who insists everyone call them "Doctor" no matter the context, out camping with friends as well as in the classroom) is imo missing the point and is quite possibly insecure and juvenile.  Someone who tells the cashier they are an artist and need to be treated like one...missing the point.  

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't find that my gender preference comes up very often in conversation, and I seldom even think about it.  So too, when I consider great artists such as Picasso or Da Vinci, I just don't care or think about their gender-preference.  I think instead of their great artistic genius.  I have always felt that someone who concentrates on their sexual lives is probably missing the point, and is perhaps unbalanced and a bit infantile.

Perhaps the most infantile manifestation of it is getting in a snit when some well-meaning individual tries to use an ostensibly neutral term like “same-sex attraction.” 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You're funny Scott....I see you still refuse to answer certain questions here and it appears you are actually the one who will never use certain language or terms (such as saying that someone "is gay").

That's fine and your choice, of course.  But I have not issued some sort of ban on using the term "same sex attraction".  That is a misrepresentation on your part.  Even california boy posted that he knows some are fine identifying with that term (or even prefer it).

You left off the first sentence of my post, probably because I added it later in an edit and you didn’t see it. I said I’m OK with calling somebody gay who wants it that way. I just don’t think the term same-sex attraction should be universally abjured. 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Randy Bott was not representing the Church in that episode and, in fact, the Church officially and immediately disavowed his statements. 

Whether or not the Church has “effectively re-educated members” strikes me as a very subjective judgment and could be interpreted to mean “has not done it to my liking or in a way that meets my approval.” I don’t know who, if anyone, appointed you the Grand Arbiter of such things. 

I never said that the Church was officially espousing racist rhetoric today, so I guess you're just missing my point all together.  At the same time, this slow distancing from past problematic practices is the MO for the church, and its just as applicable to the topic of race as it is to LGBT issues or a myriad of others that are no longer actively promoted today, but that are part of the past official teachings. Slow distancing is the rule, and apologies are rarely if ever permitted and effective re-education doesn't exist.  That you don't see this as a problem is further evidence to support my point about how poorly the church operates on this subject.   

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You left off the first sentence of my post, probably because I added it later in an edit and you didn’t see it. I said I’m OK with calling somebody gay who wants it that way.

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?

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just don’t think the term same-sex attraction should be universally abjured. 

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

Edited May 16, 2019 by ALarson

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You will frequently be able to find a sub segment of any group that continues to hold onto things from the past, no matter how insensitive.  

Well, one of those "things from the past" is that the term 'gay' used to be a derogatory term...for quite a while, actually. And it happens to be a term that can still be used in a derogatory manner, depending on the speaker or context (e.g., this is so gay).

It's only within the last couple of decades that the LGBT community has reclaimed the word from being an epithet and turned it into a self-identifying term. 

That's totally fine by me. I'm cool with that.

But what about people like my parents? People who mostly think of the word as being an insult still - one that they personally try to avoid because they think it's wrong to do so.

It isn't insensitivity that drives them to look for other terms - it's exactly the opposite, in fact. 

You can tell them that 'gay' is the right word all day long, but it just doesn't click for them.

It's like if you had grown up your whole life knowing that X was a racial slur but, over time, people from that particular group decided that they wanted to be known by the term. Certainly you could understand why it might be difficult for someone in that situation to be hesitant about adopting its use.

One of the things that I think has been missing in this discussion of 'trying not to offend' is the flip side of that virtue: try not to take offence. It's been my experience that when both of those are present people tend to get along just fine.

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by Amulek

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Can someone help me with the history of when identifying as gay or queer within the church went from being sinful to being ok?  

After Elder Bednar's statement in 2016 that "There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction.  We are not defined by sexual behavior.  We are sons and daughters of God.  And all of us have different challenges in the flesh.  There are many different types of challenges."  

He said, "simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin."   "It is when we act on the inclination or attraction"  "That's when it becomes a sin".   Elder David B Bednar, 23-Feb 2016

A few scriptures would counter this, 

Mosiah4:30
30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

Alma12:14
14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

 

It's pretty simple. I am a straight married man who is very, very attracted to good looking women. If I notice at church that one of the relief society sisters is attractive and I am attracted to her, that is not a sin. If I imagine myself doing inappropriate things with her, it's a sin.

If I were to find a member of the Elders Quorum, or the Bishop or Stake President physically attractive and I was attracted to that person, then it would not be a sin. If I thought about doing inappropriate things with them, then it's a sin.

I don't think the church's standard on this has ever changed. Nor has God's. 

 

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Can someone help me with the history of when identifying as gay or queer within the church went from being sinful to being ok?  

Now the history of when the term queer became acceptable is one that I am baffled by. I was always taught queer was a derogatory remark. I would never, ever, ever use the term queer to refer to someone. But I wouldn't have thought twice about same-sex attracted. I still couldn't imagine calling someone queer as a non-insult. 

This newspeak is all very, very confusing!

I certainly hope that in the future everyone doesn't require us to remember and refer to their correct sexual preference as well as gender pronoun, so that I have to remember who is gay, who is queer, who is homosexual, who is lesbian, who is straight, who is same sex-attracted, who is beastial, who is different sex attracted, who is asexual, who is cis-sexual, who is trans-gender straight, who is trans-gender lesbian, and who is pan-sexual.

But, to try to accommodate people who want this, from now on when you all refer to my sexuality (which I hope is frequently, because it seems to be the cool thing to always be talking about ones own sexualtiy now-a-days), please refer to me as awe-sexual (as in awesome-sexual or awe-inspiring-sexual). And if you refer to me as anything other than awe-sexual, I will be offended and start a new thread about it. Thanks!

[USU78]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 I said they haven't "effectively re-educated members". 

Ouch.  That's ominous sounding.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m OK with it.

But you, yourself, have reproachfully questioned why I would use any other term. There are good reasons that have been given on these threads, including the OP of this thread. Not everyone with same-sex attraction embraces the social, cultural and political baggage that comes with terms such as gay, LBGTQ or homosexual. For those who don’t get triggered by it, same-sex attraction is a good generic term. 

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.

[USU78]

3 minutes 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.

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).

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

Can someone help me with the history of when identifying as gay or queer within the church went from being sinful to being ok?  

After Elder Bednar's statement in 2016 that "There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction.  We are not defined by sexual behavior.  We are sons and daughters of God.  And all of us have different challenges in the flesh.  There are many different types of challenges."  

He said, "simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin."   "It is when we act on the inclination or attraction"  "That's when it becomes a sin".   Elder David B Bednar, 23-Feb 2016

A few scriptures would counter this, 

Mosiah4:30
30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

Alma12:14
14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

 

I don't see the proposed conflict you are seeking. No where in either scripture does it discuss the fact that humans are attracted to other humans and that attraction is wrong. No are stretching - if you have evil thoughts is the point of the scripture. This goes well beyond the thought, "Gosh, that individual is beautiful." It is not lustful, but honest, simple attraction between two humans. 

Let's try to be more realistic when citing scripture; this does not come close to what you are trying to make them say.

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I said on the other thread that I would readily accept being described as having “opposite-sex attraction.” That seemed to amaze rockpond. I still don’t understand why. 

I believe it to be a level playing field without moving any possible goal posts.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Our very 'progressive' government has commissioned the national university to conduct a phone survey on gambling harm. I got rung two nights ago. At the end, the survey taker said she wanted to ask a few more questions to make sure that they were getting a 'representative sample'. She then proceeded to ask about my age, gender, ethnicity, income, etc. To my surprise, she then asked my 'sexual identity', providing four options.

I literally laughed out loud. 'I have a PhD in history', I said. 'I don't in any way accept the late 19th-century social construct of fixed, gendered sexual identity. It is completely without historical precedent, is still highly contested outside of ascendant Western cultural hegemony, and self-deconstructs upon even shallow historical or anthropological examination'.

'Oh, OK', she said. I wonder which box on her form she then ticked ...