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

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

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. 

If you are talking to the LGBTQ community. C

Some statements would be more offensive than others to the gay community. You should be able to figure this out if you have read this thread or are willing to listen to the LGBTQ community.  IF you are addressing the SSA community, then use SSA.  (Is there an SSA community?). Does the SSA community have web sites? Are there songs written about them?  Yeah, I tried to make this point earlier.  

This is not rocket science guys.

Edited May 17, 2019 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

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? 

Maybe it’s because the Church already realizes what you have been preaching: that same-sex attraction is a trigger term for some people. Maybe the civility you are demanding is already here. 

But that doesn’t mean the term should be stripped from the vernacular. As I said, it’s a good generic or clinical term, and it can be useful in reference to those like the writer quoted in the OP, who don’t like terms that imply their own acceptance of all that the word “gay” can connote, such as sexual behavior, social tribalism, political activism, cultural adherence, donning outrageous get-ups and marching in “pride” parades, etc. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

A year after I did!

We’re likely the same age, as I didn’t go on my mission until I was almost 20. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you are talking to the gay community.

What makes this topic extremely confusing at times:

Quote

The term "gay community" should be avoided, as it does not accurately reflect the diversity of the community. Rather, LGBTQ community is preferred.

https://www.glaad.org/reference/lgbtq

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe it’s because the Church already realizes what you have been preaching: that same-sex attraction is a trigger term for some people. Maybe the civility you are already demanding is already here. 

But that doesn’t mean the term should be stripped from the vernacular. As I said, it’s a good generic or clinical term, and it can be useful in reference to those like the writer quoted in the OP, who don’t like terms that imply their own acceptance of all that the word “gay” can connote, such as sexual behavior, social tribalism, political activism, cultural adherence, donning outrageous get-ups and marching in “pride” parades, etc. 

 

No it doesn't mean it should be stripped from the venacular.  Civility is not always needed when addressing the LGBTQ community, just sometimes.  I think I have been pretty clear that the choice of your continued use of SSA and the Church's  in addressing the LGBTQ community is entirely yours and the Church's.

Edited May 17, 2019 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

OK. 

So I take it you don’t have a single instance to cite in which the Church of Jesus Christ has used SSA as a derogatory epithet. 

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

What makes this topic extremely confusing at times:

https://www.glaad.org/reference/lgbtq

You are correct.  It should be the LGBTQ community. I will amend my post to add clarification.  Thanks for pointing that out.

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does the SSA community have web sites?

No clue, but as I noted above -- without any apparent recognition on your part -- my Google search of this term turns up nothing but academic and government sites on the first page of results. I therefore strongly suspect the use of this term may be just a bit broader (and less 'offensive') than you repeatedly assert it is ...

[Anonymous Mormon]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is not rocket science guys.

Sorry, it may not be rocket science, but I am still not at all certain and am learning all kinds of new things here (for example the term breeder - I have never heard that term and am not sure if I'd be offended or not by it. I don't think so and I think I qualify, since I have 5 kids - but maybe if I knew of the baggage associated with the term I'd feel different).

 

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you are talking to the gay community. C

But in my example above, it was a talk at general conference not a message to the gay community. If it were a talk at general conference to members of the church who might be gay or have same-sex attraction, does that change the context and which examples I gave would be offensive / not offensive?

 

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Some statements would be more offensive than others to the gay community.

Which of the statements of the ones I listed would be the most offensive? Are any of them really bad or are they all just kind of annoying?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

No it doesn't mean it should be stripped from the venacular.  Civility is not always needed when addressing the gay community, just sometimes.  I think I have been pretty clear that the choice of your continued use of SSA and the Church's  in addressing the gay community is entirely yours and the Church's.

That the choice is mine (and the church’s, for that matter) is a given. What is at issue is whether the indignation is justified and whether folks ought to be shamed into not using it anymore — the essence of political correctness. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK. 

So I take it you don’t have a single instance to cite in which the Church of Jesus Christ has used SSA as a derogatory epithet. 

Please.  Have. you been reading this thread?  Every time the church labels someone as having SSA it is offensive to  those in the LGBTQ community.  The only people they are not offending is those that wish to be referred to as having SSA.

 I personally have never met a gay member of the church that prefers to use the term SSA except the few that have chosen to try marrying someone of the opposite sex.  I admit, the majority of gay members I have met have walked away from the church. Not all that many choose to stay.  Perhaps after reading this thread, you can understand at least one reason why.  They don't feel like they have some kind of disease or malay.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you are talking to the LGBTQ community. C

Some statements would be more offensive than others to the gay community. You should be able to figure this out if you have read this thread or are willing to listen to the LGBTQ community.  IF you are addressing the SSA community, then use SSA.  (Is there an SSA community?). Does the SSA community have web sites? Are there songs written about them?  Yeah, I tried to make this point earlier.  

This is not rocket science guys.

Your claim is that “SSA has never been used in broader society.” I think Hamba refuted you on that point with a simple Google search. 

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No clue, but as I noted above -- without any apparent recognition on your part -- my Google search of this term turns up nothing but academic and government sites on the first page of results. I therefore strongly suspect the use of this term may be just a bit broader (and less 'offensive') than you repeatedly assert it is ...

Yeah, I wouldn't call scientific papers a community.

[california boy]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Your claim is that “SSA has never been used in broader society.” I think Hamba refuted you on that point with a simple Google search. 

Ok, enough.  I have never said that the term SSA is not used.  I said the term is viewed as offensive and disrespectful  to the LGBTQ community. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Please.  Have. you been reading this thread?  Every time the church labels someone as having SSA it is offensive to  those in the LGBTQ community.  The only people they are not offending is those that wish to be referred to as having SSA.

 I personally have never met a gay member of the church that prefers to use the term SSA except the few that have chosen to try marrying someone of the opposite sex.  I admit, the majority of gay members I have met have walked away from the church. Not all that many choose to stay.  Perhaps after reading this thread, you can understand at least one reason why.  They don't feel like they have some kind of disease or malay.

 

You are sidestepping the question, which is not whether some people are triggered by the use of “same-sex attraction” but whether the Church has used it in a derogatory manner. If you are going to compare it to “breeders” or “the N word,” you ought to be able to come up with at least one instance. 

And perhaps the reason you don’t encounter Church members who prefer not to be categorized as gay is that such individuals would prefer to keep their sexual orientation a private matter. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yeah, I wouldn't call scientific papers a community.

You don’t regard scientists as being a community? That’s rich. 

One definition of “the academy” is the collective community of academics and scholars. 

[california boy]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

You don’t regard scientists as being a community? That’s rich. 

One definition of “the academy” is the collective community of academics and scholars. 

SERIOUSLY?????

This is just getting ridiculous.  Anyone who doesn't understand what I have been trying to explain over and over again doesn't want to understand.

Do whatever the heck you want.

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We’re likely the same age, as I didn’t go on my mission until I was almost 20. 

Gotcha.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Anyone who doesn't understand what I have been trying to explain over and over again doesn't want to understand.

I think people understand you quite well. The problem is that what you've been telling us 'over and over again' -- that SSA is a term used almost exclusively by the Church of Jesus Christ and a small handful of other conservative churches in an attempt to marginalise people, that it is not used broadly, and that it is a pejorative that 'gay' people almost universally find offensive -- just doesn't stack up to information that is publicly available through a simple internet search. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

SERIOUSLY?????

This is just getting ridiculous.  Anyone who doesn't understand what I have been trying to explain over and over again doesn't want to understand.

Do whatever the heck you want.

First rockpond and now you. “You just don’t want to understand” seems to be the default refuge in this discussion. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.” 

Exactly.

[kllindley]

13 hours 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.  

Or not. Unless you only want to accept one particular viewpoint on sexuality. 

[kllindley]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I said they should use the general term that is respectful of the majority, and make individual exceptions and accommodations for people that prefer otherwise.  A blend of utility and respect for individual wishes.  

But what if the "general term" is fundamentally at odds with how the person or institution sees the situation.  

For example, many people insist that America is a democracy. Regardless of how large a majority think that IR how offended they get, it would not be wrong to continue to refer to the country as a Republic. 

[kllindley]

8 hours 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, LGBTQ or homosexual. For those who don’t get triggered by it, same-sex attraction is a good generic term. 

Yes. I am one of those. 

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

If you are talking to the LGBTQ community. C

Some statements would be more offensive than others to the gay community. You should be able to figure this out if you have read this thread or are willing to listen to the LGBTQ community.  IF you are addressing the SSA community, then use SSA.  (Is there an SSA community?). Does the SSA community have web sites? Are there songs written about them?  Yeah, I tried to make this point earlier.  

This is not rocket science guys.

Yes. We do have websites.