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

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have indicated in this very thread that I have no problem applying terms such as gay or LBGTQ to those who embrace those terms for themselves. I will even apply them broadly to the population of individuals who self-identify using such terms. 

What I’ve not said I will do — and what I refuse to do — is apply them to each and every person with a homosexual orientation when I know for a fact that some do not accept those terms for themselves. One example is kllindley, whom we are fortunate to have among us to speak for himself. Another example is the writer I quoted in the OP. There might be many, many others whom we will never know about because they prefer to keep their sexual orientation a private matter.  

The clinical, neutral term same-sex attraction is the best one I know of to apply to such individuals, and I refuse to be browbeaten into eliminating it from my vocabulary. 

We should bear in mind that terms such as gay and LGBTQ denote more than mere sexual orientation.  They refer to a cultural movement, a social tribe, a political pressure group. Some don’t wish to be a part of all that, and we need to respect their desires as well as the desires of those who do. 

In the final analysis, I suspect the political-correctness bullies, in the furtherance of their narrative, are trying to erase any meaningful public perception or recognition of the existence of such individuals. They do this by trying to control the public vernacular. It’s part and parcel of the of the political correctness modus operandi. Very Orwellian, when you think about it. 

Finally! Why didn't you say this many many posts and two threads ago Scott, was it that difficult?

[Storm Rider]

I think the resistance to using other terms, such as gay, is due to the meaning of such term. It demands certain assumptions are accepted of those who use it exclusively. 

There is zero difference between saying John is attracted to members of his own sex and John has same sex attraction. They both mean the same thing. However, saying John is gay is similar to saying John is white or black. One is a choice and the other is a statement of fact beyond choice.

The gay agenda demands that a person with SSA be called gay because to them there is absolutely no question of choice - they are positing that it is the same as skin color, eye color, etc. No, I am not willing to enter into 12,555th discussion of is it choice on this board again. Studies have shown that human sexuality is fluid. An individual is not strictly, solely attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex. The more we choose a single sex - the opposite for example, the more our expression of choice will follow that choice. For me, because of the studies done, I will not argue the point further. I will admit that for those of us that have made a choice and lived with that choice, whichever it might be, it seems unthinkable that our choice could be anything but a "choice" - we want to think it is the only way we could possibly "be". If you talk to a straight guy, he will think it impossible that he choose any other way. If you talk to a gay woman, she will think it impossible that she choose a partner other than another female.

For those that want to make a distinction by using the term SSA rather than using the term gay, the objective is to define a difference between who we, as individuals, may be attracted to and the actual physical expression of that attraction.

Although I use the term gay far more often, I recognize that my line of thinking is almost exclusively SSA. Saying John is gay is just easier than the lengthier John has same sex attraction. Yet, in serious conversation I will use the phrase/term SSA because it has value and import. I am sure that its value is the very reason why the gay community does not want people to use it. 

One day, I hope to have a conversation with God on why some individuals of one gender imitate the attractions of the opposite sex. Why are some women so masculine and why are some men so feminine. What was the purpose of being so cruel to individuals as to give them these attractions, which almost undeniably leads them into sin?  In my better moments I also recognize that the utter loneliness experienced by these children of God - if they choose to follow God's plan for them - echoes the loneliness experienced by the Savior himself. Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani - I can hear the faithful child of God repeating that same thing often during their life.

I believe that most, if not all, of God's children will experience the pain of such acute loneliness that the those words, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" bring to mind. Yet, I believe those who have same sex attraction and are faithful know this loneliness and have more in common with the Savior than most of us. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Personally, I don't have a problem referring to people by the identifier of their choosing. Well, within reason, of course.

However, I am interested in flushing this out a bit more.

Is it the expression "same-sex attraction" in and of itself that is considered offensive? Or is it the way people use it that is what causes the offence?

For example, when someone says, "So-and-so has same-sex attraction," I understand that this might be considered offensive (as you have explained) because it sounds an awful lot like the way we talk about people who have a disease (e.g., So-and-so has Tuberculosis or, perhaps more poignantly, So-and-so has AIDS).

So, even though one may happen to be using the exact same language that is used when talking about other personal attributes (e.g., So-and-so has red hair), the perception is different when it comes to sexual attraction because of the unstated implication that same-sex attraction isn't normal. Or, even if that isn't the intended implication, it's sort of the understood association, right?

But what if we don't talk about "having" it?

 

It is offensive because of the way it is used and the baggage it carries with it.  Just like most terms that people find offensive.

 

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

I ran a site search on lds.org this morning, and the only instances I was able to find for "[has/have/having] same sex attraction" were from youth asking questions - never from church leaders. I'm not saying no leader has ever used the expression, but it does seem like the times where the church uses the phrase "same-sex attraction" are generally in situations like this:

 

The Church sets the language the members use.  I seriously doubt those same youth talk about gay issues as being SSA issues when they are talking with their classmates and friends.

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

So, is speaking about someone "experiencing same-sex attraction" offensive as well?

 

It is offensive to most of the LGBT community.  They prefer being called gay.  Whether they act upon it is a choice they make.  

Do we use special language if you are straight?  Do we say you are not straight, you have OSA?  Wouid that be wierd?  I would think yes.  Why can't the churrch clearly teach that ALL sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is immoral whether you are gay or straight?  If the church feels it needs special clarification, why can't the church clearly state that being gay is not a sin, acting on it is?  Honestly I don't get the whole rational for the need to use special language that so many find offensive.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

The Church seems to come up with statements on a regular basis that offend the LGBT community.  I don't see that changing in the near future.  The question we are asking is "Would it be in the best interest of the Church to quit using inflammatory language in how they address those within the LGBT community and those within the church. The Church may not be able to modify it's doctrine, but it could modify the language it uses in describing LGBT issues. If the church has no interest in building bridges, then it doesn't really matter does it.

Should the Church do this at the cost of marginalizing or erasing recognition of those with homosexual orientation who don’t identify as gay? See kllindley’s last two posts. According to the numbers he cited, there are many more who don’t than who do. 

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have indicated in this very thread that I have no problem applying terms such as gay or LBGTQ to those who embrace those terms for themselves. I will even apply them broadly to the population of individuals who self-identify using such terms. 

What I’ve not said I will do — and what I refuse to do — is apply them to each and every person with a homosexual orientation when I know for a fact that some do not accept those terms for themselves. One example is kllindley, whom we are fortunate to have among us to speak for himself. Another example is the writer I quoted in the OP. There might be many, many others whom we will never know about because they prefer to keep their sexual orientation a private matter.  

The clinical, neutral term same-sex attraction is the best one I know of to apply to such individuals, and I refuse to be browbeaten into eliminating it from my vocabulary. 

We should bear in mind that terms such as gay and LGBTQ denote more than mere sexual orientation.  They refer to a cultural movement, a social tribe, a political pressure group. Some don’t wish to be a part of all that, and we need to respect their desires as well as the desires of those who do. 

In the final analysis, I suspect the political-correctness bullies, in the furtherance of their narrative, are trying to erase any meaningful public perception or recognition of the existence of such individuals. They do this by trying to control the public vernacular. It’s part and parcel of the of the political correctness modus operandi. Very Orwellian, when you think about it. 

Since I can't give Tacenda rep points, I will add my statement and repeat her exact same words.

Finally! Why didn't you say this many many posts and two threads ago Scott, was it that difficult?

Edited May 17, 2019 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Since I can't give Tacenda rep points, I will add my statement and repeat her exact same words.

Finally! Why didn't you say this many many posts and two threads ago Scott, was it that difficult?

I guess I thought it went without saying. 

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Should the Church do this at the cost of marginalizing or erasing recognition of those with homosexual orientation who don’t identify as gay? See kllindley’s last two posts. According to the numbers he cited, there are many more who don’t than who do. 

Why does the Church need special language to those with homosexual orientation who don't identify as gay?  I think Klindey would prefer that his sexuality not be a part of how the Church labels him or addresses him.  If he does, then when addressing him or anyone else who wishes a different term would be respectful.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Finally! Why didn't you say this many many posts and two threads ago Scott, was it that difficult?

I guess I thought it went without saying. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think accuracy matters when it comes to labels, I think the preferences of the people in the group should be prioritized over any kind of objective criteria.

So, 'When der Führer says we is de master race...' it would be offensive for us to, as the song goes, <pffft> right in the Führer's face?

I mean, that's how they self-identified, so we should have respected that; the preferences of the group should be prioritized over any kind of objective criteria, right?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why does the Church need special language to those with homosexual orientation who don't identify as gay?  I think Klindey would prefer that his sexuality not be a part of how the Church labels him or addresses him.  If he does, then when addressing him or anyone else who wishes a different term would be respectful.

 

The problem is finding an inclusive term. As has been discussed here, gay or LGBTQ are not inclusive because they exclude those who do not identify with the ideological connotations of those terms. Same-sex attraction seems inclusive and neutral to me, but you have repeatedly and vociferously declared that it does not seem that way to you. 

So there we are. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have indicated in this very thread that I have no problem applying terms such as gay or LBGTQ to those who embrace those terms for themselves. I will even apply them broadly to the population of individuals who self-identify using such terms. 

What I’ve not said I will do — and what I refuse to do — is apply them to each and every person with a homosexual orientation when I know for a fact that some do not accept those terms for themselves. One example is kllindley, whom we are fortunate to have among us to speak for himself. Another example is the writer I quoted in the OP. There might be many, many others whom we will never know about because they prefer to keep their sexual orientation a private matter.  

The clinical, neutral term same-sex attraction is the best one I know of to apply to such individuals, and I refuse to be browbeaten into eliminating it from my vocabulary. 

We should bear in mind that terms such as gay and LGBTQ denote more than mere sexual orientation.  They refer to a cultural movement, a social tribe, a political pressure group. Some don’t wish to be a part of all that, and we need to respect their desires as well as the desires of those who do. 

In the final analysis, I suspect the political-correctness bullies, in the furtherance of their narrative, are trying to erase any meaningful public perception or recognition of the existence of such individuals. They do this by trying to control the public vernacular. It’s part and parcel of the of the political correctness modus operandi. Very Orwellian, when you think about it. 

Again with your strawman.

WHO has said that you must refer to someone as "gay" if they prefer "SSA"? Who? Where has it been said. You're fighting a boogie man of your own creation. If KLindley prefers SSA. Cool. I've got no problem with that. But when a large organization like the church chooses to refer to people in a way that most in the community find offensive, then there's a problem. But round and round we go in this discussion. Do what you want. The church can do what it wants. And people will criticize the church's intentional choice to refer to a group that the group generally finds offensive. Everyone does what they want and the church continues to burn bridges. It's nothing new. We're all kind of getting used to it

[hope_for_things]

50 minutes ago, kllindley said:

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

I do find it relevant.  Like I've said before. I don't have any attachment to "SSA" as a term in this context.  SSA should should be a noun, an attraction, and never an adjective to describe a person.

Why do you find it relevant?  Do you consider your position like that of a modern Galileo?  

54 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm not talking about absolute certainty.  What sort of components do you believe are agreed upon by the majority of the experts based on strong evidence.  Etiology - the official position of the APA is that most experts agree that sexual orientation is the result of a complex interaction between environmental and genetic factors.  In any rigorous expert discussion, there is an acknowledgement that attraction, behavior, orientation, and identity are separate (through related) constructs.  Gay is an identity.  It is the most narrow of the four.  That identity is chosen.  Gay actually only speaks to a subset of individuals with a homosexual orientation.  The total number of individuals with a homosexual orientation is still only a subset of the larger group who experience same-sex attractions or have engaged in same-sex sexual behaviors.  So when people like you insist that "gay" is the only acceptable term, I have to conclude that either you really don't know what you are talking about [broadly, not just you personally], or that you are intentionally trying to erase and/or marginalize the rest of us who don't identify as gay despite being attracted to individuals of the same-sex.  And really, the numbers are not even close.  1.8% of the US population identifies as gay or lesbian, the number who identify as something other than straight is like 3.8%   But when asked about sexual behavior in the last 12 months, 6% have engaged in same-sex sexual activity.  When asked about attraction to individuals of the same-sex, the number jumps up to between 10 and 25% depending on the age group.  So you want Church leaders to use "Gay" to keep from offending the 1.8% even if they are more accurately talking about the 20% who experience any degree of same-sex attraction or even the 3.8% who identify as something other than straight?  It's like getting upset that politicians refer to Christians in America and expecting them to just use Catholic, because  some Catholics might be offended that they are not being recognized or feel that referring to them as generic Christians is denying their Catholicism.   

I don't care what label the vast majority of LGB people want to be referred to by.  I do care about respecting their wishes.  Your use of statistics looks like an attempt to justify referring to people in ways that they find offensive.  Lets assume your numbers are accurate (I'm not interesting in fact checking).  I don't understand why you would attempt to try and 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.  Does that matter?  Those other people may be just experimenting or Bisexual.  That doesn't discount the millions of people who identify as gay.  It also doesn't tell us how that other set of people who engage in same-sex activity would like to be labeled.  Are you suggesting that those people would prefer the label of SSA?  

 

 

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again with your strawman.

WHO has said that you must refer to someone as "gay" if they prefer "SSA"? Who? Where has it been said. You're fighting a boogie man of your own creation. If KLindley prefers SSA. Cool. I've got no problem with that. But when a large organization like the church chooses to refer to people in a way that most in the community find offensive, then there's a problem. But round and round we go in this discussion. Do what you want. The church can do what it wants. And people will criticize the church's intentional choice to refer to a group that the group generally finds offensive. Everyone does what they want and the church continues to burn bridges. It's nothing new. We're all kind of getting used to it

Meanwhile the LGBT community continue to burn bridges with religion and anyone like me.  They work to keep us silent and keep up the illusion that we are some small minority.  I used to believe that a community that claims that acceptance and not judging are the most important qualities would actually practice what it preaches.  But they don't.  I guess I just need to get used to it.  

 

Also, in the bolded section: How do you know that the Church is in fact referring to only those who identify as gay?  Are you sure they aren't talking about and to the much larger group of people who experience same-sex attraction and do not identify as gay?

[Anonymous Mormon]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why does the Church need special language to those with homosexual orientation who don't identify as gay?  I think Klindey would prefer that his sexuality not be a part of how the Church labels him or addresses him.  If he does, then when addressing him or anyone else who wishes a different term would be respectful.

The reason I joined this board originally was to give a voice of someone who was addicted to pornography and found relief and repentance in the church's and other 12-step programs. The 12-step program I have attended for the last 6 years is highly rigorous about doing inventories where you recount your full & complete story of pornography/sexual addiction, including the low-lights of how it started and where it ended. In this time I have sat through a lot of inventories from other men. To my surprise, in 20% - 30% of inventories that I have heard, the men have stated that some of their initial sexual experience came about with other boys their age. This was consensual sexual activity that occurred simply because a few young boys (usually 8 - 15 in age) were all sitting around viewing pornography together and decided to act out what they saw in real life. The majority of these men I work with are now in their 30s - 60s and all of them had married women and would not ever consider themselves gay. Most had never told another soul about their experience until the program.

When these men grew up, the label Gay was not used regularly (at least I didn't hear it). These boys knew they had done something wrong, but have never been called Gay in their life. Most also grew up in a time where online pornography wasn't existent, abundant, or accessible (in almost all cases, it was magazines or cable that was the instigator). Our world has now changed, which makes me think this issues is only more common.

Based upon these experiences, I suspect there is likely 2% - 6% of the 'straight' boys in the church who have had some kind of sexual interaction with other boys. I think the percentage of boys/men who are 'straight' but fooled around with other boys is likely much higher than boys/men who identify as 'gay' in an average Priesthood session. The term Same-Sex Attraction seems like a good way to address the experience of these men who would not identify themselves as Gay.

This is why maybe, "the Church needs special language to those with homosexual orientation who don't identify as gay." If there is indeed a higher percentage of men/boys who have had sex with men, but don't consider themselves Gay in an audience, what term would you recommend that a church leader use to address the issue at hand?

If these people don't consider themselves Gay, could a leader say, "Do not have Gay activity" or "Don't act on Gay tendencies" and make it is as impactful to this audience? 

How should the church address this sizable audience of boys with this struggle and need for repentance who do not consider themselves Gay and would not resonate with the term Gay?

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The problem is finding an inclusive term. As has been discussed here, gay or LGBTQ are not inclusive because they exclude those who do not identify with the ideological connotations of those terms. Same-sex attraction seems inclusive and neutral to me, but you have repeatedly and vociferously declared that it does not seem that way to you. 

So there we are. 

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?

[Anonymous Mormon]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't understand why you would attempt to try and 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.  Does that matter?  Those other people may be just experimenting or Bisexual.  That doesn't discount the millions of people who identify as gay.  It also doesn't tell us how that other set of people who engage in same-sex activity would like to be labeled.  Are you suggesting that those people would prefer the label of SSA?  

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)?

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why do you find it relevant?  Do you consider your position like that of a modern Galileo?  

I don't care what label the vast majority of LGB people want to be referred to by.  I do care about respecting their wishes.  Your use of statistics looks like an attempt to justify referring to people in ways that they find offensive.  Lets assume your numbers are accurate (I'm not interesting in fact checking).  I don't understand why you would attempt to try and 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.  Does that matter?  Those other people may be just experimenting or Bisexual.  That doesn't discount the millions of people who identify as gay.  It also doesn't tell us how that other set of people who engage in same-sex activity would like to be labeled.  Are you suggesting that those people would prefer the label of SSA?  

 

 

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." 

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Meanwhile the LGBT community continue to burn bridges with religion and anyone like me.  They work to keep us silent and keep up the illusion that we are some small minority.  I used to believe that a community that claims that acceptance and not judging are the most important qualities would actually practice what it preaches.  But they don't.  I guess I just need to get used to it.  

 

Also, in the bolded section: How do you know that the Church is in fact referring to only those who identify as gay?  Are you sure they aren't talking about and to the much larger group of people who experience same-sex attraction and do not identify as gay?

Really?  Please tell us more.  Just what has the LGBT community said about you?  Call this a CFR.

 Because I have never seen anyone at least on this board not abide by your wish and referred to you as gay.  I have never seen anyone on this board who said you should not be married to a woman.  I have never seen anyone on this board be nothing but respectful for the choices you have made.  And I have never seen anything from the LGBT community that has ever said anything about the choices you have made.  Individuals? probably.  But to make the statement you made, it has to be the LGBT community, not just some guy some where giving his opinion.

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Meanwhile the LGBT community continue to burn bridges with religion and anyone like me.  They work to keep us silent and keep up the illusion that we are some small minority.  I used to believe that a community that claims that acceptance and not judging are the most important qualities would actually practice what it preaches.  But they don't.  I guess I just need to get used to it.  

 

Also, in the bolded section: How do you know that the Church is in fact referring to only those who identify as gay?  Are you sure they aren't talking about and to the much larger group of people who experience same-sex attraction and do not identify as gay?

So I've got a problem with the church for the way it treats LGBT community and you have a problem with the LGBT community for the way it treats you. That's fair.

The church is referring to the entire LGBTQ community as SSA, not just those who identify as gay. Would you admit that in the LGBT community you are the small minority who likes the SSA reference? IS it ok to upset and offend a majority of the group because there are a few like you who prefer SSA? 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. But when they refer to gay people as SSA, they are purposely speaking to people in a way they generally know the people don't like. They are labeled in a way they don't like and don't identify with, so they don't likely listen to the church much. Maybe the church's goal is to alienate members of the LGBT community who do not prefer SSA. LGBT reject the title. Cool. Just like you reject the label gay. Cool. But it would seem to me that the church should strive to speak more sensitively in a way people are most likely to listen, unless of course that's not really what they want in the first place.

[Amulek]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is offensive because of the way it is used and the baggage it carries with it.  Just like most terms that people find offensive.

The term "gay" has some baggage with it too. And I think some of the reticence of church has in using the term exclusively is because of how that term is generally understood.

 

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

So, is speaking about someone "experiencing same-sex attraction" offensive as well?

It is offensive to most of the LGBT community.  

Thank you for answering this. I was genuinely interested in getting your thoughts. 

 

Quote

They prefer being called gay.  Whether they act upon it is a choice they make.  

So, it's okay to be gay as long as you don't act gay? 

See, I think this is sort of the problem that the church is trying to avoid by distinguishing between attraction and behavior. 

 

Quote

Do we use special language if you are straight?  Do we say you are not straight, you have OSA?  Wouid that be wierd?  I would think yes.  

Some of this is just the way that language works. For example, we frequently talk about albino animals, but we don't use special language to talk about animals that are not albinos, right?

It's not meant to be offensive or anything; there just isn't a real need for anyone to invent a special term to specifically identify the non-albino set.

I mean, when you talk about a lion, I'm pretty sure that pretty much everyone pictures the same sort of thing. You only need the word "albino" to indicate that you are talking about a very small sub-set of lions.

 

Quote

Why can't the churrch clearly teach that ALL sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is immoral whether you are gay or straight?  If the church feels it needs special clarification, why can't the church clearly state that being gay is not a sin, acting on it is?  Honestly I don't get the whole rational for the need to use special language that so many find offensive.

I think the church does clearly teach that identifying as gay is not a sin (see, e.g., the quote in my previous post to you). 

However, I think the church is cautious about using expressions like "being gay." If the church were to say 'you can be a gay Mormon,' what do you think most people would understand that to mean? 

 

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

The reason I joined this board originally was to give a voice of someone who was addicted to pornography and found relief and repentance in the church's and other 12-step programs. The 12-step program I have attended for the last 6 years is highly rigorous about doing inventories where you recount your full & complete story of pornography/sexual addiction, including the low-lights of how it started and where it ended. In this time I have sat through a lot of inventories from other men. To my surprise, in 20% - 30% of inventories that I have heard, the men have stated that some of their initial sexual experience came about with other boys their age. This was consensual sexual activity that occurred simply because a few young boys (usually 8 - 15 in age) were all sitting around viewing pornography together and decided to act out what they saw in real life. The majority of these men I work with are now in their 30s - 60s and all of them had married women and would not ever consider themselves gay. Most had never told another soul about their experience until the program.

When these men grew up, the label Gay was not used regularly (at least I didn't hear it). These boys knew they had done something wrong, but have never been called Gay in their life. Most also grew up in a time where online pornography wasn't existent, abundant, or accessible (in almost all cases, it was magazines or cable that was the instigator). Our world has now changed, which makes me think this issues is only more common.

Based upon these experiences, I suspect there is likely 2% - 6% of the 'straight' boys in the church who have had some kind of sexual interaction with other boys. I think the percentage of boys/men who are 'straight' but fooled around with other boys is likely much higher than boys/men who identify as 'gay' in an average Priesthood session. The term Same-Sex Attraction seems like a good way to address the experience of these men who would not identify themselves as Gay.

This is why maybe, "the Church needs special language to those with homosexual orientation who don't identify as gay." If there is indeed a higher percentage of men/boys who have had sex with men, but don't consider themselves Gay in an audience, what term would you recommend that a church leader use to address the issue at hand?

If these people don't consider themselves Gay, could a leader say, "Do not have Gay activity" or "Don't act on Gay tendencies" and make it is as impactful to this audience? 

How should the church address this sizable audience of boys with this struggle and need for repentance who do not consider themselves Gay and would not resonate with the term Gay?

WOW.  I don't think anyone would call two adolescent boys engaging in that kind of behavior as identifying as gay OR having SSA.  

There is an old saying, just because you are in a garage doesn't mean you are a car.

What should the Church leaders say to the Aaronic Priesthood?????  How about no sex with anyone, male or female.  Because there are also young boys that engage in improper behavior with young girls as well.  

You don't become gay by having sex with another boy.  If that was the case, then their would be WAY more gay men in the world.  My partners first sexual experience was with a girl.  She became pregnant and he married her.  Guess what, he turned out gay.  Not attracted to women in the slightest.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Studies have shown that human sexuality is fluid. An individual is not strictly, solely attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex.

Not completely accurate. The research (Lisa Diamond is the one I usually point people to) shows there is a small percentage that are strictly, solely attracted to the same sex and a larger percentage that is attracted strictly, solely to the opposite sex (in my view probably due to environmental factors so strongly reinforcing opposite attraction though there may be biological reasons as well).

The inaccuracy in dialogue is, imo, in part contributing to creating the perception the small percentage is the majority of those who experience same sex attraction (using SSA here to differentiate it from gay attraction which is exclusive).  This is not necessarily a good thing even for those who want the LGBTQ community to have a larger influence on society as many who see a higher percentage also have negative feelings towards that community(see link below).

I read a study recently that when asked the percentage of gays and lesbians  in the population, most polled thought it was a highly inflated number. I will try and find it.

add-on:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/there-arent-as-many-gay-people-as-you-think

”The study's first finding is that "the public tends to consistently overestimate the size of the gay and lesbian population." The average guess in 1977 was between 10 and 19 percent; in 2013, it had increased to 23 percent. 

Gallup reported in 2015 that 3.8 percent of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

Edited May 17, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The term "gay" has some baggage with it too. And I think some of the reticence of church has in using the term exclusively is because of how that term is generally understood.

 

Really?  Please tell me what baggage the LGBT community has with the label gay?

Quote

 

Thank you for answering this. I was genuinely interested in getting your thoughts. 

 

So, it's okay to be gay as long as you don't act gay? 

 

What does acting gay look like?  You know this is quite a funny answer.  When I came out to my father, he told me I couldn't be gay because I don't act gay.  He was serious.  I couldn't help myself, I asked him the same question.  How does a person act who is gay?

Quote

See, I think this is sort of the problem that the church is trying to avoid by distinguishing between attraction and behavior. 

 

I get that.  So state that without using inflamotory language.  If you are gay, don't act on it.  Not every person who is gay is sexually active.  

Quote

 

Some of this is just the way that language works. For example, we frequently talk about albino animals, but we don't use special language to talk about animals that are not albinos, right?

It's not meant to be offensive or anything; there just isn't a real need for anyone to invent a special term to specifically identify the non-albino set.

I mean, when you talk about a lion, I'm pretty sure that pretty much everyone pictures the same sort of thing. You only need the word "albino" to indicate that you are talking about a very small sub-set of lions.

 

I think the church does clearly teach that identifying as gay is not a sin (see, e.g., the quote in my previous post to you). 

However, I think the church is cautious about using expressions like "being gay." If the church were to say 'you can be a gay Mormon,' what do you think most people would understand that to mean? 

 

I think that is the message the Church SHOULD be using.  Because right now there is a huge preception that you can not be gay and be a member of the Chruch by those outside the Church..  I hope you are not suggesting that if someone identifies as being gay, they are not welcome.  Is there some kind of judgement necessary by Church members that if you are gay then you must be having sex?  Is that some kind of requirement for every person who is gay?  Do you see why this doesn't make much sense?

Edited May 17, 2019 by california boy

[Anonymous Mormon]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

WOW.  I don't think anyone would call two adolescent boys engaging in that kind of behavior as identifying as gay OR having SSA.  

There is an old saying, just because you are in a garage doesn't mean you are a car.

What should the Church leaders say to the Aaronic Priesthood?????  How about no sex with anyone, male or female.  Because there are also young boys that engage in improper behavior with young girls as well.  

You don't become gay by having sex with another boy.  If that was the case, then their would be WAY more gay men in the world.  My partners first sexual experience was with a girl.  She became pregnant and he married her.  Guess what, he turned out gay.  Not attracted to women in the slightest.

 

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

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Studies have shown that human sexuality is fluid. An individual is not strictly, solely attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex...

On phone so having quoting problems.  In regards to your claim of choice based on fluidity, research shows fluidity is not equivalent to choice.  Jeff Robinson’s analogy to language is a useful description, he chose it because the research shows the learning patterns are parallel (my paraphrase, he may describe it quite differently).

”Like the language you speak, it is not something you had any choice in. Also, just as you were not biologically destined at birth to speak in any specific language, it is not something you were biologically hardwired to do. And finally, as with language, is not something that can, or needs to be fixed or cured.

At this point it would be important to point out that what I have said about homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, also applies to heterosexuality. I believe that no specific sexual arousal pattern is hardwired at birth. I believe that all of these are acquired in a cultural context in which, while a person participates, they have little or no choice.”

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2018/thinking-differently-about-same-sex-attraction

Note:  Jeff left out his footnotes in the presentation for some reason (most likely life interfering), I keep forgetting to bug him about that. Much of his commentary uses Lisa Diamond’s research based on my conversations with him. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Calm