Study: Religion can help LGBTQ Mormons’ mental health, especially if they’re out of the closet

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The study's author notes that "{w}e also sometimes find that religiousness promotes community even for people who are marginalized and ostracized."  I think the Church is doing better and better at overcoming "ostracism."  Contrary to the popular narrative, the Church doesn't restrict participation by, or penalize anyone for, their "being" gay (which, again, connotes "identity").  Rather, the Church encourages and requires behaviors which are congruent with the doctrines of the Church, including the Law of Chastity. 

You are confusing theory with reality.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I realize this may be cold comfort for folks who want to have an outlet for sexual desires (which notably includes the huge numbers of divorced, not-yet-married and never-married heterosexual Latter-day Saints). 

Just don’t. This comparison doesn’t work. A straight person in Church lamenting their lack of a relationship usually gets sympathy and encouragement that they can find someone. Do you think that happens for gay and lesbian members?

One of the reasons I am single is that I disclose my bisexuality. It is a kiss of death with members of the church.

[Pyreaux]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Attacking me is not going to help your toxic views you yourself expressed and the environment that still persists in the Church.

Your own misunderstanding is the source of your vexation. It is not "toxic" to insist believing in God is more powerful than sex. There is a reality of sex addiction and depression. Not all gays as you've taken from it.

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You'll have to do more than just assert that, I'm afraid.  It's far from being self-evident.

I provided a link and quoted the relevant part.  I even bolder and underlined the part which specifically addressed it. 

I’ll have to address the rest later.

[Pyreaux]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

You don't think some Church members don't gay bash?  Reread your statement above.

How is this not gay bashing?  Your characterization of gay people is disgusting and not true. 

You are judging the whole church over what some members do? Over what I do?

I didn't say all gays have a sex addiction, but many gay and straight men do, "one study in San Francisco found that nearly 50% of gay men had more than 500 partners".

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201703/it-s-the-mode-men-have-more-sex-partners

Edited June 9, 2023 by Pyreaux

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Quote

Resisting to identify as gay is a manifestation of internalized homophobia.  I don't think that is the best means to "make it work".   

I don't think he means not acknowledging it at all. I think he means something more along the lines of not making that particular identity of primary importance in your life.

Yes, that I what I meant.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Your own misunderstanding is the source of your vexation. It is not "toxic" to insist believing in God is more powerful than sex. There is a reality of sex addiction and depression. Not all gays as you've taken from it.

That is not how you characterize gay people and how a lot of member view those that are gay by saying that it is all about sex and the  reason they have sex is for a dopamine rush to mask depression 

Is this the reason Mormons have sex?   Just a dopamine rush because they are depressed?

Your beliefs about gay people is so ingrained into you I am not even sure you see how degrading and toxic your views of gay people is  I am sure I won’t change your mind.  But you clearly are an example why most gay members find Mormons like you toxic and a reason most choose to leave the Church. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't disagree at all that the church provides well-being and happiness for gay people.  But it doesn't provide holistic happiness, or happiness/well-being in all aspects of mental health. 

Could you elaborate?  What is this "holistic happiness," and who in the Church has it?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Religions which are gay affirming and provide all of the other community/social constructs and provides meaning/purpose may avoid the negative side-effects that non-affirming religions can have. 

Could you identify these religions?  I would like to consider what they have to say, how they are doing things, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

That is not how you characterize gay people and how a lot of member view those that are gay by saying that it is all about sex and the  reason they have sex is for a dopamine rush to mask depression 

Is this the reason Mormons have sex?   Just a dopamine rush because they are depressed?

Your beliefs about gay people is so ingrained into you I am not even sure you see how degrading and toxic your views of gay people is  I am sure I won’t change your mind.  But you clearly are an example why most gay members find Mormons like you toxic and a reason most choose to leave the Church. 

What a remark, say it is "ingrained" in me, that I can't change my mind. The church told me no such things, so you're making a big mistake. But here, I am perhaps inadequate in expressing my thoughts and I will try better to think and speak well of gays on the board from now on. Do you believe me?

Edited June 9, 2023 by Pyreaux

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

You are judging the whole church over what some members do? Over what I do?

I didn't say all gays have a sex addiction, but many gay and straight men do, 

you didn’t say some gay people, you said gay people  

I will leave you with your toxic beliefs about gay people.  You obviously feel strongly about it

Edited June 9, 2023 by california boy

[Pyreaux]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

you didn’t say some gay people, you said gay people  

I will leave you with your toxic beliefs about gay people.  You obviously feel strongly about it

I said people, both gay and straight.

I'll leave you to your lack of faith in people. I don't feel strongly about it at all.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your beliefs about gay people is so ingrained into you I am not even sure you see how degrading and toxic your views of gay people is  I am sure I won’t change your mind.  But you clearly are an example why most gay members find Mormons like you toxic and a reason most choose to leave the Church. 

This.

LGBTQ members feel this condescension. It is one reason so many of them leave.

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  What is this "holistic happiness," and who in the Church has it?

There are different categories of happiness and well-being - emotional, social, spiritual, sexual, etc.   It doesn't mean absolute unwavering happiness in every area - nobody experiences that!  I am sure there are plenty of people in the church who experience healthy well-balanced holistic happiness. 

LGBT members of non-affirming religions, while they are more likely to experiencing greater over-all well-being than their non-religious counterparts, they are more likely to suffer from internalized homophobia than their non-religious counterparts, which can lead to other mental health issues.  Holistic happiness really is not even possible for them in non-affirming religions.  

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you identify these religions?  I would like to consider what they have to say, how they are doing things, etc.

Here in Utah, I know of a couple Episcopal churches, there are a couple Unitarian Universalist Churches, and there is the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS). 

Edited June 9, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Quote

I don't think he means not acknowledging it at all. I think he means something more along the lines of not making that particular identity of primary importance in your life.

I didn't know that making it a "primary importance" was a thing.   

I am proposing that prioritizing some "identities" over others is, or ought to be, a thing.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think there is a false perception by many who think that their sexual identity is more important than it is to heterosexuals, because of the pride movement.

No doubt.  There is something of a "self-selection" process going on.  If a person publicly "identifies" as gay, wears "gay" regalia, participates in "gay"-themed events and social groups, etc., then the cumulative effect is that the "gay" identity is pretty important to the individual.  Others, however, seem to treat their sexual orientation as one of several facets of their overall person or state of being.

The issue, then, arises when folks make broad declarations about how people with a particular sexual orientation have, categorically speaking, no place in the church.  Or that there is a dichotomy between the sexual identity ("being gay") and being a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint.  That starts to make the "sexual identity" look like it is pretty important.  More important, even, than the individual's "identity" as a "child of God."

1 hour ago, pogi said:

On the contrary, the pride movement and being socially open with their sexual identity is only in response to the centuries of oppression and ostracism. 

In 2023?  I question that.  The corporatization of this stuff is getting old pretty fast.  And it undercuts notions of the movement being organic.  These days it's all about the ESG/DEI stuff:

Per this video, "ESG is now a big business.  It represents, by some estimations, something like $35 trillion dollars' worth of investments.  And in the last two years it's grown by 15%, and that rate of grown doesn't seem to be stopping" (this video is a year old, BTW) :

 

"What we found is that the foundation of this multi-trillion dollar new cash machine for Wall Street is not at all what it appears to be, and that it's really almost exactly the opposite of what people think it is."

Another:

And here:

Quote

ESG scores are the reason to go woke.

Over the weekend, a clip from 2017 re-emerged on social media of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink discussing the investment management company “forcing behaviors” across the workplace.
...
In layman’s terms, Fink says BlackRock used its investments to force corporations to place diversity ahead of competence.

For context: BlackRock is one of the world’s leading providers of investment, advisory and risk management solutions. Its influence is substantial.

Fink described environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG), a system that assigns a social credit score on diversity, gender and sexual identity.

ESG grades on dedication to wokeism.

Below, he cites adding “four points” in ESG for the hiring of non-white employees:

“Behaviors are gonna have to change,” Fink insisted. “And this is one thing we’re asking companies — you have to force behaviors, and at BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors. Fifty-four percent of the incoming class are women, we added four more points in terms of diverse employment this year and… what we were doing internally is if you don’t achieve these levels of impact your compensation could be impacted okay.”

ESG has allowed a creepy Chinese-like social credit system to creep into American business. It’s corporate Marxism, a socioeconomic analysis BlackRock and other U.S. corporations uphold.

Corporate wokeness has undoubtedly escalated since Fink’s comments in 2017. ESG best explains why Bud Light, Target, and Chick-fil-A have prioritized critics over their consumer bases.

And here: Inside the CEI system pushing brands to endorse celebs like Dylan Mulvaney

Quote

Executives at companies like Nike, Anheuser-Busch and Kate Spade, whose brand endorsements have turned controversial trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney into today’s woke “It girl,” aren’t just virtue signaling.

They’re handing out lucrative deals to what were once considered fringe celebrities because they have to — or risk failing an all-important social credit score that could make or break their businesses.

At stake is their Corporate Equality Index — or CEI — score, which is overseen by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ political lobbying group in the world.

HRC ... issues report cards for America’s biggest corporations via the CEI: awarding or subtracting points for how well companies adhere to what HRC calls its “rating criteria.”

Businesses that attain the maximum 100 total points earn the coveted title “Best Place To Work For LGBTQ Equality.” Fifteen of the top 20 Fortune-ranked companies received 100% ratings last year, according to HRC data.

More than 840 US companies racked up high CEI scores, according to the latest report.

...

The HRC lists five major rating criteria, each with its own lengthy subsets, for companies to gain — or lose — CEI points.

The CEI is made up of several main scoring components.

The main categories are: “Workforce Protections,” “Inclusive Benefits,” “Supporting an Inclusive Culture,” “Corporate Social Responsibility and Responsible Citizenship.”

A company can lose CEI points if it doesn’t fulfill HRC’s demand for “integration of intersectionality in professional development, skills-based or other training” or if it doesn’t use a “supplier diversity program with demonstrated effort to include certified LGBTQ+ suppliers.”

James Lindsay, a political podcaster who runs a site called New Discourses, told The Post that the Human Rights campaign administers the CEI ranking “like an extortion racket, like the Mafia.

It doesn’t just sit back passively either. HRC sends representatives to corporations every year telling them what kind of stuff they have to make visible at the company. They give them a list of demands and if they don’t follow through there’s a threat that you won’t keep your CEI score.”

The CEI is a lesser-known part of the burgeoning ESG (Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance) “ethical investing” movement increasingly pushed by the country’s top three investment firms. ESG funds invest in companies that oppose fossil fuels, push for unionization, and stress racial and gender equity over merit in hiring and board selection.

As a result, some American CEOs are more concerned about pleasing BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Bank — who are among the top shareholders of most American publicly-traded corporations (including Nike, Anheuser-Busch and Kate Spade) — than they are about irritating conservatives, numerous sources told The Post.
...
“The big fund managers like BlackRock all embrace this ESG orthodoxy in how they apply pressure to top corporate management teams and boards and they determine, in many cases, executive compensation and bonuses and who gets re-elected or re-appointed to boards,” entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who is running for president as a Republican and authored “Woke Inc.: Inside America’s Social Justice Scam,” told The Post. “They can make it very difficult for you if you don’t abide by their agendas.”

In 2018, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who oversees assets worth $8.6 trillion and has been called the “face of ESG,” wrote a now-infamous letter to CEOs titled “A Sense of Purpose” that pushed a “new model of governance” in line with ESG values.

“Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose,” Fink wrote. “To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society.”

Fink also let it be known “that if a company doesn’t engage with the community and have a sense of purpose “it will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders.”
...

ESG and CEI proponents say that adhering to socially conscious values when investing and managing a company will make the world a better place. Not everyone agrees.

Derek Kreifels is the co-founder and CEO of State Financial Officers Foundation, one of several financial officers fighting ESG on a national level.

He calls ESG itself a “highly subjective political score infiltrating all walks of life, forcing progressive policies on everyday Americans [and] resulting in higher prices at the pump and at the store.”

The Corporate Equality Index is an ominous cog in ESG’s wheel, Kreifels told The Post.

“The problem with measures like CEI, and its big brother ESG, is that it introduces an incentive structure outside of the bounds of business, often in ways contradictory to fiduciary duty,” Kreifels said. “Whether Anheuser-Busch was trying to cash in on Dylan Mulvaney’s TikTok following or chasing higher CEI ratings for inclusivity, the backlash has been significant, and the stockholders to whom the company is obligated will feel the pinch.”

• "Executives at companies like Nike, Anheuser-Busch and Kate Spade ... {are} handing out lucrative deals to what were once considered fringe celebrities because they have to — or risk failing an all-important social credit score that could make or break their businesses."
• "At stake is their Corporate Equality Index — or CEI — score, which is overseen by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ political lobbying group in the world."
• "HRC ... issues report cards for America’s biggest corporations via the CEI: awarding or subtracting points for how well companies adhere to what HRC calls its 'rating criteria.'"
• "A company can lose CEI points if it doesn’t fulfill HRC’s demand for 'integration of intersectionality in professional development, skills-based or other training' or if it doesn’t use a 'supplier diversity program with demonstrated effort to include certified LGBTQ+ suppliers.'"
• "{S}ome American CEOs are more concerned about pleasing BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Bank — who are among the top shareholders of most American publicly-traded corporations (including Nike, Anheuser-Busch and Kate Spade) — than they are about irritating conservatives, numerous sources told The Post."
• "'The big fund managers like BlackRock all embrace this ESG orthodoxy in how they apply pressure to top corporate management teams and boards and they determine, in many cases, executive compensation and bonuses and who gets re-elected or re-appointed to boards.'"
• "Fink also let it be known that if a company doesn’t engage with the community and have a sense of purpose 'it will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders.'"

One of the more visible and obvious results of this CEI/DEI/ESG stuff:

Pride has been corporatized.  Big time.  

And this: Pride Month Is About Activism, Not Acceptance

Quote

June used to be the most exciting month of the year.

Coming from someone who hates winter, June has always been a welcome celebration of summertime, complete with the longest days of the year and some of the warmest. It was always the month that I put another year behind me both in school and as a Gemini, though I won’t pretend to believe in anything related to astrology. If I were superstitious, I might fear the fact that June 13 was a Friday in 1997. Some girls might complain the bad-luck date explains my gayness (sorry, ladies).

But just as aging has begun to produce more anxiety than excitement, June has transformed from the inaugural month of summertime and music festivals to a dreaded 30-day parade in an escalating culture war. Pride month is here.

Every year, pride month surfaces with some of the most nauseating and unhinged commentary in American politics. Conservatives condemn the sex-obsessed spectacles with righteous indignation, and leftists respond to criticism with a blasphemous mockery of religion. Of course, it doesn’t help to shrug off depictions of demonism when Target promotes a “pride” collection designed by a literal Satanist. Nor does grinding on a cross in a graphic display of performative heresy help cultivate mainstream acceptance.

But widespread tolerance of homosexuality no longer seems to be the point of the rainbow holiday. If it were, pride month might no longer exist. More than 70 percent of the country supports same-sex marriage, up from half in 2012 when the nation remained evenly divided. And the “hate crime” statistics are constantly manipulated to serve a political agenda.

 

But pride month isn’t about sexuality anymore. It’s about coercing a public that was previously hesitant towards gay marriage to now endorse nearly every degenerate item on the left-wing cultural agenda. Trans activists hijacked what was a righteous movement for gay tolerance and turned it into a narcissistic exercise of coercive validation. Gays get caught up in the campaign out of peer intimidation, often devoid of any real conviction beyond the desire for conformity. The primal impulse to virtue signal is the natural response. Corporations, meanwhile, are eager to capitalize, cashing in on the rainbow dollar signs.

This performance capitalism does two things: 1) it reinforces Wall Street’s commitment to promoting left-wing cultural currents and 2) it antagonizes conservatives, especially religious conservatives, most of whom, at this point, just want to be left alone.
...
So how should we approach pride month today? To some, it’s a time calling for aggressive far-left activism. To others, it’s a Satanic ritual of a post-Christian society. To me, and to most gays, I imagine, it’s just an excuse to go out with neighbors who have something in common. Some gays will take the entire month and fly city to city for their favorite festivals. I don’t think many gay men really look at pride month as a desperately necessary instrument of tolerance. For corporate America, “pride” is an annual cash grab.
...
Pride month today isn’t bringing anyone together. To the contrary, it’s only pulling us farther apart. The only universal common ground we have is our collective identity as Americans, and even patriotism itself has become politicized.
...
The corporate onslaught during pride month has become so detached from the original intent, the divisive spectacle we’re left with makes a good case that we should focus our celebrations on shared values such as tolerance rather than issues of identity and sex.

So whatever "Pride" started out as, these days it seems to be something different.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It is not that it is more important to them, it is that they are fighting simply to be seen and accepted in society for who they are - just like heterosexuals.   If religion and society would stop ostracizing them and igniting the fire with their cultural wars, I guarantee the gay pride movement wouldn't be a thing. 

Dunno about that.  See above.  The money quote: "This performance capitalism does two things: 1) it reinforces Wall Street’s commitment to promoting left-wing cultural currents and 2) it antagonizes conservatives, especially religious conservatives, most of whom, at this point, just want to be left alone."

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We would enter a post-gay era.  That will never happen though because the more that the LGBT movement tries to normalize and make being gay normal and mainstream, the social conservatives are going to resist and try to push them back under the rug where they belong.   

Dunno about that.  From the Post article: "{S}ome American CEOs are more concerned about pleasing BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Bank — who are among the top shareholders of most American publicly-traded corporations (including Nike, Anheuser-Busch and Kate Spade) — than they are about irritating conservatives, numerous sources told The Post."  The "social conservatives" seem to be reacting.  And again, from the above article:

Quote

But widespread tolerance of homosexuality no longer seems to be the point of the rainbow holiday. If it were, pride month might no longer exist. More than 70 percent of the country supports same-sex marriage, up from half in 2012 when the nation remained evenly divided. And the “hate crime” statistics are constantly manipulated to serve a political agenda.

But pride month isn’t about sexuality anymore. It’s about coercing a public that was previously hesitant towards gay marriage to now endorse nearly every degenerate item on the left-wing cultural agenda.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 9, 2023 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

On 6/8/2023 at 9:56 AM, smac97 said:

And then when we also looked at how changes in religiousness impacted health, we found that as people became less religious, they reported less meaning in life and more depression.

I’m interested in this.  I suspect this is not about sexuality.   I suspect also that the LDS religion being a lifestyle would be very difficult to dismantle from one’s sense of self, thus leading to depression for a time until one grounds one’s self in meaning. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Quote

I don't disagree at all that the church provides well-being and happiness for gay people.  But it doesn't provide holistic happiness, or happiness/well-being in all aspects of mental health. 

Could you elaborate?  What is this "holistic happiness," and who in the Church has it?

There are different categories of happiness and well-being - emotional, social, spiritual, sexual, etc.   

Right.  But you referenced "holistic happiness," with "holistic" presumably meaning "characterized by the belief that the parts of something are interconnected and can be explained only by reference to the whole," or "relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts."

So what is this "holistic happiness" that the Church is (presumably) supplying to some members of the Church, and which members do you propose have it?

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

It doesn't mean absolute unwavering happiness in every area - nobody experiences that! 

I understood that, and I did not mean to suggest that.

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am sure there are plenty of people in the church who experience healthy well-balanced holistic happiness. 

But gay people do not "experience healthy well-balanced holistic happiness," right?  Your contention seemed to be that the Church "doesn't provide holistic happiness {to gay people}, or happiness/well-being in all aspects of mental health."  Am I correct in understanding you on this point?

If so, I would like to understand who these people in the Church are who "experience healthy well-balanced holistic happiness," and why gay people - in your estimation - cannot be among them. 

Nobody is suggesting "absolute unwavering happiness in every area," so I'm glad we agree on that.  But your claimed categorical exclusion of gay people from those in the Church who "experience healthy well-balanced holistic happiness" is rather puzzling to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

And then when we also looked at how changes in religiousness impacted health, we found that as people became less religious, they reported less meaning in life and more depression.

I’m interested in this.  I suspect this is not about sexuality.   I suspect also that the LDS religion being a lifestyle would be very difficult to dismantle from one’s sense of self, thus leading to depression for a time until one grounds one’s self in meaning. 

My impression is that the "worldview" created by faithful observance in the Church is fairly difficult to replicate after one leaves the Church, and that as a result, good numbers of people who leave the Church pretty much leave religion/theism altogether.  Or else they adopt some bland and noncommittal variation on "spiritual but not religious."  

Joseph Smith is quoted as follows: “Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.”

More prosaically, as Martin Crane put it:

Quote

Frasier: Dad, Niles and I and, uh, Maris would like you to join us for dinner on Saturday night at Le Cigare Volant, one of the hottest new restaurants.
Martin: Oh, gee, I don't know.
Niles: Oh, oh. The food is to die for.
Martin: Niles, your country and your family are to die for. Food is to eat.

The Church gives its members some pretty big ideas about Where We Came From, Why We Are Here, and Where We Are Going.  Kinda hard to top those ideas, really.

I suppose whether those ideas are "true" remains to be seen.  But between what I have experienced in the Church and Pascal's Wager, I'm willing to give it a go.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are confusing theory with reality.

Just don’t. This comparison doesn’t work. A straight person in Church lamenting their lack of a relationship usually gets sympathy and encouragement that they can find someone. Do you think that happens for gay and lesbian members?

One of the reasons I am single is that I disclose my bisexuality. It is a kiss of death with members of the church.

I would say your last paragraph is a bit of a generalization because there are married “out” bisexuals in the church, but I’m sure they are few and far between. 

[Peacefully]

Can we stop equating being gay with having sex? The church doesn’t allow any same-sex displays of affection like kissing or hand-holding. Imagine you are a young boy or girl just realizing you are gay, and the next thing you realize is in order to stay faithful to the church you must give up the usual rites of passage like holding hands or a first kiss. You don’t care about sex, you just want to have the same experiences as other kids your age. And then you realize you can never have this type of human interaction. It is not all about sex, but for some reason, many on this board and in the church equate the two. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Resisting to identify as gay is a manifestation of internalized homophobia.

I disagree.  There are other labels one can use, when discussing sexuality/gender such as noncis or nontraditional or sexually fluid, sexual minority if one doesn’t want to be locked in by the label if one even feels the need for labels.  And if one doesn’t, prefers to just describe feelings themselves without seeing them as an identity, what’s the big deal as long as one is self aware and accepting of their feelings, whatever they apply to.

It is bizarre to me that the sexual revolution that started out seemingly to dump labels for the freedom of choice, not wanting to be boxed in by any expectations has ended up with many viewing those who refuse to use sexual labels as dysfunctional.  Not at all what I was expecting back in my high school days in San Francisco (technically a 20 minute drive away in light traffic).

Edited June 9, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am proposing that prioritizing some "identities" over others is, or ought to be, a thing.

Who is protesting this idea?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In 2023? 

We live in 2 different worlds, it seems.  Not surprising given the one-sided cultural war propaganda you pollute these forums with.  You are the reason for the pride culture. 

 

 

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

wonder if this term is useful as a synonym for LGBT, as it muddies the waters a bit.  The study isn't about "paraphilias such as pedophilia," and its proposed use by Savin-Williams seems to call for a rejection of "culturally defined sexual identity label (lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc.)."  

 

Language changes.  It appears to have shifted in meaning.  Even so, just because a study states it researches “sexual minorities”, it isn’t required to study all sexual minorities.  If a study identifies what it is studying, a reader has sufficient info to understand, imo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_minority

Quote

Primarily used to refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual, or non-heterosexual individuals,[1][2] it can also refer to transgender,[3] non-binary (including third gender[4]) or intersex individuals.

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Right.  But you referenced "holistic happiness," with "holistic" presumably meaning "characterized by the belief that the parts of something are interconnected and can be explained only by reference to the whole," or "relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts."

I explained what I meant by holistic happiness.  In medicine, holism refers to seeking well-being through treating the whole person by finding balance through the different aspects that contribute to the identity and well-being of the individual - emotional, social, spiritual, physical, sexual, etc.  It doesn't neglect any aspect or part of the individual's identity and source of well-being.   Happiness/well-being/health in 3 areas while neglecting another area is not holistic happiness/well-being.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So what is this "holistic happiness" that the Church is (presumably) supplying to some members of the Church, and which members do you propose have it?

It is as I described - it provides an avenue and outlet for holistic happiness in all of the different parts and identities that make up a human - emotional, social, spiritual, physical, sexual... LGBT don't have the same avenues of holistic happiness.  Instead they are encouraged to "resist" their sexual "identities", according to you, in order to "make it work".  They can't be fulfilled in other social constructs that contribute to happiness like marriage which provides social, emotional, spiritual, and sexual bonds in more fulfilling ways than any alternative.   

They are supposed to suppress, or eliminate rather, those parts of themselves and therefore cannot achieve holistic happiness.  It is impossible for them in our faith. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But gay people do not "experience healthy well-balanced holistic happiness," right?  Your contention seemed to be that the Church "doesn't provide holistic happiness {to gay people}, or happiness/well-being in all aspects of mental health."  Am I correct in understanding you on this point?

Yes, you are correct.  I have explained why above.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If so, I would like to understand who these people in the Church are who "experience healthy well-balanced holistic happiness," and why gay people - in your estimation - cannot be among them. 

I have already explained this. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nobody is suggesting "absolute unwavering happiness in every area," so I'm glad we agree on that.  But your claimed categorical exclusion of gay people from those in the Church who "experience healthy well-balanced holistic happiness" is rather puzzling to me.

Hopefully it makes more sense now. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Quote

I am proposing that prioritizing some "identities" over others is, or ought to be, a thing.

Who is protesting this idea?

Well, I thought it was the fellow who was substantially re-phrasing and distorting what I have been saying.

I stand corrected.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Quote

In 2023? 

We live in 2 different worlds, it seems. 

I don't think we do.  I think we just see some things differently.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Not surprising given the one-sided cultural war propaganda you pollute these forums with.  You are the reason for the pride culture. 

Yes, yes.  When all else fails, trot out the "You're a Bigot!" schtick.  It's wearing pretty thin these days.

Alternative, trot out the schtick at the beginning or middle of a discussion.  That too is wearing thin.

I didn't make up the idea of the "Pride" movement being corporatized, nor did I fabricate the ESG/DEI racket (or that it is run by the HRC), nor did I have anything to do with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink bragging about "forc{ing} behaviors," or that all this as been aptly described as "{a} Chinese-like social credit system {} creep{ing} into American business."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 9, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

On 6/9/2023 at 10:29 AM, Pyreaux said:

but why else would someone mistakenly and automatically assume less religion would make gays less depressed? 

Because there are enough religions that have and do now condemn the person, not just the behaviour (which condemnation can be problematic on its own) as being twisted, perverted, evil, possessed, etc., should be disowned at least, even have thought and some even now think it’s appropriate to kill an individual if they express nontraditional attractions.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I disagree.  There are other labels one can use, such as noncis or nontraditional or sexually fluid if one doesn’t want to be locked in by the label if one even feels the need for labels.  And if one doesn’t, prefers to just describe feelings themselves without seeing them as an identity, what’s the big deal as long as one is self aware and accepting of their feelings?

It is bizarre to me that the sexual revolution that started out seemingly to dump labels for the freedom of choice, not wanting to be boxed in by any expectations has ended up with many viewing those who refuse to use sexual labels as dysfunctional.  Not at all what I was expecting back in my high school days in San Francisco (technically a 20 minute drive away in light traffic).

There is documentation showing that is indeed "a" manifestation of internalized homophobia.  See the link I provided.  Many people with homophobia refuse to identify as gay as a form of self-suppression and refusal to accept their feelings.  they hate that part of themselves.  So, if we are suggesting to members who have homosexual feelings that they should not identify as gay if they want "to make it", the message they will likely hear is that there is something really wrong with identifying with, and heaven forbid embracing and enjoying, their feelings.  That can lead to internalized homophobia.  

The point I was making isn't about labels, it is about accepting one's own sexual reality and "identify", however one wants to label (or not) themselves.  "Gay" is just the common word/label we use, and therefore I used to communicate my ideas.  

Edited June 9, 2023 by pogi