Jana Riess: Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

because you dislike Latter-day Saints

Now if we want to talk about unintentional irony, look no further. You dislike the “Mormon’s hate gay” narrative. You think it’s unfair that people look at the church’s words and actions and judge them as hateful. You think queer Latter-day Saints feel this hate only because of the label. But here you are doing the exact same thing. Never once have I said those words, and you are pushing a John dislikes Latter-day Saint narrative. Based on my words and actions. Huh. 
 

Here is what I actually dislike: bigotry. Bigotry towards women. Bigotry towards race. Bigotry towards LGBTQ, and even, believe it or not, bigotry towards religious groups. And no I don’t see any tension there. To the extent anyone in any of those groups exhibits bigotry I think that is immoral. 

Edited March 12, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Smiley McGee]

9 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Indeed, the Church would much rather individuals identify as children of loving Heavenly Parents and not just on the biological machinations of our bodies.

For sure. This is why I can’t stand how people are always saying they are a “son” or “daughter” of God. I don’t need to know what kind of hardware they’re working with. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Indeed, the Church would much rather individuals identify as children of loving Heavenly Parents and not just on the biological machinations of our bodies.

Nah the church is fine with many identities. Mother, Father, son, daughter, brother, sister, male, female, believer, non believer, Samoan, African, sinner, saint etc etc. It just has a strong dislike (some might say hate) for that one. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

because you dislike Latter-day Saints

You are going there when he has expressed it is disagreement over behaviour?  This is mindreading taken way too far.

Why shouldn’t everyone assume you dislike gays and some variations of nonmormons based on this same reasoning? (I am assuming here you don’t actually dislike gays, etc, but if you do, that could explain in part why you feel confident enough to claim this about Seeking as you could be projecting.)

These kinds of comments from anyone lead me to seriously doubt the commenter’s ability to read tone in people’s posts as well as the words as well as makes me question their judgment because of making such a choice to view another’s disagreement as dislike.

Added:  I didn’t see Seeking’s response before I posted this.  He made the point clearer.  That you see it as acceptable to dump that narrative on Seeking while protesting “Mormons hate gays” is why I wonder about judgment here and if your mindset is too embedded that you just don’t see the issue with your “dislike Latter-day Saints” comment in the context of this thread.

Edited March 12, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I never said you couldn’t be offensive.

I never said you said that:

“ I decline to acquiesce to your censorious proclivities by abstaining” 

Pretty sure that was you…

Edited March 12, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, virtually all queer people would find it confusing and/or offensive no matter who said it.

In the APA's "Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People," the only reference to SSA is a single passing reference to "same-sex attraction, which often emerges in early adolescence."

The "Common LGBTQ+ Terms and Definitions" published by the National Resource Center on LGBTQ+ Aging also has a single reference to SSA ("Same-Gender Loving (SGL)*: A cultural term used most frequently in communities of color that affirms the same-sex attraction of individuals.").

In chapter 3 of Karen Stollznow's On the Offensive: Prejudice in Language Past and Present, the author "explores discriminatory language with regard to sexual orientation and sexuality."  She then states: "Starting with the story of playwright Oscar Wilde and his imprisonment, we look at the history of criminalizing same-sex attraction."  She goes on to define "Same-sex attraction or homosexuality is the state of 'being sexually or romantically attracted to people of one’s own sex.'"  She uses the terms 14 times in the chapter, nary once with any intention to offend.

In this May 2021 article published in Psychology Today, Dr. Stollznow used the term six times, all clinically.

This article in Medical News Today uses "same-sex attraction" seven times, all clinically.

The American Psychiatric Association has published this flyer:

Quote

Why are the terms queer/questioning important?

The terms queer/questioning are important because they encompass a larger number of individuals who identify as having same-sex attraction and behaviors versus self-identifying as LGB.

Seems pretty clinical.

This January 2024 news article uses "same-sex attraction" 24 times all impartially/clinically.

See also this 2022 article:

Quote

The organisation LGB Alliance was founded to “prevent the dissemination of the lie of gender identity”, a court was told on Wednesday, during a hearing over whether the Charity Commission was right to grant the body charitable status.
...

Asked about the organisation’s creation, Jackson said organisers were in part motivated by a change in the definition of homosexuality adopted by Stonewall and other leading LGBT groups in around 2015 from same-sex attraction to same-gender attraction.

She said the founders wanted to bring together “other LGBT people who agreed with our view that homosexuality was being redefined in a way that we found offensive”.

She said lesbians had found the redefinition particularly challenging, with some feeling that they were no longer free to express same-sex attraction; she pointed to the ejection of lesbian activists from a pride march for asserting same-sex rather than same-gender attraction.

If lesbians in the UK can use "same-sex attraction" to describe themselves, then the terms seems pretty neutral.

The "Glossary of Terms" at Georgia Southern University defines the word "homosexual" as "A term previously used to describe individuals with same-sex attraction."

The "Terminology" page for the Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the National Institutes of Health defines the word "lesbian" as an adjective "to refer to female same-sex attraction and sexual behavior."

The "Glossary of LGBTQ Terms" published by Out & Equal defines "gay" as "synonymous with same-sex attraction," and "homophobia" as "{i}ntolerance, fear, and hatred of gay/lesbian people and/or same-sex attraction."

In this 2019 article in PinkNews (hardly a bastion of religious hostility to gay folks), "same-sex attraction" is used five times, all clinically.

On the for SEEN ("committed to promoting and supporting sex equality and equity ... including the protections provided to those with the protected ... sexual orientation"), we find a 2023 article with this statement:

Quote

Homosexual people are same-sex attracted, and it is not offensive to say so

Homosexual people are oppressed on the basis of sex. Gay men are oppressed because we are exclusively attracted to men, of the same sex. Lesbians are doubly oppressed because they are oppressed as women, their sex, and because of their attraction to other women, their same-sex attraction. To understand this oppression, you have to understand the reality of sex.

Sex matters. As JK Rowling said – ‘if sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction’.³ I am not gay because I have a particular political or philosophical belief, but only because I am exclusively same-sex attracted. No more, no less.

Another problem I have with the blanket term ‘queer’ is that it masks this important distinction. This isn’t the only issue with ‘queer’. Furthermore, for many homosexuals such as myself even the use of the word ‘queer’ is uncomfortable. For many of us ‘queer’ is a horrific slur that has been used predominantly against gay men. Noting in 2018 the website ‘Back2Stonewall’ ran a poll on the word queer, 93% of gay men who responded said they do not accept this word and still regard it as a slur.⁴

Homosexual people do not all have the same beliefs and opinions, regardless of what people may tell you otherwise

Along with demographic shifts in what it means to be part of the community that was once LGB, there has also been a trend towards increasing conformity in what this community thinks, politically. My own experience of ‘gay groups’ and organisations, and sadly, most LGBT networks I’ve encountered in the Civil Service, is that there is an increased expectation that I won’t talk about the fact I’m homosexual. This is because the phrases ‘homosexual’ and ‘same-sex attraction’ are sometimes considered ‘dog-whistles’ for bigotry. Gay men and lesbians may be told we have to be inclusive of people who are not gay and lesbian in our groups, organisations, meetings and safe spaces.

So California Boy finds "queer" to be fine, but "same-sex attraction" to be offensive.  The author of the above piece, however, objects to "queer" but is fine with "same-sex attraction."

And unfortunately for Mr. "the church hates gay people" SeekingUnderstanding, GLAAD's "An Ally's Guide to Terminology" also discourages use of terms like "hate" ("Avoid highly charged, argumentative terms like 'hate' and 'bigotry,' which are likely to alienate people. Instead, use language that is measured and relatable to create empathy and a sense of how rejecting attitudes and actions hurt LGBT people.").  I guess listening to GLAAD is something only the Mormons are supposed to do.

I'll give GLAAD's guidance some consideration.  I find it surprising that words and phrases like "sexual identity," "homosexuality," "transgender identity," "gay marriage," and "same-sex marriage" are in the "Terms to Avoid" column (along with "same-sex attraction").  These phrases get used all the time on this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 12, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Now if we want to talk about unintentional irony, look no further. You dislike the “Mormon’s hate gay” narrative. You think it’s unfair that people look at the church’s words and actions and judge them as hateful. You think queer Latter-day Saints feel this hate only because of the label. But here you are doing the exact same thing. Never once have I said those words, and you are pushing a John dislikes Latter-day Saint narrative. Based on my words and actions. Huh. 
 

Here is what I actually dislike: bigotry. Bigotry towards women. Bigotry towards race. Bigotry towards LGBTQ, and even, believe it or not, bigotry towards religious groups. And no I don’t see any tension there. To the extent anyone in any of those groups exhibits bigotry I think that is immoral. 

Fair enough.  I retract my statement and apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Oh, you did another Google search. Good for you.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

On the for SEEN ("committed to promoting and supporting sex equality and equity ... including the protections provided to those with the protected ... sexual orientation"), we find a 2023 article with this statement:

So California Boy finds "queer" to be fine, but "same-sex attraction" to be offensive.  The author of the above piece, however, objects to "queer" but is fine with "same-sex attraction."

That is a TERF. You can ignore them when they claim to be speaking for the larger community.

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Indeed, the Church would much rather individuals identify as children of loving Heavenly Parents and not just on the biological machinations of our bodies.

I guess we can give up the old folklore about our bodies being divine gifts then.

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the APA's "Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People," the only reference to SSA is a single passing reference to "same-sex attraction, which often emerges in early adolescence."

The "Common LGBTQ+ Terms and Definitions" published by the National Resource Center on LGBTQ+ Aging also has a single reference to SSA ("Same-Gender Loving (SGL)*: A cultural term used most frequently in communities of color that affirms the same-sex attraction of individuals.").

In chapter 3 of Karen Stollznow's On the Offensive: Prejudice in Language Past and Present, the author "explores discriminatory language with regard to sexual orientation and sexuality."  She then states: "Starting with the story of playwright Oscar Wilde and his imprisonment, we look at the history of criminalizing same-sex attraction."  She goes on to define "Same-sex attraction or homosexuality is the state of 'being sexually or romantically attracted to people of one’s own sex.'"  She uses the terms 14 times in the chapter, nary once with any intention to offend.

In this May 2021 article published in Psychology Today, Dr. Stollznow used the term six times, all clinically.

This article in Medical News Today uses "same-sex attraction" seven times, all clinically.

The American Psychiatric Association has published this flyer:

Seems pretty clinical.

This January 2024 news article uses "same-sex attraction" 24 times all impartially/clinically.

See also this 2022 article:

If lesbians in the UK can use "same-sex attraction" to describe themselves, then the terms seems pretty neutral.

The "Glossary of Terms" at Georgia Southern University defines the word "homosexual" as "A term previously used to describe individuals with same-sex attraction."

The "Terminology" page for the Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the National Institutes of Health defines the word "lesbian" as an adjective "to refer to female same-sex attraction and sexual behavior."

The "Glossary of LGBTQ Terms" published by Out & Equal defines "gay" as "synonymous with same-sex attraction," and "homophobia" as "{i}ntolerance, fear, and hatred of gay/lesbian people and/or same-sex attraction."

In this 2019 article in PinkNews (hardly a bastion of religious hostility to gay folks), "same-sex attraction" is used five times, all clinically.

On the for SEEN ("committed to promoting and supporting sex equality and equity ... including the protections provided to those with the protected ... sexual orientation"), we find a 2023 article with this statement:

So California Boy finds "queer" to be fine, but "same-sex attraction" to be offensive.  The author of the above piece, however, objects to "queer" but is fine with "same-sex attraction."

And unfortunately for Mr. "the church hates gay people" SeekingUnderstanding, GLAAD's "An Ally's Guide to Terminology" also discourages use of terms like "hate" ("Avoid highly charged, argumentative terms like 'hate' and 'bigotry,' which are likely to alienate people. Instead, use language that is measured and relatable to create empathy and a sense of how rejecting attitudes and actions hurt LGBT people.").  I guess listening to GLAAD is something only the Mormons are supposed to do.

I'll give GLAAD's guidance some consideration.  I find it surprising that words and phrases like "sexual identity," "homosexuality," "transgender identity," "gay marriage," and "same-sex marriage" are in the "Terms to Avoid" column (along with "same-sex attraction").  These phrases get used all the time on this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

How many besides me are sick and tired of straight Smac explaining to gay people what they should be called and what they are comfortable with  being referred to?

I clearly understand how offensive it is to mansplain to women.  Now we have a guy who is straightsplaining to gays.  The epitome of arrogance.  

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And unfortunately for Mr. "the church hates gay people" SeekingUnderstanding

For the record, I’ve attempted (and maybe failed) to show what attitudes and beliefs lead people to conclude this.
“Some might say”

“leads to people concluding that the church hates gay people” 

“This thread should be instructive to those that wonder why the church is known for its “hate” of gay people though.”

I think hate is too simplistic a term to describe what the church (and here the term is ambiguous) does.
 

There are hateful teachings, for example Emily comparing human intimacy or its lack to a bowl of pottage. But that does many mean that Emily hates gays people. 
 

Hope this clarifies. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

How many besides me are sick and tired of straight Smac explaining to gay people what they should be called and what they are comfortable with  being referred to?

I clearly understand how offensive it is to mansplain to women.  Now we have a guy who is straightsplaining to gays.  The epitome of arrogance.  

 

"I'll give GLAAD's guidance some consideration."

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

You are now going to argue with me and GLADD and the vast majority of the LGBT community on preferred terms?

You really think you are the expert here on preferred terms of the LGBT community?

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

“Same sex attraction” is virtually never used as a descriptor. I have never heard anyone in the community use it and I have been around some both online and in community spaces.

19 hours ago, california boy said:

 Universally, it is the preferred term most gay men prefer to be labeled if that is necessary.  I'm not saying that there is no one who prefers to not be called gay, but that is definitely an outliner.

19 hours ago, california boy said:

To most of us Same Sex Attraction is a term religious organizations tend to use to marginalize the gay community.  So if your goal is to not offend gay people, please stop using that term.  Gay or Queer are just fine.  If  however, your goal is to marginalize gay people,  and use terms that are generally for the vast majority of gay people do find offensive, go ahead and continue to use Same Sex Attraction.

19 hours ago, california boy said:

While there is no official spokesman for the LGBT community, GLADD comes about the closest.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There are very few gay people who want to be referred to as “people with SSA”. If you use that term in the wild queer people will either have no idea what you or talking about or roll their eyes and mentally label you as a bigot.

 

These comments all seem to marginalize the heck out of LGBT folks who do not wish to be part of this thing known as "the LGBT community".  Do either of you know any?  I know two active, practicing gay LDS folks personally.  One I don't know very well, the other I know very well.  Neither of them claim membership in this community.  The one I know well, actively rejects any affiliation with it.  Apart from a couple of very close relationships, he does not want to be known or thought of in terms of bedroom preferences by anyone. 

I mean, I was always content to let the community define itself, until this survey pointed out the probable existence of over a quarter-million gay LDS folks in America.   I wonder how many of them are just quietly out trying to be the best disciple of Christ they can be, totally content to be defined as saint, utterly rejecting the notion they should be identified by their sexual identities.   Intentionally staying out of any spotlights or pigeonholes, other than this recent opportunity to respond anonymously to a postcard/Facebook polling opportunity. 

I'm happy to bow to the superior information about "the LGBT community" to actual members of the community.  Y'all seem to understand what y'all are largely united on, and what y'all aren't.  But I'd like to see some understanding and acknowledgement of gay folks who don't wish to be a part of the community.  I'm guessing, mormon or not, they're a respectably sized group whose voice goes largely unheard.  And whose opinions are totally unknown to folks both inside and out of the self-identified community.

Edited March 12, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

The idea of "people hav{ing} sexual orientations -- that somehow they are born with an innate, fixed sexual attraction to a certain gender" is "completely new" and a "complete novelty."  This fabricated narratives amount to "historical revisionism," and overall the current trends regarding sexual "identities" are "clearly" a "cultural phenomenon."

Historically there are a lot of things we know now that we did not no 150 years ago and further back. Historically we know there have been homosexual humans likely as long as our species have existed.  We did not understand the spectrum of sexual preferences till recently but science has shown they are there. It seems that you are arguing that science is currently wrong and its all fabricated.  Just a cultural thing.  Am I reading you correctly?

[Smiley McGee]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Historically there are a lot of things we know now that we did not no 150 years ago and further back. Historically we know there have been homosexual humans likely as long as our species have existed.  We did not understand the spectrum of sexual preferences till recently but science has shown they are there. It seems that you are arguing that science is currently wrong and it’s all fabricated.  Just a cultural thing.  Am I reading you correctly?

I don’t understand his contention…a phenomenon doesn’t exist unless there is a somewhat coherent framework for describing it? So God didn’t exist before religion?

Edited March 12, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

These comments all seem to marginalize the heck out of LGBT folks who do not wish to be part of this thing known as "the LGBT community".  Do either of you know any?  I know two active, practicing gay LDS folks personally.  One I don't know very well, the other I know very well.  Neither of them claim membership in this community.  The one I know well, actively rejects any affiliation with it.  Apart from a couple of very close relationships, he does not want to be known or thought of in terms of bedroom preferences by anyone. 

I mean, I was always content to let the community define itself, until this survey pointed out the probable existence of over a quarter-million gay LDS folks in America.   I wonder how many of them are just quietly out trying to be the best disciple of Christ they can be, totally content to be defined as saint, utterly rejecting the notion they should be identified by their sexual identities.   Intentionally staying out of any spotlights or pigeonholes, other than this recent opportunity to respond anonymously to a postcard/Facebook polling opportunity. 

I'm happy to bow to the superior information about "the LGBT community" to actual members of the community.  Y'all seem to understand what y'all are largely united on, and what y'all aren't.  But I'd like to see some understanding and acknowledgement of gay folks who don't wish to be a part of the community.  I'm guessing, mormon or not, they're a respectably sized group whose voice goes largely unheard.  And whose opinions are totally unknown to folks both inside and out of the self-identified community.

You’re trying to give a voice to those who are trying not to stand out or speak out in any way? Did they ask you to do this for them?

They’re not some secret mystery group. Many come out and tell their stories. Some tell their stories and stay in the church.

Also (and this is important) CB and I have LITERALLY been those people!!!!!! In some ways I still am.

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Historically there are a lot of things we know now that we did not no 150 years ago and further back. Historically we know there have been homosexual humans likely as long as our species have existed.  We did not understand the spectrum of sexual preferences till recently but science has shown they are there. It seems that you are arguing that science is currently wrong and its all fabricated.  Just a cultural thing.  Am I reading you correctly?

This. People talk as if terminology defines reality. It is true that people in the past didn’t understand sexual orientation they way we do. They also didn’t understand schizophrenia or the laws of thermodynamics or how conception of a child works but people were still there who would identify as gay now, there were people with the symptoms of schizophrenia, the laws of thermodynamics still governed the physical universe, and babies were still born.

Taking the true fact that we didn’t know what to call things in the past or used a different paradigm to understand them and arguing that we are doing it all wrong now is really just a call to scrap the whole thing, shove everyone back into closets, and call it a day. It is a hope the whole thing will just blow over and that closeted queer people will just live in fear and/or suffer in silence.

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Which brings us back to my original point.  A big part of why the Restored Gospel doesn't work for others is because they are inundated with messaging from opponents of the Church who, presuming to speak for the Church, tells them that the Church and its members "hate" them.  This is in contrast to other groups who likewise must constrain their behaviors to the parameters of the Law of Chastity, but who aren't being targeted for such malignant messaging.

So you think LBGT members leave because they are convinced that the church and its members hate them?  And that is the largest reason? Might not have to do with the strict interpretation of the law of chastity?  Might not have to do with language from LDS leaders like this:

Quote

 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

 

 

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I reject this premise as well.  Same-sex marriage is, historically speaking, about five minutes old.  It has no historical pedigree, let along a religious/doctrinal one in the Church.  Same-sex marriage has never solemnized, and it appears it never will.

And  Mormonism, historically, is about 5 minutes old. So what?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

So you think LBGT members leave because they are convinced that the church and its members hate them?  And that is the largest reason? Might not have to do with the strict interpretation of the law of chastity?  Might not have to do with language from LDS leaders like this:

 

If lgbtq+ members leave because they believe the church and its members hate them, I think that perception would come more from members who refuse (or struggle) to acknowledge their unique experience as gay members of the church, and less from doctrinal teachings that someone believes comes from God.

Empathy and charity come from being willing to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.  Refusing to do so--even claiming that it is inappropriate to do so--is what is going to cause the most hurt (in my opinion).

I'm very glad that those quotes are from over a decade ago and that the church no longer teaches or implies such things.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So you think LBGT members leave because they are convinced that the church and its members hate them?  And that is the largest reason? Might not have to do with the strict interpretation of the law of chastity?  Might not have to do with language from LDS leaders like this:

Gotta love the Church endorsing the contagion theory while some try to insist that the church is accepting of queer people. Some people in the church show more concern about their kids ‘catching the gay’ then they are about an actual contagious pandemic.

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Law of Chastity is revelatory, and not "just a policy of the Church."

No it IS only something you believe is revelatory.  You have faith it is. You don't know. Do you?

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

These comments all seem to marginalize the heck out of LGBT folks who do not wish to be part of this thing known as "the LGBT community".  Do either of you know any?  I know two active, practicing gay LDS folks personally.  One I don't know very well, the other I know very well.  Neither of them claim membership in this community.  The one I know well, actively rejects any affiliation with it.  Apart from a couple of very close relationships, he does not want to be known or thought of in terms of bedroom preferences by anyone. 

I mean, I was always content to let the community define itself, until this survey pointed out the probable existence of over a quarter-million gay LDS folks in America.   I wonder how many of them are just quietly out trying to be the best disciple of Christ they can be, totally content to be defined as saint, utterly rejecting the notion they should be identified by their sexual identities.   Intentionally staying out of any spotlights or pigeonholes, other than this recent opportunity to respond anonymously to a postcard/Facebook polling opportunity. 

I'm happy to bow to the superior information about "the LGBT community" to actual members of the community.  Y'all seem to understand what y'all are largely united on, and what y'all aren't.  But I'd like to see some understanding and acknowledgement of gay folks who don't wish to be a part of the community.  I'm guessing, mormon or not, they're a respectably sized group whose voice goes largely unheard.  And whose opinions are totally unknown to folks both inside and out of the self-identified community.

Several times in this thread I have recognized that there are those who prefer the term Same Sex Attraction, but those are very much outliners.  I have stated that if that is their preference, then by all means do not use the term gay in addressing them.  If you are unsure how the person prefers to be addressed, I would always say, just ask them.  

What this thread has been about is the generally accepted terms the LGBT community prefers to use.  It is pretty clear what the preferred terminology the LGBT community prefers.  (GLADD is a very good place to look if you are unsure). It has been my experience that the vast majority in the gay community dislike the whole SSA label that they consider it not a neutral term at all, but one that has been used largely by the religious community to marginalize them and is an attempt to deny not just their attraction towards other men, but to discount the real connection and emotional feelings gay men have for each other.  It is an insult to me to call my relationship with my partner of over 15 years as just being same sex attraction.  I doubt any straight man wants his relationship with his partner referred to as Opposite Sex Attraction.  

I have had quite a bit of interaction with members of the Church that identify as gay over the past 25 years.  I was involved in the Evergreen program the Church used to funnel its gay members into before it went defunct.  None of those members wanted to be referred to as having SSA.  I also have quite a few member and former members that are gay.  They also prefer the term gay.  You can not assume a quarter of a million gay members want that label just because they are members of the Church.  

Is all I am saying is be sensitive and respectful and not automatically assume you know more than gay members or the LGBT community what they prefer to be referred as.  I don't think that is a lot to ask for.  

 

 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

While I'll leave open the possibility that there may be exceptions, in general I agree with Pres. Kimball.

"‘Soul mates’ are fiction and an illusion; … it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage." —President Spencer W. Kimball (source)

The universality of soul mates continues to be one of those heresies popularized by the misguided book and musical Saturday's Warriors and other media.

I recognized and trusted my husband the moment I looked into his eyes.  I felt Heavenly Father tell me I would marry him 4 years before my husband decided to ask me to marry him. In the weeks before he asked me I felt God let me know that it was still a choice for both of us and not a given and that I could find others to marry if my husband did not make that choice.  Luckily, my husband asked and I said yes.

I am truly amazed sometimes at how good we have it together.  Things aren't perfect, but I don't know anyone else who has a better marriage.  So while I don't think that the idea of soulmates (the only person you can be happy with) is a true one I do think that are connections in some marriages that most marriages don't have. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You’re trying to give a voice to those who are trying not to stand out or speak out in any way? Did they ask you to do this for them?

I'm pointing out that not all not-strictly-straight folks are members of the LGBT community.   And as the grand human debate goes about solving the world's ills for not straight folks, it seems like a vastly disproportionate amount of attention gets paid to the folks who stand up and self identify as members of that community.   I'm not giving anyone a voice, I'm asking we acknowledge their existence.  From my limited 2ndhand anecdotal experience (two individuals), they don't agree with or think like you or CB or the majority in that community.   Maybe think about them a bit, when you're giving Smac the smacdown about things you assume most of y'all are united about.  

Y'all like respecting, acknowledging, and raising awareness for marginalized folks, right?  Tell me everything you know about gay mormons who want nothing to do with the LGBT community, just want to walk as a disciple of Christ and go to the temple and say their prayers and pay their tithing and fulfill their calling and vote for [redacted].

 

Quote

They’re not some secret mystery group. Many come out and tell their stories. Some tell their stories and stay in the church.

The two I know have never come out, do not wish to tell their stories.  Again, the one I know best has only shared such things in confidence with two or three people.  With the plausibility of a quarter-million gay LDS Americans, it might be wise to take them into account, even though they're not out trying to be heard or understood or acknowledged as anything other than Mormon.

Edited March 12, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon