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

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Emily said:

Southwest 60s and 70s. And it was  specifically applied to homosexuals who lived a hedonistic lifestyle of prowling through bars and resorts looking for temporary sexual partners. 

I mean seriously, it was derived from the original meaning of the word "Gay" as being free, easy, showy, light hearted, etc.. and was originally applied to male prostitutes. The meaning has obviously shifted, but that doesn't mean everyone's perception followed the shift.

Sorry, but this is a bunch of nonsense.  And I doubt very much you were in the middle of hedonistic gay prostitute life to know this to be accurate.  It is possible that someone told you this crap, but I highly doubt this to be true.  My statement comes from someone who has been living in the gay community for the past 25 years.  I certainly have never heard this nonsense.  

Yes gay was used as a derogatory term, but it was a term used to label ANYONE who had a sexual attraction or even was a bit effieminate.  If you weren't butch enough or athletic enough, you were given that slur.  

Maybe it would help to understand why being gay is no longer considered a slur.  It is because men that are attracted to other men are no longer ashamed of that attraction.  They have come to accept that attraction because it is just our natural attraction that we are born with.  So why would we be ashamed of being told we are attracted (gay) to other men?

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I personally don't know anyone who minds being called gay.  

Good to know.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Universally, it is the preferred term most gay men prefer to be labeled if that is necessary.  

Okay.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I do know a LOT of gays who bristle at the term Same Sex Attraction and find that term specifically to be offensive.  

This seems to be more of a regional/contextual thing.

MensLine Australia: Same-sex attraction

Quote

Is it normal?

Same-sex attraction is in no way unusual, immoral, abnormal or sick. It does not need to be cured or fixed. There are thousands of people going through the same situation at this moment. In fact, one in four families will have a family member who is gay or lesbian. There are an estimated 2 million same-sex attracted people in Australia.

I suspect this article is not intended to be "offensive," and that SSA is being used for its clinical, rather than ideological or pejorative, value.

A few more:

National Library of Medicine: Same-Sex Sexual Attraction Does Not Spread in Adolescent Social Networks

National Library of Medicine: Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood

Scientific American: Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

The Economist: Can biology explain same-sex attraction?

Frontiers in Psychology: Prosociality and a Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans

Quote

Human same-sex sexual attraction (SSSA) has long been considered to be an evolutionary puzzle. The trait is clearly biological: it is widespread and has a strong additive genetic basis, but how SSSA has evolved remains a subject of debate.
...
Kin-selection theories propose genes promoting SSSA could persist in a population if people expressing SSSA enhanced the reproduction of relatives (Bailey and Zuk, 2009). It is assumed the indirect fitness benefit of more relatives would compensate for the presumed fitness costs associated with SSSA and same-sex sexual behavior. Invoking kin-selection theory to explain human SSSA seems a little odd. The many examples of social and reproductive traits in animals that have evolved as a consequence of kin selection emphasize the evolution of non-reproductives, not same-sex sexual behavior (Kirkpatrick, 2000). 
 

American Psychological Association: Understanding sexual orientation and homosexuality

Quote

What is “coming out” and why is it important?

The phrase “coming out” is used to refer to several aspects of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons’ experiences: self-awareness of same-sex attractions; the telling of one or a few people about these attractions; widespread disclosure of same-sex attractions; and identification with the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community.
...
What about sexual orientation and coming out during adolescence?

Adolescence is a period when people separate from their parents and families and begin to develop autonomy. Adolescence can be a period of experimentation, and many youths may question their sexual feelings. Becoming aware of sexual feelings is a normal developmental task of adolescence. Sometimes adolescents have same-sex feelings or experiences that cause confusion about their sexual orientation. This confusion appears to decline over time, with different outcomes for different individuals.

Some adolescents desire and engage in same-sex behavior but do not identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, sometimes because of the stigma associated with a nonheterosexual orientation. Some adolescents experience continuing feelings of same-sex attraction but do not engage in any sexual activity or may engage in heterosexual behavior for varying lengths of time. Because of the stigma associated with same-sex attractions, many youths experience same-sex attraction for many years before becoming sexually active with partners of the same sex or disclosing their attractions to others.

For some young people, this process of exploring same-sex attractions leads to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity. For some, acknowledging this identity can bring an end to confusion.

Planned Parenthood: What causes sexual orientation?

Quote

Recent research suggests that 11% of American adults acknowledge at least some same-sex attraction, 8.2% report that they’ve engaged in same-sex behavior, but only 3.5% identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. This shows that what people feel or do is not always the same as how they identify themselves.

Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct," and this new concept

Quote

spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility. In many ways, one can read the wholesale invention of 'gay marriage' and the current legal and social attempts to silence all dissent to it as the clearest indication that the discourse has gone from merely ascendant to genuinely hegemonic.

So it's understandable that terminology with more "political utility" will be preferred in some quarters.  As it is, though, same-sex attraction has ample clinical usage.  For example, unlike "gay" or "homosexual," SSA differentiates between feelings/inclinations and behavior.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

To most of us Same Sex Attraction is a term religious organizations tend to use to marginalize the gay community.  

Plenty of non-religious organizations use it as well, and do not do so "to marginalize" (whatever that means).

"Same-sex attraction" does have some baggage, but so do "gay" and "queer" and "homosexual."

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

So if your goal is to not offend gay people, please stop using that term.  

Unless you are prepared to accuse Planned Parenthood, the APA, National Library of Medicine, Scientific American, etc. of intending to "offend gay people," I am not sure this characterization works.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Gay or Queer are just fine.  

So terms that have political utility are fine, but those which have clinical utility are not?

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

I don't see how the term "marginalizes" anyone.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

My personal experience of people insisting on using the term Same Sex Attraction, want to imprint their own political view on gays and have no real sincere reason to try and use preferred language.

I use terms interchangeably (except "queer," as I don't care for it).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

You didn't have to write an entire page of Fisked response.  

I addressed the substance of your post.

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

You could have just said, I don't like the question and prefer to dodge it.  

Except that I didn't just "dodge it."  I explained in some detail why I find the premises problematic.  And you dodged that response with near totality.

Do you still torture puppies for fun and profit?  Just a simple yes or no will do.  And if you do not directly answer the question, can I claim you are "dodging" it?

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not surprised by your answer.  

Okay.

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

When the analogy goes to something that could possible relate to you,

It's a poor analogy, you puppy-torturer.  

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

it is understandable you would want to wiggle out of answering a simple what if question.

The question was nothing like "a simple what if question."  It was, instead, bogged down with logical fallacies.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 12, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

So why would we be ashamed of being told we are attracted (gay) to other men?

"We are attracted {} to other men" seems to be aptly distilled to "same-sex attraction."  So why is that "offensive?"  Is it just because some religious groups use it?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 12, 2024 by smac97

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Good to know.

Okay.

This seems to be more of a regional/contextual thing.

MensLine Australia: Same-sex attraction

I suspect this article is not intended to be "offensive," and that SSA is being used for its clinical, rather than ideological or pejorative, value.

A few more:

National Library of Medicine: Same-Sex Sexual Attraction Does Not Spread in Adolescent Social Networks

National Library of Medicine: Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood

Scientific American: Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

The Economist: Can biology explain same-sex attraction?

Frontiers in Psychology: Prosociality and a Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans

American Psychological Association: Understanding sexual orientation and homosexuality

Planned Parenthood: What causes sexual orientation?

Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct," and this new concept

So it's understandable that terminology with more "political utility" will be preferred in some quarters.  As it is, though, same-sex attraction has ample clinical usage.  For example, unlike "gay" or "homosexual," SSA differentiates between feelings/inclinations and behavior.

Plenty of non-religious organizations use it as well, and do not do so "to marginalize" (whatever that means).

"Same-sex attraction" does have some baggage, but so do "gay" and "queer" and "homosexual."

Unless you are prepared to accuse Planned Parenthood, the APA, National Library of Medicine, Scientific American, etc. of intending to "offend gay people," I am not sure this characterization works.

So terms that have political utility are fine, but those which have clinical utility are not?

I don't see how the term "marginalizes" anyone.

I use terms interchangeably (except "queer," as I don't care for it).

Thanks,

-Smac

Seriously?  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?

There is a HUGE difference between a scientific study on same sex attraction and labeling someone as having same sex attraction.  You obviously do not care one bit about what the LGBT community thinks.  You only care about your own agenda.  That is become crystal clear.

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"We are attracted to other men" seems to be aptly distilled to "same-sex attraction."

Thanks,

-Smac

I give up.  Your are just being a jerk now.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"We are attracted to other men" seems to be aptly distilled to "same-sex attraction."

Thanks,

-Smac

Latter-day Saints use the phrase like someone has a disease. Oh him? He has same sex attraction. Or worse “struggles” with same sex attraction. Maybe you should start describing people of color as those that struggle with too much melanin. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

now

!?

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I addressed the substance of your post.

Except that I didn't just "dodge it."  I explained in some detail why I find the premises problematic.  And you dodged that response with near totality.

Do you still torture puppies for fun and profit?  Just a simple yes or no will do.  And if you do not directly answer the question, can I claim you are "dodging" it?

Okay.

It's a poor analogy, you puppy-torturer.  

The question was nothing like "a simple what if question."  It was, instead, bogged down with logical fallacies.

Thanks,

-Smac

You didn't answer the question.  You made up your own questions and answered them.   If you want to try answering the question I asked, then please do.  If you want to write an entire page of unrelated statements that do not answer the question then please don't bother wasting my time and yours.  

 The question was a what if question meant to help you understand the way the Church treats LGBT members in a way that I hoped you would relate to. Here is the question again.  Try answering it honestly or ignore it.  I really don't care.

 

Quote

 

While I totally disagree with your position on gay marriage, I would like to ask you a simple question to see just how you are able to maintain the position you hold.  So here is the situation.  If Church leaders came out today and said that any couple whose last name starts with M will no longer be able to marry and all such unions with a last name that starts with M must be dissolved in order to be worthy of membership into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And furthermore, any such marriages will no longer be considered eternal marriages.  There will be no possibility of reuniting with your former spouse in the next life.  Former husbands and wives whose last name starts with M will be given the opportunity to marry for eternity another person.  If you do this, you will still be worthy of being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and eilgible to enter the Celestial Kingdom (obviously without your current wife however).

And here is the question.  Since I believe your last name starts with M, would you be willing to divorce your wife, never kiss her again, never hold her hand again, never go on a date with her, never cuddle with her, never hug her, never be intimate with her EVER again, not in this life or the life to come, would you be willing to just walk away from that relationship, be celibate for the rest of your life and be given to another in the next life?

I get that this does seem kinda random to just focus on people whose last name starts with M.  You know, kinda like randomly being gay and also asked to do the exact same thing.

So what is your conviction now?  No problem?  You would give up your relationship with your wife because Church leaders asked you to?  No claim of revelation here, just a policy of the Church.

 

 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For example, unlike "gay" or "homosexual," SSA differentiates between feelings/inclinations and behavior.

 Not that significant when all you have to do is add behaviour or feelings to gay or homosexual.

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So terms that have political utility are fine, but those which have clinical utility are not?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I find it best to only use same sex attraction when discussing actual research.  If I use it, I will also use opposite sex attraction as the appropriate parallel.  Hopefully that is enough of a signal in most cases that it meant as a clinical usage.

Most of your and others’ (including myself) comments in this area are not clinical however and it might therefore be more consistent with how most people interpret and use the terms to not use same sex attraction in commentary. 

Edited March 12, 2024 by Calm

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The former [sexual relationship between husband and wife] is intertwined with parenthood, the latter [ sexual relationship between two men or two women] is not.

Coincidentally, my podcast of choice for my commute today featured John Gutav-Wrathall. A man in a long-term same-sex marriage who talked briefly about foster parenting a child. A couple of months ago, my podcast of choice featured an LDS man who had raised two or three adopted children with his lifelong partner. In some literature where I encounter step-parents or adoptive parents, I frequently see claims to two parts of parenthood. There's the "contributed genetic material" part that anyone can do, and there's the "cared for and cried with and celebrated and loved and nurtured and..." part. Other than the difficulties around "contributing genetic material," I see nothing that precludes same sex couples from parenthood (and I see technologies on the horizon that will make it easier for same sex couples to provide the genetic material for their own biological children).

I know that the most prevalent reason given for the church's stance centers on "procreation" both in this life and the next. The more and more I see people making the argument, the less and less convinced I become that we have any good justification for our stance on committed, monogamous, same sex marriages.

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, however, the purposes of opposite-sex sexual behavior - procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior."

Same-sex relationships, by definition, do not involve "husband and wife."

So you intended to be redundant?  Surprising. 

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

So you intended to be redundant?  Surprising. 

No.  "Opposite-sex sexual behavior" is not coextensive or synonymous with sex involving "husband and wife."

[MustardSeed]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  "Opposite-sex sexual behavior" is not coextensive or synonymous with sex involving "husband and wife."

We are not communicating well.  Onward. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Good to know.

Okay.

This seems to be more of a regional/contextual thing.

MensLine Australia: Same-sex attraction

I suspect this article is not intended to be "offensive," and that SSA is being used for its clinical, rather than ideological or pejorative, value.

A few more:

National Library of Medicine: Same-Sex Sexual Attraction Does Not Spread in Adolescent Social Networks

National Library of Medicine: Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood

Scientific American: Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

The Economist: Can biology explain same-sex attraction?

Frontiers in Psychology: Prosociality and a Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans

American Psychological Association: Understanding sexual orientation and homosexuality

Planned Parenthood: What causes sexual orientation?

Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct," and this new concept

So it's understandable that terminology with more "political utility" will be preferred in some quarters.  As it is, though, same-sex attraction has ample clinical usage.  For example, unlike "gay" or "homosexual," SSA differentiates between feelings/inclinations and behavior.

Plenty of non-religious organizations use it as well, and do not do so "to marginalize" (whatever that means).

"Same-sex attraction" does have some baggage, but so do "gay" and "queer" and "homosexual."

Unless you are prepared to accuse Planned Parenthood, the APA, National Library of Medicine, Scientific American, etc. of intending to "offend gay people," I am not sure this characterization works.

So terms that have political utility are fine, but those which have clinical utility are not?

I don't see how the term "marginalizes" anyone.

I use terms interchangeably (except "queer," as I don't care for it).

Thanks,

-Smac

WHY are you trying to straightsplain LGBT terminology to LGBT people who actually interact with the community and know how people refer to themselves? Why would you do this? You clearly just ran a Google search and listed articles that use the term? If a non-member did a search for Mormons and used it to show that church members are fine with being called Mormon would you buy it? Why would you think this is different?

“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. It is also vague and not descriptive. It could mean gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, biromantic, and all kinds of things. Most of the uses you cite are scientific or sociological articles that have their own reasons for using it. Honestly using it is not comparable to using the term “Mormon”. It is more like calling church members “Restorationists”.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Latter-day Saints use the phrase like someone has a disease. Oh him? He has same sex attraction. Or worse “struggles” with same sex attraction. Maybe you should start describing people of color as those that struggle with too much melanin. 

My favorite was “suffers from same sex attraction”.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No.  "Opposite-sex sexual behavior" is not coextensive or synonymous with sex involving "husband and wife."

[rodheadlee]

On 3/10/2024 at 5:03 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Mosiah Hancock had an interesting vision of the pre-mortal life where it seemed to him spirits were created in pairs as "mates":

http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2007/12/mosiah-hancock-vision-of-preexistence.html

I fully believe that, I recognized my wife the moment I met her in this life.

[Smiley McGee]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Latter-day Saints use the phrase like someone has a disease. Oh him? He has same sex attraction. Or worse “struggles” with same sex attraction. Maybe you should start describing people of color as those that struggle with too much melanin. 

I imagine “same-sex attracted” was a carefully crafted term to attempt to steer the narrative towards behavior rather than an identity, which certain church leaders seem reluctant to believe exists. I think a lot of people who suffer from opposite-sex attraction can’t see beyond their perceived discomfort with the idea of two people with the same bits having sex. They can’t comprehend a homosexual relationship being as fulfilling and loving as those of opposite-sex attracted people. 

Edited March 12, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Smiley McGee said:

I imagine “same-sex attracted” was a carefully crafted term to attempt to steer the narrative towards behavior rather than an identity, which certain church leaders seem reluctant to believe exists. I think a lot of people can’t see beyond their perceived discomfort with the idea of two people with the same bits having sex that they can’t comprehend a homosexual relationship being as fulfilling and loving as those of opposite-sex attracted people. 

At the very least it’s as if it’s all just depraved and selfish intent, as if commitment and fidelity and true devotion and love for family is owned just by heterosexuals.  
 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

The former makes biological sense, the latter does not.  The former is intertwined with parenthood, the latter is not. 

So once science allows for males to procreate with males and females with females, that argument will become invalid even for those who apparently do see adoption, surrogacy, fostering as valid forms of parenthood.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

commitment and fidelity and true devotion and love for family is owned just by heterosexuals.  

Fertile heterosexuals if it’s inextricably tied to parenthood

Saying (as I have seen done) adoptive or step parents or those who use a surrogate are exceptions that we should ignore in defining parenthood glosses over the fact that up to one in 25 families with children have adopted children, tons more have step children, which makes those “exceptions” more common than homosexual couples.  If adoptive parents get to be called valid parents as exceptions, why not gay parents whether they become parents through adoption or surrogacy or step parenthood?

Edited March 12, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

There are those Saints who based on what Joseph Smith stated using spirit interchangeably with intelligence as well as how Abraham refers to spirits having no beginning believe our first existence was as spirits and we became God’s literal spirit children through adoption.  It was Brigham Young and Orson Pratt who added the idea of spirit birth in apparent contradiction to Joseph’s understanding, possibly based on reasoning that immortal parenthood mirrored biological parenthood rather than revelation and BH Roberts who came up with the tripartite model of existence, which was originally strongly rejected by the First Presidency, labeling it as speculation.  The tripartite model did not become popular and mainstream until Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R McConkie…so it’s been common LDS thought for less than 100 years.***

If this interpretation that God is our Father because of spirit adoption rather than spirit creation is correct, does this change the definition of parenthood at all in the view of those who see exaltation is tied to parenthood?

Quote

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

Quote

Joseph Smith, in an address delivered in Commerce, Illinois, on 2 June 1839, said, “The spirit of man is not a created being: it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal. . . .” (Journal of Discourses 6:238; hereafter JD). The Prophet here appears to use intelligence and spirit synonymously, perhaps in part, because of his translation of the Book of Abraham.

 

Quote

 He said, “Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. The first principles of man are self-existent with God” (204). In another part of the speech, he also said, “Man existed in Spirit; the mind of man—the intelligent part—is as immortal as, and is co-equal with, God Himself. I know that my testimony is true” (203). 

https://rsc.byu.edu/pearl-great-price-revelations-god/history-intelligence-latter-day-saint-thought

***https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/04/15/tripartite-existentialism/

Edited March 12, 2024 by Calm

[Benjamin Seeker]

According to Smac’s argument, because queer identity didn’t become a thing until 150 years ago, the church is on good footing in its policies and doctrines in regards to queer relationships. Something similar could be said about the LDS church. It has only existed for less than 200 years, so historically it’s only 5 minutes old. Perhaps all of those people that identify as members of the church are mistaken and that’s not a valid religious identity. 
 

Smac, I realize you’re basing your argument on what you consider eternal truth, but you are arguing against the lived experience of other people. Just like they can’t take away your belief and conviction and you would not accept rhetoric that did, your position against queer identity is similarly reality-shattering to the queer individuals that hear/read it.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2024 by Benjamin Seeker