Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

David Archuleta's new single about he and (some in?) his family leaving the Faith


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Calm said:
Quote

Unless, of course, Carl does not accept the notion of sexual attraction as an "identity."  In that case, "Hi, I'm Carl, and this is my wife, and kids." = "Hi, I'm Carl, and this is my wife, and kids.

But having a sexual identity is not just about accepting a sexual attribute or rather a collection of your sexual attributes as a core identity to be seen by the world as defining you.  It is about how one personally sees one’s place in the world through their sexuality…as I described before, it’s their expectations of sexual behaviour and reactions in life.  If Carl has no expectations of himself based on attraction to women or his sexuality, then perhaps he has no sexual identity…and likely is asexual if he doesn’t even think of how world in sexual terms at all.

You seem to want to impose the concept of "sexual identity" on Carl, whether he wants it or not.  It should be a choice, don't you think?

1 hour ago, Calm said:
Quote
Quote

Every day, in countless casual social interactions, heterosexual people announce their sexual orientation. 

When I sit down in a restaurant with my wife, I would not consider that as "announcing" my "identity" as a "heterosexual. 

Of course not, it’s not the context to do so.  Most people don’t say anything unless the subject comes up naturally.  

Then we can dispose of the notion that "{e}very day, in countless casual social interactions, heterosexual people announce their sexual orientation."

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There are some activists who bring the subject up because they wish to promote change.  Maybe there are a some who bring it up because their are exploring the idea and it is rather overwhelming for them at that time, like one might share a medical diagnosis or job change that was life changing.  Probably a few do because they are obsessed with it like some might share a favorite hobby, but both in my experience and how I hear of others’ experiences, the vast majority don’t announce it out of context of a conversation on sexuality and sexual attraction.

What do you make of Pride Month?  Is this an example "the subject com{ing} up naturally}?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Btw, you are not a carnivore if you eat meat, it’s if you only eat meat.  You mean you are an omnivore because you eat food of plant or animal in nature and you announce that identity anytime you say you like a nice steak or you talk about the meals you prep with your freeze dried food processor (if I remember correctly you have mentioned you have one…and I am envious, as in I would love one, not that I want yours).  

I stand corrected.  Either way, though, I don't "identify" as an omnivore, any more than I do as a dextral, or a person-with-heterochromia-iridum.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You are expressing your expectations of experiences with food, which is talking about your identity as an omnivore.

Again, you are imposing an "identity" onto me that I do not accept.  I do not "identify as an omnivore."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:
Quote

am curious as to how prevalent your sentiment here is.

I have never met a gay person who told me directly they were LGBT+.  

It happens all the time on this board.  This thread is about David Archuleta, who told the world "directly" about his sexual identity. 

The whole "Coming Out" thing is an announcement of one's sexual identity.

Social media is awash with express declarations of sexual identity.

We just started Pride Month.  Month.

And someone can demonstrate their "sexual identity" via means other than words, such as expressive conduct, clothing and regalia, activities.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It happens all the time on this board.  This thread is about David Archuleta, who told the world "directly" about his sexual identity. 

The whole "Coming Out" thing is an announcement of one's sexual identity.

Social media is awash with express declarations of sexual identity.

We just started Pride Month.  Month.

And someone can demonstrate their "sexual identity" via means other than words, such as expressive conduct, clothing and regalia, activities.

Thanks,

-Smac

She seems to be talking about her personal, direct, interactions rather than discussions which are specifically about the LGBTQ+ community and their rights.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to want to impose the concept of "sexual identity" on Carl

There is a difference between the label and the state the label describes.  A product will have added sugars if sugars were added whether or not such is labeled.

You seem to be confusing the label of sexual identity with what the label describes.  I am not sure about this yet because there isn’t enough info in your writing for me to pick up your precise meaning, but perhaps someone else might have connected dots that I have not.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It happens all the time on this board.  This thread is about David Archuleta, who told the world "directly" about his sexual identity. 

The whole "Coming Out" thing is an announcement of one's sexual identity.

Social media is awash with express declarations of sexual identity.

We just started Pride Month.  Month.

And someone can demonstrate their "sexual identity" via means other than words, such as expressive conduct, clothing and regalia, activities.

Thanks,

-Smac

I use “met” for face to face meetings, not online.  Other than that, you appear to be ignoring the rest of my post for context.

My other post addresses activism, etc.

As far as Social Media, btw, I have never encountered a Coming Out announcement even though many of my friends and relatives identify as LGBTQ+.  This obviously doesn’t mean they don’t occur, it does suggest to me they are not particularly ubiquitous.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What do you make of Pride Month?  Is this an example "the subject com{ing} up naturally}?

I consider Pride Month relevant to a very small percentage of one’s interactions in the world.  It falls under activism (there are after all plenty of people who participate in and promote Pride Month who do not sexually identify as gay), which is a very different category to the way you are presenting the idea of announcing sexual identity when encountering people in non activism settings….yiu appear to be claiming it happens in almost every encounter someone who sees themselves as having a sexual identity has with anyone else. 

As far as coming out…do you see these events as fundamentally different than future missionaries opening their calling letters on social media or the same?  Wanting to understand how you are framing the conversation better.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And someone can demonstrate their "sexual identity" via means other than words, such as expressive conduct, clothing and regalia, activities.

 

I know many people who do not identify as gay or LGBTQ+ that engage in expressive conduct, clothing, regalia, and activities such as Pride, that do so because they consider themselves "allies" who fall under Calm's previous category of those who "wish to promote change."  It would be a mistake to assume someone's sexual identity or lack thereof merely on the basis of expressive conduct, clothing, regalia, and activities such as Pride. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I consider Pride Month relevant to a very small percentage of one’s interactions in the world.  It falls under activism, which is a very different category to the way you are presenting the idea of announcing sexual identity when encountering people in non activism settings….

Your differentiation here (claiming/announcing a "sexual identity" in an "activist" way, versus any other context) is a new addition to the discussion.

Either way, however, for myself, I reject the notion of sexual identity.  

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

yiu appear to be claiming it happens in almost every encounter someone who sees themselves as having a sexual identity has with anyone else.

I am not claiming that.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

As far as coming out…do you see these events as fundamentally different than future missionaries opening their calling letters on social media or the same?  

Both are claiming an "identity."  One is about sexual attraction, the other is about religious faith.  The latter often seems to involve a rejection or negation of religious affiliation / identity / belief (this thread, is, after all, about David Archuleta's public "coming out" (claiming and/or prioritizing his "sexual identity") and his concomitant leaving the Church (his setting aside or rejection of his religious identity).  This goes back to the concept I have articulated which seems so risible to some, namely, that a Latter-day Saint may encounter tension or conflict between a "sexual identity" (which, if "lived authentically" or whatever, would involve behavior which violates the Law of Chastity) and the "identity" of a Latter-day Saint / disciple of Christ / child of God.  My suggestion has been that the latter identity more important than the former, such that the individual Latter-day Saint may benefit by setting aside, or subordinating, his "sexual identity" so as to more closely hew to his religious identity.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wanting to understand how you are framing the conversation better.

See above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, ttribe said:

She seems to be talking about her personal, direct, interactions rather than discussions which are specifically about the LGBTQ+ community and their rights.

Exactly, I do not believe it makes a credible argument to conflate the two.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your differentiation here (claiming/announcing a "sexual identity" in an "activist" way, versus any other context) is a new addition to the discussion.

How many people see personal interactions in work, home, school as in the same category as activism?  It seems odd to me (not wrong, just unusual) to present them as in the same category of interaction with others.  It would be like someone assuming the way missionaries act day to day, introducing themselves, wearing names tags, etc is identical or at least highly similar to the rest of the members.

It seems like a natural division that everyone would assume to me. Perhaps that is an unusual assumption. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:
Quote

And someone can demonstrate their "sexual identity" via means other than words, such as expressive conduct, clothing and regalia, activities.

I know many people who do not identify as gay or LGBTQ+ that engage in expressive conduct, clothing, regalia, and activities such as Pride, that do so because they consider themselves "allies" who fall under Calm's previous category of those who "wish to promote change." 

I acknowledge that.  Hence my comment that "someone can demonstrate their 'sexual identity'..."  I did not mean to suggest that anyone who attends a Pride event or wears Pride regalia must be declaring their own sexual identity.  That is clearly not the case. 

That said, "allies" are, in general, signaling their ratification / endorsement / celebration of the "sexual identity" of others.  So the signaling is still about "sexual identity."

12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

It would be a mistake to assume someone's sexual identity or lack thereof merely on the basis of expressive conduct, clothing, regalia, and activities such as Pride. 

I agree.  "Merely" being the operative word.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

She seems to be talking about her personal, direct, interactions rather than discussions which are specifically about the LGBTQ+ community and their rights.

Exactly, I do not believe it makes a credible argument to conflate the two.

So "activism" means "discussions which are specifically about the LGBTQ+ community and their rights"?

I think there are ample instances of non-activist declarations of sexual identity.  For example, I don't know that declaring one's sexual identity in fora like this message board and other social media sites - which happens all the time - amounts to "activism."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

Your differentiation here (claiming/announcing a "sexual identity" in an "activist" way, versus any other context) is a new addition to the discussion.

How many people see personal interactions in work, home, school as in the same category as activism?  

Probably not many.  I don't.  And yet there are declarations and claims of sexual identity in these interactions all the time.  So the differentiation doesn't make sense to me.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

It seems like a natural division that everyone would assume to me. Perhaps that is an unusual assumption. 

A division between what?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So "activism" means "discussions which are specifically about the LGBTQ+ community and their rights"?

No, those would be context driven conversations 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

While no one has suggested otherwise, It's worth noting that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches:

Quote

Same-sex attraction refers to emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to a person of the same gender. ...The experience of same-sex attraction is not the same for everyone. Some people may feel exclusively attracted to the same gender, while others may feel attracted to both genders.

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

As far as the Church is concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not people self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and it offers resources at it's website: ChurchofJesusChrist.org/topics/gay

Church leaders have also used "gay, lesbian, and bisexual" when referring to individuals who are attracted to members of their own gender. 

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

While no one has suggested otherwise, it It's worth noting that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches:

As far as the Church is concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not people self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and offers resources at it's website: ChurchofJesusChrist.org/topics/gay

Church leaders have also used "gay, lesbian, and bisexual" when referring to individuals who are attracted to members of their own gender. 

I agree that "it doesn't matter whether or not people self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual."  Obeying the Law of Chastity is not contingent on this.  However, it seems that some may find the "sexual identity" to be a stumblingblock, such that they may benefit from choosing to set aside this identity, or subordinate it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

conflict between a "sexual identity" (which, if "lived authentically" or whatever, would involve behavior which violates the Law of Chastity) and the "identity" of a Latter-day Saint / disciple of Christ / child of God. 

I don’t think that is what is risible to others in your comments.  As far as I can tell most everyone has long been clear on what constitutes a violation of the Law of Chastity according to the Church and how that has the potential to conflict with same sex sexual behaviour of any orientation. I am interpreting their reactions as indicating the risible part is your framing/the way you present the process of what you call “setting aside” or “subordinating” those attributes in them they associate with their or others’ sexual identity in favour of the identity of being a child of God.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet there are declarations and claims of sexual identity in these interactions all the time.  So the differentiation doesn't make sense to me.

When the purpose and/or context is very different?

Do you differentiate discussions of the law or legal implications on this board from your discussions of the law in court?  Or do you see them as the same? (Sincere question, not rhetorical because I do not yet understand how you are using sexual identity as it seems contrary to how others use the label to me.)

Quote

A division between what?

What we were talking about.

Quote

How many people see personal interactions in work, home, school as in the same category as activism?  

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Probably not many.  I don't.  And yet there are declarations and claims of sexual identity in these interactions all the time.  So the differentiation doesn't make sense to me.

quote:  “

How many people see personal interactions in work, home, school as in the same category as activism?  

You don’t see personal interactions the same as activism, but if someone mentions they are gay or straight in a personal interaction, you believe it is the same as activism? is that what you are saying?

 I am not sure what your point is here because you appear to contradict yourself saying first you don’t see personal interactions as the same (“I don’t”) and then you say they are the same or at least you don’t understand why they are seen as different (“the differentiation doesn't make sense to me.”)

Link to comment

If it is so utterly unimportant to have the whole world recognize their queerness why do headlines appear regularly such as, "Support pours in after <minor celebrity> announces they/their child are/is gay/bi/trans, etc..."??

Why do people feel the need to announce it? Just go about your business, people will catch on.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why do people feel the need to announce it? Just go about your business, people will catch on.

How many people announce birthdays, marriages, new babies, new jobs, etc?  Lots do, many more don’t.  Chances are this is the same.  Just because some are, you shouldn’t assume that all or even most are.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

How many people announce birthdays, marriages, new babies, new jobs, etc?  Lots do, many more don’t.  Chances are this is the same.  Just because some are, you shouldn’t assume that all or even most are.

I don't place those celebratory announcements and making sure everyone knows who you choose to have s*x with in the same category. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

You should probably not attend a celebration anyway if you fundamentally cannot tolerate the concept of the celebration.  More gay cake and gay music for me to enjoy. 
 

if someone in your ward announced a coming out party with an intention of remaining celibate, would you have any reason to avoid said party? 
(not that anyone’s sex life is anyone’s business) 

Edited by MustardSeed
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...