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

[Calm]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Let me know when you decide to start your own church. At least I know the financials will be transparent!

This is great, lol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Church prohibits same-sex behavior for all members of the Church.  Nobody is permitted to engage in this behavior.

The Church requires all its members to speak English.  No one is permitted to speak another language.  (Obviously it doesn’t, this is an analogy).

Yep, the fallout on that would be the same for all members.

(I use English in my analogy because language is a social construct)

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have never thought of myself as having a "sexual identity."

I am a child of God.  That is an identity, and the most important one.

I am a husband and father.  These are identities, and very important to me.

I am a brother and son.  These are important identities.

I am a friend and neighbor, and a citizen of the United States.  These are important identities.

I am a lawyer, and a resident of the State of Utah.  This are important identities, but not as much as the ones above.

"I am a heterosexual, sexually attracted to women"?  Nope.  I've never really thought of this as an "identity."  It's part of my relationship with my wife, but not an "identity."  

Of course you don’t think about it. The entire culture is built so you don’t have to. You are the default. Almost everything caters to your identity and you don’t have to think about it.

When a gay couple does something in public it is often seen as demonstrative or an imposition even if it is something a hetero couple can do freely without comment. They are moving into your space that caters to you. Of course you don’t think of it. I remember a complaint from a while back from someone sick of labels:

”I am not heterosexual or straight. I am just normal.”

That is saying pretty much the same thing you are. You aren’t enlightened for not thinking about your sexual identity. You just get the advantages of it without having to think about it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Even newly-minted "social construct{s}" can exert significant influence over an individual.

So are you going to dispense with the newly minted language social constructs and insist the only correct way to view language is from the 18th century or before?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think I do.  See, e.g., here:

Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct."  He has been emphasizing this point for some time.  And I think I have a pretty good understanding of what he means.

Again….you could try reading from professional sources and not clinging to the authority of a message board poster who told you things you want to hear. It is kind of pathetic.

[MustardSeed]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Again….you could try reading from professional sources and not clinging to the authority of a message board poster who told you things you want to hear. It is kind of pathetic.

I’ve wondered why “Hamba” keeps being quoted as if he’s an authority. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’ve wondered why “Hamba” keeps being quoted as if he’s an authority. 

His training was as a historian, but I am not aware that his specialty was sexual behaviour.

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I reject the premise.

I reject the premise.

I reject the premise.

I reject the premise.

I reject the premise.

I reject the premise of this "list."

Thanks,

-Smac

I think that is the point.  Most people reject the premise you are trying to state that it is possible to set aside the notion of "sexual identity,"

Thanks for eloquently proving my point.

-California Boy

Edited March 31, 2024 by california boy

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’ve wondered why “Hamba” keeps being quoted as if he’s an authority. 

Because everything in this field of study is in flux. Hamba’s statements are not what you will find if you look around academia or the internet for what the current consensus is. There are actually only a few things most people agree on.

Hamba’s words serve as a nice bit of unchanging holy writ. If smac tried to discuss gender identity with those actually reading Foucault and discussing whether they are social constructs, ideological constructs, or whatever and posted Hamba’s quotes he would be laughed at. Hamba’s quotes come from a minority view that was looking to discredit sexual identity by giving a superficial discussion of what is being studied and then jumping to conclusions that sexual identities are modern and are a problem. It is the exaltation of ignorance.

‘If we stop talking about it the problem will go away.’

It is a common approach to solve all questions of sexuality, racism, economic injustice, etc. Of course the purpose is to keep the inequality and maintain the status quo in the interests of peace and order.

Edited March 31, 2024 by The Nehor

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think that is the point.  

That "sexual identity" is something that is not etched in stone?  That is can be set aside or subordinated?

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Most people reject the premise you are trying to state that it is possible to set aside the notion of "sexual identity,"

Even the possibility?  

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for eloquently proving my point.

-California Boy

"All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct." 

I think more and more people are coming around and recognizing this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I’ve wondered why “Hamba” keeps being quoted as if he’s an authority. 

Hamba is quoting historians, including "queer" ones, who are acknowledging and well aware of the fact that "sexual identity" is a novelty created in the late 19th century.  It is these folks who are principally "authorities" on the matter, though Hamba has a fair amount of street cred in his own right.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 31, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Even newly-minted "social construct{s}" can exert significant influence over an individual.

So are you going to dispense with the newly minted language social constructs

I am saying that it is possible to set aside or subordinate the "newly minted {} social construct" that is "sexual identity."

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

and insist

No, not "insist."  Propose.  Argue.  Advance the proposition.

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

the only correct way to view language is from the 18th century or before?

I haven't said this, either.  C'mon, Calm.  How many times have I said that "reasonable minds can disagree"?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Of course you don’t think about it.  The entire culture is built so you don’t have to. You are the default. Almost everything caters to your identity and you don’t have to think about it.

Or . . . "sexual identity" is a recent innovation with essentially no historical precedent, and one that was adopted in the pursuit of political objectives, and one that can be set aside or subordinated if the individual chooses it.

Until fairly recently, *nobody* thought of themselves as having a "sexual identity," including people who are attracted to others of their same sex.

If Morgan Freeman can "choose" to set aside (or subordinate) the "identity" of "African American," and if Raven Simone can also set that identity aside (along with "gay"), then others can to likewise.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You aren’t enlightened for not thinking about your sexual identity. You just get the advantages of it without having to think about it.

Or else I can reject the premise of "sexual identity."  It was created in the first instance in the latter part of the 19th century, and even then it's a Western societal construct.  

I think that most of humanity has not, and does not, conceptualize themselves using the "sexual identity" construct.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 31, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

The Church prohibits same-sex behavior for all members of the Church.  Nobody is permitted to engage in this behavior.

The Church requires all its members to speak English.  

No, it does not.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

No one is permitted to speak another language.  (Obviously it doesn’t, this is an analogy).

And a pretty poor one, since the Church does not require any such thing.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep, the fallout on that would be the same for all members.

The Church has never imposed such a requirement, and never will.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

(I use English in my analogy because language is a social construct)

The Law of Chastity is applicable to all Latter-day Saints.  Speaking English is not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

The novelty of the identity speaks to society's ability to do without it.  If society can do it, so can individuals.

But can an individual manage when it is the air of their society to the point it is almost impossible to understand all the influences a strong social construct has on a community?

I don't really understand what you are saying here.

Are you suggesting that it is not possible for a person to set aside or subordinate the notion of "sexual identity"?  

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could you do without language while everyone around you kept using it?

I don't understand the analogy.  Are you suggesting that "sexual identity" is a compulsory thing?  That we all must submit to and acknowledge it?  That we cannot resist it?  That we must adopt it and apply it to ourselves?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

don't understand the analogy

And that is why I don’t think you understood fully what a social construct is, only the basic idea, not the implications.

Sexual identity is a social construct.  So is language.

The development of sexual identity follows similar development in many ways that the development of language does.

Quote

Are you suggesting that "sexual identity" is a compulsory thing?  That we all must submit to and acknowledge it?  That we cannot resist it?  That we must adopt it and apply it to ourselves?

And this response which goes off in a completely different direction than where I am underlines it.

Is language a compulsory thing that we must submit to and acknowledge?  Is culture?  Submit to, no.  Go ahead and choose what language you want to speak and what culture you want to live. 

Acknowledge…would you be considered reasonable to look at 21st century English and declare it is a modern innovation (no disagreement there) and therefore we should recognize it as something that can be set aside…that last bit doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, not because I am saying that one can’t set it aside, but because I don’t think it applies to the idea that well.

A lot of my background on this comes from discussions at family gatherings and other stuff with my brother in law, who is, imo, an expert on this (though I am aware his style of counseling did not work well for at least one member of this board).  So I got this info and quite a bit more from him and then read up on some research he pointed me to on the subject.  I know not all agree with the conclusions he presents here from the research either, but just trying here to provide context for how social construct could be better used in this conversation.

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

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

I think I do.  See, e.g., here:

Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct."  He has been emphasizing this point for some time.  And I think I have a pretty good understanding of what he means.

Do you understand the variation among social constructs?  That just because something is a social construct it is not always consciously chosen or even a choice at all?

Sure.

But a social construct need not be set in stone.  Even if not "consciously chosen," I submit that it can be consciously set aside or subordinated.

As for a social construct being a "choice," you would need to get more specific.  I think adopting, or not adopting, or setting aside, or subordinating, a "social construct" like "sexual identity" is, or can be, a choice.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you realize marriage and chastity are social constructs?  Language?

Yes, I realize that.  A person can choose to marry, to constrain their sexual behaviors, to learn a language, etc.

A person can also choose to never marry or get divorced, or to remove constraints on sexual behaviors, or not learn a language, etc.

I'm really not following you here.  "Sexual identity" is a social construct.  Social constructs are not etched in stone.  An individual can choose to adopt a "sexual identity," or to set aside the notion, or to adopt it but subordinate it to other, more important identities.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 31, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

And that is why I don’t think you understood fully what a social construct is, only the basic idea, not the implications.

I think your analogy is poor, therefore I don't understand "what a social construct is"?  Okay.  Feel free to explain what it is you think I do not fully understand.  I'm willing to listen to what you have to say.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

And this response which goes off in a completely different direction than where I am underlines it.

Is language a compulsory thing that we must submit to and acknowledge?

In what context?  The United States has no official language, for example.  It's convenient to be able to speak English, but it's not "compulsory."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

submit that it can be consciously set aside or subordinated.

If one is not consciously aware of all the impact of identity, how can one consciously set it aside or subordinate it?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

think your analogy is poor, therefore I don't understand "what a social construct is"?  Okay.  Feel free to explain what it is you think I do not fully understand

It’s not my analogy, but an expert in the field….Added:  I err in one possible way depending on what you are referring to. I have used language as an analogy in more than one way. Jeff did not use the analogy of the Church only allowing English to be spoken, but I used it because I see sexual identity as similar to language because of how Jeff  described the parallels in development with language and sexual identity. One of these days I need to have another discussion to see if he has added anything new and to get him to polish my understanding for the nuances. 
 

And I have already explained it. 

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The United States has no official language, for example.  It's convenient to be able to speak English, but it's not "compulsory."

 

Which misses the point of what learning and living a native language is like to one that one attempts to adopt as an adult. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm really not following you here.  "Sexual identity" is a social construct.  Social constructs are not etched in stone.  An individual can choose to adopt a "sexual identity," or to set aside the notion, or to adopt it but subordinate it to other, more important identities.

 

Race is another social construct.

Do you see someone able to adopt being Black if not having been raised as a child in that worldview so that their experience of being Black is quite similar to those raised as Black?  Or Asian or European?

Do you see someone able to walk away from that worldview?  To turn off the reactions they developed as a Black man or Asian woman?

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Because everything in this field of study is in flux. Hamba’s statements are not what you will find if you look around academia or the internet for what the current consensus is. There are actually only a few things most people agree on.

Not surprising at all.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If Morgan Freeman can "choose" to set aside (or subordinate) the "identity" of "African American," and if Raven Simone can also set that identity aside (along with "gay"), then others can to likewise.

Have they really?

Have they removed from their psyche the experiences of being African American and the programming (need better word here) that resulted in or have they just decided not to call them by that label or something else?

Serious question, not rhetorical.If they have I would love to know how because I have some childhood programming I would like to ditch completely.

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That "sexual identity" is something that is not etched in stone?  That is can be set aside or subordinated?

You are hiding behind terms like social construct.  Would you agree that there have always been people who were attracted to their same sex throughout the history of the world long before it was labeled as a social construct?  Being labeled gay may very well be a more modern term.  But the definition of being gay is to be attracted to the same sex in a romantic emotional and intimate way.  While formalizing that romantic and emotional connection may be new, the fact is, it has always existed.  

I think that is why you find yourself in the minority on this issue.  I also think that you are not really open enough to be convinced that you might be wrong. You have held tightly to this belief for quite a while.  I doubt very much that your views will change.  It kinda makes further comment pretty fruitless.