LDS Church Applauds Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Concert.

[sandman45]

I applaud the way LukeAir spelled out "Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer" instead of just using the acronym.

I hope a GA attends this concert, preferably a 70 who won't be recognized, and returns and reports to the Brethren just exactly what they put their stamp of approval on.

thought Q was 'Questioning'

It can mean either queer or questioning. I take it you didn't actually read the post, just the title?

I saw the title and thats why I asked the question is because wherever I have seen it or if it was discussed it was 'Questioning' not 'Queer'. Here is the first place where it was said it was 'Queer'

when I was younger 'Queer' was always implied that the person was Gay. Is it something else now?

[Elizabeth]

The Q in LGBTQ stands for queer. However there is no need for any further identifying name of this mental disorder other than homo, homosexual, homosexuality. It is ridiculous how militants in this group consider they have the right to commandeer any word they choose.

[h_p]

What's the difference between "gay" and "lesbian"? I'm guessing "gay" is for "homosexual guy" and "lesbian" is a homosexual woman, but if a biological gay guy identifies as a woman, wouldn't that make him a lesbian who's attracted to men, and therefore straight? This is all so confusing...

[Seek the Truth]

Liberals always try to control language. We should try to control it back.

[skmo]

Well homosexual, heterosexual, seem like pretty neutral words to me. "Gay" is propaganda.

Homosexual and heterosexual are descriptions. Gay has taken on a semantic change. To use "gay" to mean happy was nearly even dead back when I was a child a hundred years ago (or so it seems.) Today the use of "gay" to mean happy would barely register as an anachronism, so thoroughly has its meaning changed. English changes, and this is a word that has completely changed in meaning. You are fee to dislike it, but your wishes and preferences will not change society.

[skmo]

It's a demeaning name because it's a demeaning act.

It's no more demeaning than many other sins, as the least sin is still unacceptable to God. Your revulsion of it does not make it any more or any less of a sin, and your perceptions are yours to have freely. You may not dictate what others' feelings must be.

Homo is simply a shortened name for homosexual.

Homosexual is a descriptive term, and it is meant to describe. Homo is a derogatory term, and it is meant to demean. You should hate the sin. If you intend to demean the sinner, you're 100% as guilty of sin as a practicing homosexual is. Different sin, but still every bit as guilty.

[skmo]

"Retarded" used to be regarded as a euphemism for "slow." Now among the intellectually disabled it's practically a slur. I don't pretend to understand how "retarded" became so derogatory, I just know that it did. And it's rude to call people derogatory names, so I try to avoid it

As a Special Education teacher, let me assure you it's more than just "practically" a slur. Every SpEd conference I have ever attended has had at least one required workshop in which the use of the word "retarded" is discussed at length. We are told, no, more like ORDERED to NEVER use the word retarded. When I got my teaching degree we were told then to cease the use of the term "retarded" with children who have severe learning disabilities.

Retarded became a word which meant someone who was below even a level of stupid. As students with extremely low IQ scores are no longer just shunted away to a mental hospital to paste pictures cut out with blunted scissors, using a term which carries such a negative connotation has become pejorative and insulting, hence, a more medically descriptive term is used based on the specific condition.

[skmo]

The Q in LGBTQ stands for queer. However there is no need for any further identifying name of this mental disorder other than homo, homosexual, homosexuality.

Again, the term "homo" is meant as derogatory. It does not matter how badly you hate this particular sin, you are nonetheless commanded to love your fellow men. If you are going to follow that commandment, being derogatory is not acceptable. I don't mean it's not acceptable to me, because I honestly don't care if anyone calls me names based on my past sins. However, it's not me you need to be concerned with, it's Christ. He expects you to hate sin. He also expects, even commands you to love people. That includes not calling people demeaning names which are intended to be insulting.

It is ridiculous how militants in this group consider they have the right to commandeer any word they choose.

Actually, it was not homosexual activists who commandeered the word "Queer." It was intended to be used as a pejorative, but in defiance, homosexuals basically said "If that's the word you're going to use to mean we're homosexual, that's fine, we'll take the word you give us. We're not going to allow words to be used against us." As much as I dislike a lot of the gay political agendas, (being overwhelmingly leftist) I really admire someone saying "Your words won't hurt me" when words were hurled at them to be hurtful. It's a move that shows strength of commitment. It's committing to something that's a sin, and that's not good, but it's an admirable move anyway.

Words only have as much power against you as you allow them to have.

[captainfearnot]

The Q in LGBTQ stands for queer. However there is no need for any further identifying name of this mental disorder other than homo, homosexual, homosexuality. It is ridiculous how militants in this group consider they have the right to commandeer any word they choose.

Leave it to Elizabeth to zero in on the crux of the issue. Until 1973 "homosexuality" was listed in the DSM as a mental disorder. The term is considered stigmatizing today because of that history.

Gays aren't trying to commandeer language, they're just claiming the same right as everyone else to use their preferred language to self-identify. Sort of like how the Church is always putting out press releases outlining what they consider as the proper usage of Mormon and Latter-day Saint. (In fact, I'd say the LDS Church comes closer to commandeering language because they actively discourage the use of "Mormon" to describe other groups like FLDS, as if we own the term.)

What's the difference between "gay" and "lesbian"? I'm guessing "gay" is for "homosexual guy" and "lesbian" is a homosexual woman, but if a biological gay guy identifies as a woman, wouldn't that make him a lesbian who's attracted to men, and therefore straight? This is all so confusing...

It's not that confusing if you care to understand it. But it's easier to be dismissive (and derisive) than to show respect by making an effort to understand.

Again, we among all should be able to empathize. For my part, it's not at all difficult to understand the history of Mormonism as it relates to polygamy, and all the groups involved. But it's an intrinsic part of my identity. Some, who think of Mormonism as more of a freak show, don't see the point in learning the difference between LDS and FLDS and RLDS, except to belittle. But I appreciate it when friends of mine who have no interest in Mormonism nevertheless take the time to understand why I don't consider myself associated in any way with Warren Jeffs, if only out of respect and common decency.

[skmo]

What's the difference between "gay" and "lesbian"? I'm guessing "gay" is for "homosexual guy" and "lesbian" is a homosexual woman, but if a biological gay guy identifies as a woman, wouldn't that make him a lesbian who's attracted to men, and therefore straight? This is all so confusing...

The term "Gay" can be used to describe a man or woman who has homosexual attraction, but it's largely just used to describe men. The term "Lesbian" is meant exclusively for women with SSA.

[skmo]

Liberals always try to control language. We should try to control it back.

You are correct, to a point. As Sun Tzu said, if a battle can't be won, don't fight it. Choose your battles carefully. The battle for the word "Gay" is no longer a battle, in the OVERWHELMING sense. That word will not be changed back short of a change that alters the earth itself, such as the Second Coming.

However, in many ways the political left is doing a great deal of changing the meanings of words, and in most cases it does, indeed need to be fought. However, trying to take back the word "Gay" will not be successful, and its attempt would only result in a weakening of your ability to fight other battles.

[shadow]

It's a demeaning name because it's a demeaning act.

It's no more demeaning than many other sins, as the least sin is still unacceptable to God. Your revulsion of it does not make it any more or any less of a sin, and your perceptions are yours to have freely. You may not dictate what others' feelings must be.

Homo is simply a shortened name for homosexual.

Homosexual is a descriptive term, and it is meant to describe. Homo is a derogatory term, and it is meant to demean. You should hate the sin. If you intend to demean the sinner, you're 100% as guilty of sin as a practicing homosexual is. Different sin, but still every bit as guilty.

Why are you using the label "sinner"? You're describing someone who sins. You should hate the sin not the person. Labeling people who sin as sinners is derogatory, right? Maybe take your own advice before lecturing others. It'll come across as less hypocritical. Personally, I disagree with you on this one. If you don't want to be labeled as a homo, don't be a homo.

[skmo]

Why are you using the label "sinner"? You're describing someone who sins. You should hate the sin not the person. Labeling people who sin as sinners is derogatory, right? Maybe take your own advice before lecturing others. It'll come across as less hypocritical. Personally, I disagree with you on this one. If you don't want to be labeled as a homo, don't be a homo.

If you want to act ignorant about it, that's on you. My point is clear and plain, but you're refusing to see it (or more likely just unwilling to acknowledge it) because of your personal feelings.

I don't know of anyone who considers the term "sinner" to be derogatory. As I'm currently excommunicated, I clearly use it about myself. Devout Christians use the term to describe themselves all the time. Do they mean to say they're disgusting and horrible people, or that they're people who make mistakes, but constantly try to improve? You're stating a clear mistruth to try to give legitimacy to your incorrect words.

The only kind of person likely to see the term "sinner" to be meant as derogatory is someone who is a rabid, hateful atheist whose mission in life is to denounce religion and insult everyone who believes in God.

If you're fine with using words meant to be hateful, it is your choice. You have no high ground on which to stand if you're trying to justify using belittling words and demeaning names.

Homosexuality is a sin, there is no argument to say it is not. Claiming that you can use demeaning words and be justified because the person you're talking about is sinning is also a sin, and there is no argument that it is not.

[captainfearnot]

Why are you using the label "sinner"? You're describing someone who sins. You should hate the sin not the person. Labeling people who sin as sinners is derogatory, right?

No. People self-identify as sinners all the time. I think I have, just today, elsewhere on this board. I've never heard of someone object to the term and suggest a preferred alternative, have you?

That's the second time you've tried to demonstrate that choosing to avoid offensive labels forces us to abandon the entire agentive case. I don't think it's going to work, but maybe the third time's the charm.

If you don't want to be labeled as a homo, don't be a homo.

So long as you acknowledge that you're aware that gays find that term offensive and you just don't care. I prefer that to the feigned ignorance of "it's just a harmless abbreviation." You believe that some people don't deserve the respect of self-identifying language. I get it. Extending them the same respect and common decency you would to others normalizes and mainstreams them, and signals that you accept them as a legitimate part of society. Not everyone is down with that, and they don't have to be.

[Elizabeth]

(*)

If you don't want to be labeled as a homo, don't be a homo.

[shadow]

Why are you using the label "sinner"? You're describing someone who sins. You should hate the sin not the person. Labeling people who sin as sinners is derogatory, right? Maybe take your own advice before lecturing others. It'll come across as less hypocritical. Personally, I disagree with you on this one. If you don't want to be labeled as a homo, don't be a homo.

If you want to act ignorant about it, that's on you. My point is clear and plain, but you're refusing to see it (or more likely just unwilling to acknowledge it) because of your personal feelings.

I don't know of anyone who considers the term "sinner" to be derogatory. As I'm currently excommunicated, I clearly use it about myself. Devout Christians use the term to describe themselves all the time. Do they mean to say they're disgusting and horrible people, or that they're people who make mistakes, but constantly try to improve? You're stating a clear mistruth to try to give legitimacy to your incorrect words.

The only kind of person likely to see the term "sinner" to be meant as derogatory is someone who is a rabid, hateful atheist whose mission in life is to denounce religion and insult everyone who believes in God.

If you're fine with using words meant to be hateful, it is your choice. You have no high ground on which to stand if you're trying to justify using belittling words and demeaning names.

Homosexuality is a sin, there is no argument to say it is not. Claiming that you can use demeaning words and be justified because the person you're talking about is sinning is also a sin, and there is no argument that it is not.

I stand corrected. I looked up homo in the dictionary since so many are worked up over my comments and one of the definitions was that it's a derogatory term. I always thought it was just a shortened version of homosexual. To me gay was more of a derogatory term, not as bad as f-a-g, which I never use, but I thought homo was the more correct label. Gay is a hijacked word, so maybe that's why I find it non appealing. LGB...whatever is also derogatory since its labeling a group. Can't win for losing. Either way I'm not into polical correctness. Homosexual it is. That isn't degrading is it??

[David13]

Again, the church should never have spoke out on this. There was no need whatsoever to "applaud, approve, celebrate, endorse" or in any way comment on this thing.
Way out of line to come out with this statement.
Totally uncalled for.
dc

[captainfearnot]

LGB...whatever is also derogatory since its labeling a group. Can't win for losing.

And he goes down swinging.

Homosexual it is. That isn't degrading is it??

It's considered stigmatizing due to it's historical associations with mental disorder. It's not patently offensive most of the time, but it's not preferred. Sort of like if you walked around calling black people "Negroes" or "colored." Some may be offended by it, but most of the time it just causes them to make certain assumptions about you and your 1960s mindset.

It's like when I hear someone talk about "Joe Smith," instead of Joseph Smith. It's not offensive, per se. Joe is a perfectly appropriate nickname for Joseph. But it's almost always intended as an intentional slight or lack of respect, to refer to someone by a name or label that is not what they prefer. So while I'm not offended, I usually assume that I'm dealing with some kind of anti-Mormon whenever I hear Joe Smith—or Tom Monson, or even Gordon Hinckley, without the middle initial. Especially if they persist after being corrected.

We all like to be called what we like to be called. Not just the special snowflakes on the left.

[Z2100]

LGB...whatever is also derogatory since its labeling a group. Can't win for losing.

Gordon Hinckley,

I think most anti-Mormons call him “Gordo.”

[iWriteStuff]

Just wait until some millennial slams you for not being inclusive because you left out the other 63 varieties of "gender" that they were taught about in their community college sociology class. I wish I was making this up. "Gender" has become an inclusive wish list of gentrified sexual deviances designed to make everyone feel included, no matter how weird or perverted their fetish may be. I literally went through the list with one of my former Sunday School students (who is a bit confused on the matter) and was left shaking my head with how creatively distorted the whole issue has become. You don't have to read it, but here's the list:

https://apath.org/63-genders/

I suppose the issue is that once people were allowed to "self identify" as whatever they wanted, the term "gender" lost its meaning entirely.

Evil = good; good = evil. That's the equation, folks.

[shadow]

Maybe porn addicts can change the name of their issue to screen time viewing enjoyment, or stve for short. "Porn addict" is too demeaning. We should call a murderer a veil express officer. It sounds better, less demeaning.
Today's political correctness keeps us from calling things what they really are. The scriptures touch on this when they say we'll call evil good and good evil.

[Robin Hood]

Maybe porn addicts can change the name of their issue to screen time viewing enjoyment, or stve for short. "Porn addict" is too demeaning. We should call a murderer a veil express officer. It sounds better, less demeaning.
Today's political correctness keeps us from calling things what they really are. The scriptures touch on this when they say we'll call evil good and good evil.

I agree.
The scriptures refer to homosexuals as Sodomites.
I for one am perfectly happy to use the scriptural word.

[captainfearnot]

Today's political correctness keeps us from calling things what they really are. The scriptures touch on this when they say we'll call evil good and good evil.

See, that scripture always make me think of people who demean and deride, but call it righteousness because they are on the right side of the issue. There's standing for something, and then there's using your righteous position as an excuse to indulge in the natural human tendency toward hatred of the other.

Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies." In other words, he's calling what used to be good—hating your enemies—evil. And vice versa. Did Isaiah have Jesus in mind?

[shadow]

21077442_10211767963932225_2088008806414785156_n.jpg (50.74 KiB) Viewed 909 times

[h_p]

What's the difference between "gay" and "lesbian"? I'm guessing "gay" is for "homosexual guy" and "lesbian" is a homosexual woman, but if a biological gay guy identifies as a woman, wouldn't that make him a lesbian who's attracted to men, and therefore straight? This is all so confusing...

It's not that confusing if you care to understand it. But it's easier to be dismissive (and derisive) than to show respect by making an effort to understand.

Aw, it was really just a tongue-in-cheek remark about the gender identity craziness that's being foisted on us these days.