05 November 2010

RANT: SSA & SGA Make Me Sick

Ok. This has bothered me for a long time. Not long ago, the church developed a new acronym for homosexuals. No longer were you gay, or homosexual because those things just do not exist (as Bishop McMullin clearly stated this year)
“If someone seeking your help says to you, ‘I am a homosexual,’ or, ‘I am lesbian,’ or, ‘I am gay,’ correct this miscasting,” McMullin said. “Heavenly Father does not speak of his children this way and neither should we. It is simply not true. To speak this way seeds a doubt and deceit about who we really are.”
Well, apparently you are reading a post written by a person that doesn't exist because there just isn't such thing as gay people. Anyway- don't get me started on McMullin's little speech. Point is, the church didn't want people believing that "gay" was something you could be. So, they invented the phrase "same-sex-attraction," which conveniently was reduced to "SSA." It is kind of like "ADD" or "IBS." But then they realized people were getting offended by the word "sex" [I know, sad right?] so they changed it to "same-gender-attraction," or "SGA."

All of a sudden the church was able to make being gay sound like a disease or deficiency of some kind. "So how are you dealing with your SGA?" "Oh, he struggles with SGA." "She suffers from SGA." Very smart. We really should give some time for applause. The next time a bishop asks me how I am doing with my SGA I am going to ask him how his OGA (opposite gender attraction) is treating him. I mean, certainly there isn't such thing as a heterosexual or a straight person. God does not refer to his children this way. It is simply not true. To speak that way seeds doubt and deceit about who we really are.

On the other hand, if I am afflicted with some kind of mental disorder, my church teaches that I get a free ride to the celestial kingdom. YAY =)

Oops, almost forgot to take my meds. Wouldn't want my SGA to start acting up again.

9 comments:

Kiley said...

The whole disease/disability association that seems to come with SSA or SGA is exactly why I don't like those terms either!

Gawdun said...

A week ago a friend of I had this conversation on these terms. Members of the church seem to accept it more about a person when we use these terms. Heaven forbid though you use the term "gay" that seems to be when all hell breaks loose.

Granted these are just my opinionated observances

aibben said...

Precisely. There is no such thing as "same sex attraction," it's a term invented by theocrats to put forth a scientific sounding name while trying to steer debate.

BLB said...

I tend to think of homosexuality and "SSA" to be differing entities, so I'm OK with the usage. However, unlike the Church, I think SSA is something to be embraced and pursued, rather than squashed.

Gay Mormon said...

I'd be interested to hear how you define these two terms. In what ways are they different in you mind?

BLB said...

Homosexuality is what the church calls "acting out". SSA is more of a source of homosexuality; the emotion and the attraction involved, so to speak.

Gay Mormon said...

Okay, so I guess I don't agree with those definitions. Are heterosexuals not heterosexuals until they act out? Are we simply all asexual until we act? I think people are afraid of the term "homosexual" because of the word "sexual." What makes a person a heterosexual? Is it simply their intimate actions? Because if that is that case, I've kissed a girl. I've dated girls, held there hand long before I dated a boy. But I would never say that I was heterosexual.

What makes me homosexual isn't simply because I date a boy. It is that my emotional, social,(and yes) sexual needs are directed toward members of the same sex. A heterosexual guy can do sexual things with another guy and still be heterosexual.

So I guess what I am saying is that the church is trying to make it sound as if homosexuality does not exist. That homosexuality is a choice. That God would not make anyone "homosexual." If that is the case, God must not make anyone heterosexual either. That must not exist. It must be a choice. They are trying to make homosexuality focused solely on the sex- which is both unfair and untrue. Sex is a very small part of my homosexuality. There is so much more to my relationship with another man than sex that is important to me.

Clive Durham said...

I know this is an old post, so I probably shouldn't be commenting, but thank you Gay Mormon for your response. To me homosexuality is not just about sex. Homosexuality permeates every aspect of my life: the way I think, the way I feel, the way I form relationships, the work I do, the interests I pursue and on and on. To make homosexuality just about sex is an archaic way of looking at how people function. I, too, have known heterosexuals who out of curiosity have shared intimacy with people of their own gender and left the experience confident in their heterosexuality. This idea that you have to be having sex with people of your gender to be gay (or homosexual or "suffer from" SSA or SGA or IBS or whatever) is an absurd attempt to redefine reality.

Rob said...

Just discovered your blog and am enjoying it very much. Especially since we seem to agree on a lot. Check this out, it may sound familiar:

http://scrumcentral.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-i-hate-sga.html

Post a Comment