In a post yesterday, I wrote the following:
Personally, I don’t like the bogus term “SSA”, which stands for “same-sex attraction.” There is no such thing (or diagnosis) as SSA and it is a manipulative attempt to separate LGBT people from their natural, inborn sexuality.
The term SSA is skillfully employed to make it appear as if fundamentalist bigots are not attacking the person, just their sexual feelings. It is a diabolical method of creating a medical-sounding term to deliver Anita Bryant’ hateful “love the sinner, hate the sin” message. At least Bryant had the courage to say what she believes and not hide behind euphemisms and phony pop psychology.
If you think I am wrong, ask yourself: Why does disgraced “sexual reorientation coach” Richard Cohen (pictured) love the term SSA so much? It is all over his website and his books. He is basically turning you into a sick patie
nt rather than a real person. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) also loves SSA.
We should not help our enemies by adopting their language, which is specifically designed and employed to portray us as freaks with a problem that needs to be fixed. SSA — much like STD — sounds like you have a disease that can be cured by running to the local doctor for a shot, the pharmacy for a prescription, or the shrink for a session.
If you don’t think language is important, consider yesterday’s CBS/New York Times News poll. It found a significantly higher level of support for “gays” in the military rather than “homosexuals” in the armed services. Here is an excerpt:
A New York Times/CBS News poll finds that a majority of the public support allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military.
There’ less support, however, for allowing homosexuals to serve openly.
Confused?
The results highlight the importance of wording on the issue. In a test, half of the poll’ respondents were asked their opinion on permitting “gay men and lesbians” to serve, and the other half were asked about permitting “homosexuals” to serve.
The wording of the question proved to make a difference. Seven in 10 respondents said they favor allowing “gay men and lesbians” to serve in the military, including nearly 6 in 10 who said they should be allowed to serve openly. But support was somewhat lower among those who were asked about allowing “homosexuals” to serve, with 59 percent in favor, including 44 percent who support allowing them to serve openly.
At Truth Wins Out, we are not the word police. We allow a great divergence of opinion and if you love to use the phrase SSA, then keep doing so. It’s a free country. Please realize, however, that you are making Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and Richard Cohen quite happy by adhering to their slick public relations scheme.
More than 35 years after homosexuality was erased from the DSM (list of mental disorders) why voluntarily describe yourself in sterile, medical terms, as if you have a “problem” that quacks can “fix” for a hefty fee?
My new phrase of the week:
“It’s Gay, Not SSA”.
Related posts
16 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Concur.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 12, 2010 @ 9:19 am
I’ve been saying something similar – if you’re “same-sex-attracted,” then you’re gay/homosexual — to ex-gay activists, but of course they can’t admit to that.
Because their ideology depends upon mislabeling and upon separating one’s sexuality and one’s spirituality from the rest of one’s self.
Comment by Michael Airhart — February 12, 2010 @ 11:01 am
This is exactly right. Our opponents know that if they control language, they control the debate. They do the same thing with words we prefer–they replace gay with homosexual, they argue that homophobia either is a meaningless word or doesnt’ exist, and when writing, they put quotes around any term that shows us as human, such as “gay marriage.”
We need to use the same tactics and stop letting them call themselves “pro-family” or “Christian” when what they are doing is not Christian and is harmful to families.
Comment by Michael — February 12, 2010 @ 11:13 am
I’ve been trying to understand some words and terms we’ve been seeing in print a lot lately and have been hearing in news reports. I get confused when words are used that have multiple meanings at the same time‚ÄîI’m never sure which meaning I should use. So, here’ how I’ve tried to sort it all out:
SEX: Something you do
GENDER: Something you are
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (SSM): This term makes no sense. How could you possibly have a type of marriage where all the people in it have sex the same way or the same way all the time? How would anyone tell if you’re complying with “same sex?” If you didn’t know how to do it the same way, who would teach you? Could you take a local adult education class to learn? What kind of penalty would there be if you got tired of having sex the same way all the time and had it in a different way? I’m not sure SAME-SEX MARRIAGE is advisable or even possible.
GAY MARRIAGE (GM): I’m all for it and certainly wouldn’t want any law against it. That’ not too surprising, though, because I’m also for (partial list) happy marriage, peaceful marriage, loving marriage, long-term marriage or interesting marriage. I think gay marriage fits very nicely alongside those other kinds of marriages, don’t you? (An aside: if more marriages were gay maybe we could begin to reverse the astronomically high divorce rate we have now.) I’m NOT so much for (partial list) broken marriage, sad marriage, dull marriage, lifeless marriage, or inconvenient marriage.
SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE (SGM): Now, there’ a term I can understand and believe in. It’ not ambiguous to me at all. For me, it fits nicely alongside OPPOSITE-GENDER MARRIAGE (OGM) and gives people a choice between something and something instead of something and nothing. If OGM didn’t work so well for you, maybe you could try SGM the next time! What’ more, whether it’ OPPOSITE GENDER or SAME GENDER, there’ no implication people would have to have sex the same way all the time. Didn’t someone say variety is the spice of life?
Comment by Harold Stidolph — February 12, 2010 @ 11:39 am
Opposite Sex Attraction sounds even worse — like they can’t get organized or something.
I can just see the new series of ads from Pfizer: “We were so worried about Scott — not only was he in danger of flunking out of the eighth grade due to his ADHD, his OSA was getting worse every day, and threatening to destroy all the progress he’d made. But thanks to the new medication, he’s been able to concentrate on school instead of that girl he sits next to in algebra.”
Comment by Frijondi — February 12, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
The reason the far right uses the term “homosexual” is that it implies that our community consists of nothing but unfettered sexual urges on a daily basis. And in some ways they are not too far off considering that the only thing they see is the gay bar raunch-a-rama of seeing naked go go boys shaking their wing wangs all over the place.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a gay person myself but I don’t like to have myself associated with those that feel that the only facet of being gay is watching naked men strut their junk all over the stage while at the same time claiming sainthood and wholesomeness. if we are going to get rid fo the stigma that is attached to being gay then we need to maybe clean up the act a bit and present ourselves as being “gay and not as being “homosexuals”
Comment by Ray Sager — February 12, 2010 @ 2:09 pm
Michael said “I’ve been saying something similar — if you’re “same-sex-attracted,” then you’re gay/homosexual”.
Yes, that’s the point I always make when someone dishonestly claims that because they’re not having same sex sex they are no longer gay.
Comment by Priya Lynn — February 12, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
Harold Stidolph, in my book, you are a genius!
Comment by richard schillen — February 12, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
I think that I disagree. The bigots like to constantly talk about being a homosexual is just a behavior that someone chooses to engage in. But when I talk about gay rights I like to make a point that being gay is not a behavior, but it is having same-sex attraction. Just like heterosexuals have opposite-sex attraction.
Comment by Roland — February 12, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
Ray, I have to disagree, though. I think that obviously there are extremes, but each person is different, and I think that one of the good things about the gay community is that there isn’t the internalized shame about sex that is so common in straight people. The only difference I see is that yeah, there are go-go boys at some bars and clubs, but at least we’re not pretending we don’t like to look at hot guys (or girls, if that’s your flavor). I mean, if it’s not your thing, that’s fine, but I personally think that gay people can teach the greater population a thing or two about getting over themselves and embracing themselves as mental, physical, spiritual AND sexual beings, and that that’s okay.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 12, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
Agreed, and I never use it for those reasons.
Comment by Buffy — February 12, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
Ex-gay/”change” therapists who are not as extreme as Cohen (Mark Yarhouse, for example) also use this term. Here’s a link to a recent presentation he gave:
sitframework.com/wp…/09/AACC-2009-Yarhouse-and-Kays-MOC1.pdf
Funny how so many ex-gay movement advocates continually use the term “gay-identified” or “involved in homosexuality” or “affected by homosexuality.”
Regardless of whether or not sexual attractions (homo, bi, or hetero) are shaped by biology (though the research clearly shows it is more influenced than is religion – yet ex-gay advocates are denying legal protections based on religion), wouldn’t Christians be offended if non-Christians constantly referred to them as “Christian-identified” or “involved in Christianity” or “affected by Christianity”?
Comment by Christine — February 13, 2010 @ 5:10 am
I meant ex-gay advocates are NOT advocating denying legal protections based on religion
Comment by Christine — February 13, 2010 @ 5:12 am
Language is a powerful thing. We should learn from how the anti-choice movement has been able to co-opt the struggle for women’s right to have control over their bodies. By calling themselves “pro-life” they make it much more appealing to be on their side. But they are not “pro-life” – otherwise they would be against the death penalty, and for protecting the woman’s life in certain abortion decisions. What they are, honestly, is anti choice and anti abortion. Nothing more.
What we are is gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, transgender…we are not “homosexual” or “same-sex attracted.”
And I agree – same-gender marriage is much more accurate a term. But I prefer just marriage. Since in MA, I am married, just like any other married couple. It’s the federal government that has a problem, not me.
Comment by Eve — February 15, 2010 @ 10:00 am
Wayne: I sometimes use the term SSA (even though I share many of the objections raised by previous commentors) to point out that “ex-gays” are not “OSA”. That’s all. Attracted emotionally, romantically and sexually to the same gender.
Not heterosexual in attraction. Anything but straight. Like others above, I don’t really like the term because it seems to reduce gay love and bonding to sexual “attraction” only — or to “temptation” — which is how “ex-gays” see it. I don’t!
I do not think of myself in this way. I’m gay. I also don’t mind “homosexual” or “queer”. To me, these are synonyms. Not heterosexual. I know other gay folk may not see these terms in this way, but I certainly do not mean to convey that I agree with the “ex-gay” mentality or movement by sometimes using their language. Just wanted to make THAT perfectly CLEAR. OK?
Comment by Michael Bussee — February 17, 2010 @ 2:31 am
Instead of OSA, I suggest the term DSA (= disparate sex attraction/attracted).
Comment by William — February 17, 2010 @ 8:49 am