Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Internalized Hate: SSA vs. Gay

In the past, I've been a supporter of the argument of the SSA\SGA vs. gay logic. I understand that some choose to label themselves one way. I understand that labels are designed in such a way that one can change how one is perceived (including by ourselves.)

I also understand Ty Mansfield has spoken out heavily about this topic. He believes that labeling oneself as gay will lead to leaving the church, self-acceptance on "bad" levels, etc.

Whether or not this is true is another blog topic.

What I have noticed is an internalized homophobia which has been festering within the Moho community for years---one which is displayed when one switches from one label to another. You see, many guys say "I have SSA" in an attempt to be known as a safe-stalwart person who is not going to lead anyone astray. When that person changes to "I am gay" he is often times ostracized. Has he changed his personality? I doubt it. Has he committed a felony? Murdered a family of kittens? Kicked a homeless man? Stolen candy from a baby? No. He's merely changed his perspective over time. He's changed the label.

Now, that change of the label MAY or MAY NOT have anything to do with a changing of beliefs, morals, or values. However, it is PERCEIVED that this person's values have changed. Therefore, it is okay to paint a Scarlet Letter on him, metaphorically stone him in the town square, and then ignore him\unfriend him\block him.

I find this deplorable, if for no other reason than to know that Scarlet is not the color this season and no homosexual should be using anything but the highest of fashion trends...

Kidding about that last sentence.

But I do find it deplorable.

Essentially, it is the same definition with only minor differences in what it may, or more likely, MAY NOT be the same individual.

Just because someone has come to a different level of self-acceptance doesn't mean that the person is wicked, evil, should be shunned, ignored or hated.

To me, this is internal homophobia.

We have enough homophobia in the world without finding excuses for more to be brought into our lives by hating ourselves and those we perceive could be enemies or threats.

The only threats out there in the world are hate-filled people.

Don't be one of them.


Martin said...

Well i already posted once one this Topic and will do it now again.

I believe that the church Term of SSA/SGA is very problematic in the first place. First of all it is only used in the church and therefor problematic in use outside of church and also it creates a falls image and hope.

1. SSA in church-use: The Church like to use the term as not to pot a label on people and keep them free to go different ways. Fact is that regardless of how one name a think it will not change just by renaming it. So why does the Church still likes to use it? The Term Same sex Attraction creates a feeling of an condition or affliction that is able to change or somehow to overcome. For example is it is often used with words like "suffering under", "troubled by" or even "fighting". by that it is assumed that one has to do something about it. If it was a description of a condition, why is heterosexuality not referent to as "opposite sex attraction" ? Somehow heterosexuality is nothing that is changeable or needs to be overcome.

2. SSA for Members: As it creates the feeling of an unsatisfactory condition, "non afflicted" Members feel that heterosexuality is the only worthy way before god, as SSA is such a "terrible/pitiful condition". The "afflicted Members" feel guilty when they can't change their condition or complain about the difficulty in living the "Churchway". It creates feelings of failure and lesser worth.

3. SSA outside of church: Something many are not aware of is that this SSA description is only under US Church members. For example here in Germany we never heard anything like that unless you count the view times in CG and there it simply gets translated with homosexuality. If we want to people to take us seriously we should use common sens. If we don't want to label people we all can use the term homosexual and heterosexual instead if gay and straight. That term will all people understand and we don't assume some weird changeability.

One can be "gay" and still an Member in good respect, it is just what people feel comfortable with and church GAs and Members feel uncomfortable of the idea that someone is unchangeable homosexual, as that will make ti so more hard to condemn all acts to that. The discussion about SSA vs Gay is about what we like to believe about homosexuality, changeable or not.

Post-It Boy said...

Martin, you bring up some VERY good points. I agree very much so... I never thought of how the term would be translated in foreign countries.

When I think about the amount of failure which people feel (myself included) in dealing with an issue which isn't correctable, it makes me saddened for all those who have given up (i.e. committed suicide) without knowing their inner-worth. Sad.

I think that one fear is that if there is something which isn't correctable or changeable, how can that person be held accountable for that issue? Make sense? I can see why people would use the term even though it does provide some harm. (I don't agree, but I can see WHY they would... make sense?)