It just comes across as a means of avoiding using words like gay, homosexual, queer, lesbian, dyke, poof, etc.
Sure, these can be confronting words, given they are so strongly overlaid with negative connotations in general use. And for many people I’m sure it is less scary to use what would appear to be a value-neutral adjective rather than identifying with a whole ‘category’, ‘label’ or ‘type’ of person.
I don’t think I’m being overly defensive when I venture that avoiding using the established terminology just because of existing negative connotations is a kind of surrender (not that I could claim a spotless record of defiance and non-conformity anyway).
What makes me particularly uneasy about it is the possibility that the phrase is being used (even if subconciously) to try and placate, or avoid stirring up, people who might take offence at a bold declaration of a homosexual identity.
I guess there is always that argument that ‘queer’ is an identity, whereas ‘same-sex attracted’ is just an attribute. I’m a bit ambivalent on that one, because it still seems like avoidance to me.
It’s as if by using the self-descriptor ‘same sex attracted’ one is trying not to scare other people:
“Oh don’t worry, I’m not a fag or anything. I’m just same-sex attracted.”
And in this hypothetical conversation, let’s take a look at exactly who it is you are compromising yourself for? Who is it that you are worried about offending? People with latent homophobic tendencies. These people are not worth the bother, I say.
Which is not the same as a gay cop, but I just can't resist a visual gag.