BYU now a target for LGBT groups

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To be fair, it is saying the conference will not tolerate...homophobic comments, which can differ from homophobia itself.  Homophobic comments, sadly, probably are made at some of the schools in the conference in some way, sexist ones too. Not sure that would work to exclude BYU based on that.  It might be that such comments aren't as prevalent at BYU.  I honestly wouldn't doubt it. 

Sure, but as a general statement of values, I think you could interpret this to mean that the Big 12 opposes discrimination against gay people (which is itself a kind of homophobia). 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Many feel that a policy from 42 years ago is adequate evidence of BYU's policy for today?  Really??  Some people's definition of 'adequate evidence' is pretty sad.  42 years ago BYU required women to wear dresses.  It must be a huge shock for those people when they show up on campus and see all those women in pants....  

BYU policies change.  Hopefully sincere people won't be confused by policies from almost half a century ago but will know that they need to check out what the current policies are.

You and Daniel are both bad at Math.  Well I can't tell.  Did he say it was 30 years ago or did he quote that from someone else?  But it was actually 41 years ago. 

I felt the need to do that because even though you are expert in history, I must have you on math.  I saw your error from a mile away.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Big 12 has an appendix in their handbook saying they are opposed to sexism, racism and homophobia. 

So is the church. 

[Gray]

Just now, bluebell said:

So is the church. 

Racism, yes. Not the other two, unfortunately. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You and Daniel are both bad at Math.  Well I can't tell.  Did he say it was 30 years ago or did he quote that from someone else?  But it was actually 41 years ago. 

I felt the need to do that because even though you are expert in history, I must have you on math.  I saw your error from a mile away.

Oh you definitely have me on math!  One of the standard running inside jokes of all professional and amateur historians is "I was told there would be no math!".

[Daniel2]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Many feel that a policy from 42 years ago is adequate evidence of BYU's policy for today?  Really??  Some people's definition of 'adequate evidence' is pretty sad.  42 years ago BYU required women to wear dresses.  It must be a huge shock for those people when they show up on campus and see all those women in pants....  

BYU policies change.  Hopefully sincere people won't be confused by policies from almost half a century ago but will know that they need to check out what the current policies are.

I agree, Blue, that times and policies change.  However, the quote in question is from a presentation by an author who has been seeking a retraction of that statement by the institution itself, allegedly without any favorable response.  (For further info, you can see the article it is a part of).  However, since current church leadership is of the mindset that the LDS Church doesn't apologize, I suppose he's unlikely to ever get the closure he's looking for.

And, to be honest, I don't think that statement is too far off of how many active members feel about homosexuals, today... that any gay person who hasn't completely abandoned expression of or personal identification with their gay attractions probably shouldn't be at BYU.  I regularly comments from members who express their dismay over openly gay kids at BYU, saying that it's a shame that gay students at BYU are a shame because such kids took placement away from seemingly 'more devout/deserving' straight kids, or those who choose not to identify as gay. 

The church's policy excluding openly-married gays from their membership records, as well as their children, certainly seems to continue this same trend, even up to just last Fall.

So, your emphasis on the age of the source doesn't really take into consideration that:

a) there's never really been a retraction of that statement;

b) that attitude seems prevalent, today; and

c) that attitude certainly seems to reflected in the church's most recent policy regarding it's general church membership, and BYU incorporates even more strident expectations of it's students than of the general church membership through The Honor Code.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Daniel2

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Why is it wrong for LGBT groups to campaign against the church joining an athletic conference and it is okay for the church to campaign against marriage rights for LGBT persons?

It's not wrong for them to campaign against the Church (1st amendment). It's wrong for their campaign to succeed.  And where are all of the LGBT-advocate Mormons who promised that they would be right with us when the Church's religious rights are threatened (i.e., insistence that gay marriage be recognized in the Church or face indirect sanctions)? They will be doing what you are doing --- saying, "Well, I told you so, and about time."

p.s.  If the church is someday dis-incorporated, can't we take comfort in the same counsel we gave to gay couples (that they can still act married they just can't have it legally recognized)?  The church can still act like a corporation, it just won't be legally recognized as such.

It wasn't (and won't be) just dis-incorporation. Property seizure, etc. Akin to what has happened in Russia with being able to outwardly practice religion. And it will be justified by us "being on the wrong side of history," etc.

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sure, the church has a right to turn gay people and their children away. But does the Big 12 have the right to turn away football teams from schools with discriminatory policies? You make it sound like they have to accept BYU as a member team, otherwise they're infringing upon Mormons' religious freedom in some undefinable way. How does that work? ... And more importantly, is the Big 12 a government agency now?

I said nothing about the Big 12. I imagine they have that right as they are not a religious institution. Perhaps religious schools will have to form their own conferences.

Quote

Can the government pass laws against human sacrifice without running afoul of the religious rights of Moloch worshipers?

Since the government is based upon the constitution in which the people have charged it with protecting their freedoms, I think any religion which seeks to impose on those freedoms against the will of American citizens might run afoul of the government, yes. In other words Moloch worshipers do not have the right to take away the freedoms of American citizens who do not wish to be sacrificed or are too young to fully exercise those rights themselves. Does the government have the right to stop me from sacrificing myself to God? No, it doesn't.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If the act is permissible under one sexual orientation but not under the other sexual orientation than it is not the act that is being discriminated against.

 

I don't understand your reasoning here.  I'm trying but i don't get it yet.

I mean, isn't this true for married and single students when it comes to BYU policies on sex.  The act of sex is permissible for one group of people but not for the other, and yet that does not mean that single students are being discriminated against, right?

Sometimes different groups have different rules that they must abide by and that, in and of itself, is not proof of discrimination of one group.

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sure, but as a general statement of values, I think you could interpret this to mean that the Big 12 opposes discrimination against gay people (which is itself a kind of homophobia). 

Am I the only one who can't stand the pre-emption of the term "phobia" (Greek: fear)? People who oppose homosexual behavior are no more afraid of homosexuals than people who oppose Mormon theology are afraid of Mormons.

Are all people who are anti-homosexuality prima facea by definition homophobic?

[UtahTexan]

The Left is very much into tolerance, unless it is something they do not like.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

So, your emphasis on the age of the source doesn't really take into consideration that:

a) there's never really been a retraction of that statement;

b) that attitude seems prevalent, today; and

c) that attitude certainly seems to reflected in the church's most recent policy regarding it's general church membership, and BYU incorporates even more strident expectations of it's students than of the general church membership through The Honor Code.

A) The church itself, which BYU does not contradict when it comes to moral teachings, has retracted such sentiments many times.  They have a whole website devoted to retracting those kinds of statements.  

B) I'll take your word for it in the circles you are familiar with, but growing up in Wyoming and Montana, and now living here, i can tell you that it has not been my experience.  So, i can't speak for it being prevalent.  Whenever I have been aware of gay people at church (and it has not been often, usually just gay married family of ward members) they have been very kindly treated and accepted.

C) We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I said nothing about the Big 12. I imagine they have that right as they are not a religious institution. Perhaps religious schools will have to form their own conferences.

The Big 12 is a not-for-profit organization. I believe they have the right, if they were to so choose, to discriminate against any group they like. The same is true of the church and BYU. 

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Since the government is based upon the constitution in which the people have charged it with protecting their freedoms, I think any religion which seeks to impose on those freedoms against the will of American citizens might run afoul of the government, yes. In other words Moloch worshipers do not have the right to take away the freedoms of American citizens who do not wish to be sacrificed or are too young to fully exercise those rights themselves. Does the government have the right to stop me from sacrificing myself to God? No, it doesn't.

Seems reasonable. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand your reasoning here.  I'm trying but i don't get it yet.

I mean, isn't this true for married and single students when it comes to BYU policies on sex.  The act of sex is permissible for one group of people but not for the other, and yet that does not mean that single students are being discriminated against, right?

Sometimes different groups have different rules that they must abide by and that, in and of itself, is not proof of discrimination of one group.

BYU doesn't just discriminate against behaviors, but also status. One or both members of a gay, married couple cannot attend BYU. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Am I the only one who can't stand the pre-emption of the term "phobia" (Greek: fear)? People who oppose homosexual behavior are no more afraid of homosexuals than people who oppose Mormon theology are afraid of Mormons.

Although the root word "phobia" does mean fear, that's not necessarily what homophobia means. There are hydrophobic materials that repel water, The materials are not literally afraid of water. 

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Are all people who are anti-homosexuality prima facea by definition homophobic?

Yes. In the same way people who are anti-black are racist, and people who are anti-women are sexist. 

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Gray

[rongo]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

Can you walk me through the sequence of events that starts from football teams boycotting BYU games to disincorporating the church affiliated with BYU?

Sure. 

1) Bowing to LGBT/left-wing pressure, more and more schools refuse to play BYU in any sports at all until BYU drops homosexual behavior from the honor code.

2) Eventually, BYU drops its athletic programs because no schools will play them in anything. This goes far beyond simply not being invited to join a conference to not being able to schedule games as an independent.

3) As society continues on its current trajectory, albeit exponentially instead of linearly, laws are passed that seem impossible, given the Contstitution, but which a supermajority of society assents to. Think, Russia's actions with the Church in the last couple of weeks. Or, all of the laws leading up to the Edmunds-Tucker Act.

This current salvo against the Church via BYU is just an early step.

The fact that those seeking to kill Jesus said, "Who's trying to kill thee?" didn't mean that he didn't get crucified. Even though they acted like the idea was ridiculous . . .

[Gray]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Sure. 

1) Bowing to LGBT/left-wing pressure, more and more schools refuse to play BYU in any sports at all until BYU drops homosexual behavior from the honor code.

2) Eventually, BYU drops its athletic programs because no schools will play them in anything. This goes far beyond simply not being invited to join a conference to not being able to schedule games as an independent.

3) As society continues on its current trajectory, albeit exponentially instead of linearly, laws are passed that seem impossible, given the Contstitution, but which a supermajority of society assents to. Think, Russia's actions with the Church in the last couple of weeks. Or, all of the laws leading up to the Edmunds-Tucker Act.

This current salvo against the Church via BYU is just an early step.

The fact that those seeking to kill Jesus said, "Who's trying to kill thee?" didn't mean that he didn't get crucified. Even though they acted like the idea was ridiculous . . .

I see a big chasm between step 2 and step 3. I can see a path to 2, but not to 3. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Although the root word "phobia" does mean fear, that's not necessarily what homophobia means. There are hydrophobic materials that repel water, The materials are not literally afraid of water. 

That's a good point. Do you think "homophobia" is an apt term, or should a better term be sought?

I think it's an intentional well-poisoning term. Like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" (should be anti-abortion and pro-abortion).

Yes. In the same way people who are anti-black are racist, and people who are anti-women are sexist.

See, I reject the binary notion that those who supported and believed in the priesthood ban were ipso facto racist, by definition. Nor do I think that they were by definition anti-black. 

[Jeanne]

I just visited the cougarboard on this OP.  For some enlightenment..it is quite a read.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

BYU is all in favor of dating, kissing, hand-holding, courtship, and marriage.  It's promoted.  Unless you are a gay couple, then it will get you expelled. 

Or if you are already married.  Then it will get you expelled.

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Am I the only one who can't stand the pre-emption of the term "phobia" (Greek: fear)? People who oppose homosexual behavior are no more afraid of homosexuals than people who oppose Mormon theology are afraid of Mormons.

Are all people who are anti-homosexuality prima facea by definition homophobic?

Maybe we can sue them for being "mormonphobic" or at least get it listed as a pathology in the psych books...

[stemelbow]

I'm pissed this discussion is in some weird direction I can't understand.  This was supposed to be related to feetball and I love feetball.  And yet here we have Gray participating like he owns the place. 

I'm flipping my guesswork here.  I think BYU will still get an invite.  Dont' get me wrong.  I still think the Church's and BYU's views and treatment on LGBT issues to be problematic, but the Big 12 is centered in Texas, for crying aloud. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I see a big chasm between step 2 and step 3. I can see a path to 2, but not to 3. 

Of course you can't.

And if when happens, you won't be mad about it. You'll be dancing in the streets that the Church was finally compelled to comply with your political inclinations.

"Serve's 'em right!"

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Racism, yes. Not the other two, unfortunately. 

I think the church's website, Mormons and Gays shows that the church does not support homophobia and is actively working to end it in it's members.  

I'm reminded of that quote that you see going around Facebook all the time (i'm not sure who said it) that talks about society falling for the lie that if you don't accept someone's lifestyle or choices, it means that you fear or hate them.   I think that our society has really fallen for that lie in it's application of the term homophobia, which you have demonstrated here. 

(I'm leaving sexism out of it since that's not the topic of the thread.  We obviously disagree greatly on that).

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Of course you can't.

And if when happens, you won't be mad about it. You'll be dancing in the streets that the Church was finally compelled to comply with your political inclinations.

"Serve's 'em right!"

No....that will be the Ute fans dancing in the street.  Actually, if BYU bends and the church rescinds the policy/revelation, I will be a happy camper..but for my TBM friends it will really break some hearts.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Jeanne