BYU now a target for LGBT groups

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

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).

Like you I find the term to be ungainly. I'm not sure what word could replace it though. Anti-gay? 

 

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

I do believe they were racist. A racist with good intentions is still a racist. There is a clear difference between someone who burns crosses and someone who is uncomfortable having a black person over for dinner, but it's all on the spectrum of racism, IMO. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Sorry for spoiling your game of feetball, Stemelbow

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Well, the church leaders have said that it was because God said that's what the church needed to do.  

And of course, one can believe something is a sin or wrong without being offended by it.

In fact, since we sin ourselves, we can even be very attracted to something we work against because we believe it promotes sin/separation from God.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Calm

[Gray]

7 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, I wouldn't cheer that. I wouldn't cheer if they did that to the Westboro Baptists, and no one likes them. 

But the church will flip on this issue within a generation, anyway. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

That is probably true.  I don't see that it makes a difference though.  Is there some unwritten rule that says 'discrimination against different groups is o.k. but discrimination in regards to status is pure evil'?

These seem like distinctions without a difference.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

And of course, one can believe something is a sin or wrong without being offended by it.

Exactly.  It seems like that would be an obvious statement.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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).

While the church has tried to have more cordial relationships with gay people, it still actively discriminates against gay people and women. In addition, the church has taken an active part in campaigning against civil rights for both gays and women. 

[phaedrus ut]

BYU has a long and successful athletic history and a national fan base.  Those are attractive qualities to any athletic conference.  Unfortunately I think there are a half dozen baggage items with BYU that come along with the package.  Support not only for right but full civil marriage has been trending positively for decades.  At last measure 62% more Americans support gay marriage then oppose it and the numbers will continuing to rise.  BYU enforces a policy that says any form of homosexual activity is sinful.  Based up public opinion polls the majority of this country disagrees with that opinion.  Disagreement isn't persecution.  

In March of this year the Missouri senate voted to allow for discrimination against same-sex couples based on religious beliefs. Big 12 Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby issued a statement:

“The Big 12 Conference and its member institutions support the rights of all individuals regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. It is acknowledged that elected officials enact laws they believe reflect the desires of their constituents, however, as a Conference we will consider the impact of the Missouri Legislature’s action on current and future Big 12 events within the state.”

I can't see how he would be willing to pull Big 12 events from a state yet allow BYU to join in light of this protest.  

Phaedrus "the former Cougar" 

[Calm]

20 minutes 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. . 

 

Materials cannot experience fear so of course if "phobic" is applied to them it won't mean fear.  

Gender is applied to electrical connections.  Does that mean when talking about human gender, it is appropriate to apply the same reasoning for defining gender as we do for electric materials?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners

[rockpond]

45 minutes ago, rongo said:

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."

 

 

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.

The church's religious rights are not being threatened.  Every organization gets to have its own standards and decide who it wants to include and exclude.  BYU does it.  The Big 12 may also.

[rockpond]

46 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.

Pre-marital sex is prohibited for all.  Sex within marriage is permitted if it is a heterosexual couple but not a homosexual couple.

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I would agree if the policy treated students equally but heterosexual students are allowed to date, hold hands, kiss, etc.  Homosexual students risk expulsion for doing those things.

As with Church policy, so goes BYU:  celibacy is the standard for gay members/students, dating/courtship/marriage is the standard for straight members/students.

You make a good point.

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

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

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

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Materials cannot experience fear so of course if "phobic" is applied to them it won't mean fear.  

Gender is applied to electrical connections.  Does that mean when talking about human gender, it is appropriate to apply the same reasoning for defining gender as we do for electric materials?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners

I don't think we have to slavishly adhere to the original meaning of every Greek root word. Language is fluid and evolutionary. 

Having said that, it would be nice to have a better word for the concept. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think Jesus cares about football, except as it impacts the courses of the lives of His children.  But Jesus discriminated at times, so at the very least we know that it can't ALWAYS be bad.

In my heart of hearts.I just know Jesus has to love football!

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

No, I wouldn't cheer that. I wouldn't cheer if they did that to the Westboro Baptists, and no one likes them. 

But the church will flip on this issue within a generation, anyway. 

The reason that those who want the Church to flip on this so smugly predict that the Church will flip on this (and within a generation, too! Scott Lloyd, call your office. Someone was asking about a countdown clock) is the precedent of polygamy and the priesthood ban. 

The difference is the Church's doubling down and retrenching in the last year, which essentially makes it so that "flipping" on this will exact a heavy toll on active, believing TBMs. It's the equivalent of burning the ships on shore to ensure that the soldiers/colonists put their heart into the colony (there ain't no goin' back).

Those who would bring up past statements on race/priesthood or polygamy (it will never change) forget the current social media/internet climate. "Flipping" would deal a a blow now in a way that it didn't "back then." 

I'll counter your "the church will flip on this issue within a generation, anyway" with a "no, it won't." I don't think it could recover from the vitality and enthusiasm loss this would cause. In a way that this wasn't an issue at that time for polygamy or the priesthood ban.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think we have to slavishly adhere to the original meaning of every Greek root word. Language is fluid and evolutionary. 

Having said that, it would be nice to have a better word for the concept. 

I am all one for fluid language.  My problem is with those who choose to use a word in a new way for the negative emotional impact that belongs to the prior defintion in order to manipulate others into projecting that negativity onto new targets or to be able to imply extreme negative qualities while pretending they are not.

[UtahTexan]

57 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

Not true.  But I certainly understand your need to believe it!

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

The reason that those who want the Church to flip on this so smugly predict that the Church will flip on this (and within a generation, too! Scott Lloyd, call your office. Someone was asking about a countdown clock) is the precedent of polygamy and the priesthood ban. 

The difference is the Church's doubling down and retrenching in the last year, which essentially makes it so that "flipping" on this will exact a heavy toll on active, believing TBMs. It's the equivalent of burning the ships on shore to ensure that the soldiers/colonists put their heart into the colony (there ain't no goin' back).

Those who would bring up past statements on race/priesthood or polygamy (it will never change) forget the current social media/internet climate. "Flipping" would deal a a blow now in a way that it didn't "back then." 

I'll counter your "the church will flip on this issue within a generation, anyway" with a "no, it won't." I don't think it could recover from the vitality and enthusiasm loss this would cause. In a way that this wasn't an issue at that time for polygamy or the priesthood ban.

If it did, do you mind me asking what that would do to you?

[rongo]

I would remain a member of the Church. It holds the keys. But, my vitality and enthusiasm would take a heavy toll. I would be very, very sad, and while I would continue to attend meetings (primarily for the sacrament), I would be more of an internal worshipper and believer.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Pre-marital sex is prohibited for all.  Sex within marriage is permitted if it is a heterosexual couple but not a homosexual couple.

Yes, I know. What I don't understand is why that matters.  Yes, homosexual and straight couples are treated differently from each other. I sincerely don't understand why that matters in this discussion.

As I said before, where does the idea come from that treating certain groups differently is ok, but treating other groups differently is not ok?

According to you, treating unmarried couples and married couples differently is acceptable. Treating gay couples and straight couples differently is not acceptable. 

I don't understand the lines in the sand that you are drawing. I'm not sure why other people should be accountable for where you put the lines. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

I don't know that the right is into tolerance though.  I'm not very political so I could have missed it, but I don't think the right claims tolerance as a goal, not to the same extent that the left seems too. 

But I admit I could be be out in left field on that. 

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would remain a member of the Church. It holds the keys. But, my vitality and enthusiasm would take a heavy toll. I would be very, very sad, and while I would continue to attend meetings (primarily for the sacrament), I would be more of an internal worshipper and believer.

I am not speaking for Tacenda but I thank you for your honesty.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would remain a member of the Church. It holds the keys. But, my vitality and enthusiasm would take a heavy toll. I would be very, very sad, and while I would continue to attend meetings (primarily for the sacrament), I would be more of an internal worshipper and believer.

Thanks for the answer, I think that's a good thing, to go internally and not rely so much on the church or it's members but God and yourself. But that might be a misunderstanding on my part.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

BYU has a long and successful athletic history and a national fan base.  Those are attractive qualities to any athletic conference.  Unfortunately I think there are a half dozen baggage items with BYU that come along with the package.  Support not only for right but full civil marriage has been trending positively for decades.  At last measure 62% more Americans support gay marriage then oppose it and the numbers will continuing to rise.  BYU enforces a policy that says any form of homosexual activity is sinful.  Based up public opinion polls the majority of this country disagrees with that opinion.  Disagreement isn't persecution.  

In March of this year the Missouri senate voted to allow for discrimination against same-sex couples based on religious beliefs. Big 12 Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby issued a statement:

“The Big 12 Conference and its member institutions support the rights of all individuals regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. It is acknowledged that elected officials enact laws they believe reflect the desires of their constituents, however, as a Conference we will consider the impact of the Missouri Legislature’s action on current and future Big 12 events within the state.”

I can't see how he would be willing to pull Big 12 events from a state yet allow BYU to join in light of this protest.  

Phaedrus "the former Cougar" 

Out of 7 pages of comments, this post best explains the reality of the conflict between BYU's choice to discriminate against gays (and by this I mean kicking students out that are gay who hold hands, kiss, date, marry, the same gender).  Sports have a history of breaking down discrimination long before the public may be willing to. I doubt very much that the league wants a school that has a policy that discriminates against gays.  The NBA just recently pulled its all star games from N.C. for similar reasons

Right now it is this league  But I think BYU knows where this is headed  it is history repeating itself.  Soon there will be protests from other schools when they play BYU.  Then there will be refusals to play BYU.  How BYU handles this is totally up to them.  No one can force BYU to do anything it doesn't want to do. But the public will be against BYU's discrimination policies.  Just like Prop 8, the more this gets discussed in the media, the more people will turn away from discrimination. Discrimination is not an American value  People are willing to stand up against those who think it is ok