BYU now a target for LGBT groups

[bluebell]

26 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.

I think that most people would admit, theoretically, that it is dangerous to believe that when society and the church differ, society always holds the moral high ground.  I can't think of anyone who would espouse that position when stated like that.

However, those who think the church will flip on this based on the church's change of polygamy and the priesthood ban are essentially saying just that.  There might be other reasons to believe the church will change it's stance, but using 'society got this right first so it will always get things right first' justification doesn't make any sense from a religious point of view.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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. 

What about people who are not at all uncomfortable at having a black person over for dinner, who prayed fervently for the day that blacks would have full privileges, but who believed that God o.k.d the priesthood ban so they supported it.  Were they racist?

[Okrahomer]

deleted--too mean

Edited August 10, 2016 by Okrahomer

[thatjimguy]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

From what I understand, the sports programs at BYU generate a HUGE amount of revenue for the school. 

There's a financial benefit to having them to such a degree that doing away with them in favor of purely academic pursuits wouldn't be cost effective for a university like BYU.

BTW, as a late-1990's graduate of BYU-Provo myself, I never felt that the pressure tactics used to bring about racial equality were unjust or unfair... As some born just barely before the ban was rescinded and raised in a Primary setting entirely unaware of it's existence, I was confused, ashamed, and embarrassed when I found out as a teen about the (by then defunct) former priesthood and temple ban.  Further, I was immensely glad to know by then that the church now accepted blacks on equal grounds in all matters, and felt that the social pressure exerted on BYU and it's sports programs were pressure on the just side of the moral arc of the universe.  I expect future generations of Latter-day Saints may feel the same, once the church inevitably (from my perspective) changes it's stance on same-sex relationships.

Yeah, but it's not like we need the money.

[thatjimguy]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

In 1965, then BYU president Ernest Wilkinson told the entire studentbody, "We [at BYU] do not intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly; and if you will be honest enough to let us know the reason, we will voluntarily refund your tuition. We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence."

Oooof, that word "contaminated" tho...

[Gray]

1 hour 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.

Okay, the church will either flip on the issue or it will shrink down to a tiny fundamentalist sect in the mountains. And it won't be the government coming for the church. It will be the rising generation being unwilling to be associated with a church that discriminates against gay people. If the priesthood ban were still in effect today, the result would be the same - only a very few ultra fundamentalists would be left in the church.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

I'm not sure I followed all that, but discrimination against gay people (however it's motivated) is included under the umbrella of what homophobia is. And yes, it's a negative. Which is why the church will eventually have to evolve on this issue.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

What about people who are not at all uncomfortable at having a black person over for dinner, who prayed fervently for the day that blacks would have full privileges, but who believed that God o.k.d the priesthood ban so they supported it.  Were they racist?

Yes, sadly, they were. Well-intentioned but ultimately misguided.

[hoo rider]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

It matters because a large portion of society, perhaps even a majority, cares.

Your same argument could be applied to discriminating based on race.  Yes, black and whites were treated differently from each other.  Why did it matter?  Well, for a long time it didn't matter.  Society was ok with blacks being treated differently than than whites.  Then sometime in the 1950's or thereabouts, the discrimination (i.e. treating people differently) based on race started to matter.  Why?  Who knows, but at the end of the day it mattered to a large portion of society.  Eventually, it mattered to almost all of society.  

We see the same thing happening based on sexual orientation, but at a faster pace.  Sometime in the last 10 or 20 years discrimination (i.e. treating people differently) based on sexual orientation has started to matter to a large portion of society.  Why?  Who knows, but at the end of the day it matters to people.

I don't see any one person as drawing a line in the sand, rather, society is (or already has) started to draw a line in the sand when it comes to discriminating based on sexual orientation and is taking a dim view on those who aren't on the non-discrimination side of the line.  

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Okay, the church will either flip on the issue or it will shrink down to a tiny fundamentalist sect in the mountains. And it won't be the government coming for the church. It will be the rising generation being unwilling to be associated with a church that discriminates against gay people. If the priesthood ban were still in effect today, the result would be the same - only a very few ultra fundamentalists would be left in the church.

What a quaint opinion.  Thank you for sharing.  Now, did the stars move in the heavens? Nope, okay let us all turn back to reality.  

It never ceases to amaze - they will call evil good and good evil.  Yup, right before our eyes.

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

Drinking alcohol is not an identity, unless you're "Bluto" Blutarsky.

And yet I know a number of people who see the consumption of alcohol as an essential and inalienable part of their identities.

Quote

Seriously though, there is a difference though between banning the use of alcohol and banning gay people from being gay.

No, let's get really serious. For all of recorded human history before the last quarter of the 19th century, sexuality between people of the same sex was understood to be something exactly analogous to the use of alcohol: a behaviour. I don't know a single serious historian -- 'gay' or 'straight' -- who would challenge this point. And in fact, some of the clearest histories of the invention of fixed, gendered sexual identities have been written by 'queer' researchers. It took 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' a good 50 years to go from quaint German novelties to entering the mainstream of Western psychological discourse, from which these new social constructs have propelled themselves first into existential ascendancy and now, probably, into discursive dominance ... though I and many of my colleagues research in parts of the world where the Western colonising of the imagination has certainly been less complete (so far), and so one could argue that sexual identity in such places still exists only at the linguistic level. In other words, Western dominance has imposed language onto peoples who have no natural categories for what the words are supposed to describe.

Like all dominant discourses, the idea of fixed, gendered sexual identities seeks to mask its own (very recent) genealogy, presenting a false but politically potent image of having been 'always already' existent, but -- and I repeat myself -- I don't know a single serious historian who accepts this assertion as anything approaching an accurate description of most of human experience over either time or space. In this case, when the prophets of God speak against sexual identity as an existential category, they are standing on firm academic ground and solidly with what is known and knowable. You and Erik and Happy Jack and others are certainly free to reject reality and embrace the fiction instead, but it is important to realise that you do so not for valid historical reasons but for purely political purposes.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

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

Actually, I'm not a member of the Right or Left (I'm a libertarian).  So I don't need to believe it.  I was just making the observation.  And it is true. 

[rockpond]

3 hours 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.

Then you can understand how many of us  currently feel in the church with respect to the Church's actions and policies directed at gay members. 

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Actually, I'm not a member of the Right or Left (I'm a libertarian).  So I don't need to believe it.  I was just making the observation.  And it is true. 

I acknowledge your opinion.  In my experience, it is not true.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, hoo rider said:

It matters because a large portion of society, perhaps even a majority, cares.

Your same argument could be applied to discriminating based on race.  Yes, black and whites were treated differently from each other.  Why did it matter?  Well, for a long time it didn't matter.  Society was ok with blacks being treated differently than than whites.  Then sometime in the 1950's or thereabouts, the discrimination (i.e. treating people differently) based on race started to matter.  Why?  Who knows, but at the end of the day it mattered to a large portion of society.  Eventually, it mattered to almost all of society.  

We see the same thing happening based on sexual orientation, but at a faster pace.  Sometime in the last 10 or 20 years discrimination (i.e. treating people differently) based on sexual orientation has started to matter to a large portion of society.  Why?  Who knows, but at the end of the day it matters to people.

I don't see any one person as drawing a line in the sand, rather, society is (or already has) started to draw a line in the sand when it comes to discriminating based on sexual orientation and is taking a dim view on those who aren't on the non-discrimination side of the line.  

But surely you understand that majority doesn't equal morally right, right?

I'm asking rockpond about morality. 

[rodheadlee]

The overwhelming thoughts on this whole deal on the ESPN boards is "Keep politics out of football!" Most of the folks over there think it's just fine for BYU to be whatever they want to be, it's a free country. No one is forcing anyone to attend BYU and there are plenty of liberal choices out there. Funny being a liberal used to mean being tolerant of alternative lifestyles.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure I followed all that, but discrimination against gay people (however it's motivated) is included under the umbrella of what homophobia is. And yes, it's a negative.

Perhaps I was simply not exposed to such usages, but in the past in my experience homophobia was much more limited to a true irrational fear such as arachophobia is used for more than just keeping one's home free of spiders, but rather it is where actual encounter will likely bring on a panic attack.  Homophobia was seen as directed against the individuals themselves and not just their behaviour, just as an arachnophobic would react to the very presence of a spider oreven just the idea a spider might be present and not just if they saw it crawling around.

Given how the term "phobia" is used in a clinical sense with other forms of phobia, it seems irresponsible to use it outside that limited form in the case of homosexuality as it encourages distrust of those who do not have an actual phobia of homosexuality, dismisses their reasoning as irrational and thus prevents engagement of those concerns, which will likely imo lead to less removal of inappropriate forms of rational discrimination in the long run (this is still true whether one allows or disallows for the existence of appropriate discrimination).

With the way "homophobia" is currently widely used, would any suggest medication was an appropriate treatment?  Instead I hear many claim it will disappear for most people when they find out a loved one has it, which amounts to simple exposure...something that would trigger a true phobic.  People don't want to be called homophobic, not because it means they discriminate, but because it implies that they are irrationally afraid of homosexuals.  There is a significant difference in the implications of the terms racist, sexist and homophobic imo.

 

[Calm]

Apparently homosexist may already be appropriated, but it seems like the best logical term for itthough still problematic.  Anti-homosexual is better, imo, than homophobic because it is closer to the usage of anti-semitic, but it does not distinguish between discrimination against the person and discrimination against behaviour.  There is no term for someone who is okay with someone who is Jewish, but takes issue with them participating in uniquely Jewish ritual because they see Jewish ritual as harmful (perhaps an atheist or agnostic who believes devout religious beliefs created dangerous attitudes might need such a descriptor).

Unfortunately English doesn't seem to have a label form for just behaviour.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Calm

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

The reason I was explaining that BYU treats straight couples and gay couples differently was to counter the claim that BYU only discriminates based on behavior, not based on orientation. 

Discrimination based on orientation is relevant since that is the topic of the thread. 

As for treating married and unmarried couples differently... That sounds like a topic for a different thread. 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

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  

 

Great point.  And definitely history repeating itself (think 1968-1969 at SJSU and Wyoming). 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

deleted--too mean

It wasn't too mean.  Just incorrect (you made some incorrect assumptions). 

1.  The LDS Church owns and controls BYU.  The policies at BYU mimic those of the Church (especially with respect to homosexuality). 

2.  I am not espousing an "eye for an eye" mentality.  I don't support nor do I agree with these groups that are campaigning for BYU to be denied entry into the Big 12.  My question (the one you quoted) comes from a place of not understanding how those who supported the Church in campaigning for Prop 8 think that what these LGBT groups are doing is wrong.  That strikes me as a double standard. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Okay, the church will either flip on the issue or it will shrink down to a tiny fundamentalist sect in the mountains. And it won't be the government coming for the church. It will be the rising generation being unwilling to be associated with a church that discriminates against gay people. If the priesthood ban were still in effect today, the result would be the same - only a very few ultra fundamentalists would be left in the church.

Excellent point.  And ditto for polygamy which was ended specifically because it was going to cause the church to be decimated (per OD1). 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The reason I was explaining that BYU treats straight couples and gay couples differently was to counter the claim that BYU only discriminates based on behavior, not based on orientation. 

Discrimination based on orientation is relevant since that is the topic of the thread. 

As for treating married and unmarried couples differently... That sounds like a topic for a different thread. 

But that is not quite accurate.  Someone who states their orientation is bisexual will not be barred if they marry someone of the opposite sex, but will be barred if they marry someone of the same sex.  It is still behaviour, not orientation.  Marriage is a behaviour, not a state of individual being, even if people absorb that behaviour into their identity, just as someone might absorb the behaviour of playing football into their identity.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

But that is not quite accurate.  Someone who states their orientation is bisexual will not be barred if they marry someone of the opposite sex, but will be barred if they marry someone of the same sex.  It is still behaviour, not orientation.  Marriage is a behaviour, not a state of individual being, even if people absorb that behaviour into their identity, just as someone might absorb the behaviour of playing football into their identity.

I agree that marriage is a behavior.  But the innate desire of which gender to marry is a direct reflection of one's orientation.  To say that only marriage to a member of the opposite sex is acceptable is not a discrimination based on behavior, it is a discrimination based on orientation.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

The overwhelming thoughts on this whole deal on the ESPN boards is "Keep politics out of football!" Most of the folks over there think it's just fine for BYU to be whatever they want to be, it's a free country. No one is forcing anyone to attend BYU and there are plenty of liberal choices out there. Funny being a liberal used to mean being tolerant of alternative lifestyles.

If I could give 10,000 points I would!  The sheer hypocrisy of the the entire Liberal movement is anything but liberal or progressive.  Their fundamental principle has become you absolutely will think like me and be like me or you will be destroyed with whatever means available.  

Kudos to the ESPN crowd if they are as you say and are interested in keeping politics out of college football.  However, I tend to doubt this because most universities are stacked to gills with Liberals of the worst order.  I will never forget the example of the Mass Communications assistant professor at the University of Missouri screaming for muscle to remove a student photographer from a campus protest.  She is and will remain a prime example of the condition of higher education and their total ignorance of and total commitment to "Liberal" policies.  

I have little hope that this process will be enlightened, Liberal (in the true sense of the word), or intelligent.