BYU now a target for LGBT groups

[rodheadlee]

32 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. 

Discrimination based on religion is just fine eh? No matter, what this thread is really about is does politics belong on the football field? The fans say no, football is a diversion from said politics as well as many other things. I don't think Texas or Oklahoma liked getting whipped by BYU and would relish the chance to play them once a year, not to mention the international fan base they would bring with them. I think the Big 12 is more likely to be persuaded by financial considerations than political considerations. They will bring BYU in if they feel they can make money from it, or at least not lose money. They have to expand back to 12 teams (currently 10) or they could get shut out of the championship series every year. This will cost them millions if this happens, it already has cost them millions. With 12 teams they can ad a conference championship game to their schedule and be in a better position to make the 4 team playoff at the end of the season.

[bluebell]

28 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. 

Treating married couples and single couples differently can also be described as discrimination that isn't based on behavior, but which is still acceptable to you regardless (I'm assuming you support BYU's policy on unmarried sex and don't view it as wrongful discrimination).

The behavior (sex) is allowed for one group and not for another.   Therefore, it could be argued that BYU's sexual policies for straight people have nothing to do with regulating a behavior (sexual intercourse) and are instead based on the status of the people involved.

That's why married and single couples seem relevant to me in this thread.  

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

But desires aren't what is judged, only behaviour.  Someone is not kicked out because they innately desire to marry someone of the same sex, only if they behave based on that desire.  See for example the bisexual in my above post.  Someone can marry, after all, someone he nonsexually desires and that marriage has nothing to do with orientation, such as someone who marries another for money.  I am not suggesting that people should do this, just demonstrating the impossibility to determine why a marriage took place based solely on the sex of the participants.  Thus BYU is not testing people's desires by looking at their marriage.  They are instead banning one type of behaviour.  Someone who innately desires for one reason can still marry based on other reasons (some good, some not so good).  Someone who innately desires same sex relationships can still choose not to act on that desire.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Discrimination based on religion is just fine eh? No matter, what this thread is really about is does politics belong on the football field? The fans say no, football is a diversion from said politics as well as many other things. I don't think Texas or Oklahoma liked getting whipped by BYU and would relish the chance to play them once a year, not to mention the international fan base they would bring with them. I think the Big 12 is more likely to be persuaded by financial considerations than political considerations. They will bring BYU in if they feel they can make money from it, or at least not lose money. They have to expand back to 12 teams (currently 10) or they could get shut out of the championship series every year. This will cost them millions if this happens, it already has cost them millions. With 12 teams they can ad a conference championship game to their schedule and be in a better position to make the 4 team playoff at the end of the season.

No, discrimination based on religion isn't fine either.  As I've said, I'm not a supporter of these campaigns against BYU joining the Big 12.

All I'm saying is that I don't see a significant moral different between what LGBT groups are doing to BYU and what the Church did to LGBT persons with their work against marriage equality.

[rodheadlee]

18 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

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.  

Yeah, they miraculously got that messed cleaned up in time for the football game so no money was lost.  Big 12 is basically Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas with one team in West Va. Football is a way of life in these states no matter what they teach in the schools. They make movies about it, Friday Night Lights is one and it became a  TV series. Nothing will come between these folks and their football.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Treating married couples and single couples differently can also be described as discrimination that isn't based on behavior, but which is still acceptable to you regardless (I'm assuming you support BYU's policy on unmarried sex and don't view it as wrongful discrimination).

The behavior (sex) is allowed for one group and not for another.   Therefore, it could be argued that BYU's sexual policies for straight people have nothing to do with regulating a behavior (sexual intercourse) and are instead based on the status of the people involved.

That's why married and single couples seem relevant to me in this thread.  

Getting married is an action, a choice.  The gender one is attracted to is not.

And if a group wants to protest BYU because they think it's wrong for BYU to prohibit pre/extra-marital sex, more power to them.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

But desires aren't what is judged, only behaviour.  Someone is not kicked out because they innately desire to marry someone of the same sex, only if they behave based on that desire.  See for example the bisexual in my above post.  Someone can marry, after all, someone he nonsexually desires and that marriage has nothing to do with orientation, such as someone who marries another for money.  I am not suggesting that people should do this, just demonstrating the impossibility to determine why a marriage took place based solely on the sex of the participants.  Thus BYU is not testing people's desires by looking at their marriage.  They are instead banning one type of behaviour.  Someone who innately desires for one reason can still marry based on other reasons (some good, some not so good).  Someone who innately desires same sex relationships can still choose not to act on that desire.

But the behavior is restricted based on one's orientation.  IOW, they are only prohibited from acting on a desire if that desire is homosexual.

A straight student is permitted to date, kiss, and marry the gender of person that they are attracted to.

A gay student is not.  That is discrimination based on orientation, not behavior.

[Okrahomer]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

Thanks for the reasonable response.  I agree with you on both points.

My original post seemed a bit mean to me, but thanks for your more charitable reading.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But the behavior is restricted based on one's orientation.  IOW, they are only prohibited from acting on a desire if that desire is homosexual.

A straight student is permitted to date, kiss, and marry the gender of person that they are attracted to.

A gay student is not.  That is discrimination based on orientation, not behavior.

But heterosexual desires are also not permitted to be acted upon in ceratin contexts.  Are you suggesting in these cases it is discrimination based on orientation?

[Calm]

Rockpond, not meaning to dismiss your thoughtful responses...we have a different paradigm of defining the world in this case...it is time for bed and I feel we have both expressed our POV sufficiently so it will just be repetition if we continue tomorrow, so I don't plan to unless I see something new.  

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

But heterosexual desires are also not permitted to be acted upon in ceratin contexts.  Are you suggesting in these cases it is discrimination based on orientation?

No because those things that are not permitted to be acted upon in certain contexts are the same for all orientations.  Dating, holding hands with, kissing, and marrying the person that you are innately attracted to are only prohibited for gay students.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Rockpond, not meaning to dismiss your thoughtful responses...we have a different paradigm of defining the world in this case...it is time for bed and I feel we have both expressed our POV sufficiently so it will just be repetition if we continue tomorrow, so I don't plan to unless I see something new.  

Yes, probably repetitive already.  I think we've both expressed our viewpoints clearly.  Unlikely to progress much beyond that.  Have a good night.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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.

Yes indeed. Racism was once mistaken for good in the church, but is now acknowledged as evil. So it will go with this issue. 

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

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.

 

I'm not sure what bearing historical attitudes toward sexuality might have on the biology of sexuality. Racism is a relatively recent phenomenon as well, but there were still black people before the advent of all our novel American racist dogmas. 

Do you think sexual orientation is changeable? 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

 

I think I agree that at face value the word seems to imply something more specifically emotional than generalized prejudice and discrimination against gay people; however, I'm not aware of a good competing term for the concept that is functionally equivalent to "racism" or "sexism"

[Gray]

1 hour 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 think the example of the way Muslims are sometimes treated in Europe is a good example. Even if they they do not bar Muslims from citizenship, in some places they bar expression of Islamic beliefs, like the wearing of the hijab. I don't think anyone would say that this doesn't represent a kind of discrimination against Muslims, and indeed constitutes a form of Islamophobia (a term which mirrors homophobia). Of course some might say they are only trying to regulate behaviors. 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Gray

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

But desires aren't what is judged, only behaviour.  Someone is not kicked out because they innately desire to marry someone of the same sex, only if they behave based on that desire.  See for example the bisexual in my above post.  Someone can marry, after all, someone he nonsexually desires and that marriage has nothing to do with orientation, such as someone who marries another for money.  I am not suggesting that people should do this, just demonstrating the impossibility to determine why a marriage took place based solely on the sex of the participants.  Thus BYU is not testing people's desires by looking at their marriage.  They are instead banning one type of behaviour.  Someone who innately desires for one reason can still marry based on other reasons (some good, some not so good).  Someone who innately desires same sex relationships can still choose not to act on that desire.

Calm, I can see what your viewpoint is, but I don't think you are viewing marriage or the other restrictions put on gays in the same way as the majority of Americans.  We just had this very issue work it's way through the courts.  Some argued that gays could still marry, just not who they were attracted to.  You are basically using the same argument.  When this argument was made, the public rejected that idea as being false.  When the courts heard this argument, they also rejected it.  Being gay means that you are attracted to the same sex.  Telling gays they can not marry and still attend BYU is discrimination against what being gay even means.  The difference is, BYU is allowed to discriminate under the laws of this country.  But there will be consequences  for such discrimination policies.  You are seeing only the beginning of those consequences.

Do you really believe that the restrictions placed on gays is not discriminating against them?  Do you think the public thinks those restrictions are not discrimination?  Would the law think those restrictions are not discrimination?  Just wait until Title 9 gets challenged in the courts over government loans given to BYU students.  Do you really think the courts will agree that BYU does not discriminate against gays?

You are obviously welcome to your opinion, but I don't think society nor the law will hold the same opinion.  I think time will prove you wrong.  BYU does indeed discriminate against gays.  To say otherwise has proven to be a very difficult position to support.

[california boy]

5 hours 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.

 

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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.  

You two think this is a liberal vs conservative issue.  You are dead wrong.  Not only do the majority of liberals are against discrimination against gays, a majority of conservatives are also against discrimination against gays.  You would be giving 10,000 rep points for a false belief.  This is not a liberal vs conservative issue.  This is an American issue.

Majorities of Each Political Party Support LGBT Nondiscrimination Laws

Quote

Despite considerable political disagreements over the issue of same-sex marriage, there is consensus across partisan divides on this issue, with majorities of Democrats (76 percent), independents (68 percent), and Republicans (65 percent) in favor of LGBT nondiscrimination laws. Notably, Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to strongly support such policies (56 percent vs. 24 percent). Roughly four in ten (39 percent) independent Americans say they strongly favor LGBT nondiscrimination laws.

 

[sjdawg]

On 8/9/2016 at 9:43 AM, Sky said:

I realize that the LGBTQ community is upset with the LDS Church in many ways.  I acknowledge their hurt.  But this seems taking it too far.  It reeks of religious discrimination and pressure to conform to societal norms.  BYU is ultimately a private institution owned by a religious organization that opposes same-gender sexual relationships on religious grounds.   

Now it looks like this could cost BYU its sports program.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/08/08/sources-big-12-presidents-growing-uneasy-byu-expansion-candidate-honor-codelgbt-issues

Edited to add this article:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17251009/big-12-urged-lgbt-advocacy-groups-not-admit-byu-expansion-school  

BYU is well within their rights to have an honor code and enforce   The Big 12 is well within their right to exclude BYU if BYU's policies violate the Big 12 "honor code"

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Do you think sexual orientation is changeable? 

'Sexual orientation' is a late 19th-century social construct that, by definition, 'has three constituents: First, it is a sexual attraction; second, it is gendered, meaning that it is defined by the gender of its object; and third, it is consistent over time and space' ('Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation'). That means that if one embraces the concept of sexual orientation, one has automatically embraced the notion of its immutability.

None of which alters the details regarding the extremely recent construction and reification of 'sexual orientation' ... nor the fact that, riding on the coattails of Western imperialism, it has colonised and, in many places, obliterated a whole range of bonding practices, many of which were less focussed on sexuality and/or gender and nearly all of which were far, far more fluid and 'changeable'.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Sexual orientation' is a late 19th-century social construct that, by definition, 'has three constituents: First, it is a sexual attraction; second, it is gendered, meaning that it is defined by the gender of its object; and third, it is consistent over time and space' ('Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation'). That means that if one embraces the concept of sexual orientation, one has automatically embraced the notion of its immutability.

None of which alters the details regarding the extremely recent construction and reification of 'sexual orientation' ... nor the fact that, riding on the coattails of Western imperialism, it has colonised and, in many places, obliterated a whole range of bonding practices, many of which were less focussed on sexuality and/or gender and nearly all of which were far, far more fluid and 'changeable'.

Is that a yes?

Gay individuals who feel conflicted about their sexuality due to their religious beliefs have spent years trying to change their sexual orientation, to no avail. Shock therapy has not been effective (and indeed is extremely unethical), and modern fringe therapies aimed at changing sexual orientation seem to be at best ineffective and at worst psychologically damaging. If sexual orientation is so fluid, it should be a relatively simple matter for gay people in conservative religions to will themselves straight, yes? Even if a gay person were to consider himself straight as an identity, that wouldn't have any bearing on his actual sexual orientation, right? That is to say, it wouldn't have any bearing on who he is attracted to.  I realize you think sexual orientation is a construct, but so is everything else that we talk about. Could I will myself to be attracted to men?

Isn't race also a very recently developed construct? While we all know it's possible to have a fluid racial identity, you can't actually change your heritage by sheer force of will. 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Getting married is an action, a choice.  The gender one is attracted to is not.

And if a group wants to protest BYU because they think it's wrong for BYU to prohibit pre/extra-marital sex, more power to them.

But acting on those feelings of attraction is a choice as well, and it is the action that is being regulated by BYU, not the attraction.  

And i agree with your second point, but i was asking about your feelings and not what other people think about our morals. It seems like, as far as BYU policies are concerned, that you are comfortable with discrimination as long as you believe that God is behind it (such as that which exists with single couples compared to married couples) but that you disagree with discrimination if you believe that God has not sanctioned it.

 

[USU78]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, discrimination based on religion isn't fine either.  As I've said, I'm not a supporter of these campaigns against BYU joining the Big 12.

All I'm saying is that I don't see a significant moral different between what LGBT groups are doing to BYU and what the Church did to LGBT persons with their work against marriage equality.

So I should be able to study, based upon my example above, at Yeshiva Rabbinical University?  As a Dano-British goyische Mormon boy?  And the government should be empowered to make them take me?

Edited August 10, 2016 by USU78

[USU78]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

BYU is well within their rights to have an honor code and enforce   The Big 12 is well within their right to exclude BYU if BYU's policies violate the Big 12 "honor code"

And the homosexual imperialists are well within their rights to colonize and enfoeff college athletics.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours 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.

But the behavior is only inappropriate because of the orientation of the individuals engaging in it.

BYU is not threatening to discipline all students who hold hands, hug, kiss, or put their arms around each other. They only threaten to do that to students with a certain orientation. So it is incorrect to say the behavior is the problem. The behavior is perfectly acceptable for most people. It is only unacceptable to those oriented to the same gender.