Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu

[OGHoosier]

53 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

How are they unhealthy?

 

If it's not part of our hod given nature, then what is it?

Surely you aren't serious in asserting that, because our bodies have the capacity to do something, it is part of our God-given nature and therefore justified to do that thing. 

As for your understanding of repentance and sin, they are manifestly unhealthy if the mere assertion that someone needs to repent of a particular act creates the conditions for which psychiatric treatment is needed! I have not seen or experienced this in any other situations, and I am not a stranger to these situations. The gospel teaches that we all will sin and fall short of the glory of God, and glory is found in trying and doing the best you can while genuinely trying. Furthermore, for what it's worth, the whole "Satan made me do it" is manifestly a caricature, so if that's seriously your understanding of the concept of agency, culpability, and sin, then there is your problem right there. 

[secondclasscitizen]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  It's just your unsubstantiated and unsupported opinion, then.  Made in mockery, no less.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok I’ll take that. Don’t  know what the mockery part is all about but you cannot disprove the belief that I know is true. 

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"LPSG"?  I googled that because I did not know what you meant by it.  I assume it is a typo (and I encourage others not to google the acronym, as you will not like what you find).

Anyhoo, back to the Law of Chastity.  As King Benjamin put it: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."  (Mosiah 4:29.)  Homosexual behavior is but one of the many, many ways a person can break the Law of Chastity. 

There are plenty of ways for heterosexuals to violate the Law of Chastity, including those you itemize above.

You may have a point here.  Kinda like how some homosexuals devalue heterosexuals by describing them as "breeders."  See, e.g., here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

Common civility and respect is important.

Nevertheless, in the end we disagree about the morality of homosexual behavior.  I think we need to allow space for such disagreement.  

I don't think criminality is the point.  After all, homosexual behavior is often listed as being prohibited alongside fornication, adultery, and other forms of sexual behavior that are prohibited by the Law of Chastity while also not being "criminal."

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes a typo.  Thank you for pointing that out

Yes, gays can demean straight marriages.  While I have consistently seen gay marriages demeaned on this board in a regular basis when threads about LGBT issues, I have yet to see temple marriages be referred to as breeder marriages   Maybe it would be helpful to start doing that to even the playing field.  I will consider your suggestion next time someone groups my relationship to the person I love to pedophiles, beastiality and other derogatory terms  

 

[OGHoosier]

17 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Don’t  know what the mockery part is all about but you cannot disprove the belief that I know is true. 

I recommend studying epistemology. 

Edited June 1, 2021 by OGHoosier
Edited because I immediately regretted my level of snark

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes, gays can demean straight marriages.  

So we're speaking of a human failing, rather than a specifically "Mormon" one.

And we can and ought to do better.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

While I have consistently seen gay marriages demeaned on this board in a regular basis when threads about LGBT issues,

I'm not sure I can go along with that characterization.  To disagree with a concept is not necessarily equivalent to demeaning it (though I concede that the two can be equivalent, or intended to be).

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have yet to see temple marriages be referred to as breeder marriages.

Special pleading.  All "temple marriages" are, in the gay vernacular, "breeder marriages."

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe it would be helpful to start doing that to even the playing field.  

*** for tat ugliness will not help.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I will consider your suggestion next time someone groups my relationship to the person I love to pedophiles, beastiality and other derogatory terms.

I never suggested anything of the kind.

I am curious if you likewise take offense to homosexual behavior being "grouped" in with fornication.

You regularly represent yourself as being indifferent to the teachings of the Church.  Your threat to start calling heterosexuals "breeders" rather belies that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have consistently seen gay marriages demeaned on this board [...]

Is there a good way to talk about LDS beliefs about gay marriages that won't be construed as being at least somewhat demeaning by those in the LGBT community?

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Amulek

[OGHoosier]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Is there a good way to talk about LDS beliefs about gay marriages that won't be construed as being at least somewhat demeaning by those in the LGBT community?

 

Honestly, that's a good question. If disagreeing with the concept counts as demeaning by definition, then are we simply denied permission to disagree? 

If that's the case then so be it, but please be upfront about it.  

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Is there a good way to talk about LDS beliefs about gay marriages that won't be construed as being at least somewhat demeaning by those in the LGBT community?

 

Don't compare it to pedophilia or sexual libertinism, to start.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Is there a good way to talk about LDS beliefs about gay marriages that won't be construed as being at least somewhat demeaning by those in the LGBT community?

Yes.  A few suggestions:

1. We can and ought to refrain from risible terminology.  Lawyers are regularly called upon to be courteous while in the very act of disputing the other side's position.  There is a substantial difference between "Mr. Smith's statement regarding the 'road ready' condition of the vehicle was false, as evidenced by the fact that the vehicle was lacking both a catalytic converter and a functioning transmission" and "Smith is a freakin' liar!"

2. As much as possible, we ought to compare apples to apples.  Consider this comment from Fr. John Crossin:

Quote

The Decree on Ecumenism set the stage for the last fifty years of Catholic dialogue and conversation with our Orthodox, Protestant and Anglican brothers and sisters.  The Decree gives “Catholic Principles on Ecumenism.”

Jesus prayed for unity, that his disciples be one, [Jn 17:21) at the Last Supper. It is the Holy Spirit who brings about “the wonderful communion of the faithful…” (#2) Ultimately Christian unity is God’s will and God’s work and not solely our own.

The Decree exhorts all Catholics to participate in the work on Christian unity (#4). This work, our conversation, dialogue and service with others, calls for complete honesty. We must represent the position of others with truth and fairness.

We are called to a gentle mutual respect and trust in one another. For example, in the past we have sometimes engaged in comparing ‘our best to their worst’.  Honesty and mutual respect call us to search the past and the present together in order to come to the truth. Our conversation is based on the truth—as well as we can determine it.

Sage words.

3. We still need to be able to get to the "ultimate issue," and to voice our opinions about it.  People like California Boy are at loggerheads with the teachings of the Church.  We believe homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage to be substantively wrong and incompatible with the commandments of God.  

4. I am not sure if the biggest complaint is the above-referenced "ultimate issue" or else comparisons/characterizations about that ultimate issue.  Again, by way of example: I have a friend, who is a member of the Church, and who for many years has cohabited with a man who is married to another woman.  Her conduct can be correctly described as both "fornication" and "adultery."  I think she would likely take offense at that as being, as you put it, "at least somewhat demeaning."  But is it, really?  And even if it is "demeaning," I can't help but think that there's not much of a workaround, except that I can be circumspect in the time, place and manner of expressing that characterization of her behavior.  I am not "outing" her (I may have even made her up).  I am not offering her unsolicited advice.  But if a person who is morally okay with fornication and adultery were to come to this board, and if a discussion about fornication/adultery were to arise, am I obligated to remain utterly silent?  No.  Can I speak against conduct that I find to be morally problematic?  Yes.  Should I do so with tact and respect?  Yes.

5. California Boy's threat to start calling heterosexuals "breeders" is an interesting thought experiment.  Would I take offense at that?  Likely yes.  Why?  Because he would be intending to give offense.  To provoke to anger.  To disrupt, rather than facilitate, reasoned discussion.  So do members of this board, as CB asserts, do this vis-à-vis same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage?  Do we speak of it with the intention of giving offense?  Of provoking to anger?  Honestly, no, I don't think that's a fair characterization of the normative level of discourse on this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Don't compare it to pedophilia or sexual libertinism, to start.

Can homosexual behavior be safely compared to fornication?  Adultery?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Can homosexual behavior be safely compared to fornication?  Adultery?

Thanks,

-Smac

No, I don't think so. Because same-sex relationships can occur without fornication and without adultery. They can be relationships for which sexual activity is abstained from as they are awaited, and relationships to which the participants remain loyal.

As an example, this topic is about discrimination based on (protected status of) sexual orientation, about a school penalizing students for acting on LGBT sexual attraction in ways for which heterosexuals are not penalized. And it is not relevant to, say, invoke things like fornication and adultery because neither are a protected status. 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Can homosexual behavior be safely compared to fornication?  Adultery?

No, I don't think so. Because same-sex relationships can occur without fornication and without adultery.

I am not saying they are interchangeable.  I am saying they have attributes in common:

• They all violate the Law of Chastity. 
• There is no set of circumstances in which these behaviors are acceptable to God. 
• The secular law's treatment of these behaviors is not determinative of their moral legitimacy or lack thereof.
• The niceness of the individuals involved is not determinative of their moral legitimacy or lack thereof.
• The good intentions/desires of the individuals involved is not determinative of their moral legitimacy or lack thereof.

And so on.  These are all value judgments.  But you are saying comparing these shared attributes is beyond the pale of civil discourse.  I don't think that is so.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

They can be relationships for which sexual activity is abstained from as they are awaited, and relationships to which the participants remain loyal.

The same can be said of cohabiting couples.  An unmarried couple can be emotionally/sexually faithful to each other, but that does not legitimize their relationship or turn it into something other than fornication.

The same can be said of adulterous couple.

The same can be said of a couple in an "open marriage."

If the couple gets to make up the "rules" for their own relationship, then of course they can claim to be living up to them.  But that doesn't quite work, does it?  In fact, it sort of leads to the "libertinism" that you seem to dislike.

In your view, are sexual ethics essentially "Whatever we want to do consensually?"  It sure sounds like it.

Conversely, the Latter-day Saints believe the Lord has set constraints on sexual behavior.  Those who are under covenant are obligated to stay within those boundaries.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

As an example, this topic is about discrimination based on protected sexual orientation, about a school penalizing students for acting on LGBT sexual attraction in ways for which heterosexuals are not penalized. 

But that's not so.  The Honor Code does not privilege heterosexual students.  Nobody is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior, just like nobody is allowed to drink alcohol, consume recreational drugs, etc.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

And it is not relevant to, say, invoke things like fornication and adultery because neither are a protected status. 

Marital status is not a protected status?  Are you sure?

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I was talking about sex, the act.

The problem with mgy401 introducing libertinism and pedophilia into the conversation is that they have nothing to do with the topic. Such diversions are a common but really irrelevant tactic in discussing homosexuality. 

Honoring same-sex relationships as legitimate does not equate to sexual libertinism. Specifically it does not mean that there should be no sexual morality or no repression of sexual desires. Those who desire to hurt others with sexual violence, who desire to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts should seek help. 

This is a strange mindset that seems to be appearing in this discussion. For some, it seems they believe that a major purpose of heterosexual marriage is to divert people from committing sexual crimes. Such would be an extremely fear-based and depravity-based view of humanity. Also, when taken alone or overemphasized would objectify the marital spouse, less as a desired partner and desired personal relationship and more as a tool to produced outcomes outside of the relationship itself.

Whereas, for many people, marriage is an outward expression of personal, mutual commitment between two people. Marriage is generally characterized as being sexual in nature, but it is also many other things: companionship, emotional intimacy, shared household, and shared family unit. In this case, the spouses seek partnership and choose being together because they value the relationship itself. It is its own reward, rather than some external, or indirect outcome.

The latter mindset can accommodate heterosexual and homosexual partners, and it certainly does not require people to abandon morality or enact sexual violence against others.

The fact that mgy401 introduces libertinism and sexual violence into the subject is, imo, really inappropriate.

 

I understood mgy401 completely differently than you did.  Especially the last part where you think he is equating pedophilia with homosexuality.  It also looks like I didn't explain my understanding well enough because it looks like you misunderstood me as well.

First, I'm not equating homosexuality with pedophilia.  I don't think mgy401 was doing that either.

You said:

Quote

But given the other values it espouses, hopefully one day charity will win out, ideally sooner rather than later to limit the damage its narrow view does.

You seem to be saying that the charitable view is accepting people with their God-given sexual desires.  So we should accept heterosexual and homosexual relationships because that is their God-given sexual desires.  But why are you taking the "narrow view" and only accepting those few God-given sexual desires?  There's a lot of God-given sexual desires.  Some range from acceptable in society (heterosexuality and homosexuality), to slightly unacceptable (poly, cohabiting), to more unacceptable, and on and on until we get to the extremely unacceptable.  Why is it charitable to only accept a few of those God-given sexual desires?  Why shouldn't we accept all of them?  All of the desires were given to people by God.  So if He gave it, shouldn't we accept it?

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not saying they are interchangeable.  I am saying they have attributes in common:

• They all violate the Law of Chastity. 
• There is no set of circumstances in which these behaviors are acceptable to God. 
• The secular law's treatment of these behaviors is not determinative of their moral legitimacy or lack thereof.
• The niceness of the individuals involved is not determinative of their moral legitimacy or lack thereof.
• The good intentions/desires of the individuals involved is not determinative of their moral legitimacy or lack thereof.

And so on.  These are all value judgments.  But you are saying comparing these shared attributes is beyond the pale of civil discourse.  I don't think that is so.

And yet the only way same-sex couples necessarily violate the Law of Chastity is because they are not heterosexual. There's no other issue. 

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The same can be said of cohabiting couples.  An unmarried couple can be emotionally/sexually faithful to each other, but that does not legitimize their relationship or turn it into something other than fornication.

The same can be said of adulterous couple.

The same can be said of a couple in an "open marriage."

If the couple gets to make up the "rules" for their own relationship, then of course they can claim to be living up to them.  But that doesn't quite work, does it?  In fact, it sort of leads to the "libertinism" that you seem to dislike.

I mean that same-sex relationships can be no different from heterosexual relationships except for the sexual orientation. The participants can eschew fornication and adultury.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that's not so.  The Honor Code does not privilege heterosexual students.  Nobody is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior, just like nobody is allowed to drink alcohol, consume recreational drugs, etc.

The Honor Code school penalizing students for acting on LGBT sexual attraction in ways for which heterosexuals are not penalized. Homosexual students can be penalized for marrying each other, while heterosexual students are not, for example.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Marital status is not a protected status?  Are you sure?

Concerning this BYU example, no it's not, as far as I know. Not in Utah, and not on the federal level.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, webbles said:

I understood mgy401 completely differently than you did.  Especially the last part where you think he is equating pedophilia with homosexuality.  It also looks like I didn't explain my understanding well enough because it looks like you misunderstood me as well.

First, I'm not equating homosexuality with pedophilia.  I don't think mgy401 was doing that either.

You said:

You seem to be saying that the charitable view is accepting people with their God-given sexual desires.  So we should accept heterosexual and homosexual relationships because that is their God-given sexual desires.  But why are you taking the "narrow view" and only accepting those few God-given sexual desires?  There's a lot of God-given sexual desires.  Some range from acceptable in society (heterosexuality and homosexuality), to slightly unacceptable (poly, cohabiting), to more unacceptable, and on and on until we get to the extremely unacceptable.  Why is it charitable to only accept a few of those God-given sexual desires?  Why shouldn't we accept all of them?  All of the desires were given to people by God.  So if He gave it, shouldn't we accept it?

The introduction of them as part of his argument is intrinsically a comparison. Like I said in my response to SMAC just above, the only way same-sex couples necessarily violate the Law of Chastity is because they are not heterosexual. There's no other issue. 

[webbles]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

The introduction of them as part of his argument is intrinsically a comparison. Like I said in my response to SMAC just above, the only way same-sex couples necessarily violate the Law of Chastity is because they are not heterosexual. There's no other issue. 

There's a lot of relationships out there that are not same-sex or opposite-sex.  Are you saying that they should be accepted because the only way they are violating the Law of Chastity is because they are not heterosexual?  What makes heterosexual and homosexual relationships intrinsically better than all of the other possible relationships that do exist in our world?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Never in threads about temple marriages or straight relationships.

Since temple marriages do not violate the Law of Chastity, why would we bring up examples of actual violations to compare temple marriage to?

For straight relationships that are viewed as violations of the Law of Chasity...

We don’t have debates on the board that I remember about whether or not fornication or adultery violate the Law of Chastity...but I have had such debates elsewhere in my life and I have seen comparisons to what Saints view as obvious violations that everyone participating agrees are inappropriate sexual behaviours. 
 

Also pretty much any thread that deals with the Law of Chastity ends up including homosexual behavior, even quite a few that don’t (see thread on new translation of German scripture for a recent example), so even if someone is using criminal behaviour in a generic sense in comparison to all Law of Chastity violations, it may appear to some to be focused on homosexual behaviour when it really isn’t.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

I am not saying they are interchangeable.  I am saying they have attributes in common:

• They all violate the Law of Chastity. 
• There is no set of circumstances in which these behaviors are acceptable to God. 
• The secular law's treatment of these behaviors is not determinative of their moral legitimacy or lack thereof.
• The niceness of the individuals involved is not determinative of their moral legitimacy or lack thereof.
• The good intentions/desires of the individuals involved is not determinative of their moral legitimacy or lack thereof.

And so on.  These are all value judgments.  But you are saying comparing these shared attributes is beyond the pale of civil discourse.  I don't think that is so.

And yet the only way same-sex couples necessarily violate the Law of Chastity is because they are not heterosexual. There's no other issue. 

That is simply not so.  The way anyone violates the Law of Chastity's prohibition against homosexual behavior is . . . by engaging in homosexual behavior.

The Law of Chastity is the same for everyone.  Nobody is allowed to engage in fornication, or adultery, or homosexual behavior.

And again, you are saying comparing sexual behaviors having the above shared attributes is beyond the pale of civil discourse.  I don't think that is so.

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Quote

They can be relationships for which sexual activity is abstained from as they are awaited, and relationships to which the participants remain loyal.

The same can be said of cohabiting couples.  An unmarried couple can be emotionally/sexually faithful to each other, but that does not legitimize their relationship or turn it into something other than fornication.

The same can be said of adulterous couple.

The same can be said of a couple in an "open marriage."

If the couple gets to make up the "rules" for their own relationship, then of course they can claim to be living up to them.  But that doesn't quite work, does it?  In fact, it sort of leads to the "libertinism" that you seem to dislike.

I mean that same-sex relationships can be no different from heterosexual relationships except for the sexual orientation.

That is simply not so.

They are different by definition in that they are between members of the same sex.  Until very very recently, the union of a man and a woman was the sine qua non of a marital community.

They are different by definition and design in that they exclude either a husband or a wife from the marital community.  

They are different in that by definition they are lack procreative ability.

A same-sex marriage has a difference of kind, not degree, with opposite-sex marriage.

Also, you are not addressing my main point, which was that sexual/emotional fidelity can exist between couples who are fornicating, or who are adulterous, or who are in an "open marriage," and so on.  So the comparison seems . . . apt.

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The participants can eschew fornication and adultury.

Yes.  And?  How does that rehabilitate same-sex marriage when such a relationship presumes prohibited sexual behavior?

The participants in a fornicating or adulterous relationship can also "eschew" physical violence.  I don't see how avoiding one form of prohibited conduct over here (physical violence) justifies/legitimizes engaging in another form of prohibited conduct over there (homosexual behavior).

Again again, I am not saying that same-sex marriage = fornication = adultery.  These are separate and distinct behaviors that nevertheless share some attributes (see above).  You are saying comparing these shared attributes is beyond the pale of civil discourse.  I don't think that is so.

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

But that's not so.  The Honor Code does not privilege heterosexual students.  Nobody is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior, just like nobody is allowed to drink alcohol, consume recreational drugs, etc.

The Honor Code school penalizing students for acting on LGBT sexual attraction in ways for which heterosexuals are not penalized.

Again, what you are saying is not correct.  No student can engage in homosexual behavior.  Nobody.

There is no differentiation based on a student's sexual orientation.  There is no proviso in the Honor Code that says heterosexual students may engage in homosexual behavior but gay/lesbian students may not.

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Homosexual students can be penalized for marrying each other, while heterosexual students are not, for example.

Again, what you are saying is not correct.  A gay student can be penalized for marrying a person of the same sex.  So can a hetero sexual student.  There is no differentiation in treatment.  Nobody can enter into a same-sex marriage.  Nobody can engage in homosexual behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

  A gay student can be penalized for marrying a person of the same sex.  So can a hetero sexual student.  There is no differentiation in treatment.  Nobody can enter into a same-sex marriage.  Nobody can engage in homosexual behavior.

While I agree with your point, I think it would be stronger if you added the recognition that while the restriction applies to everyone, it will have a disproportionate effect on those who consistently experience same sex attraction (I phrase it that way because those who identify as heterosexual and other orientations may still experience at times SSA as well as OSA...see data on sexual fluidity, such as Lisa Diamond’s).  
 

I agree with your point as inclusive of all and not just applied to gays because a typically straight student experimenting with homosexual sexual behaviour will be penalized and a gay student who engages in simple romantic behaviors with someone of the opposite sex for whatever reason won’t be penalized any more than a straight student doing the same.  Penalization is based on behaviour and not orientation even though those who identify as certain orientations are much more likely to engage in penalized behaviour and therefore are impacted more by LoC rules.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Calm

[AtlanticMike]

5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Furthermore, for what it's worth, the whole "Satan made me do it" is manifestly a caricature, so if that's seriously your understanding of the concept of agency, culpability, and sin, then there is your problem right there. 

For as long as I can remember the church has always taught that masturbation is a sin. I don't know about women, but many young men feel like Satan is using masturbation to put a wedge in between their relationship with God. Many young men and men think masturbation is one Satan's most used "sins" to entrap them in his tangled web of deciet. They will spend days if not weeks sulking and worrying about if they're going to hell because they played with their willy. Do you realize that?

Edited June 1, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

While I agree with your point, I think it would be stronger if you added the recognition that while the restriction applies to everyone, it will have a disproportionate effect on those who consistently experience same sex attraction (I phrase it that way because those who identify as heterosexual may still experience at times SSA as well as OSA (see data on sexual fluidity, such as Lisa Diamond’s).  

Yes, I acknowledge that.  But "same standard, disparate impact" is the sort of thing that happens all over the place.  

Consider an Applicant X who wants to attend BYU and who has a drinking habit versus Applicant Y who has no interest at all in imbibing.  The Honor Code will have a disparate impact on the former, right?  But how is X being "discriminated" against if A) the same standard applies to X and Y, B) X and Y both knew in advance the prohibition against drinking, and C) X has plenty of other school options available to him, virtually all of which lack a prohibition against drinking?

See, e.g., here:

Quote

Invidious Discrimination Law and Legal Definition

Invidious Discrimination is treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging. If there is rational justification for the different treatment, then the discrimination is not invidious. The criteria delineating the groups, such as gender, race, or class, determine the kind of discrimination.

Invidious discrimination generally refers to treating one group of people less well than another on such grounds as their race (racism), gender (sexism), religion (religious discrimination), caste, ethnic background, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, sexual preference or behavior, results of IQ testing, age (ageism) or political views. Discrimination on the basis of such grounds as subcultural preference (Punks, Hippies, Mods, vs. Rockers) is also common. The effects of invidious discrimination span the spectrum from mild, such as slow or unhelpful retail service, through racial and ethnic slurs, denial of employment or housing, to hate crimes and genocide.

Does BYU have a "rational justification" for the Honor Code and the Law of Chastity?  Yes.  

Does BYU treat gays and lesbians "unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging?"  No.

Does BYU hold gays and lesbians to a different behavioral standard than heterosexual students?  No.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I agree with your point as inclusive of all and not just applied to gays because a typically straight student experimenting with homosexual sexual behaviour will be penalized and a gay student who engages in simple romantic behaviors with someone of the opposite sex for whatever reason won’t be penalized any more than a straight student doing the same.  Penalization is based on behaviour and not orientation even though those who identify as certain orientations are much more likely to engage in penalized behaviour and therefore are impacted more by LoC rules.

As I understand it, "disparate impact" is usually unintentional.  See here:

Quote

What Is the Difference Between Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact?

The law recognizes two types of illegal discrimination. Disparate treatment refers to intentional discrimination, where people in a protected class are deliberately treated differently. This is the most common type of discrimination. An example would be an employer giving a certain test to all of the women who apply for a job but to none of the men.

Disparate impact refers to discrimination that is unintentional. The procedures are the same for everyone, but people in a protected class are negatively affected. For example, say that job applicants for a certain job are tested on their reaction times, and only people with a high score are hired. This test will discriminate against older workers, who are less likely to have fast reaction times. Whether this test is illegal will depend on whether fast reaction times are necessary for the job. Disparate impact discrimination is not always illegal. If an employer has a legitimate, necessary, and job-related reason for applying its procedures, then it is allowed to do so.

For example, say a fire department required job applicants to carry a heavy load up several flights of stairs. Say a higher percentage of male applicants pass the test, compared to the number of female applicants who pass. In that case, the test would have a disparate impact on women, who are a protected class. But if the fire department can show that carrying heavy loads up stairs is a necessary part of the job, then the test would be legal even if it favored men over women.

But say an accounting firm gave job applicants the same test, requiring them to carry heavy weights upstairs. In this case, the resulting disparate impact discrimination would be illegal. There is no legitimate job-related reason why accountants would need to carry heavy weights. A female job applicant who failed the accounting firm’s test would have a good case for a sex-discrimination lawsuit if she could show the test was the reason she didn’t get the job.

Regarding the above two examples, I think BYU is situated much more like the fire department.  It has some pretty good reasons for the "heavy load" that is the Law of Chastity, even if and when that loan has disparate impacts on students.  Moreover, since students know ahead of time that these constraints exist, and since they have plenty of alternative educational opportunities, I think it becomes difficult for them to legally challenge the Honor Code.

Thanks,

-Smac

[poptart]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

While I agree with your point, I think it would be stronger if you added the recognition that while the restriction applies to everyone, it will have a disproportionate effect on those who consistently experience same sex attraction (I phrase it that way because those who identify as heterosexual and other orientations may still experience at times SSA as well as OSA...see data on sexual fluidity, such as Lisa Diamond’s).  
 

I agree with your point as inclusive of all and not just applied to gays because a typically straight student experimenting with homosexual sexual behaviour will be penalized and a gay student who engages in simple romantic behaviors with someone of the opposite sex for whatever reason won’t be penalized any more than a straight student doing the same.  Penalization is based on behaviour and not orientation even though those who identify as certain orientations are much more likely to engage in penalized behaviour and therefore are impacted more by LoC rules.

With it being pride month, would be interesting to see how this could play out on social media.  I'll be watching intently.  

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

those who identify as heterosexual and other orientations may still experience at times SSA

I'll admit, when Tom Brady won his seventh super bowl I was turned on a little bit😁. Don't tell anyone though, I wouldn't want that to get out to people I know.

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

There's a lot of relationships out there that are not same-sex or opposite-sex.  Are you saying that they should be accepted because the only way they are violating the Law of Chastity is because they are not heterosexual?  What makes heterosexual and homosexual relationships intrinsically better than all of the other possible relationships that do exist in our world?

The phrases opposite-sex couples and not-opposite-sex couples are more exact, and together cover all types of couples. That is what I mean by heterosexual and homosexual in this usage of the terms.

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

That is simply not so.  The way anyone violates the Law of Chastity's prohibition against homosexual behavior is . . . by engaging in homosexual behavior.

The Law of Chastity is the same for everyone.  Nobody is allowed to engage in fornication, or adultery, or homosexual behavior.

And again, you are saying comparing sexual behaviors having the above shared attributes is beyond the pale of civil discourse.  I don't think that is so.

That is simply not so.

They are different by definition in that they are between members of the same sex.  Until very very recently, the union of a man and a woman was the sine qua non of a marital community.

They are different by definition and design in that they exclude either a husband or a wife from the marital community.  

They are different in that by definition they are lack procreative ability.

A same-sex marriage has a difference of kind, not degree, with opposite-sex marriage.

Also, you are not addressing my main point, which was that sexual/emotional fidelity can exist between couples who are fornicating, or who are adulterous, or who are in an "open marriage," and so on.  So the comparison seems . . . apt.

Yes.  And?  How does that rehabilitate same-sex marriage when such a relationship presumes prohibited sexual behavior?

The participants in a fornicating or adulterous relationship can also "eschew" physical violence.  I don't see how avoiding one form of prohibited conduct over here (physical violence) justifies/legitimizes engaging in another form of prohibited conduct over there (homosexual behavior).

Again again, I am not saying that same-sex marriage = fornication = adultery.  These are separate and distinct behaviors that nevertheless share some attributes (see above).  You are saying comparing these shared attributes is beyond the pale of civil discourse.  I don't think that is so.

Again, what you are saying is not correct.  No student can engage in homosexual behavior.  Nobody.

There is no differentiation based on a student's sexual orientation.  There is no proviso in the Honor Code that says heterosexual students may engage in homosexual behavior but gay/lesbian students may not.

Again, what you are saying is not correct.  A gay student can be penalized for marrying a person of the same sex.  So can a hetero sexual student.  There is no differentiation in treatment.  Nobody can enter into a same-sex marriage.  Nobody can engage in homosexual behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

You asked "Can homosexual behavior be safely compared to fornication?  Adultery?"

I am and was talking about relationships. A gay couple can abstain from sex before marriage. A gay couple can believe in forsaking all others just like heterosexual couples can so believe.

A gay couple can be every bit as moral and spiritual in their relationship as a heterosexual couple. 

An observation: you break down people's valued personal relationships into the rule that "nobody can engage in homosexual behaviour." This is detached and inhumane. Judges and prophets worth their salt don't do that.