BYU under investigate by US Government

[CV75]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think there are two different issues at play in the church.  

1) Most people, no matter the age, era, or topic, tend to assume that God is like them.  I think this is as true inside the church as it is outside of it.  We really struggle to get out of our biases, especially when they are supported by broader society.  We often use society as our second witness for what is true.  

So we saw people using their own beliefs on race, propped up by society's beliefs on race, to help them (subconsciously) determine how God must feel about race.  So we get the ban and all the crap that leaders taught about black people over the decades.

But we know that eventually society changed. 

2) It's just that when it finally did, society didn't matter to us that much anymore.  We were so ensconced in our traditional doctrinal views (and had such a bad reputation with society in general anyway) that our biases were no longer determined by the outside world.  We had been separated from them for long enough that they didn't have a lot of sway anymore.  Not like they did in the beginning when everyone who joined the church was coming out society.  We had made our own society, separate from general society, and that was the society that was creating our biases now.

And one of our huge biases in this church is traditional doctrine.  Changing doctrine is sketchy.  We don't like to mess with those teachings or practices that have come to use from the first prophets like JS or BY.  They are so foundational to the church that we see them as almost untouchable on some matters.  It makes us all kinds of nervous to consider changing something they put into motion.

So in the beginning we had outside society propping up our racist views and then later, when we didn't care what society thought anymore, we had our church society doing the same.  Plus, a hearty helping of "If JS or BY taught it it must be true and irrefutable" on the side.

So that's a long story on how I think we got the race ban in the first place and then kept it for so long.

But I agree with you on lgtbq issues.  I think the priesthood ban taught us that we must question our biases and preconceived ideas of what God's doctrine has to look like.  It's an important lesson, and the weaknesses of mortality were a perfect vehicle to deliver it to us.

Because they are unintentional, I think mistakes in discernment are a matter of spiritual development. They are realized in hindsight or pointed out by more highly developed individuals. So ultimately, if we are to judge others, I think it would be on terms of the willful lack of spiritual development.

One question in my mind is, on the whole, is society more spiritually developed than Zion on particular points such as priesthood restrictions on Blacks (in hindsight), and currently female ordination and same-sex marriage?

It still does not seem that American society is that well off functionally in terms of the Black experience, given the persistent contention on the subject. The Church (Zion) seems much further ahead of society, functionally, on that point, and was able to move much faster in instituting and implementing change. So, in hindsight, it seems the Church’s discernment was and is better after all, and on the whole, on this point. From this, I think we can extrapolate that the Church has greater discernment on the ordination and marriage issues.

Likewise, I think there would be no mistake in working through doctrinal and policy questions in a pro-discernment way. Of course, the Church would teach that the discerning way to do this is to worthily partake of the sacrament to maintain the Spirit and so participate constructively in council (both with the Lord, directly in our families and congregational units, and in sustaining the decisions of higher councils). This way, the more spiritually developed among us, both societally and within the faith, can be heard to apply the best that our broader society, or particularly enlightened individuals within it, can offer.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand that approach.  But it's like saying teetotalers are treated differently at BYU from people who like to drink.

Except . . . they aren't.  Regardless of personal preference or inclination or desire, the treatment under the Honor Code is the same.  Nobody can drink alcohol.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have a friend Ricky who got kicked out of BYU for accusations of being gay in 2001.No proof, just accusations, I am reading the online article now about him and another guy. Ten years earlier our temple presidency's counsellor's daughter got pregnant out of wedlock at BYU and guess what happened to her? NOTHING. She was allowed to stay. I don't think she finished her degree and left on her own. Neither of these people are active but if they can fix the discrepancy then great! 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I have a friend Ricky who got kicked out of BYU for accusations of being gay in 2001.

Okay.

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

No proof, just accusations, I am reading the online article now about him and another guy.

Okay.  Seems like an unjust thing.

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Ten years earlier our temple presidency's counsellor's daughter got pregnant out of wedlock at BYU and guess what happened to her? NOTHING. She was allowed to stay.

How are these two incidents related?  I'm not seeing it.

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I don't think she finished her degree and left on her own. Neither of these people are active but if they can fix the discrepancy then great! 

What discrepancy are you referencing here?  One existing in 2022?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think we can argue that the union of male and female is how God defined marriage.  Things like concubinage and polygamy may be variations on that but the principle is the same.

I think that argument is valid to a point.  Of course revelations are influenced by the time and place.
But I don't see any valid argument for the existence of something that goes outside all established definition or purpose in scripture.

I do agree that the union of a male and female is how God described marriage (I wouldn't use the word define or definition.  I don't think that's implied in the text at all).  I just don't think that we can use the scriptures to say that no other description of marriage can ever be permitted within the LoC.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand that approach.  But it's like saying teetotalers are treated differently at BYU from people who like to drink.

Except . . . they aren't.  Regardless of personal preference or inclination or desire, the treatment under the Honor Code is the same.  Nobody can drink alcohol.

Thanks,

-Smac

Except that liking to drink is a choice and homosexuality is biology.  If someone was born liking to drink then I think you would have a point.

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

Okay.  Seems like an unjust thing.

How are these two incidents related?  I'm not seeing it.

What discrepancy are you referencing here?  One existing in 2022?

Thanks,

-Smac

you were comparing alcohol consumption to same sex behaviour, which to me, isn't the same thing. So, then I said that I know of two incidents where sexual behaviour, alledgedly in one case, were treated much differently and it would be nice where they could be treated the same so its fair for everyone. To me, getting pregnant out of wedlock is far worse then any gay behaviour like my friend was accused of. If gay BYU students are being treated differently in 2022 then I hope that they can resolve the issue

[ttribe]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ouch...that makes it sound like I'm an agitator for practicing polygamy today, out looking for another wife.

I am pro in the sense that I believe it was authorized, that there is valid doctrine and ordinance behind the practice, and that the polygamous family structure will exist in the eternities.  I believe it was part of the restoration of all things and is an eternal principle.
I am not pro in the sense that I think the Church should be like the fundamentalist groups in any way or that we all need to practice polygamy right now.  God withdrew the practice, and any connected blessings with it for now and I think it will probably return.
I don't think it was a hard 1890 withdrawal but I do believe it was ended for now.

I didn't intend to overstate your position. I just recall your posts regarding defense of certain polygamist groups with whom you seemed to have some contact.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Except that liking to drink is a choice and homosexuality is biology.

I don't think either is that clear-cut.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

There is a growing body of scientific evidence that alcoholism has a genetic component.1 According to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, children of alcoholics are four times more likely than other children to become alcoholics.2  Yet, environmental factors could be a factor in many of those cases as well.

Family, twin, and adoption studies have shown that alcoholism definitely has a genetic component. In 1990, Blum et al. proposed an association between the A1 allele of the DRD2 gene and alcoholism. The DRD2 gene was the first candidate gene that showed promise of an association with alcoholism.3

A study in Sweden followed alcohol use in twins who were adopted as children and reared apart. The incidence of alcoholism was slightly higher among people who were exposed to alcoholism only through their adoptive families. However, it was dramatically higher among the twins whose biological fathers were alcoholics, regardless of the presence of alcoholism in their adoptive families.4

In other words, how a person reacts to alcohol seems to be more than a matter of "choice."  Genetic and environmental influences appear to play significant roles.  

The same can be said for sexual orientation.  It seems to be more than "biology," namely environmental factors (see, e.g., here and here).  

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If someone was born liking to drink then I think you would have a point.

I think the better question would be whether there are genetic factors in how people respond to alcohol.  The answer seems pretty clearly "yes."  See here:

Quote

A large genomic study of nearly 275,000 people led by Penn Medicine researchers revealed new insights into genetic drivers of heavy drinking and alcohol use disorder (AUD), the uncontrollable pattern of alcohol use commonly referred to as alcoholism. In the largest-ever genome-wide association study (GWAS) of both traits in the same population, a team of researchers found 18 genetic variants of significance associated with either heavy alcohol consumption, AUD, or both. Interestingly, while five of the variants overlapped, eight were only associated with consumption and five with AUD only.

The findings, published this week in Nature Communications, suggest that, although heavy drinking is a prerequisite for AUD, variants in several genes -- DRD2 and SIX3, for example -- may need to be present for people to develop AUD.

 

"This study has revealed an important genetic independence of these two traits that we haven't seen as clearly before," said Henry R. Kranzler, MD, a professor of Psychiatry in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and first author of the study. "Focusing on variants only linked to AUD may help identify people at risk and find targets for the development of medications to treat it. The same applies to alcohol consumption, as those variants could inform interventions to help reduce consumption in heavy drinkers, who face their own set of adverse effects."

An estimated 16 million people in the United States suffer from AUD, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Excessive drinking is associated with a host of adverse medical, psychiatric, and social consequences -- and an estimated 88,000 Americans die every year from alcohol-related causes. What's more, alcohol misuse costs the United States nearly $300 billion a year, according to the most recent stats from the NIAAA.

Environmental, hereditary, and genetic factors all play a role in AUD; however, many of the variants across the genome believed to be associated with the disorder remain to be identified.

In other words, the Honor Code's prohibition against alcohol could be construed as "unfair" to someone who has "environmental, heredity, and genetic factors" affecting his approach to alcohol, as opposed to someone else who lacks these factors.  And yet both of these individuals are treated the same under the Honor Code.  Both are prohibited from drinking alcohol, even though abiding by that prohibition may be signficantly more onerous for one student as compared to another.

Disparate impact, not disparate treatment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 21, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you were comparing alcohol consumption to same sex behaviour, which to me, isn't the same thing.

I wasn't suggesting the are "the same thing."  It was an analogy.  A comparison of shared traits between two otherwise dissimilar things.

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So, then I said that I know of two incidents where sexual behaviour, alledgedly in one case, were treated much differently and it would be nice where they could be treated the same so its fair for everyone.

So you are suggesting that heterosexuals who violate the strictures of the Honor Code are given more lenient treatment than homosexual students who violate it?

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

To me, getting pregnant out of wedlock is far worse then any gay behaviour like my friend was accused of.

I think having sexual relations out of wedlock is a serious violation of the Honor Code.  Pregnancy is a foreseeable risk.

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If gay BYU students are being treated differently in 2022 then I hope that they can resolve the issue

If gay BYU students were prohibited from drinking alcohol, and if heterosexual BYU students were allowed to drink alcohol, then the former could be characterized as "being treated differently."  But if everyone is prohibited from drinking alcohol, then there is no disparate treatment, no "being treated differently."

If gay BYU students were prohibited from extra-marital sex, and if heterosexual students were allowed to engage in extra-marital sex, then the former could be characterized as "being treated differently."  But if everyone is prohibited from engaging in extra-marital sex, then there is no disparate treatment, no "being treated differently."

If gay BYU students were prohibited from dating members of their same gender, and if heterosexual students were allowed to date members of their same gender, then the former could be characterized as "being treated differently."  But if everyone is prohibited from same-sex dating, then there is no disparate treatment, no "being treated differently."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Except that liking to drink is a choice and homosexuality is biology.  If someone was born liking to drink then I think you would have a point.

Except that alcoholism is widely accepted as a genetic disease.  My grandparents on my father's side were terrible alcoholics.  I have a brother who was kicked out of the Navy for his alcohol issues, though today he's clean, sober, and attending AA meetings.  I've never imbibed myself, but I see in myself the sorts of addiction-prone tendencies that could lead me to disaster if I ever started. 

So, no, I don't think the choice to drink alcohol is divorced from biology at all.   

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think either is that clear-cut.  See, e.g., here:

In other words, how a person reacts to alcohol seems to be more than a matter of "choice."  Genetic and environmental influences appear to play significant roles.  

The same can be said for sexual orientation.  It seems to be more than "biology," namely environmental factors (see, e.g., here and here).  

I think the better question would be whether there are genetic factors in how people respond to alcohol.  The answer seems pretty clearly "yes."  See here:

In other words, the Honor Code's prohibition against alcohol could be construed as "unfair" to someone who has "environmental, heredity, and genetic factors" affecting his approach to alcohol, as opposed to someone else who lacks these factors.  And yet both of these individuals are treated the same under the Honor Code.  Both are prohibited from drinking alcohol, even though abiding by that prohibition may be signficantly more onerous for one student as compared to another.

Disparate impact, not disparate treatment.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Except that alcoholism is widely accepted as a genetic disease.  My grandparents on my father's side were terrible alcoholics.  I have a brother who was kicked out of the Navy for his alcohol issues, though today he's clean, sober, and attending AA meetings.  I've never imbibed myself, but I see in myself the sorts of addiction-prone tendencies that could lead me to disaster if I ever started. 

So, no, I don't think the choice to drink alcohol is divorced from biology at all.   

Ahhhh, there it is.  The defenders' inevitable comparison of homosexuality to recognized diseases and the downplaying of the biological disposition towards sexual orientation.

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Ahhhh, there it is.  The defenders' inevitable comparison of homosexuality to recognized diseases and the downplaying of the biological disposition towards sexual orientation.

Can something NEVER be compared to something else unless they are 100% the same?  Isn't that kind of the point of a comparison is that you are comparing two different things and then identifying where they are similar? 

Edited to add:  And where, in the name of all that is holy, did I downplay the biological disposition towards sexual orientation?  I fully acknowledged that there is a biological disposition to sexual orientation. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Except that alcoholism is widely accepted as a genetic disease.  My grandparents on my father's side were terrible alcoholics.  I have a brother who was kicked out of the Navy for his alcohol issues, though today he's clean, sober, and attending AA meetings.  I've never imbibed myself, but I see in myself the sorts of addiction-prone tendencies that could lead me to disaster if I ever started. 

So, no, I don't think the choice to drink alcohol is divorced from biology at all.   

But that still doesn't negate that no one is born an alcoholic.   They have to first choose to drink first.  That's not a great comparison with being born gay.

I just think that trying to compare biology to choice doesn't work.  It's really labored. It worked when Smac was comparing drinkers to non drinkers when talking about the WoW, but it gets sketchy when he tries to change drinking to sexuality. 

He is biologically programed to seek out a sexual partner among females.  No one is biologically programed to seek out alcohol.

[Duncan]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So you are suggesting that heterosexuals who violate the strictures of the Honor Code are given more lenient treatment than homosexual students who violate it?

in these two cases yes, these are they only two people I know who had sexual issues at BYU and treated differently. 

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If gay BYU students were prohibited from extra-marital sex, and if heterosexual students were allowed to engage in extra-marital sex, then the former could be characterized as "being treated differently."  But if everyone is prohibited from engaging in extra-marital sex, then there is no disparate treatment, no "being treated differently.

if it were that easy, but what about other behaviours? hand holding, kissing, etc. same treatment?

 

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If gay BYU students were prohibited from dating members of their same gender, and if heterosexual students were allowed to date members of their same gender, then the former could be characterized as "being treated differently."  But if everyone is prohibited from same-sex dating, then there is no disparate treatment, no "being treated differently."

you encapsulated the problem nicely, everyone is "prohibited" from "same-sex dating" except heterosexual students-which is what makes them heterosexual, they only want to date members of the opposite sex. Gay people don't want to date members of the opposite sex, which is why they are gay in the first place. So, yes one group can date and the other can't. 

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Can something NEVER be compared to something else unless they are 100% the same?  Isn't that kind of the point of a comparison is that you are comparing two different things and then identifying where they are similar? 

Edited to add:  And where, in the name of all that is holy, did I downplay the biological disposition towards sexual orientation?  I fully acknowledged that there is a biological disposition to sexual orientation. 

The downplay was mostly by Smac. Think about the comparison for a moment...someone comes along and tells you that the fact that you love your wife is comparable to a horrible disease; how would you feel?

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Ahhhh, there it is.  The defenders' inevitable comparison of homosexuality to recognized diseases and the downplaying of the biological disposition towards sexual orientation.

First, I think we have matured as a society to the point where we acknowledge disorders without also stigmatizing them.  And I think that's a very good thing.

Second, I don't think anyone is "downplaying of the biological disposition towards sexual orientation."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 Think about the comparison for a moment...someone comes along and tells you that the fact that you love your wife is comparable to a horrible disease; how would you feel?

A comparison is not, in and of itself, offensive.  In order to find out if it's offensive, you need to actually address the argument.

The love I have for my wife and my latent alcoholism will both be with me for the rest of my life.  Both have impacts on the choices I make throughout my life.  Both have the possiblity of foreclosing other options or opportunities that may come my why.  Both have biological roots.  There's nothing offensive in acknowledging those kinds of similarities. 

If someone were to compare the two by saying that both are things that I should be ashamed of, THEN I would be offended. 

(This hits on a pet peeve of mine that I've stewed over for years, never saying anything, and then suddenly, bam, it boiled over in this thread.  I have an intense dislike for the saying that "you can't compare apples and oranges."  That is most assuredly something you can do and in some situations, something you must do.)

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But that still doesn't negate that no one is born an alcoholic.   They have to first choose to drink first. 

I agree.  But having so chosen, some people are more susceptible to alcohol abuse than others.

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's not a great comparison with being born gay.

There are genetic factors, non-social environmental factors, social environmental factors, and individual choice factors that can play into all sorts of things.  

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I just think that trying to compare biology to choice doesn't work. 

I'm not comparing them. 

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's really labored. It worked when Smac was comparing drinkers to non drinkers when talking about the WoW, but it gets sketchy when he tries to change drinking to sexuality. 

I think the comparison holds.  That one behavior (alcohol abuse) is socially stigmatized and the other behavior is - in most quarters - not stigmatized (homosexual behavior) is sort of beside the point. 

A person may, through a variety of factors over and above his personal choices, face significant difficulty in abstaining from alcohol.  And yet this person is treated equally under the Honor Code as compared to a student who does not have these factors in his life.

A person may, through a variety of factors over and above his personal choices, face significant difficulty in abstaining from homosexual behavior.  And yet this person is treated equally under the Honor Code as compared to a student who does not have these factors in his life.

Disparate impact, but not disparate treatment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

If gay BYU students were prohibited from extra-marital sex, and if heterosexual students were allowed to engage in extra-marital sex, then the former could be characterized as "being treated differently."  But if everyone is prohibited from engaging in extra-marital sex, then there is no disparate treatment, no "being treated differently.

if it were that easy, but what about other behaviours? hand holding, kissing, etc. same treatment?

This meanders outside of the broader principle and into looking for excuses.

I think it is incumbent upon us to keep the Law of Chastity to the best of our ability.  I think testing its outermost boundaries is a dangerous, and even unholy, exercise.  I remember hearing a parable on this point many years ago.  It had to do with a stagecoach company that was interviewing applicants to drive their coach along a road that includes going through a mountain pass where the road narrows considerably, with a deadly drop into the canyon below.  The owners of the stagecoach ask the first applicant how he would handle that situation, and he said "Why, I am such a good driver I could steer the coach within two feet of the precipice and not go over it!"  They asked the second applicant the same question, and he responded "I am so good at driving that I could get the coach within one foot of the edge and not break a sweat!"  They asked the third applicant the same question, and he responded "Well, I would stay as far away as possible from the edge, as I would not want to endanger the coach, its passengers, or me."  The third guy got the job.

If the individual is asking, essentially, "How close can I get to violating the Law of Chastity without actually violating it", then I think he has materially misunderstood the law.

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

If gay BYU students were prohibited from dating members of their same gender, and if heterosexual students were allowed to date members of their same gender, then the former could be characterized as "being treated differently."  But if everyone is prohibited from same-sex dating, then there is no disparate treatment, no "being treated differently."

you encapsulated the problem nicely, everyone is "prohibited" from "same-sex dating"

Yes.

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

except heterosexual students-which is what makes them heterosexual, they only want to date members of the opposite sex.

And yet they are still constrained from same-sex dating.  Whether they want to engage in the prohibited behavior doesn't alter the fact that they are prohibited from doing it.

I attended BYU twice.  Prior to that I served a mission, and before that I served in the Army.  During my mission and Army experiences I observed plenty of people drink, some of whom handled it well and some of whom handled it quite poorly.  In any event, I resolved for myself that I would never drink.  This was a somewhat difficult resolution to keep while in the Army since there was decent peer pressure to imbibe, but in the main my friends respected my choice and did  not attempt me to vary from it.  During my time as a missionary, of course, not drinking was very easy.

By the time I arrived at BYU, abstaining from alcohol was not an issue for me.  At all.  It was not something I wanted to do.  Nevertheless, I was still prohibited from doing it.  I have friends from BYU who, in hindsight, were either secretly drinking or else struggled with the prohibition.  Either way, I was held to the same standard of behavior as these friends, even though the difficulty in abiding by that standard varied quite a bit between us.

Thanks,

-Smac

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Gay people don't want to date members of the opposite sex, which is why they are gay in the first place. So, yes one group can date and the other can't. 

d

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The downplay was mostly by Smac. Think about the comparison for a moment...someone comes along and tells you that the fact that you love your wife is comparable to a horrible disease; how would you feel?

I dated my now wife for several months before we were engaged, and we were engaged for six months before getting married.  During this time I knew that fornication was an extremely serious sin.  I loved my wife, but I knew that I was constrained from expressing that love via sexual behavior until after we were married.

And I wasn't comparing romantic affection to alcoholism.  I was comparing alcohol consumption to sexual behavior.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But having so chosen, some people are more susceptible to alcohol abuse than others.

There are genetic factors, non-social environmental factors, social environmental factors, and individual choice factors that can play into all sorts of things.  

I'm not comparing them. 

I think the comparison holds.  That one behavior (alcohol abuse) is socially stigmatized and the other behavior is - in most quarters - not stigmatized (homosexual behavior) is sort of beside the point. 

A person may, through a variety of factors over and above his personal choices, face significant difficulty in abstaining from alcohol.  And yet this person is treated equally under the Honor Code as compared to a student who does not have these factors in his life.

A person may, through a variety of factors over and above his personal choices, face significant difficulty in abstaining from homosexual behavior.  And yet this person is treated equally under the Honor Code as compared to a student who does not have these factors in his life.

Disparate impact, but not disparate treatment.

Thanks,

-Smac

I get you think it works. I’m just saying that I disagree.   I think it’s too labored of a comparable to be useful. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I dated my now wife for several months before we were engaged, and we were engaged for six months before getting married.  During this time I knew that fornication was an extremely serious sin.  I loved my wife, but I knew that I was constrained from expressing that love via sexual behavior until after we were married.

How would your dating/courtship have been different if you had known that you would never be able to have sex? Would you still have done it and gotten married?

What if during your upwards of one year dating and courtship, you also couldn't hold hands, hug, or kiss? 

No, what is required of gays in the Church is different than what is required of straights. And I say that as someone who doesn't want change in doctrine and policy on this. We can still empathize with and understand the concern and the reasons. 

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This meanders outside of the broader principle and into looking for excuses.

the broader principle of what? Chastity or repentance? only Heterosexual students can repent? gay students can't?

 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is incumbent upon us to keep the Law of Chastity to the best of our ability.  I think testing its outermost boundaries is a dangerous, and even unholy, exercise.  I remember hearing a parable on this point many years ago.  It had to do with a stagecoach company that was interviewing applicants to drive their coach along a road that includes going through a mountain pass where the road narrows considerably, with a deadly drop into the canyon below.  The owners of the stagecoach ask the first applicant how he would handle that situation, and he said "Why, I am such a good driver I could steer the coach within two feet of the precipice and not go over it!"  They asked the second applicant the same question, and he responded "I am so good at driving that I could get the coach within one foot of the edge and not break a sweat!"  They asked the third applicant the same question, and he responded "Well, I would stay as far away as possible from the edge, as I would not want to endanger the coach, its passengers, or me."  The third guy got the job.

If the individual is asking, essentially, "How close can I get to violating the Law of Chastity without actually violating it", then I think he has materially misunderstood the law.

it's true if you get too close to the fire you can get burned but also true if you move too far back you can freeze to death. Even God said it isn't good for man to be alone

 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet they are still constrained from same-sex dating.  Whether they want to engage in the prohibited behavior doesn't alter the fact that they are prohibited from doing it.

would a heterosexual student want to same sex date? I doubt it. 

I knew two people who has sexual issues at BYU ten years apart, one got pregnant the other was only accused of homosexual activity, not even sexual behaviour. They were treated very differently. Homosexuality and drinking alcohol are different. The Government isn't looking into BYU for alcohol, they are looking into it for how the treat homosexual students. 

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And I wasn't comparing romantic affection to alcoholism.  I was comparing alcohol consumption to sexual behavior.  

can gay students have "romantic affection" without "sexual behaviour"? because heterosexual students can

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

How would your dating/courtship have been different if you had known that you would never be able to have sex? Would you still have done it and gotten married?

What if during your upwards of one year dating and courtship, you also couldn't hold hands, hug, or kiss? 

No, what is required of gays in the Church is different than what is required of straights. And I say that as someone who doesn't want change in doctrine and policy on this. We can still empathize with and understand the concern and the reasons. 

This is a weird hypothetical.  IF you can't touch someone now or ever, then you probably wouldn't date them. A guess you can call anything you want a marriage these days, but if you can't touch someone, it would be a strange marriage.