BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As the prohibition intentionally targets Latter-day Saints, and intentionally so, I would say no, they are not welcome, but yet, they are being held to the same standard.

The Honor Code at BYU, however, does not target anyone, intentionally or unintentionally.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

And if the prohibition is simply because the administration doesn’t like the look of white peeking through or lines being seen under clothing (it is a school that teaches fashion) and they ban all similar underwear, all white undershirts and all white undershorts, you would be okay with it?

Edited September 1, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

And if the prohibition is simply because the administration doesn’t like the look or even the idea of people wearing such things and they ban all similar underwear, you would be okay with it?

No.  That would be, in legal parlance, "arbitrary and capricious."

The Honor Code is not based on similarly flimsy / pretextual / arbitrary / capricious grounds.  It's a very deeply rooted and religious and principled thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

It seems the inequality comes in when a heterosexual couple are within the bounds of the law of chastity if they express affection publicly by holding hands or kissing (a chaste kiss, of course).

It is the behavior that is being allowed or disallowed, not the person(s) doing it.

11 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Gay students are not allowed to do the same with their same-sex boyfriend or girlfriend, so are held to a different standard. 

They are not "held to a different standard."  Nobody is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior.  It's the same standard for everyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  That would be, in legal parlance, "arbitrary and capricious."

The Honor Code is not based on similarly flimsy / pretextual / arbitrary / capricious grounds.  It's a very deeply rooted and religious and principled thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you damage the ability to defend the Honor Code by claiming it has the same impact on everyone.

You didn’t address the stealing food analogy, why not?

Or is the difference between acting out of starvation and doing something for pure entertainment a flimsy / pretextual  difference?

Edited September 1, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

Yes.  Because the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code apply to everyone.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.

Would you think it makes sense to say the impact of the Law of Chastity is the same for kids under ten years of age as it is for college kids?  

Broadly, yes.  Practically, though, I think parents would question the wisdom/propriety of little kids engaging in behavior governed by the Law of Chastity (or the Honor Code).

And then there's the whole "Age of Accountability" thing...

1 hour ago, Calm said:

After all, neither group can engage in premarital sex without risking getting kicked out of BYU if they chose to attend.

How many <10-year-old BYU students are there?  I'd wager zero.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The fact that the one group has no interest in having sex while the other is often very tempted to have it is irrelevant since the rules apply equally to both.

Yes.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

They are asking/requiring the same behaviour from both, to not give into temptation to have sex before marriage.  The fact that one group doesn’t need to work at avoiding temptation because they don’t experience it has nothing to do with how the impact of the law should be viewed.

Essentially all laws in the United States are gender-neutral.  All of us, men and women, are held to the same behavioral standard.  And yet we all know that men commit more crimes than women.  Are these laws "unfair" because more men violate them as compared to women?  Should we view a law as bad because it is easier for some people to abide by it than for others?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 1, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Quote

The Honor Code applies to individuals.  And it applies to everyone regardless of inner-felt sexual orientation/desire.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  

The "impact" to the individual, then, remains the same.

Oh, I agree with the first statement. Nor do I oppose the Honor Code. Same law, applied equally to everybody, can have different impact though. A law that enforces a dollar limitation on insulin treatment costs has more impact on a diabetic than a non-diabetic who has no need of insulin treatment.

A law that has no application to Person X (as compared to Person Y, to whom it does apply) will axiomatically not have an impact on X.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, something is seriously wrong when a person, despite being intelligent and well-educated and informed, cannot articulate a "difference" he nevertheless treats as self-evident and obvious.

Second, I was arguing by analogy.  That is, I was examining traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things.

Third, I think it is unreasonable for a BYU student to publicly profess shock and disappointment at the Honor Code when she knew perfectly well what it was, what it means, how it is interpreted, how it is applied, and so on, all prior to coming to BYU.  

Fourth, I reject the notion of a one-to-one correlation between "love" and sexual intercourse.  The latter is but a subset of the former.

Fifth, plenty of heterosexual students at BYU - all of them, in fact - must constrain their sexual behaviors to the parameters of the Honor Code and the Law of Chastity.

Sixth, there are hundreds upon hundreds of colleges and universities where same-sex behavior is allowed.  I therefore find it patently unreasonable for BYU students to A) voluntarily apply for admission to BYU, B) agree in advance to abide by the Honor Code, C) receive substantial benefits inherent in taking one of the limited slots at BYU, and D) while or after receiving those benefits, decrying the Honor Code they agreed to follow as a precondition for admission.  If BYU was the only game in town, I'd have a bit more understanding for and patience with complaints about the Honor Code.  But it ain't, so I don't.

Seventh, "same-sex romantic behavior" is categorically prohibited.  Nobody can do it.

Thanks,

-Smac

You said a gay person who commits to marriage to the person they want to spend their life with is equivalent to a person who wants to cheat and commit adultry

You don’t see the difference?  Really?

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, california boy said:

You said a gay person who commits to marriage to the person they want to spend their life with is equivalent to a person who wants to cheat and commit adultry

I said nothing of the sort.

55 minutes ago, california boy said:

You don’t see the difference?  Really?

You said you skin puppies for fun and profit.  Really?

(This is the part where we fabricate false accusations and then feign indignation, right?)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 1, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Broadly, yes.  Practically, though, I think parents would question the wisdom/propriety of little kids engaging in behavior governed by the Law of Chastity (or the Honor Code).

How many <10-year-old BYU students are there?  I'd wager zero.

Yes.

Essentially all laws in the United States are gender-neutral.  All of us, men and women, are held to the same behavioral standard.  And yet we all know that men commit more crimes than women.  Are these laws "unfair" because more men violate them as compared to women?  Should we view a law as bad because it is easier for some people to abide by it than for others?  

Thanks,

-Smac

You are ignoring my point or have missed it completely.  I am not arguing against the Law of Chastity, I don’t understand all the implications, but I believe it is God’s Wisdom and I back it because of that belief.

I am arguing against your argument.  I think it is about the worst argument I have heard to promote the Law of Chastity….at least the ban on homosexual behaviour part.

I think your argument that because nobody is allowed to engage in same sex behaviour that everyone is being held to the same standard is crap.  Devoid of any empathy (I don’t care about sympathy, I think that is not the best reaction, but I think empathy is the only way we will ever convince those who disagree with us that to abide by the Law of Chastity is a good choice for someone who is gay) and it’s shallow reasoning.  Heterosexuals are pretty much like ten year olds who aren’t interested in sex and it never even enters their thought that they could be attending BYU right now, let alone worry about their struggles with the Law of Chastity, when it comes to same sex behaviour.

A part of the law of Chastity is irrelevant to most heterosexuals (some are more fluid and might be willing to experiment if the opportunity came up).  It is relevant to those who experience some form of same sex attraction and highly relevant to those who only experience same sex attraction who also desire to have a romantic or even just a companionship of physical and emotional support with someone of the same sex.  Pretending that part of the LoC is just as relevant to straights as it is to gays, that it had the same impact discredits anything else you put into your argument it is so unreasonable, illogical.

I think you settled on a defense and turned off your brain because you are so much more capable than this defense.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Is there such a thing as a policy/standard/honor code/rule/law that does NOT have different impacts on different people?

Like Homer Simpson, I have at least two rules in place because of me.  One was at my kid's elementary school - a "parents must cross at the crosswalk only" rule.  AFAIK, I was the parent that didn't cross at the crosswalk.  (We're not talking crosswalk in a street, we're talking parking lot to the sidewalk that took you to the school.)  This rule had an impact on me, and zero impact on everyone else.   (The 2nd rule was "no more than 3 ketchup packets per order of fries" rule at a McDonalds near the UofU in 1994, and it probably impacted maybe 20% of the clientele.)

the honor code does directly targets only gay students.  It is not against the law of chastity to hold hands when you are single.  
 

Equal treatment would be not allowing any holding hands before marriage.  

[blackstrap]

I hesitate to say it but the honor code is an attempt to straighten deck chairs on a ship that is rockin' and rollin' . The stories that come out of BYU are wild. There was hanky panky all over when I attended 50 years ago, particularly in the athletic dorms and nowadays it is the same if not worse Any tine 25,000+ young folks are brought together , stuff is bound to go on. We teach them the principles and they govern themselves. Free agency is a powerful principle. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are ignoring my point or have missed it completely.  I am not arguing against the Law of Chastity, I don’t understand all the implications, but I believe it is God’s Wisdom and I back it because of that belief.

I am arguing against your argument.  I think it is about the worst argument I have heard to promote the Law of Chastity….at least the ban on homosexual behaviour part.

Okay.

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think your argument that because nobody is allowed to engage in same sex behaviour that everyone is being held to the same standard is crap.  

I think you are resorting to special pleading.

By way of example, consider section76-5-102 ("Assault"), which is part of the Utah Criminal Code:

Quote

76-5-102.  Assault -- Penalties.

(1)	Terms defined in Section 76-1-101.5 apply to this section.

(2)

An actor commits assault if the actor: (a) attempts, with unlawful force or violence, to inflict bodily injury on an individual; or (b) commits an act, with unlawful force or violence, that: (i) causes bodily injury to an individual; or (ii) creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to an individual.

(3)

(a) A violation of Subsection (2) is a class B misdemeanor. (b) Notwithstanding Subsection (3)(a), a violation of Subsection (2) is a class A misdemeanor if: (i) the actor causes substantial bodily injury to an individual; or (ii) the individual is pregnant and the actor has knowledge of the pregnancy.

(4)	The fact that the actor caused serious bodily injury to an individual is not a defense to a violation of this section.

How many standards of behavior do you see here?  Do you see one for men and a separate one for women?  Or one for black folks and one for Asian folks?

Nope.  Why?  Because nobody is allowed to commit assault.  Because everyone is held to the same standard.  That more men than women likely break this law is neither here nor there.  The law doesn't "target" men, or people of this or that racial/ethnic extraction.  

Similarly, the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code include prohibitions against behaviors that apply to everyone.  Nobody can have sex outside of marriage.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  And so on.

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Devoid of any empathy (I don’t care about sympathy, I think that is not the best reaction, but I think empathy is the only way we will ever convince those who disagree with us that to abide by the Law of Chastity is a good choice for someone who is gay) and it’s shallow reasoning.

You have not demonstrated either a lack of empathy or shallow reasoning.  You'll need to walk me through the reasoning and evidence you are using to get there.

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Heterosexuals are pretty much like ten year olds who aren’t interested in sex and it never even enters their thought that they could be attending BYU right now, let alone worry about their struggles with the Law of Chastity, when it comes to same sex behaviour.

What?  Heterosexuals "aren't interested in sex?"  What are you saying here?

I am not interested in committing assault, and yet yesterday I started the eviction process of a client's tenant who committed assault (something he has done a few times). 

Are he and I being held to different behavioral standards?  Nope.

Is it "crap" for me to note that Section 76-5-102 of the Utah Criminal Code prohibits everyone from committing assault, and that everyone is held to the same behavioral standard under it?  Nope.

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

A part of the law of Chastity is irrelevant to most heterosexuals (some are more fluid and might be willing to experiment if the opportunity came up).  

I disagree.  By your reasoning, Section 76-5-102 of the Utah Criminal Code is "irrelevant" to me because I have not violated it and have no present desire to.  

But the statute does apply to me, and it is relevant.  That I have no present desire to violate it does not absolve me of my obligation to comply with it.  That some other fellow may be more inclined to violate it does not absolve him of his obligation to comply with it.  And both he and I are being held to the same behavioral standard.  Yet by your reasoning, this is "crap."  How so?

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is relevant to those who experience some form of same sex attraction and highly relevant to those who only experience same sex attraction who also desire to have a romantic or even just a companionship of physical and emotional support with someone of the same sex.

First, you are the one bringing up "relevance."  Not me.  So you are pretty much arguing against yourself, or against a strawman.

Second, you are not addressing what I said here:

Quote

Feelings and desires are, in my view, insufficient grounds to claim "disparate impact," even for "legalistic purposes." 

A heterosexual BYU student who wants to be sexually active outside of marriage cannot claim that the Honor Code disparately impacts him because regardless of his desires, he agreed to constrain his behavior to the parameters set in the Honor Code.  He faces the same constraints all other BYU students do.  That he may subjective chafe more against those constraints more than some other student (who is quite willing to abstain from sex outside of marriage) is neither here nor there.

I fully acknowledge that different people can have different responses to, and different levels of difficulty in complying with, behavioral rules.  That does not negate the reality that these behavioral rules apply to everyone.

More here:

Quote

4. All of Us Are Held to the Same Standard:

Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct (see above).

People with same-sex attraction are asked to abide by the same standards as anyone else. There is no shortage of widowed, divorced, not-yet or never-married church members who are commanded to be celibate. Those who are married are commanded to confine their behavior to certain parameters.

You have not addressed this.  

Later on in his comments, then-Elder Oaks stated: 

Quote

Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called “a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure” (2 Cor. 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.

In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only “free according to the flesh” [2 Ne. 2:27]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose. I discussed this contrast in a talk I gave at Brigham Young University several years ago:

“Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

“God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Ne. 2:2). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

“‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

“‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Cor. 12:9–10).

“Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction.

“… Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

“Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

“Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

“There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.”

(Emphases added.)

Thoughts?  Is Elder Oaks wrong in these sentiments?  I think the next part of my comments align with his:

Quote

5. Feelings are Not Determinative of Morality (Where God Has Spoken):

This one is pretty straightforward, but it still gets glossed over.  A lot.

A married man doesn't get to have an adulterous affair because he desires it. 

A married man doesn't get to enter into polygamy because he desires it.

An unmarried person doesn't get to have sex because he desires it.

And, yes, members of the Church do not get to engage in homosexual behavior, even if they desire it.  

Desires are not determinative of the standard. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. The same standard applies to all church members.

This board is chalkablock full of threads and posts explaining how homosexual members are treated differently because they cannot fulfill their desires.  But if we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread, based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fail.

(Emphasis added.)

I lack both the authority and wordsmithing capacity of Elder Oaks, but I think I am making the same general arguments he is making.

Elder Oaks:

• "Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God."
• "We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions."
• "{R}egardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only 'free according to the flesh' [2 Ne. 2:27]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose."
• “Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God."
• "Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions."
• "Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children."

Do you disagree with any of this?

What difference (besides quality of wordsmithing, for which I concede my inferiority) do you see between my sentiments and those expressed by Elder Oaks?

I suspect you will accuse me of lacking empathy, or something.  This despite my previous statement which I will repeat here:

Quote

I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of happiness.  I wish them the best.  However, in my community, in my voluntary association with other like-minded persons who belief in the Restored Gospel, we must come to grips with the reality that God will sometimes command us to do things that may be unpopular or difficult to understand.  Sexual behavior is a big part of life.  An important part.  It makes sense that God would impose regulations about it.  It would also make sense that "The World" might disagree with those regulations.  So we need to take a good hard look at what the prophets and apostles and the scriptures are saying, and make sure we are on the right track.  

If that is not sufficiently empathetic for you, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  But if all you've got is an accusation that I'm not empathetic enough, then I reject it. 

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pretending that part of the LoC is just as relevant to straights as it is to gays, that it had the same impact discredits anything else you put into your argument it is so unreasonable, illogical.

Again, you are the only one framing "relevance" as a consideration.

And merely asserting that my argument is "unreasonable, illogical" doesn't work for me.  You'll need to walk me through your analysis.

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you settled on a defense and turned off your brain because you are so much more capable than this defense.

I think you are descending to personal jabs because you are upset that I am not as expressive in my emotions and empathy as you want me to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

the honor code does directly targets only gay students.  

It does not.  Nobody is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is not against the law of chastity to hold hands when you are single.

It is when doing so constitutes same-sex romantic behavior.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

Equal treatment would be not allowing any holding hands before marriage.  

That's like saying "Equal treatment would be allowing everyone to have sex.  If married couples can do it, why can't I?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think you are descending to personal jabs because you are upset that I am not as expressive in my emotions and empathy as you want me to be.

You don’t have to be emotionally expressive to have empathy. Empathy is about trying to understand the other’s POV, you don’t need to be emotional to do that. 
 

It is sympathy which is all emotional and I stated it is best to avoid that in this case. An emotional reaction too often make it about the one feeling the emotion and can blind people to the other’s experience.

 

That you think I am appealing to emotion here seems to indicate you don’t understand my point. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

t does not.  Nobody is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior.

Do heterosexuals change their behaviour because of this part of the law?  Would this part of the honor code be needed if only heterosexuals came to BYU?  Would this part of the Law of Chastity exist if there were no such thing as homosexuality?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

the honor code does directly targets only gay students.  It is not against the law of chastity to hold hands when you are single.  

The honor code targets all those who engage in homosexual behavior. It is a coincidence that it is primarily non heterosexuals who act homosexually. (Sarcasm alert)

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

suspect you will accuse me of lacking empathy, or something.  This despite my previous statement which I will repeat here:

That statement is about your POV. That has nothing to so with how gays and other non heterosexuals experience the same sex restriction part of the LoC.  That is not empathy.  Good chance you wanting others to be able to be happy is sympathy, but I am not sure due to the way you phrase it. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Because the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code apply to everyone.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

Following laws and rules is one thing, splitting hairs another, but“welcome”- ness is entirely something else IMO. 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A law that has no application to Person X (as compared to Person Y, to whom it does apply) will axiomatically not have an impact on X.

Thanks,

-Smac

So if a person has no desire to commit same sex romantic or sexual behaviour and did not change their behaviour when they first learned of that part of the law nor would they change any of their behaviour if that part of the LoC was removed, are you saying that part of the LoC has no impact on him?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

How many standards of behavior do you see here?  Do you see one for men and a separate one for women?  Or one for black folks and one for Asian folks?

Nope.  Why?  Because nobody is allowed to commit assault.  Because everyone is held to the same standard.  That more men than women likely break this law is neither here nor there.  The law doesn't "target" men, or people of this or that racial/ethnic extraction.  

The problem is you are seeing one category system and others are seeing a different one.  I believe as you present your argument your categories are heterosexual and homosexual sexual behaviour.  This assumes there is a fundamental difference between these two behaviours, that difference must be the sex of the partners, different and the same.  You further divide heterosexual into two categories, single sexual behaviour and married sexual behaviour.  Each of these categories have a separate standard of behaviour based on the LoC.  The two major categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality are not split based on behaviour as the behaviour is pretty much the same, holding hands, kissing, etc but are based on with whom you sexually/romantically engage with, someone who is or is not the same sex you are.  It is the sex of the person that matters.

For heterosexuals only, you have also the category of partially allowed sexual behaviour for single heterosexuals and fully allowed sexual behaviour, except for what is excluded for all groups, pornography and abuse.

 

Others here appear to be making their argument with two categories, married and single behaviours because while they see a difference between the state of singleness and the state of marriedness (level of commitment, sharing of personal resources, etc), they generally don’t view the behaviour as significantly different outside of those two states as the motivations for the behaviour of same sex couples and opposite sex couple are the same, as in the desire to have a long term relationship, the desire to have fun, the desire to not be lonely, etc.  The behaviours are the same as well outside some mechanics of the basic sex act.  There is no significant reason to separate homosexual behaviour and heterosexual behaviour except because the LoC says so in their view to attach the sex of the partner to the standard since this does not fundamentally change any behaviour in their view.  It is irrelevant.  Only the LoC makes it relevant.  They need to be convinced of the value of the LoC in this area before they will see the division as you do.
 

If you want to persuade them the LoC should make it relevant, you can’t just assume that it’s relevant as you have been in your argument by making your categories you start with, focus first on the division between homosexual and heterosexual sexual behaviour (since the only significant difference is the sex of the persons involved).  This approach will be dead in the water from the start.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Heterosexuals "aren't interested in sex?"  What are you saying here?

Heterosexuals are not interested in homosexual sex.

Just to be clear…you say it is the behaviour that matters…but homosexual sexual behaviour is the same behaviour as heterosexual sexual behaviour.  The only difference (outside of the basic sexual act and that is not the only homosexual sexual behaviour that is excluded from acceptance)) is who you are doing it with in your standards. 
 

While that may be defined as a behaviour by you, they are defined as the actors and not the behaviours by others.  If you want to persuade those who hold this view of only two categories of sexual behaviour (single and married, really simplifying here to avoid confusing my point with too much clarification) plus the modifier of who you do sexual/romantic behaviours with, then you need to stop claiming only behaviour is being targeted because it doesn’t work when the difference seen by others is who is doing the behaviour, not the behaviours themselves.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Calm

[Duncan]

Smac 97 talks about how BYU is for everyone and the rules apply to everyone yet look at how many talks there are about marriage, and I am quite certain they are only talking to heterosexual couples or potential heterosexual couples-not to gay couples

https://speeches.byu.edu/topics/marriage/

[Calm]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

But the statute does apply to me, and it is relevant.  That I have no present desire to violate it does not absolve me of my obligation to comply with it.  That some other fellow may be more inclined to violate it does not absolve him of his obligation to comply with it.  And both he and I are being held to the same behavioral standard. 

But your compliance with the standard amounts to you being able to ignore it because you have no inclination to commit assault.  The law could be removed today and it would make no difference in your life.  You have therefore a very low level awareness of the law, which means it has a very low level of impact on you (unless it stops someone from assaulting you).  It doesn’t have much effect on your actions.

However, for someone prone to assault people, if the law was removed tomorrow and he no longer had to worry about legal punishment, would his behaviour change?  If so, then the law against assault has a much bigger impact/effect on the one who is violent vs the one who is not.

In the case of the section on homosexual sexual behaviour of the LoC, how often have you had the internal conversation of “the LoC forbids me approaching and kissing that man when I really want to do that or even asking him out on a date”.  If you don’t think about it, if you don’t change your behaviour because of it, then you have a low level of awareness about it, it has little effect on you and it is not a big part of your life even if other parts of the LoC have been, such as the reservation for sexual relations being with only someone who you are legally married to and who is married with God’s law as now taught (between a man and a woman).

Otoh, since sexual thoughts are quite, quite common in most college aged kids, chances are those with homosexual attractions are frequently thinking about that part of the LoC.  They are highly aware of it, that part of the LoC changes how they behave.  Therefore the effects/the impacts on their lives are much, much greater than it is on someone who experiences a personal world where that section of the LoC is essentially nonexistent because he has no need for it.  This does not mean there aren’t other sections of the LoC that apply to him and have a great impact on him.  But everything that has such an impact (because he is single and not married) also applies to any single non heterosexuals, this section of the LoC adds additional influence on thoughts, feelings and external behaviors and additional stress with conflicts between different desires occur that wouldn’t be there for him if that part of the LoC did not exist.

To ignore this type of impact, this heightened awareness of a part of the LoC, the likelihood of how much more space it takes up in a non heterosexual’s mind attending BYU vs a single heterosexual’s daily thoughts and the even less space it fills with restrictions for the married heterosexual and what all that means for the level of stress a non heterosexual experiences at BYU and to continue to insist even when the differences in experiences are pointed out that “[t]he "impact" to the individual, then, remains the same” is a prime example of lack of empathy.***

***https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-empathy-2795562#:~:text=Empathy is the ability to,feeling what they are feeling.

Quote

Empathy is the ability to emotionally understand what other people feel, see things from their point of view, and imagine yourself in their place. Essentially, it is putting yourself in someone else's position and feeling what they are feeling.

PS:  you don’t have to say a word or share an emotion to have or to even express empathy as recognition of what happens to someone without talking about emotion is possible.  I don’t look for emotion to identify empathy. I look for recognition of a person’s actual experience as opposed to telling a person what is happening to them or should have happened or how they should have reacted, etc. or how the other has or is experiencing it as if that takes precedence to the experience of the person.  Too often attempts at empathy turn into taking over the problem as if it’s their own and ‘solving’ it based on not the needs of the person with the problem, but the needs of the problem solver.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Calm

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

You said a gay person who commits to marriage to the person they want to spend their life with is equivalent to a person who wants to cheat and commit adultry

You don’t see the difference?  Really?

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is the behavior that is being allowed or disallowed, not the person(s) doing it.

They are not "held to a different standard."  Nobody is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior.  It's the same standard for everyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok, let’s agree to disagree on this. I would like to know why you started this thread and many others like it. It always ends the same. 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

As the prohibition intentionally targets Latter-day Saints, and intentionally so, I would say no, they are not welcome, but yet, they are being held to the same standard.

The standard impacts people differently.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” -Anatole France

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Honor Code at BYU, however, does not target anyone, intentionally or unintentionally.

Really?

From the Honor Code:

“Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from sexual relations outside marriage between a man and a woman. Living a chaste and virtuous life also includes abstaining from same-sex romantic behavior.”

That doesn’t target anyone specifically?

You argue that forbidding behavior that only LDS people do is targeting them specifically but forbidding behavior that only some queer people do is not targeting queer people specifically? Really?