BYU's Honor Code?

[Kuan]

Im not sure how many here follow college basketball but if you do, you'll probably know about this deal. BYU has had its best season ever in the history of the school, but then when they find out that their best rebounder broke the honor code, they suspend him for the rest of the season.

What do you guys make of this whole deal?

[dianaiad]

.....we don't ban gays. We have an honor code that prohibits pre-marital sex and sex outside marriage.

To wrestle this back to the topic, though, if the BYU honor code applies to everybody, how can you call it a specific ban on one group?

Sorry I should have done more in depth homework. I am working under the misapprehension that the BYU honour code explicitly uses the phrase �no homosexual behaviour�. I got this information from Wiki To double check I have just been to the BYU Honor code site which I guess I should have tried to look for earlier and found the honour code is as you list. However there is this statement on the BYU honor code page. I underline the relevant qualification.

One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behaviour is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.

Ok I have thrown around the term “gay ban� loosely but I’d count the banning of all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings as a gay ban. Under this code it is possible to have married students or married faculty but not two legally married gay lecturers or students. It looks like BYU would not employ a gay academic married in say the UK. To a same sex partner. The code also reads as meaning that holding hands or hugs etc would be passable but not if it is the ones do the holding and hugging are gay.

The point is that society should not be forcing gay folk to live alone and celibate or hiding their nature in order to find employment or study and any code that does that is a “gay ban�.

"Society" isn't. BYU, a specific university associated with a specific religious belief, requires that of anybody who wants to attend. BYU is not a public school. It does not choose students--students choose IT. While it is true that BYU is a tier one school, and academically very good, there are others that are better rated, academically. Nobody is forced to choose between good academics and permission to be promiscuous.

However, when a private university decides that, in order to attend, all students must be chaste for four years, that, my friend, isn't harm by any measurement.

I’d disagree and think it is way healthier to be at it like a bunny but we are free to strike a different stance on that one. But the BYU code takes a step beyond saying this rule applies to everyone. It singles out and bans gay behaviour in all forms. If the chaste rule applied equally then there is no need for the gay clause. By keeping it in BYU is explicitly and in practice "banning gays". Maybe this will take a gay Noble prize winning laureate married to a same sex partner to submit his or her resume to BYU.

Here's the problem; when heterosexual couples hold hands and show affectionate behavior (and trust me, BYU puts a rather severe limit on that one, as well...holding hands is fine; the 'greeting kiss' is also fine--but making out on campus is going to get you in trouble), it is seen as courting behavior--the ultimate end of which is marriage; if not to the one whose hand you are holding now, at least to someone who is eligible for marriage under our beliefs.

Since we beleive that it is impossible for gays to marry in the eyes of God, then holding hands and showing public affection for another gay person is just asking for problems; it's poking at a wound, picking a scab...it's that one drink for an alcoholic. It is, in fact, stupid.

I'm sure, for instance, that you would look askance at a Catholic priest who went on dates with women, or walked around holding hands with one--what is acceptable for an ordinary man is not for that priest. Why? Because he promised.

A gay man who has made the promise to be chaste is absolutely flirting with breaking that promise if he engages in affectionate behavior with another gay man--for one thing, it's setting them both up, and hard, to break the promises they made.

I know it seems hard and unkind to require this of gays when it is not of heterosexual couples...but in reality, it's not unkind; quite the opposite. If a gay person makes this promise, then s/he needs to keep it. Not 'sorta,' but, y'know, actually KEEP it.

[dianaiad]

I still think adoption is the better option. Consider the overpopulation of the earth, the children around the world suffering from malnutrition and ect. Instead of bringing new life into the world, I think it would be best to take care of those already here.

Sure, though that would also apply as well to every hetero couple, but we know that people don't work like that.

No, it doesn't need love--and that's the problem. Far too often sex is engaged in without love---and the consequences are often dire for everybody concerned.

Only in places where they don't have the needed cautions. It's not even a problem. As I have already said, at least in my country, the dire consequences are such a small possibility that it doesn't even need to be taken into account. The probability of getting a STD with the needed protection is almost like the one of getting hit by a lightning. Nothing to worry about, people are not going to stop having sex because anyone could have a STD or they can get pregnant 1/10000 times. Life is a constant risk. And a spouse can also have a STD! (maybe he/she can get one through a blood donation) If you know the person the probabilities are almost the same.

The fact is, children born to single parent families have a tougher time. So do their parents.

A lot tougher.

Oh, and sex is what you do to get babies.

I have never said it was a lie, but non-marital sex per se isn't either more stupid or less stupid when in the same conditions, that would be a religious bias.

I admit that currently they might have a tougher time, because it's not the usual current social order, just like children of black people might have had a hard time when there was more racism, and maybe now too. And if black people had a higher criminality rate in a given population, or had a tougher time, what would be the solution - solve the factors that affect the problem or rather ban them from having children?

It has nothing to do with 'social order' or religious bias; it has to do with reality; finances and responsibility. Once you have a child, it's HARDER to earn as much money as someone who doesn't. You have a responsibility to the child; it has to come first...and part of the problem children of single mothers have is that too many times the children do NOT come first. Changing society at large so that the single mother and the child of an unmarried parent no longer feels societal and religious disapproval doesn't change that; for one thing, society is there already. I don't know anybody who refuses women or children services and aid because of their lack of wedded status, and 'Bastard" is now just a swear word. The point is, as rosy as you would like to paint this, your claim that negative consequences of sex outside marriage are as likely as being hit by lightning is erronious.

Just because you imagine a perfect world where everyone is married doesn't mean the whole world is going to be always monogamous. In fact many people are forced monogamous because of their culture and that's indeed having a tough time, as it can affect the person's happiness. Most people I know don't want to marry, some committed and some not. What they do is up to them, but if they live a careful life they will have almost the same risks as a married couple. If they're committed, virtually the same.

define 'committed.'

But again, a children born into non-marital sex doesn't mean he has a single parent. Stop misreading me. And couple sex is not the only way to have a children, ever heard of in vitro?

.......oh, yes...hence the reason I said that SOMEONE has to have sex. To be really blunt, just how do you think the sperm is harvested, anyway? It isn't removed from the testicles by aspiration, y'know.

[ Saying they are separate was mainly directed at saying that sex needn't children, although the natural way of having children is sex. This sex, however, doesn't need to be marital at all. A legal contract will never affect the zygote.

Here's the thing: in order to have a baby, somewhere, some time, a man has to ejaculate, and the sperm and egg have to come together somewhere. Short of cloning, there is no other way to make a human baby.

God, or evolution, has fixed it so that human sex causes human babies; in fact, a strict evolutionist would posit that the reason sex is fun is so that the woman can keep the man around in order to help her RAISE the babies that sex makes. If, at least, the MAN didn't like it, humanity would have been extinct before it started.

The entire purpose of sex revolves around babies; either the making of, or the taking care of, babies. Everytime humans forget that, and attempt to divorce sex from procreation, they get into trouble--because, again, whether you credit God or evolution without deity, the facts are incontrovertable; if you have sex, no matter how careful you are, you are at risk of making a baby. If you have sex, you'd better be ready for what will happen in your life if and when that baby shows up, and it seems to me that, if having a baby and raising it is an unacceptable risk, then avoiding the behavior is the only reasonable option.

[Ragna]

It has nothing to do with 'social order' or religious bias; it has to do with reality; finances and responsibility. Once you have a child, it's HARDER to earn as much money as someone who doesn't. You have a responsibility to the child; it has to come first...and part of the problem children of single mothers have is that too many times the children do NOT come first. Changing society at large so that the single mother and the child of an unmarried parent no longer feels societal and religious disapproval doesn't change that; for one thing, society is there already. I don't know anybody who refuses women or children services and aid because of their lack of wedded status, and 'Bastard" is now just a swear word. The point is, as rosy as you would like to paint this, your claim that negative consequences of sex outside marriage are as likely as being hit by lightning is erronious.

It certainly has. A non-committed couple, non-married can very well take care of a child. And a single parent with a good job who can afford the baby has no reason not to have one if he/she so pleases. Negative consequences of sex outside marriage are higher than sex outside marriage only in situations I did not refer to, if, as I said in my original post, they are two adults who know each other the risks of STD's are the same. And for babies take contraceptives.

define 'committed.'

Not sleeping with anybody else.

But again, a children born into non-marital sex doesn't mean he has a single parent. Stop misreading me. And couple sex is not the only way to have a children, ever heard of in vitro?

.......oh, yes...hence the reason I said that SOMEONE has to have sex. To be really blunt, just how do you think the sperm is harvested, anyway? It isn't removed from the testicles by aspiration, y'know.

Guess why I inserted "couple sex" in, foreseeing your comment. I don't know if you would call masturbation sex, but definetely not "couple sex" as I said.

[ Saying they are separate was mainly directed at saying that sex needn't children, although the natural way of having children is sex. This sex, however, doesn't need to be marital at all. A legal contract will never affect the zygote.

Here's the thing: in order to have a baby, somewhere, some time, a man has to ejaculate, and the sperm and egg have to come together somewhere. Short of cloning, there is no other way to make a human baby.

And here I was comparing children from marital sex and non-marital sex in committed couples. What's that "thing" have to do now, exactly? Please reply to what I refer to.

God, or evolution, has fixed it so that human sex causes human babies; in fact, a strict evolutionist would posit that the reason sex is fun is so that the woman can keep the man around in order to help her RAISE the babies that sex makes. If, at least, the MAN didn't like it, humanity would have been extinct before it started.

The entire purpose of sex revolves around babies; either the making of, or the taking care of, babies. Everytime humans forget that, and attempt to divorce sex from procreation, they get into trouble--because, again, whether you credit God or evolution without deity, the facts are incontrovertable; if you have sex, no matter how careful you are, you are at risk of making a baby. If you have sex, you'd better be ready for what will happen in your life if and when that baby shows up, and it seems to me that, if having a baby and raising it is an unacceptable risk, then avoiding the behavior is the only reasonable option.

The reasonable option is to take contraceptives. If they fail, which would be 1/10000 cases, normal people can resort to abortion, or have the baby and give it away. Whatever you say, sex is not only a reproductive act anymore, it has a lot of other uses in human cultures and societies, anthropology, biology, psychology and sociology can tell.

I don't know why religions get so obsessive with reproduction. Why don't they also blame us for eating chewing gums? After all, we're using our saliva and mouth for something that is not nutrition...

[Slopeshoulder]

I'm late to this, and support BYU's right to have an enforce an honor code, setting aside the issues related to gays, but may I ask and comment (and I do so in earnest):

Y'know what saddens me the most? It is this: the BYU honor code requires that students:
- Be honest

Sounds good.

- Live a chaste and virtuous life

How are chasity and virtue related? Are they synonyms? If they are different, why don't they each get a separate line?
Why is sex before or without marriage in the bloom of youth considered bad? I won a religion award at school, was very active as a believer, then had mountains of sex in college and HS, and then got two degress in religion. Never hurt me.

- Obey the law and all campus policies

This needs to be stated?

- Use clean language

How is clean defined? How can language be clean or dirty? What is at stake here and why does it matter?

- Respect others

This needs to be stated?

- Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and substance abuse

Abuse I get, but why is social drinking (wine with dinner, cocktail, etc) harmful? Why is tea bad (I'm having an iced tea now)? Do Mormons or BYU students also refrain from all harmful foods? Are none obese? Do all have low cholesterol?

- Participate regularly in church services

So belief is required? Are there no non-mormon students at BYU (I ask because I am familiar with there being many many non catholic students at catholic schools)

- Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards

Does God have a grooming sense? Is the Osmond look better in God's eyes than the Jesus look? Is lingerie ruled out? Did God dilike the fashion in the 1960's? Are goths going to hell for a bad fashion sense (well..maybe they should!)? What is the status of polyester? I'm pretty sure it's not of God.

- Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code"

Seems benign, except maybe it isn't. Witch hunts, pressure, spying, all that.

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/118575/ ... z1H3bZDwpX

.............and it has almost universally been condemned as draconion, wacky, unrealistic...stupid and harsh.

nah, but maybe outdated and silly?

.............................................and that makes me both sad and terrified for the future of the human race, that such requirements as are listed above are considered too draconian and wacky to expect of humans.

nah, but maybe outdated and silly? In 2011 most 18-22 year olds are going to have sex, drink a beer, have some wine, say a cuss word or thousand. Who cares? But I imagine applications aren't down. So if Mormon's want to live this way and put it out there like this, being the exception, why not? I think it's silly, outdated, repressed, false, and weird, but they're free to do it. Who's it hurting right? Maybe it even works. Kids'll stick with it or anandon it as they mature. But Mormonism extracts a high price for leaving, so most folks go along or sin in secret I guess.

[dianaiad]

The reasonable option is to take contraceptives. If they fail, which would be 1/10000 cases, normal people can resort to abortion, or have the baby and give it away. Whatever you say, sex is not only a reproductive act anymore, it has a lot of other uses in human cultures and societies, anthropology, biology, psychology and sociology can tell.

I don't know why religions get so obsessive with reproduction. Why don't they also blame us for eating chewing gums? After all, we're using our saliva and mouth for something that is not nutrition...

WHERE did you get the statistics for contraceptive failure rate? The most effective contraception methods there are, IUD's, implants and hormone injections have a 1 in 100 failure rate, NOT 1/10000. One in a hundred. Condoms have a 15% failure rate, birth control pills have an 8% failure rate, and that's when all these things are used correctly: quite often they are not...and then the failure rate goes up.

http://www.contracept.org/risks.php

Abortion? Well, that sounds pretty easy....except it isn't. Even the most dedicated feminist, who advocates mightily for the right of a woman to abort, finds that aborting a baby is a lot more traumatic than she thought it would be. Of course, there ARE those folks, like me, who think that in most cases aborting a baby is, though not legally murder, certainly ending a human life, and should be considered murder.

Adoption is better, of course... that's hard on everybody concerned.

As to whether sex is not for reproduction anymore....those who find it fun (and yeah, I got to keep my hubby for twenty years and five kids; I thought sex was a lot of fun) can blind themselves to reality and lie to themselves about what 'sex is for,' but the fact is, sex is ALL about procreation.

True, not all sex is about actually making the babies; women don't go into heat once a year. However, sex between a man and a woman is there to deepen the bonds between partners; to keep them together....and people who stay together have a better chance of raising healthy, sane children. THAT is what it is for. That doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy all the fun involved, but it does mean that we should understand that sex is not like bowling or golf or surfing; it's not a sport; it's a process by which humans bond together--and misusing it can be utterly disastrous.

By the way, don't move the goal posts; two committed people who stay together, in terms of childraising, is pretty much the same as married people raising children. The problem is, very, very few couples actually DO that.

As well, the statistics regarding the negative aspects of single parenting are valid whether Dad actually has visitation rights/ joint custody or not; in order to avoid those statistics, Dad actually has to be IN THE HOUSE.

As well, very rich single women who have children later--who have the money--also have problems with the kids. Why? Because there is no Dad in the house; it does hurt.

Trust me; my husband was home with our first three kids.....then he died. I had to raise the youngest two without him. They turned out all right, but it would have been much better for them if they'd had him as well as me.

[dianaiad]

I'm late to this, and support BYU's right to have an enforce an honor code, setting aside the issues related to gays, but may I ask and comment (and I do so in earnest):

Y'know what saddens me the most? It is this: the BYU honor code requires that students:
- Be honest

Sounds good.

- Live a chaste and virtuous life

How are chasity and virtue related? Are they synonyms? If they are different, why don't they each get a separate line?

poetic license...and the power of repetition.

Why is sex before or without marriage in the bloom of youth considered bad? I won a religion award at school, was very active as a believer, then had mountains of sex in college and HS, and then got two degress in religion. Never hurt me.

Obey the law and all campus policies

This needs to be stated?

Evidently it does. Certainly it seems to be a standard requirement in most universities with codes---even the little Cal State U that I got my degrees from.

- Use clean language

How is clean defined? How can language be clean or dirty? What is at stake here and why does it matter?

Interesting question...but I think it has to do with the sort of atmosphere that is expected. For instance, in THIS forum, debators are expected to behave with some decorum, and avoid using profanity; doesn't it help discussion greatly to have that requirement?

As for me, I taught freshman high school, where the 'F' word was used as a place holder adjective; if the student couldn't think of the right word, then that word (or, if they were being more thoughtful than usual, some other profanity) was used. My students had a very limited vocabulary. When I forbad the use of that word in my classroom, many of them simply could not speak. I'm thinking that this requirement serves two purposes: first, to require the students to actually use proper adjectives, and second, to try to tame the Southern Idaho Mormons into civility.
...............and yes, I'm a Southern Idaho Mormon.

- Respect others

This needs to be stated?

Yep. Also a fairly standard requirement for schools. Doesn't hurt to put it in writing.

- Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and substance abuse

Abuse I get, but why is social drinking (wine with dinner, cocktail, etc) harmful? Why is tea bad (I'm having an iced tea now)? Do Mormons or BYU students also refrain from all harmful foods? Are none obese? Do all have low cholesterol?

The CoJCoLDS has a doctrine...the Word of Wisdom. Most of it is given as pretty darned good health advice, but some aspects of it have been adopted as more than that; as signs that we are different. We do not smoke, drink alcohol, tea or coffee, and getting addicted to drugs is a no-no. This provision IS "Mormon specific," rather like men who attend Jewish synagogues or weddings, Jewish or not, are asked to wear yarmulkes. We don't do that stuff, so, if you want to attend BYU, you don't do that stuff either--at least on campus. Non-members aren't going to get nailed for having their breakfast coffee in their apartments.

Participate regularly in church services

So belief is required? Are there no non-mormon students at BYU (I ask because I am familiar with there being many many non catholic students at catholic schools)

Belief in SOMETHING is required. You don't have to attend LDS services, but you do have to go somewhere. Atheist students are not asked to attend religious services at all.

Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards

Does God have a grooming sense? Is the Osmond look better in God's eyes than the Jesus look? Is lingerie ruled out? Did God dilike the fashion in the 1960's? Are goths going to hell for a bad fashion sense (well..maybe they should!)? What is the status of polyester? I'm pretty sure it's not of God.

It's called....dress modestly. Trust me on this one; college students can dress...interestingly. We do have a right to ask that, given the policy on pre-marital sex and all, that neither men nor women dress like they are working the streets for 'dates.'

- Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code"

Seems benign, except maybe it isn't. Witch hunts, pressure, spying, all that.

.......or simply being honest.

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/118575/ ... z1H3bZDwpX

.............and it has almost universally been condemned as draconion, wacky, unrealistic...stupid and harsh.

nah, but maybe outdated and silly?

Not by us...and it is, after all, our school.

.............................................and that makes me both sad and terrified for the future of the human race, that such requirements as are listed above are considered too draconian and wacky to expect of humans.

nah, but maybe outdated and silly? In 2011 most 18-22 year olds are going to have sex, drink a beer, have some wine, say a cuss word or thousand. Who cares?

It seems that 'most do.' We ARE trying to change that, because this sort of activity is dangerous to the kids, no matter what religion one belongs to, or doesn't.

But I imagine applications aren't down. So if Mormon's want to live this way and put it out there like this, being the exception, why not? I think it's silly, outdated, repressed, false, and weird, but they're free to do it. Who's it hurting right? Maybe it even works. Kids'll stick with it or anandon it as they mature. But Mormonism extracts a high price for leaving, so most folks go along or sin in secret I guess.

One pays a high price for leaving any belief system in which one has found a 'home,' so to speak. Those you leave won't understand you; they won't feel that they ever knew who you were. They feel betrayed. I see this happen a LOT with those who leave other churches to become LDS, and when an ATHEIST does so, whoo, boy....you do not want to see what their old atheist friends do to them.

It's human.

The CoJCoLDS, however, does teach us that we aren't supposed to 'shun' people; quite the opposite. So I have to wonder exactly what it is you are talking about here...

[Ragna]

The reasonable option is to take contraceptives. If they fail, which would be 1/10000 cases, normal people can resort to abortion, or have the baby and give it away. Whatever you say, sex is not only a reproductive act anymore, it has a lot of other uses in human cultures and societies, anthropology, biology, psychology and sociology can tell.

I don't know why religions get so obsessive with reproduction. Why don't they also blame us for eating chewing gums? After all, we're using our saliva and mouth for something that is not nutrition...

WHERE did you get the statistics for contraceptive failure rate? The most effective contraception methods there are, IUD's, implants and hormone injections have a 1 in 100 failure rate, NOT 1/10000. One in a hundred. Condoms have a 15% failure rate, birth control pills have an 8% failure rate, and that's when all these things are used correctly: quite often they are not...and then the failure rate goes up.

http://www.contracept.org/risks.php

So, take a pill and a condom and it's already 12/1000. The thing is that it's not a risk enough to say "oh, we better don't ever have sex!" that's a religious bias. Sex is not at all for having children anymore, that's 1 use it has. Not in heterosexual couples, and nothing in homosexual couples. Come on, look at the world, have you ever heard of porn actors and actresses? Do they seem like they care about statistics? Many are healthy and have children whenever they want to aside from their job. And there are other kinds of sexual activities that don't have any risk of getting the woman pregnant. So your policy "the best option is to abstain from the behavior" is unrealistic and dated. So dated no human society has used it consistently. Condoms are as old as Egypt, maybe more. Some indigenous tribes use contraceptive herbs.

Abortion? Well, that sounds pretty easy....except it isn't. Even the most dedicated feminist, who advocates mightily for the right of a woman to abort, finds that aborting a baby is a lot more traumatic than she thought it would be. Of course, there ARE those folks, like me, who think that in most cases aborting a baby is, though not legally murder, certainly ending a human life, and should be considered murder.

Well, abortion is not like taking a chewing gum, it's an extreme situation, so it's not going to be pleasant. Yet it's that, an extreme situation. Well used contraceptives don't use to fail. Well, that's what they are for!

As to whether sex is not for reproduction anymore....those who find it fun (and yeah, I got to keep my hubby for twenty years and five kids; I thought sex was a lot of fun) can blind themselves to reality and lie to themselves about what 'sex is for,' but the fact is, sex is ALL about procreation.

True, not all sex is about actually making the babies; women don't go into heat once a year. However, sex between a man and a woman is there to deepen the bonds between partners; to keep them together....and people who stay together have a better chance of raising healthy, sane children. THAT is what it is for. That doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy all the fun involved, but it does mean that we should understand that sex is not like bowling or golf or surfing; it's not a sport; it's a process by which humans bond together--and misusing it can be utterly disastrous.

Sex between a man and a woman can be used for whatever the man and the woman want, children or not, making bonds or not, it's not your decision nor your religion's decision but theirs. It's as old as humanity, sex has had a lot of different uses along our history, you just can't make this vanish, whatever your religious views are, it's how our species behaves. And I want to repeat that not all sex is between a man and a woman, neither it is for making a baby.

[Furrowed Brow]

Nobody is forced to choose between good academics and permission to be promiscuous.

There is a clear “no homosexual behaviour� rule within the BYU code over and above any rules of chastity that apply to all students. With this policy BYU encourages gay folk to choose elsewhere. “Walk on by�. Private landlords in the UK were once allowed to advertise “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs�. Gay was such a taboo it never even got a mention. Today “no blacks, no Irish� along with “no gays� is just illegal. Christian hoteliers cannot insist two gay men take separate rooms. Whilst these kinds of ban and restrictions attempt to exclude some members of society, its “harmfulness� is insidious. The message it says is that� you’re sort� are not wanted, and that indeed it is right and just to exclude you.� The no homosexuality clause in the BYU honor cause is a “walk on by� sign. Specifically it means that if you live in the US and are gay an educational institutional is systematically able to point out they provide an environment that is toxic to you. the demand is not that you be chaste like everyone else but that you do not dare exhibit what you are. Like an Irishmen having to hide his accent to gain lodgings in 1950s Britain. You raise the question of “promiscuousness� that is a different issue.

Here's the problem; when heterosexual couples hold hands and show affectionate behavior (and trust me, BYU puts a rather severe limit on that one, as well...holding hands is fine; the 'greeting kiss' is also fine--but making out on campus is going to get you in trouble), it is seen as courting behavior--the ultimate end of which is marriage; if not to the one whose hand you are holding now, at least to someone who is eligible for marriage under our beliefs.

Granted these are the beliefs of the vast majority of LDS. But under the BYU code what would a girl and a guy found canoodling in the locker room be treated the same as two guys canoodling? As the code is drawn up it leaves room for and signals a different response.

The no homosexual behaviour clause is a clear attempt to exclude a whole strata of society. This should not be tolerable to any country that protects the rights of all its individual. As I say in the UK they would not be allowed. Folk can’t just offer a “public� service and attach gender restrictions like the BYU does with the wording they have chosen in their honour code. They would not be allowed to advertising for lecturers or campus staff with that code attached. If BYU advertise posts and as far as basketball goes the BYU are exporting their code beyond their campus. Again I see this as morally equally to having a colour bar in the job advert or on the sporting team. Regarding inter university activities I am really surprised there is no backlash. It would be the sort of thing that would get the student bodies of UK colleges all riled up.

Since we believe that it is impossible for gays to marry in the eyes of God, then holding hands and showing public affection for another gay person is just asking for problems; it's poking at a wound, picking a scab...it's that one drink for an alcoholic. It is, in fact, stupid.

Yes it is awkward for the LDS and it does challenge the society they wish to build for themselves. But it is a scab they are going to have to come to terms with I suspect. Clearly the belief system wishes to exclude homosexuality and as a result it marginalises a whole segment of society, and that is the problem. Sticking “religious belief� on it is a ....fig leaf.

The reality is this is always going to be negotiated with a wider legal and social framework. My gripe has been less with the BYU – we know the LDS belief system – but that the US legal system seems to be letting them get away with an exclusion policy.

I'm sure, for instance, that you would look askance at a Catholic priest who went on dates with women, or walked around holding hands with one--what is acceptable for an ordinary man is not for that priest. Why? Because he promised.

Whilst I think the “promise� is stupid, the point is the additional restrictions that marginalise homosexuals. If the demand for celibacy applies to all then there is equality.

A gay man who has made the promise to be chaste is absolutely flirting with breaking that promise if he engages in affectionate behavior with another gay man--for one thing, it's setting them both up, and hard, to break the promises they made.

Ok chastity is the rule at BYU. But the “no homosexual behaviour� clause is in addition to the rules regarding chastity. If the BYU code is applied equally I think legally and morally they would be on firmer ground. But the code picks out homosexuality for special consideration. You are arguing for chasity ...and the BYU has rules regarding chastity so why is there the need for the additional "no homosexuality". It is this additional rule that I still find jaw dropping that is not deemed illegal in the US.

Curious.....where do the LDS stand on hermaphrodites? Can they marry, and to whom? What would the BYU stance be?

Another passing thought. Regarding the use of clean language where does the BYU stand on folk who suffer Tourettes, specifically those that regularly display Coprolalia

[Slopeshoulder]

WHERE did you get the statistics for contraceptive failure rate? The most effective contraception methods there are, IUD's, implants and hormone injections have a 1 in 100 failure rate.

Your source is tainted.
Think about it: if 15 out of every 100 condom uses failed we'd have astronomically high rates of abortion, adoptions, and STD's. Condoms would no solution at all.
I'm afraid you've just lost a lot of credibility. Your stats are BS.

[Slopeshoulder]

The

Thanks for the reply. All that sounds reasonable to me.