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?

[Furrowed Brow]

Sorry dianaid this reply is way too long. Only feel the need to reaply the section I have embolden or whatever you like. But a clear answer to the question of a gay BYU masketball player is at the heart of this.

Why? What's the difference between a plaid skirt no higher than the knees and a veil, in principle?

In principle one is a question of taste the other is a material restriction correlated with lower education standards and health rates for women. It also imposes rigid and unequal gender roles.

The thought behind it is...if I can censor you, then eventually you can censor me. By protecting your right to be obnoxious, wrong, hateful, discriminatory and stupid...

And I retain that right . But being free to speak ones mind and running an educational institution or club or business move beyond the question of freedom of expression and begin a process that materially affects the lives of others not part of or on the margins of the belief system

Put it this way: if the BYU faculty gave a preamble to their honor code that stated the tenets of the LDS faith that motivate BYU faith but the code did not have the explicit “no homosexuality rule� and in their list of commitments the BYU stated that everyone would be treated equally under the rules and everyone was treated equally then there would not be an issue here I think. The LDS get to state what they think but with a promise of equal treatment they agree to adhere to a basic minimum standard that society should be expecting every school to keep to.

Why? It is an established and solid fact that some students learn best by collaboration;

Then set tests that tests group work and collaboration skills.

why is it ok to discriminate against them in tests,

No it is not ok to discriminate. I’ll give you an example. In the UK a couple of decades ago the decision was made to move away from one off tests which students had to cram for and embrace project work. Often final course marks are based on a combination of smaller final exam and project work or even just project work. Course materially was also tweaked. So instead of fact cramming the emphasis was given to “put yourself in their shoes� ways of thinking. This was because girls did less well than boys under the old way of testing educational achievement. Where before boys out performed girls in nearly all subjects today girls outpace boys in nearly all subjects: as a result the pendulum is about to swing back in the other direction a little to try and find the happy medium.

but not against gays being openly affectionate on a church owned campus?

Church’s should not be owning or running schools if they can’t ensure equal treatment of its staff and students and their policies are discriminatory.

What's the difference here...except for your own personal beliefs and judgments about what is right and wrong?

The difference is the question of discrimination.

The real question here is...you have here declared that a church owned and operated university does not have the right to enforce its culture upon students who, if they don't actually share the belief system espoused by the university, certainly agree to abide by the rules as a condition for attending.

Not quite. I have agreed BYU has the right to impose a chastity rule. It does not have the right, or should not have the right (because presently it seems to be getting away with it) to impose discriminatory practices.

You have done so because you think that your view of the world, and your philosophical and ethical belief system is better than theirs—

It is my conceit that I believe the LDS worldview is not so good for the world but the reason I do not think the “no homosexuality rule� should be allowed is because it is discriminatory and I do not believe any club, school, business etc should be allowed to discriminate.

and that somehow that gives you the right to enforce it upon others.

I certainly think the state has a right to intervene or introduce legislation to prevent discrimination yes...absolutely. Without folk through history holding firmly to that belief we would still have slavery, homosexuality would still be illegal, women would not have the right to vote etc.

The fact that you do not LIKE that culture is not justification for you to force it to change.

The “no homosexuality� rule is discriminatory. Yes I do not like discrimination but I am one person. I do demand that governments and legislation be consistent in its commitments to social equality.

Human sacrifice might be problematic, for instance. However, asking that gay couples not be openly affectionate in public hardly qualifies there.

Human sacrifice is nice and easy and for which near all educated modern folk can agree. It is an easy case that sets a principle. Slavery is another nice easy and evocative case around which educated modern folk can agree must be prohibited. But a couple of hundred years ago or so the issue was not so clear cut for some. But what about the right of women to vote? Is there any real harm done if they are not given the vote or allowed to sit on some faculty or other? And the answer is yes. So where do we draw the line? Is it so harmful that schools are allowed two sets of rules; one for heterosexual folk and another for this less sure and those certainly not heterosexual: and again the answer is yes.

We are talking about US law here, not UK law. HERE, it is perfectly legal for private organizations and religions to discriminate against anything they like--except in public accomodations like restaurants, hotels, theaters, public transportation and public parks.

Ok and just add to that list schools and educational institutions. I guess these are not exempt. Whilst the LDS own the land and the infrastructure BYU is in the business of providing education, an education to anyone who might choose to go there and is accpeted. That makes it space and services on a par with a hotel. Hotel staff have to obey rules its guests do not. They have to wear uniform and remain polite etc. I am not sure of the law in the US but I’d be surprise if they were allowed rules that discriminated against homosexuality. If it was against the rules for hotel staff to kiss in front of guests, but ok to hold hands, but gays were not even allowed to hold hands then that would be a discriminatory practice and should be illegal if it is not already.

That means this: at BYU, if gay visitors want to hold hands while on tour, it is illegal for the church to tell them to stop. If gay couples want to hold hands in a church owned restaurant that is open to the public, they are quite free to do so.

Yes so the point is established BYU obey the law.

But the BYU campus is not a public accomodation. It is the very essence of 'private individuals' and organizations. They have the absolute right to admit who they want to, and exclude who they want to--and to define what behavior is, and is not, acceptable.

Only within the law. They can’t exclude a person of colour, and if they admitted them on the condition special rules applied to them, with the implication harsher sanctions apply, this too would I hope be illegal for in the US. PPPleaze tell me that point is already well established under US law. All the way through this conversation I have been registering my shock that the US still has not got around to protecting all its citizens from discrimination and that the argument for “privacy� and/or “religious belief� is not or should be an excuse to perpetuate discrimination.

...........and believe me, this is a good thing. For if everyone isn't free to believe as they wish, and live within their own culture as they wish, then nobody is.

But the BYU provides an education to non Mormons. IF the BYU rules stated their education was only available to temple worthy then maybe your argument would work. But the BYU is not a church it is a university and as such the rules and standards to apply to the providers of educational bodies should apply.

I see. The purpose of government is to regulate religious belief?

Its purpose is not to regulate what people believe, it is however their to regulate how folk interact and keep things fair.

It is more important, actually, to protect the freedom of the different. ALL the different, not just those who are politically approved of. That means that the Mormons must be free to be Mormons just as much as it means that gays need to be free to be gays.

The Mormons are free to be Mormons. But BYU is not just a school for Mormons though and as such it has to engage with a wider set of principles than just its own. If the LDs want to provide education open to everyone then they have to provide a system of rules that is reflective of everyone.

If you can tell a church owned and operated school that it has to accept behavior that its religious beliefs within its own property and institutions, then what is to keep me from telling you what you MUST accept in your own home?

This is a slippery slope argument. Your fear is probably well founded. In the UK the state does intervene into the home. Obviously there are the social services, police, councils etc that have the right to intervene under specific circumstances. Parents are not allowed to beat their kids black and blue for example. Parents can’t refuse blood transfusions for their kids. The principle is established. How this works out in practice is down to the legal framework in place and the remit allowed the various branches of the public services. Are folk going to demand that parents can’t tell their kids homosexuality is wrong in the privacy of their own living rooms? Well you would not be allowed to adopt if you expressed that opinion. The kid might turn out gay andthen what? So I guess a slipper slope is a fear for some. But the legalities of that argument are on a different plain to the legalities of the rules that should apply to a university.

Apples and oranges. Slavery was specifically harmful to individuals who were unwillingly bound. THAT is the line that should be drawn.

Since the victims of slavery certainly fall under the 'harm to the unwilling,' it is not applicable here.

Yes. Slavery is a different case. But the principle is that the state has a right to trespass on religious belief. The details of what that means are specific to each case. You are introducing the question of “unwillingly bound�. This is another criteria. But coloured folk use to have to ride on the back of the bus in some US states. To say they could always choose to move states is also not acceptable. Or if a coloured person turned up to demonstrate and ride on the front ofthe bus the argument that they are not from around here is also not acceptable. I think history has established these principles.

Gays may attend BYU, and have all the advantages of the education that can be found there. They are asked, and voluntarily agree to, a specific standard of behavior that does not prohibit them from participating in LDS culture or education.

Yes. But if there was a church that ran a university that said blacks are welcome but they must ride at the back of the school bus that would not be an acceptable practice and the state would be duty bound to intervene. “If they come here that means they volunteered� argument does not fly. This argument can be wielded to defend untold prejudice and discrimination.

Nobody has the RIGHT to attend BYU.

Pointed accepted. But if they do attend they have a right not to be discriminated against.

How about this: in California it is perfectly legal to turn right against a red light, as long as there is no traffic and no sign saying you can't. OTHER states in the USA say no, you can't. It seems to me that this is a fairly arbitrary rule. If I go to one of those states and get a ticket for turning against a red light, do I get to protest because its legal in CALIFORNIA?

You can if you wish. You are free to try and sue. It all seems arbitrary though. If however a local fellah gets a fifty dollar fine and you from out of state get a hundred dollar fine and are ejected from the state. Then that would be unjust. Seeing you did the same thing as the local fellah.

BTW, that's not us. Mormons have no problems at all with transfusions.

I am ignorant of much about the LDS but I did know that. But your answer already goes down the path of trying to play the competing factors of assessing harm versus preserving belief. Therefore religious belief is not a priori ring fenced against state intervention. As I say how that harm is assessed comes down to the specifics but the point in principle is made.

Excuse me, but private organizations in the USA most certainly ARE allowed to do this. In California, for instance, (one of the most liberal states in the nation) the courts found that the Boy Scouts of America may indeed refuse to have gay scoutmasters or allow gay scouts.

I am truly shocked. Really. Sorry you have just taken the wind out of me. Shame on them. No really shame on them. Again I am left to register dismay at the US legal system on this issue.

BYU does not discriminate against gays; they may most certainly attend the school. They just can't make out in the hallways.

Yes it does. The wording of the rule is inherently discriminatory. How this is applied in practice I don’t know. Taking this all the way back to the OP: if the basketball player had admitted to having gay sex. Would the sanction have been the same. If yes then practice is discriminatory. If no then the BYU does not need the discriminatory clause in its honor code.

Speaking of...you seem to be suffering under the same problem the Catholics suffer from--the idea that gays HAVE to have sex, or are unable to control their behavior, so that allowances must be made. The Catholics don't allow gays to enter the priesthood--why? Because they think that gay men are going to find it impossible to keep their vows?

Actually no. I accept the point that there is a chastity rule at BYU. And I have not been talking about sex. The point has always been that there is a separate standard for gays written into the honor code. In any population of hormonal students I’d expect a percentage to break the rules. Even if that is just holding hands. But at BYU there is one rule for heterosexual misdemeanours and two rules for homosexual misdemeanours. That is discriminatory.

You want to enforce your wishes against our beliefs.

If you want to run a university open to non Mormons then yes I do. And now I have to write to the Boy Scouts too.

You want to expand that beyond what is acceptable...and you need to be careful; for once you allow the government to go after someone else, you have no complaints when it chooses to go after you next.

But I think the issue here is the LDS being in the business of providing university level education. If the LDS kept BYU “inhouse� I’d still have major issues but I could not present the same arguments, and I would not be flabbergasted that the BYU honor code was accepted as legal in the US. if the BYU was a church

You are not coaxing, sir....in fact, you haven't even attempted to make a case for harm.

Specifically the intolerance of homosexual behaviour in any form means BYU is harmful to the sense of identity of any homosexuality in attendance. In the same way that the laws that once made homosexuality illegal were harmful. For all the reason the laws were repealed apply to the BYU code. Any law or rule that says “what you are is not acceptable� is harmful. If a single gay Mormon is forced to leave state and move away from family and friends or choose to hide the fact they are gay....is harmful. If a closeted gay Mormon BYU endures stress and fear because the of the BYU code that is harmful.

What harm does the policy do? Are these people, who were fully and completely aware of the rules they signed, being harmed by being asked to abide by rules of behavior?

Yes they well could be and probably are. They are accepting to hide their identity and not be them self. And again I am not talking about sex. This could just be holding hands.

What harm comes to them? Is their health being affected by not holding hands with a same-sex lover in the hall way, or nuzzling in the theater? Is there some aspect of 'gayness' that I don't know about, that being asked not to hold hands with his boyfriend is going to cause irreparable and agonizing harm?

Short answer is yes this is harmful. It is harmful to set a policy that demands someone wipe clean their identity. It is especially harmful when their identity is singled out and made different from the other folk around them. True some folk are strong and have broad shoulders and will get over it. But we tend not to write our ethics to protect them as much as we do the weaker and more vulnerable members of society.

"Harm" is real, it's measurable and its physical...like the child who needs a transfusion and might die without one. Abiding by an agreement willingly entered into doesn't reach that level.

In principle some effects are measurable e.g. mental health, physical health, income. In practice it is harder because it is not always easy access data or the data is minimal. But there was very little data to show women not having the vote was harmful but there were appeals to equality and observations that gave credence to giving women the vote.

Yes, I understand this. IT's all part and parcel of the difference in thinking between us, I think; you are quite willing to allow the church to have more influence upon the government than we are, and FAR more willing to allow the government to have a say in what churches believe and do.

Government should have no or minimal say in what folk believe, they should have a minimal say in what folk do. When it comes to activities that are in the public domain like running a university then government has a say. Private funding, private ownership, and private belief are not a defence for discriminatory practices in the provision of education, if they are in the US I can only register my disapprobation. On point of ethics the argument is made. Privacy is not a defence because discrimination by its nature always has a non private consequence.

Please just accept that it is a difference; over here, you can't DO what you seem to think is your right to do, that is, impose your personal beliefs upon someone else, against their wills.

If the “no homosexual behaviour� rule is removed from the BYU code you can go on believing homosexuality is not right, but a material prohibition that allows gays to be discriminated against would be removed. The result is that they would be treated equally under the rules. Though a different case I see this as morally on a par with riding on the back of a bus. So yes I am over here and live under a different system, but some principles have a wider generality.

Hold it. We do NOT discriminate against homosexuality. We discriminate against homosexual behavior. There is a rather large difference.

If I was Russian and there was a rule that I must never speak with a Russian accent or or use Russian phrases, but French was OK, you might like to argue that they are not discriminating against me being Russian and only discriminating against the Russian language but you would be kidding yourself. Clearly the BYU Honor code singles out homosexual behaviour - "the accent" - and thus it is discriminatory.

[dianaiad]

Sorry dianaid this reply is way too long. Only feel the need to reaply the section I have embolden or whatever you like. But a clear answer to the question of a gay BYU masketball player is at the heart of this.

Uh, no...the basketball player in question...a young man I deeply admire, by the way, is not gay. He had sex with his girlfriend, in violation of the honor code. He was NOT 'caught." He realized that he had done something dishonorable (I know, an old fashioned word nowadays) and 'fessed up, knowing exactly what the consequences of his actions---and his confession--would be; would HAVE to be.

He'll take his lumps, and absent other information that I don't have, BYU will reinstate him. He's doing what he needs to do to get his own honor back; not many young men would do what he did, and he deserves a great deal of respect for that. After all, everybody goofs...but it takes someone pretty special to own up to and take responsibility for them.

Why? What's the difference between a plaid skirt no higher than the knees and a veil, in principle?

In principle one is a question of taste the other is a material restriction correlated with lower education standards and health rates for women. It also imposes rigid and unequal gender roles.

In principle, the requirement for girls to wear plaid skirts down to the knee is a 'matter of taste,' and the veil is a matter of imposing 'rigid and unequal gender roles?"

Given that the requirement for 'skirts to the knee' precludes the wearing of pants/trousers, and the fact that those same girls would probably rather be caught shopping at Wal-Mart for denture fixative than wear knee length anything but jeans outside the classroom, how is this any different, basically, than requiring a veil? Both are assigned to women only, both are for the sake of modesty, according to the different belief systems. There is, in fact, no difference in principle at all.

(just an aside...if they required the BOYS to wear knee length plaid skirts, I can see it; as long as they also allow the traditional sporan and the various knives that go with that outfit. However, my ancestry is pure Celtic....99% Scot...and I do love to see a man in a kilt. They ALL look good in 'em.)

The thought behind it is...if I can censor you, then eventually you can censor me. By protecting your right to be obnoxious, wrong, hateful, discriminatory and stupid...

And I retain that right . But being free to speak ones mind and running an educational institution or club or business move beyond the question of freedom of expression and begin a process that materially affects the lives of others not part of or on the margins of the belief system

Put it this way: if the BYU faculty gave a preamble to their honor code that stated the tenets of the LDS faith that motivate BYU faith but the code did not have the explicit “no homosexuality rule� and in their list of commitments the BYU stated that everyone would be treated equally under the rules and everyone was treated equally then there would not be an issue here I think. The LDS get to state what they think but with a promise of equal treatment they agree to adhere to a basic minimum standard that society should be expecting every school to keep to.

They do exactly that, my friend. There is no secret about what our beliefs and standards are, and unlike many other church owned schools, we have no problem with gays attending. They simply have to agree to abide by the honor code.

As to the perceived difference between what gays are allowed, and what 'straight's' are allowed...consider this: Heterosexual couples are allowed to court each other; holding hands is a courting behavior. Trust me; if a heterosexual couple were holding hands on the BYU campus, that behavior is acceptable ONLY if the possibility of marriage between them ultimately exists. If one or both of them is married to someone else, so that this possibility of marriage does not exist, their hand holding would be as much an abrogation of the honor code as gays holding hands in public.

Since we believe that it is impossible for gays to marry in the eyes of God...no matter what the government may think...then for them to engage in courting behavior (like holding hands and 'canoodling') is as wrong as if a couple of married heterosexuals were doing so--with someone other than their spouses. They are tempting themselves, and others, into doing something that is, we believe, utterly wrong in the sight of God.

It's like...someone trying to stop smoking who keeps putting unlit cigarettes in his mouth. It signals to both himself and others that he isn't honoring his promise in any real way.

Is it hard? Oh, yes. It's hard. It MUST be. However, these students make that choice when they apply to BYU. They think that what they get from BYU is more than worth the price they pay...and the price they pay is adherence to the honor code while there. That it is harder on them than on heterosexuals is obvious...but we all have major problems to deal with in our lives, and this is their choice.

<snip to end> We are repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

The thing is, m'friend, that I have some problems with British law; you don't separate church and state nearly as much as you should...for instance, it was perfectly legal to discriminate against someone because of their religion right up to 1975 over there (and that was two years AFTER I spent a year and a half there. I got some major first hand experience with how legal it was to discriminate against religion in England). Your search and seizure laws would make any American run for the hills and take up arms.

Er, come to think of it, we did just that.

It really shocked me that you would dip the British flag to the Queen on her birthday, and that there is still such a huge social divide between the 'nobility' and the commoners--that simply making money or achievements can't cross.

(OK, Kate is doing a bang up job, but then English Kings have married commoners before;...Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville in 1464--James, the brother of Charles II to Anne Hyde--shoot, Charles and Diana-- it's not all THAT new.)

Americans just don't 'grok' that idea...that while a noble can run for office in the House of Commons, no commoner can ever belong to the House of Lords. WE think it's screwy--and for heaven's sake don't get me started about the loos with the flush toilets in a shed at the bottom of the garden.

Still, all this is a part of what makes English...the English. I wouldn't dare demand that you change your beliefs, or your culture; you are who you are, and when I am in England, I will abide by English customs and rules.

Won't curtsey to the Queen, but then I'm not one of her subjects and it would be rude of me to do so.

ANYway, do you see the point I'm making, here?

[Furrowed Brow]

Given that the requirement for 'skirts to the knee' precludes the wearing of pants/trousers, and the fact that those same girls would probably rather be caught shopping at Wal-Mart for denture fixative than wear knee length anything but jeans outside the classroom, how is this any different, basically, than requiring a veil? Both are assigned to women only, both are for the sake of modesty, according to the different belief systems. There is, in fact, no difference in principle at all.

There is very real correlation with veil wearing and illiteracy rates as veils go with an ultra rigid gender roles in which women are very much second class citizen. I know of no statistics associated with long skirts and I am not against the hijab. But If the girls want to wear trousers they’ve got my moral support. I just won’t be lobbying for them as the issue seems pretty paltry and really just a matter of taste and fashion. If however there was a correlation with health rates or illiteracy rates then I would change my attitude.

Your search and seizure laws would make any American run for the hills and take up arms.

The SUS law was repealed in 1981 because of the way it was misused in the 1970s to pick out black folk who always looked more suspicious than white folk to white 1970s policemen.

It really shocked me that you would dip the British flag to the Queen on her birthday, and that there is still such a huge social divide between the 'nobility' and the commoners--that simply making money or achievements can't cross.

Yes I am a republican and come the day of the revolution things will be different :2gun:. Then we shall get an equal slice of the cake .

And you still did not give a straight answer to the one question I emboldened. Given you have avoided directly answering similar questions I’ll take the answer to be: if the basketball player had admitted to having gay sex he would have faced harsher sanctions. If this is the case then the BYU code discriminates against homosexuality, which at heart I don’t think you are really denying except for the semantic smudge “homosexuals behaviour v homosexuals�. The question is then should any university no matter how it is funded or who owns it be allowed such discriminatory practices. It seems for present the US legal system allows that they do. The question of "choice to go elsewhere" you keep raising is bogus for the reasons given. If the practice discriminates it discriminates whether folk have a choice to go elsewhere or not. So it comes back to what levels of discrimination will the US legal system/government tolerate. If the US government is in the business of combating discrimination then this is only going to go in one direction and eventually codes like the BYU honor code and the Boy Scouts will have to yield. If however the US government can live with pockets of discriminations then maybe the BYU will continue to get away with it. I am not an expert on US culture and politics but if the US follow a similar trajectory of expanding and strengthening discrimination legislation then the BYU will eventually have to remove the "no homosexuality" clause. Life will go on at BYU as much as before when that happens....which is pretty dull by the sounds of it :sleep: .

[dianaiad]

Given that the requirement for 'skirts to the knee' precludes the wearing of pants/trousers, and the fact that those same girls would probably rather be caught shopping at Wal-Mart for denture fixative than wear knee length anything but jeans outside the classroom, how is this any different, basically, than requiring a veil? Both are assigned to women only, both are for the sake of modesty, according to the different belief systems. There is, in fact, no difference in principle at all.

There is very real correlation with veil wearing and illiteracy rates as veils go with an ultra rigid gender roles in which women are very much second class citizen. I know of no statistics associated with long skirts and I am not against the hijab. But If the girls want to wear trousers they’ve got my moral support. I just won’t be lobbying for them as the issue seems pretty paltry and really just a matter of taste and fashion. If however there was a correlation with health rates or illiteracy rates then I would change my attitude.

Your search and seizure laws would make any American run for the hills and take up arms.

The SUS law was repealed in 1981 because of the way it was misused in the 1970s to pick out black folk who always looked more suspicious than white folk to white 1970s policemen.

I'm talking about current search and siezure law, which allows police to enter your home and search for anything they like--as long as you are arrested for an 'indictable offense' first, without a warrant. Over here an arrest is not sufficient; since people are considered innocent until proven guilty, a warrant is required no matter what. As well, once there IS a warrant, the police can only search for the stuff specified IN the warrant. As far as I could tell from my research, police in the UK can, once someone is arrested, barge into his/her home and go on a fishing expedition to end all fishing expeditions.

It really shocked me that you would dip the British flag to the Queen on her birthday, and that there is still such a huge social divide between the 'nobility' and the commoners--that simply making money or achievements can't cross.

Yes I am a republican and come the day of the revolution things will be different :2gun:. Then we shall get an equal slice of the cake .

And you still did not give a straight answer to the one question I emboldened. Given you have avoided directly answering similar questions I’ll take the answer to be: if the basketball player had admitted to having gay sex he would have faced harsher sanctions.

I answered that one. The sanctions would have been the same. ARE the same, as the ones suffered by that young straight basketball player. No difference.

If this is the case then the BYU code discriminates against homosexuality, which at heart I don’t think you are really denying except for the semantic smudge “homosexuals behaviour v homosexuals�.

You did it again....how is having the same sanction for homosexuals who break the honor code as for heterosexuals who do be discriminatory? I can see it the other way around, but this way?

The question is then should any university no matter how it is funded or who owns it be allowed such discriminatory practices.

You betcha. The funding makes most of the difference, actually. If the taxpayer's money isn't used, then it's not the taxpayer's business.

It seems for present the US legal system allows that they do. The question of "choice to go elsewhere" you keep raising is bogus for the reasons given. If the practice discriminates it discriminates whether folk have a choice to go elsewhere or not. So it comes back to what levels of discrimination will the US legal system/government tolerate. If the US government is in the business of combating discrimination then this is only going to go in one direction and eventually codes like the BYU honor code and the Boy Scouts will have to yield.

....and at that point, this land will have been destroyed along with the constitution. Since, unlike for my ancestors, there's no place left for me to go to be free, I guess I will have to make certain that your scenario never happens.

If however the US government can live with pockets of discriminations then maybe the BYU will continue to get away with it. I am not an expert on US culture and politics but if the US follow a similar trajectory of expanding and strengthening discrimination legislation then the BYU will eventually have to remove the "no homosexuality" clause. Life will go on at BYU as much as before when that happens....which is pretty dull by the sounds of it :sleep: .

Dull?

No.

It's just that people have to enjoy all the theater, the activities, the music, the skiing, the parties and everything else---sober, standing up and dressed. Shoot, they might actually stand a chance of remembering all the fun stuff they actually DID in college, unlike the vast majority of college students elsewhere who seem to think that those years are best viewed either drunk or high.

[Rambo1125]

There is very real correlation with veil wearing and illiteracy rates as veils go with an ultra rigid gender roles in which women are very much second class citizen. I know of no statistics associated with long skirts and I am not against the hijab. But If the girls want to wear trousers they’ve got my moral support. I just won’t be lobbying for them as the issue seems pretty paltry and really just a matter of taste and fashion. If however there was a correlation with health rates or illiteracy rates then I would change my attitude.

Actualy, I wouldnt say this is true. Veils are very common in Islamic states where literacy for women is already low. The problem isnt what they are wearing rather the culture. Im not saying Islam is bad or anything but the Taliban not letting women go to schools is probably the cause of illiteracy.

I highly recommend Three Cups of Tea, that book is an amazing story relevant to this.

[Furrowed Brow]

I'm talking about current search and seizure law, which allows police to enter your home and search for anything they like--as long as you are arrested for an 'indictable offense' first, without a warrant. Over here an arrest is not sufficient; since people are considered innocent until proven guilty, a warrant is required no matter what. As well, once there IS a warrant, the police can only search for the stuff specified IN the warrant. As far as I could tell from my research, police in the UK can, once someone is arrested, barge into his/her home and go on a fishing expedition to end all fishing expeditions.

Generally British law does not protect the individual to the same degree as the US. We have the greatest number of CCTV and are one of he most recorded and snooped on nations. The government also keeps more information on us than they should. Our police were in the habit of taken DNA swabs of everyone they arrested but did not charge. Their was even the scandal of some forces arresting folk just to get their DNA. Europe told the UK government this information needs to be shredded immediately. Darn it we need a proper constitution! The UK government promised to shred the database "within 5 years". The European Court which is now the highest court of appeal seems to afford greater protection and often over turns the rulings of the British courts in favour of a more liberal stance, so much so our current government is looking at ways of pulling out of the European justice system, or are at least making those kind of noises.

I answered that one.

You did? Well that passed over me. To be honest – and maybe it was my lack of attention – you seemed to be doing everything not to give a direct answer on the issue of how gay behaviour is sanctioned compared to non gay behaviour. Anyhow we got there.

The sanctions would have been the same. ARE the same, as the ones suffered by that young straight basketball player. No difference.

Now that is the first clear and direct answering of the question and heck why did you not come out and say that earlier. If the BYU hand out equal sanctions then they avoid discriminatory practices. If this means that a gay man or women feel no more stress as a result of the BYU honor code, do not feel they might be face greater sanction than any other student then that would mean the BYU provide an environment that does not engender discrimination which is a prerequisite for university life or ought to be a prerequisite. I still think the wording of the code allows for discriminatory practices whether BYU experiences discrimination or not, hence the long posts.

It's just that people have to enjoy all the theater, the activities, the music, the skiing, the parties and everything else---sober, standing up and dressed.

Kind of sounds like living a life still in the cling film wrapper. I guess I can't help seeing teens years and early twenties as a time to stretch out, test your individuality and to kick out against the rules.

Shoot, they might actually stand a chance of remembering all the fun stuff they actually DID in college, unlike the vast majority of college students elsewhere who seem to think that those years are best viewed either drunk or high.

Actually I do not advocate that either.

[Furrowed Brow]

There is very real correlation with veil wearing and illiteracy rates as veils go with an ultra rigid gender roles in which women are very much second class citizen. I know of no statistics associated with long skirts and I am not against the hijab. But If the girls want to wear trousers they’ve got my moral support. I just won’t be lobbying for them as the issue seems pretty paltry and really just a matter of taste and fashion. If however there was a correlation with health rates or illiteracy rates then I would change my attitude.

Actualy, I wouldnt say this is true. Veils are very common in Islamic states where literacy for women is already low. The problem isnt what they are wearing rather the culture. Im not saying Islam is bad or anything but the Taliban not letting women go to schools is probably the cause of illiteracy.

I highly recommend Three Cups of Tea, that book is an amazing story relevant to this.

Thank you I'll check it out. In this instance a Kantian style ethic is applicable I think. Consider a rule then generalise it so that is applicable everywhere. My fear is that if the veil is generalised within 50 years women will not be going to school.

[dianaiad]

I'm talking about current search and seizure law, which allows police to enter your home and search for anything they like--as long as you are arrested for an 'indictable offense' first, without a warrant. Over here an arrest is not sufficient; since people are considered innocent until proven guilty, a warrant is required no matter what. As well, once there IS a warrant, the police can only search for the stuff specified IN the warrant. As far as I could tell from my research, police in the UK can, once someone is arrested, barge into his/her home and go on a fishing expedition to end all fishing expeditions.

Generally British law does not protect the individual to the same degree as the US. We have the greatest number of CCTV and are one of he most recorded and snooped on nations. The government also keeps more information on us than they should. Our police were in the habit of taken DNA swabs of everyone they arrested but did not charge. Their was even the scandal of some forces arresting folk just to get their DNA. Europe told the UK government this information needs to be shredded immediately. Darn it we need a proper constitution! The UK government promised to shred the database "within 5 years". The European Court which is now the highest court of appeal seems to afford greater protection and often over turns the rulings of the British courts in favour of a more liberal stance, so much so our current government is looking at ways of pulling out of the European justice system, or are at least making those kind of noises.

.............and here you are, upset at your own nation's invasion of privacy, advocating that the US government invade privacy. (grin) gotta love the irony of that one.

I answered that one.

You did? Well that passed over me. To be honest – and maybe it was my lack of attention – you seemed to be doing everything not to give a direct answer on the issue of how gay behaviour is sanctioned compared to non gay behaviour. Anyhow we got there.

The sanctions would have been the same. ARE the same, as the ones suffered by that young straight basketball player. No difference.

Now that is the first clear and direct answering of the question and heck why did you not come out and say that earlier. If the BYU hand out equal sanctions then they avoid discriminatory practices. If this means that a gay man or women feel no more stress as a result of the BYU honor code, do not feel they might be face greater sanction than any other student then that would mean the BYU provide an environment that does not engender discrimination which is a prerequisite for university life or ought to be a prerequisite. I still think the wording of the code allows for discriminatory practices whether BYU experiences discrimination or not, hence the long posts.

It's just that people have to enjoy all the theater, the activities, the music, the skiing, the parties and everything else---sober, standing up and dressed.

Kind of sounds like living a life still in the cling film wrapper. I guess I can't help seeing teens years and early twenties as a time to stretch out, test your individuality and to kick out against the rules.

Medical science has found that young men and women do not actually have full control of decision making faculties until their early twenties...they are prone to doing stupid things during puberty and the first few years past puberty. (Any parent could have told 'em THAT one). Given this tendency to make lousy decisions, don't you think that rules against doing something as risky as pre-marital sex is a good thing? I sure do. Humans live quite a long time, and humans THESE days have a great deal more to learn before they enter adult life than even my grandmother--shoot, even my mother did. 'Stretching their wings' is fine...but just as you would not allow your twelve year old to crawl under the fence at the edge of the Grand Canyon to get a better view, it would be wise to keep the fences up on sexual behavior for awhile longer.

Cross my heart and hope to die, being a twenty four year old virgin is not the most horrible thing to happen to you. Being twenty=four years old with, say, an eight year old and/or some STD one has to battle for the rest of one's life, or (in my opinion, even worse than either one of these) having to deal with memories of betrayal and the way something as wonderful as sex between loving and committed partners was degraded and made....lesser....for the rest of your life...or having had to live with having had an abortion...nope.

Wait. It's worth the wait.

[Furrowed Brow]

............and here you are, upset at your own nation's invasion of privacy, advocating that the US government invade privacy. (grin) gotta love the irony of that one.

My DNA, or what I believe are mine. If I discriminate against someone the injustice is public and worthy of public disapproval. If the injustice materially impacts the life, freedoms or well being of others then I should be restrained. Like The US the UK is a mish mash of inconsistencies. Fifty years ago we gave Alan Turing (the man who cracked the enigma the single largest contribution to ending the war in Europe) a choice. Go to prison for being gay or accept chemical castration. He chose the hormonal treatment on offer: soon after he dosed an apple with cyanide. In 2009 the Prime Minister Gordon Brown made the first public apology for the way Turing was treated. Cleary Britain is far far away from being perfect but we are evolving.

Medical science has found that young men and women do not actually have full control of decision making faculties until their early twenties...they are prone to doing stupid things during puberty and the first few years past puberty.

Sometime it don’t stop there.

(Any parent could have told 'em THAT one). Given this tendency to make lousy decisions, don't you think that rules against doing something as risky as pre-marital sex is a good thing?

In a nutshell: No. Advice yes. Guide lines yes. Encouragment yes. No hard rules beyond do not steal and do not kill. Life is a risk and sometimes growing up and learning is about getting burnt. I allowed my son to ride a bicycle – what kind of crazy dad am I?. He could already ride his bike pretty well by age 5, yet within a few feet of me he topples over sticks his arm out which snaps just above the elbow. The break damaged the nerves. For a few months he suffered a palsy and it could easily have been permanent. He now has a dirty great scar that he loves to show the girls. He was lucky. That is life. But if I was truly worried about ensuring no harm ever came to him I would not have let him ride a bike, play rugby, go swimming, or horse riding. As parents we lay down some rules that eventually get broken, nudge, cajole, lead by example, advise that’s it. As parents we often have our heart in our mouth but that is our trial.

you would not allow your twelve year old to crawl under the fence at the edge of the Grand Canyon to get a better view,

12? err...yes I would. And I certainly would not discourage him not to want to or not to be excited by the idea despite my fear for him. He would be better for the experience than protected from it. OK I am the kind of dad that never put a cycle helmet on my son either. Because of my sons association with horses there was a short time he considered around the age of 16 of joining the Horse guards. He had all the pamphlets and was on their mailing list. This terrified me because the Horse guards were playing a big role in Afghanistan at the time. I let him work through the idea himself and he decided against it. If he had chosen to join up I would have supported his decision though it turned by blood cold to think about the possibilities. The chances of harm coming to him if he had made that choice were far greater than getting pregnant or an STD. But as a parent you roll with it.

it would be wise to keep the fences up on sexual behavior for awhile longer.

Not really and it depends on the young adult. For some it may be wise as they are not ready for it, for others it is like riding a bike. What you hope to install in your kids is a sense of self worth and to value others.

Cross my heart and hope to die, being a twenty four year old virgin is not the most horrible thing to happen to you.

Maybe not the worst but I can think of better.

Being twenty=four years old with, say, an eight year old and/or some STD one has to battle for the rest of one's life, or (in my opinion, even worse than either one of these) having to deal with memories of betrayal and the way something as wonderful as sex between loving and committed partners was degraded and made....lesser....for the rest of your life...or having had to live with having had an abortion...nope.

OK I’ll share. I was a father at 25. We were not married and for some very complicated reasons my son ended up with me. I lost my house, my job, and all these events were interrelated and the direct consequence of my decision and my attitudes to life and other people. For the next ten years I did not work and was a single dad. We lived mostly hand to mouth and close to the bread line. All my furniture was either donated by friends or from Oxfam shops. I did manage to put in 5 years at college. The result of this experience and my non marital sex sent me down a completely different road than the one I thought I was going to travel. It certainly was not part of any plan. Was it haphazard? Yes. Would I turn the clock back? Absolutely not. I am a wiser and better person for it. The experience has been life affirming. I have made progress.

If my son came home and said I got a girl pregnant dad. OK we get on with it and work the problem. It is not a disaster. If he comes home and says I found a lovely girl and we are getting married but we do not plan to have kids for a few years that too is not a disaster. Again we work the problems life throw up; neither possibility is appalling neither induces fear or anxiety, both would first put a smile on my face then a dent in my bank balance. But that is life. Neither possibility is stands out as better for him and her than the other.

If he came home and said I got HIV I would be devastated and tell him he was an idiot for not using condoms. But we roll with it. But the chances of that outside possibility versus the immediate constraining of his personal growth by way of rigid rules and prohibitions, as a parent I come down against the rules and favour him learning by experience: grazed knees, nerve surgery, risk to life and all. However I do not advocate idiocy. I have seen things other parents have allowed that make even my toes curl. So there is a balance to be struck. But from around the age of 11 onwards the process should be one of them slowing prizing the control to run their life from the grasp of their elders (maybe it startes earlier). By the time they are in their late teens that certainly already includes sex which is one of the final freedoms after already choosing for themselves what they eat and drink and wear and what time they stay out until.

Obviously the LDS have their own template.

[dianaiad]

Being twenty=four years old with, say, an eight year old and/or some STD one has to battle for the rest of one's life, or (in my opinion, even worse than either one of these) having to deal with memories of betrayal and the way something as wonderful as sex between loving and committed partners was degraded and made....lesser....for the rest of your life...or having had to live with having had an abortion...nope.

OK I’ll share. I was a father at 25. We were not married and for some very complicated reasons my son ended up with me. I lost my house, my job, and all these events were interrelated and the direct consequence of my decision and my attitudes to life and other people. For the next ten years I did not work and was a single dad. We lived mostly hand to mouth and close to the bread line. All my furniture was either donated by friends or from Oxfam shops. I did manage to put in 5 years at college. The result of this experience and my non marital sex sent me down a completely different road than the one I thought I was going to travel. It certainly was not part of any plan. Was it haphazard? Yes. Would I turn the clock back? Absolutely not. I am a wiser and better person for it. The experience has been life affirming. I have made progress.

If my son came home and said I got a girl pregnant dad. OK we get on with it and work the problem. It is not a disaster. If he comes home and says I found a lovely girl and we are getting married but we do not plan to have kids for a few years that too is not a disaster. Again we work the problems life throw up; neither possibility is appalling neither induces fear or anxiety, both would first put a smile on my face then a dent in my bank balance. But that is life. Neither possibility is stands out as better for him and her than the other.

If he came home and said I got HIV I would be devastated and tell him he was an idiot for not using condoms. But we roll with it. But the chances of that outside possibility versus the immediate constraining of his personal growth by way of rigid rules and prohibitions, as a parent I come down against the rules and favour him learning by experience: grazed knees, nerve surgery, risk to life and all. However I do not advocate idiocy. I have seen things other parents have allowed that make even my toes curl. So there is a balance to be struck. But from around the age of 11 onwards the process should be one of them slowing prizing the control to run their life from the grasp of their elders (maybe it startes earlier). By the time they are in their late teens that certainly already includes sex which is one of the final freedoms after already choosing for themselves what they eat and drink and wear and what time they stay out until.

Obviously the LDS have their own template.

Not really. What you describe is called accepting the consequences for your actions, and making the very best of your choices. Can you honestly tell me that, if you knew that your son was the reward, you would rather have put in your five years of college, found a woman with whom you could have had a strong, permanent relationship, and had him with her, that things would not have been easier for you--and for your son? Of course you don't regret your son; you got him in spite of the mistakes you made, and of course you wouldn't toss him out if he made mistakes of his own.

Neither would I.

I will share in return; I too was 25 when I was a mother for the first time. I was also married. It was a lot easier to have and raise my kids when Jim was around than it would have been without him....and than it was after he died. Life hands you enough challenges without going out and deliberately inviting the disasters in.