A new viewpoint

[_Sethbag]

Can BYU currently require its employees to abstain from extramarital sex of whatever nature? I think the answer to that is yes, it can. Extramarital sex (not underage, not incest) is perfectly legal. That establishes that BYU can prohibit its employees from engaging in some perfectly legal activities. The legal status of the activity itself is immaterial to whether BYU can prohibit it.

How is it argued that a legal marriage changes this? We've already established that BYU can prohibit behavior which is perfectly legal. Is someone arguing that the existence of a legal marriage is akin to a "guarantee of a right to sex" that cannot be broken, even as part of a church's practice of its belief? I think that's quite a stretch.

[_Scottie]

But, Seth, I think the difference here is that no extramarital sex is a univeral rule applied equally to everyone.

If the government recognizes SSM as valid, and forces BYU to recognize a SSM as valid as far as benefits go, then I don't think BYU can impose one set of rules for straight married employees and another set for gay married employees.

.

.

.

[_harmony]

But, Seth, I think the difference here is that no extramarital sex is a univeral rule applied equally to everyone.

If the government recognizes SSM as valid, and forces BYU to recognize a SSM as valid as far as benefits go, then I don't think BYU can impose one set of rules for straight married employees and another set for gay married employees.
.

There's a simple solution to this problem: fire all gay BYU/church employees. And don't think they won't do it.

[_Dr. Shades]

There's a simple solution to this problem: fire all gay BYU/church employees. And don't think they won't do it.

Oh, I don't know. The church is far more savvy to the media fall-out that would result from such a boneheaded move.

[_skippy the dead]

But, Seth, I think the difference here is that no extramarital sex is a univeral rule applied equally to everyone.

This is true. HOWEVER, as I've pointed out a kajillion times, the rules as applied to homosexuals go beyond that. No homosexual behavior is allowed - it's not just premarital sex. Handholding with the same sex? Nope! Kissing with the same sex? Nope! Even "promoting" the homosexual "lifestyle" is verboten (so you can't even say it's good to be gay). The rules are already different. I would expect them to remain so.

[_mentalgymnast]

But, Seth, I think the difference here is that no extramarital sex is a univeral rule applied equally to everyone.

If the government recognizes SSM as valid, and forces BYU to recognize a SSM as valid as far as benefits go, then I don't think BYU can impose one set of rules for straight married employees and another set for gay married employees.
.

There's a simple solution to this problem: fire all gay BYU/church employees. And don't think they won't do it.

You guys haven't resolved this yet? <g> Keep on plugging away.

There is a slippery slope here me thinks...

Prop. 8 may be the answer.

Regards,
MG

[_The Dude]

Let me repeat. I said that there isn't any definitive answer to what BYU would do under these circumstances. Your conjectures and opinings are simply that...a rhetorical shooting in the dark. So I go back to my assertion that this is an example of a situation that resides/fits on the slippery slope.

So until it is definitively established otherwise, you stand by an assertion you made earlier about a slippery slope. And that's not a mere conjecture on your part? Not a simple rhetorical shotgun in the night?

Correct?

Gotcha

[_Bardman]

As I stated to this post on the MAD board, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) keeps any state from having to recognize a union or relationship between two people of the same sex as a marriage, even if that relationship were considered a marriage in another state. In other words, same-sex marriage would have to be legal in Utah (or wherever else BYU has a campus) for the couple to claim they had a legal marriage. As long as BYU campuses are not located in states with legal same-sex marriages, they can forbid homosexual activity all they want, because they don't have to regard the relationship as a marriage in the first place.

Reason enough for its complete repeal.

Gay marriage in Utah anytime soon?

[_John Larsen]

As I said, right now there's a difference in how homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated - gays can't kiss or hold hands with members of the same sex; straights can.

Yeah, but what straight would want to kiss or hold hands with members of the same sex??

I would hold hands with you, Shades.

[_ludwigm]

-- quote="Dr. Shades" --
--- quote="skippy the dead" ---
As I said, right now there's a difference in how homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated - gays can't kiss or hold hands with members of the same sex; straights can.
--- /quote ---
Yeah, but what straight would want to kiss or hold hands with members of the same sex??
-- /quote --
I would hold hands with you, Shades.

Kisses are reserved for the small japs on his avatars ...