Droopy wrote:No, except for the fact that the entire purpose of the exhibit has a clearly stated ideological and personal agenda at its foundation that is clearly incongruent with the mission and purpose of the university, which is a private, privately funded religions institution.
Bravo to BYU for pulling down this monotonous pc BS.
Really? How does this exhibit not fit in with the mission and purpose of the university?
I think the key difference is that in some LDS minds, gay church members aren't held to the standard of chastity of a non-married LDS; instead they are subconciously held to the standards of married LDS.
Thus, since it's wrong for a married LDS to hold hands with someone they're not married to, it's wrong for homosexuals to hold hands with someone they're not married to. We don't expect them to maintain heterosexual-type boundaries by limiting their physical contact. We expect them to be eunuchs, totally subverting their desires for physical affection from a member of the same sex.
I doubt there are very many LDS who could stomach homosexuals being allowed to hold hands, date, and NCMO like the heterosexual single kids do. It's not about the actual "sexual relations", it's just the ickiness of the whole idea.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cinepro wrote:Yeah, with pictures like this, who could ever guess which is which?
Looks like he's ready to go to a basketball game.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
As you can see, other than identifying the subjects as gay, there is nothing offensive or that portrays homosexual behavior, which is the key issue in current BYU Honor Code policy regarding gays (emphasis below mine):
No, except for the fact that the entire purpose of the exhibit has a clearly stated ideological and personal agenda at its foundation that is clearly incongruent with the mission and purpose of the university, which is a private, privately funded religions institution.
Bravo to BYU for pulling down this monotonous pc BS.
Wasn't this an art exhibit? Isn't the purpose of an art exhibit to exhibit your art? If his art has an ideological and personal agenda, shouldn't he have a right to display it at an art exhibit? Doesn't most art have an ideological and personal agenda? You make it sound as if the purpose of this art exhibit is to display art that promotes the missions and purposes of the University. I am so glad I attended a regular University with art exhibits that displayed art promiting the artists ideological and personal agendas.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
Yeah, we certainly couldn't expect the Lord's own university to actually follow the dictates of the gospel.
Once you're able to discern, with some degree of accuracy, just what those may be, please post again on this subject, as then you may, for all intents and purposes, have something intelligent or relevant to add to the discussion.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Do you think BYU should kick out any student who is homosexual, regardless of "behavior"?
Oh, now they've been kicked out? I thought the art exhibit was altered?
Now you've introduced kicking out regardless of behavior. What issue do you want to discuss?
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Droopy wrote:Oh, now they've been kicked out? I thought the art exhibit was altered?
Now you've introduced kicking out regardless of behavior. What issue do you want to discuss?
If (non-sexual) homosexual students are to be accepted at the university, then why wouldn't (non-sexual) pictures of homosexual students also be accepted?
Do you think BYU should kick out any student who is homosexual, regardless of "behavior"?
Oh, now they've been kicked out? I thought the art exhibit was altered?
Now you've introduced kicking out regardless of behavior. What issue do you want to discuss?
I was referring to the part of your post about BYU's treating gays and straights differently, for example, when it comes to holding hands, etc. You were not talking about the art. So, my question still stands: do you think a homosexual should be kicked out of BYU, even if complying with the Law of Chastity?
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
If (non-sexual) homosexual students are to be accepted at the university, then why wouldn't (non-sexual) pictures of homosexual students also be accepted?
The pictures were non-sexual. The stated purpose of the exhibit was ideological, and inconsistent with the mission and purpose of a University such as Brigham Young. It was, ultimately, Gay rights propaganda, and was apparently intended as such, according to the author's own words.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
