BYU censors portraits of gay students ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Excellent point, Rollo. Clearly BYU practices a double standard on chastity in the case of gays. It seems they seems they perceive their duty with regard to gays to prevent any kind of intimacy, since the outcome, in their eyes, can only be sinful. For heteros, they are looking to get them to marry as soon as possible under the right circumstances (return missionaries and 18-year-old virgins).

I completely agree. But this double standard just shows that the Church's mantra of "gays are welcome as long as the keep the Law of Chastity just like everyone else" is a blatant fraud.

[_Droopy]

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 behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate 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. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.

The rules of the university were openly violated, not only by the holding of hands, by but the openly ideological nature of the exhibit. The law of chastity has little to do with the matter outside of a theological context. We are also speaking of the rules of the university, a university which the people involved chose to attend with their eyes open.

There are other schools to attend...

[_Droopy]

I completely agree. But this double standard just shows that the Church's mantra of "gays are welcome as long as the keep the Law of Chastity just like everyone else" is a blatant fraud.

No, its not a fraud, except to posturing ideologues. There are other matters beyond the law of chastity, such as rules of conduct for students set by the university, which were flagrantly violated.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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 behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate 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. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.

The rules of the university were openly violated, not only by the holding of hands, by but the openly ideological nature of the exhibit. The law of chastity has little to do with the matter outside of a theological context. We are also speaking of the rules of the university, a university which the people involved chose to attend with their eyes open.

There are other schools to attend...

I have no problem with this. I just don't think the Church or BYU should even pretend to treat gays and straights the same so long as they keep the Law of Chastity. This simply is not true.

[_Droopy]

Excellent point, Rollo. Clearly BYU practices a double standard on chastity in the case of gays. It seems they seems they perceive their duty with regard to gays to prevent any kind of intimacy, since the outcome, in their eyes, can only be sinful. For heteros, they are looking to get them to marry as soon as possible under the right circumstances (return missionaries and 18-year-old virgins).

Oh my, you're so very brilliant Trevor. By Cracky you've got it! There is a double standard at BYU. Heterosexuality is legitimate. Homosexuality is not.

A Nobel Prize is in the mail for this bit of profound insight Trevor. Your laser sharp mind never ceases to amaze and astound.

Thanks for clarifying this difficult problem for us.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I completely agree. But this double standard just shows that the Church's mantra of "gays are welcome as long as the keep the Law of Chastity just like everyone else" is a blatant fraud.

No, its not a fraud, except to posturing ideologues. There are other matters beyond the law of chastity, such as rules of conduct for students set by the university, which were flagrantly violated.

But the Church has consistently claimed that gays are treated just like everyone else in the Church so long as they keep the Law of Chastity, just like everyone else. And that just isn't true.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Oh my, you're so very brilliant Trevor. By Cracky you've got it! There is a double standard at BYU. Heterosexuality is legitimate. Homosexuality is not.

But the Church focuses on homosexual behavior that violates the Law of Chastity, just as they do with heterosexuals. Hence, the claim the Church treats chaste gay and straights the same. But the Church doesn't ....

[_Trevor]

Thanks for clarifying this difficult problem for us.

Droopy,

I can't accept your high praise, because clearly you are the brilliant one. I learn something new from everything you post. You stand as an example to everyone who reads your material here at Shady Acres. I imagine if you keep posting, many apostates like myself will return to the fold of Christ and partake of the sweet fruits of salvation. Many members of the LDS Church will rejoice in your example and strive to emulate your behavior. Your Christlike conduct is a true tribute to your Lord and Savior. And on top of that, you manage to gild that demonstration of excellence with the poetry of your wit.

Bless you.

[_Droopy]

I have no problem with this. I just don't think the Church or BYU should even pretend to treat gays and straights the same so long as they keep the Law of Chastity. This simply is not true.

Yes it is true. This kind of sophistry is just such a drag anymore Rollo.

Homosexuals have one more hurdle to jump at BTY in the regs, and that is that all open intimacy of any kind is prohibited, wherars public displays of affection, such as holding hands, is perfectly acceptable for heterosexuals.

So be it. Homosexuality is, for the Church, illegitimate by definition, and an abomination (an extreme transgression of the Lord's commandments having serious moral/spiritual implications), and so as long as homosexuals obey the law of chastity, they are accepted. Yes, there are the regulations as well, but I see no problem extending the law of chastity to holding hands by homosexuals as, by that very act, homosexuality is legitimized publically, and homosexuality is, as a phenomena, incongruent with the nature and purpose of the concept of chastity.

[_Droopy]

I can't accept your high praise, because clearly you are the brilliant one.

I'm glad you see that now.

I learn something new from everything you post.

You're welcome...

You stand as an example to everyone who reads your material here at Shady Acres.

But, we knew that...

I imagine if you keep posting, many apostates like myself will return to the fold of Christ and partake of the sweet fruits of salvation.

Not likely, as apologetics seems to be a one way street in which critics rant, prevaricate, parse,impugn, lie, and cast aspersions, while apologists are expected to keep turning cheeks until their teeth fall out.

At some point, apologetics is probably not so much about turning the dedicated apostates back to the fold as about keeping those wavering on the periphery of the Church from following the apostates into the tar.

Many members of the LDS Church will rejoice in your example and strive to emulate your behavior. Your Christlike conduct is a true tribute to your Lord and Savior. And on top of that, you manage to gild that demonstration of excellence with the poetry of your wit.

You're tempting me to do another song.