BYU censors portraits of gay students ....

[_Droopy]

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 ....

Let me get this straight. Holding hands is not behavior?

If I, a married man, is observed holding hands with another woman, would not this behavior, relative to the law of chastity and its fundamental concepts, be questioned?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Homosexuality is, for the Church, illegitimate by definition, and an abomination (an extreme transgression of the Lord's commandments having serious moral/spiritual implications) ...

According to the Church, this is only true with homosexual behavior, not with same-sex attraction itself. Ergo, the ability for the Church to claim "full membership" for homosexuals who keep the Law of Chastity the same as heterosexual members do (the Church does not officially apply a different "Law of Chastity" to gays and straights).

Yes, there are the regulations as well, but I see no problem extending the law of chastity to holding hands by homosexuals ....

That's absurd and you know it -- and I doubt the Church would ever agree with you. "Holding hands," whether between gays or straights, cannot in any sense be considered a violation of the Law of Chastity.

[Guest]

I'm glad you see that now.

Clearly it was only a matter of time. As I let my conscience prick my soul, my heart opened up to the true genius of your posts.

You're welcome...

You are too gracious.

But, we knew that...

Well, we may have, but I think there are a few poor souls who remain unconvinced. Keep up the good work!

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.

So true. How do you manage to show so much forbearance in the face of these outrages? I have never witnessed you lose it in the face of critics' provocation. Truly you are the Bjorn Borg of Mormon apologetics! A man of iron will.

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.

Ah, yes. I should have seen that. Glad you pointed it out to me. Someone needs to protect the poor sheep who accidentally wander here from Google, or such poor folk may find this swamp of falsehood here uncontested by Warriors of Light like you.

You're tempting me to do another song.

It was the future emperor Vitellius who pleaded for Nero's divina vox. Will you force me to play Vitellius to your Nero? Or take mercy on me by voluntarily sharing the bounty of your heavenly lyric?
.
.
.
.
.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Let me get this straight. Holding hands is not behavior?

Not the kind of behavior proscribed by the Law of Chastity.

If I, a married man, is observed holding hands with another woman, would not this behavior, relative to the law of chastity and its fundamental concepts, be questioned?

Sure, but the Church has decided to lump single gay persons with single straight persons when it comes to the Law of Chastity (ostensibly as the basis to claim that the Church treats neither differently). The Church has not made the same argument for married persons.

[_ajax18]

Granted different rules apply to heterosexual attractions than homosexual attractions. In a skewed way, no it's not equal. It's skewed to me because I don't believe people are very often born with exclusively same gender attraction. I think it's a matter of preference. In fact many so called gays possess heterosexual attractions as well.

So what should the Church claim? I don't think the Church wants to throw out all gay people just because they struggle with same gender attraction. I do think the Church expects these people not to talk about it to anyone except in the strictest confidence (probably a counselor) and not to demonstrate it to the public in any way. In other words it's an aberant desire that should always be repressed both now and in eternity. Does that mean the Church doesn't treat gay people equally?

Well then the Church doesn't treat a lot of people equally. Tithing is harder to pay for some than others, but the same Celestial kingdom is offered to all. It's probably harder to get to Church on Sunday if you lost your leg in a war. And yet, for the most part, everyone has to be there with rare exception. It's a lot harder to get married if you're poor or ugly. I'm poor, but I still don't feel the same attraction for ugly women that I do pretty ones. It's just not natural. Too bad says the church. I had to wait some time to get married and finally find relief. Others were able to marry immmediately. That wasn't fair either, nor was any special exception made.

[_Trevor]

It's probably harder to get to Church on Sunday if you lost your leg in a war. And yet, for the most part, everyone has to be there with rare exception. It's a lot harder to get married if you're poor or ugly. I'm poor, but I still don't feel the same attraction for ugly women that I do pretty ones. It's just not natural. Too bad says the church. I had to wait some time to get married and finally find relief. Others were able to marry immmediately. That wasn't fair either, nor was any special exception made.

That is so enlightening. Thanks for sharing that!

[_harmony]

Homosexuality is, for the Church, illegitimate by definition, and an abomination (an extreme transgression of the Lord's commandments having serious moral/spiritual implications)...

Wait a minute. The only by-definition abomination ever mentioned in the canon is polygamy. Please back up your statement, and provide examples of when, in the canon, homosexuality is an abomination.

[_Mike Reed]

Homosexuality is, for the Church, illegitimate by definition, and an abomination (an extreme transgression of the Lord's commandments having serious moral/spiritual implications)...

Wait a minute. The only by-definition abomination ever mentioned in the canon is polygamy. Please back up your statement, and provide examples of when, in the canon, homosexuality is an abomination.

This must be the passage that Droopy is referring to:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Wondering if Droopy plans to inflict biblical justice upon the Gay community any time soon...

[_harmony]

This must be the passage that Droopy is referring to:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Wondering if Droopy plans to inflict biblical justice upon the Gay community any time soon...

Good grief. I thought he was referring to something in the D&C or the Book of Mormon. I wonder if he knows that everything in the Bible is suspect, since it's not translated correctly?

[_squawkeye]

What is it about telling the viewers that some of the portraits are of homosexuals that adds anything to the images?
What is wrong with the faculty in the photo department that they thought this was a project worth the time to show, much less to shoot?
BYU can censor anything they want. They are the idiots who censored Rodin after agreeing not to and with two years lead time in which they knew every piece in the show.

The photo program must be run by idiots to think labeling anything 'Gay' would be allowed to stand at BYU. Showing a group of portraits with the cheap trick of 'try to guess the Homo' is a cheap way of covering what is most likely a lack of talent. The images are most likely throw away portraits and the student knows it, thus the cheap trick to garner attention to photos others would never give a second glance.

Doesn't make BYU right though.