#49874 How many homosexuals are there at BYU?

[vorpal blade]

Imogen, you totally misunderstand what I'm saying.

[Yarjka]

The fact that someone does not have an interest in such a marriage neither lessens nor increases his civil rights. Any right, privilege, or obligation that the law grants to a same-sex relationship is an additional benefit to the civil rights we all have.

I see no problem with creating new rights. That's what fair and equal treatment is all about. If we see that a current situation is treating people unfairly, then creating new rights for those people that make them equal is a justifiable action.

You disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, that is clear. Not all of us disagree with this lifestyle. I know great people, who are in stable, healthy, and loving relationships with significant others of the same sex. By prohibiting these very happy unions, we are not spreading equality, but stifling it.

You seem to think that by making opposite-sex relationships legal while prohibiting same-sex unions, gays will be more likely to shun their homosexual tendencies and marry someone, thus becoming straight. I disagree with this thinking. It is the same thinking that many Christians had in the middle ages with regard to other religions ... that somehow by making those religions less equal in their rights that people would convert to Christianity. They didn't, and this led to things like crusades and mortal ultimatums. A religious conviction is very strong, but it can be changed. Most homosexuals feel just as strongly about their orientation. If one's sexual orientation can be changed without extreme consequences to one's being (of which I, personally, am doubtful), then isn't the proper way to convert others through love, and not hate? A same-sex couple that sees straight couples that have more rights than they have, even though they've been together in a deep commitment to each other for over ten years, while some straight people go through three or more marriages in that time (certainly this goes both ways, as many homosexual couples are not so long lasting), leads to feelings of contempt and scorn that are not healthy for society as a whole, and will bring worse consequences of discrimination and inequality down the road. We really need to learn from past mistakes and accept people, rather than ostracizing them. Make life as good as we can for all people everywhere - that should be our primary concern.

[Neologism]

I don't think that preventing gay marriage is discriminatory. Marriage has always come with religious connotations and is considered by many to be sacred, particularly in Christianity. With this argument, I can see why people might want to provide a marriage like contract for gays, but maybe with a different name under which they could get the same benefits as a married couple. However, I have always understood that the reason that married couples get benefits is due to their ability and likelihood of raising a family. And many studies have been done that show that whole families are a great benefit to society. I'm not saying that gay couples can't be a benefit to society, but under most circumstances, they will not be raising a family and thus will be improving America through more than just themselves (ie. children), and therefore do not get the enticement of marriage benefits.

[Imogen]

I don't think that preventing gay marriage is discriminatory. Marriage has always come with religious connotations and is considered by many to be sacred, particularly in Christianity. With this argument, I can see why people might want to provide a marriage like contract for gays, but maybe with a different name under which they could get the same benefits as a married couple. However, I have always understood that the reason that married couples get benefits is due to their ability and likelihood of raising a family. And many studies have been done that show that whole families are a great benefit to society. I'm not saying that gay couples can't be a benefit to society, but under most circumstances, they will not be raising a family and thus will be improving America through more than just themselves (ie. children), and therefore do not get the enticement of marriage benefits.

so should straight couples that do not have children not get marriage benefits?

[vorpal blade]

The fact that someone does not have an interest in such a marriage neither lessens nor increases his civil rights. Any right, privilege, or obligation that the law grants to a same-sex relationship is an additional benefit to the civil rights we all have.

I see no problem with creating new rights. That's what fair and equal treatment is all about. If we see that a current situation is treating people unfairly, then creating new rights for those people that make them equal is a justifiable action.

No, fair and equal treatment is not about creating new rights. Fair and equal treatment is to guaranteed the same rights. When you create new rights for a special minority you are making rights unequal, not equal. If we see that a current situation is treating people unfairly then we make sure the existing laws are enforced uniformly so that everyone receives equal treatment. Those with a same-sex attraction already had equal rights. They were already being treated fairly by the law. Those who have a same-sex attraction are just as free to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else. In this they are already completely equal and we are not treating anyone unfairly. This is equal treatment. To now take another type of relationship, peculiar to those who choose to follow a "homosexual lifestyle," and bestow upon it some of the rights of marriage is not making anything more equal, it is making the law more unequal.

You disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, that is clear. Not all of us disagree with this lifestyle. I know great people, who are in stable, healthy, and loving relationships with significant others of the same sex. By prohibiting these very happy unions, we are not spreading equality, but stifling it.

I'm not advocating legal prohibition of same-sex unions. I'm saying that God has said that homosexual behavior is sinful.

You seem to think that by making opposite-sex relationships legal while prohibiting same-sex unions, gays will be more likely to shun their homosexual tendencies and marry someone, thus becoming straight. I disagree with this thinking. It is the same thinking that many Christians had in the middle ages with regard to other religions ... that somehow by making those religions less equal in their rights that people would convert to Christianity. They didn't, and this led to things like crusades and mortal ultimatums. A religious conviction is very strong, but it can be changed. Most homosexuals feel just as strongly about their orientation. If one's sexual orientation can be changed without extreme consequences to one's being (of which I, personally, am doubtful), then isn't the proper way to convert others through love, and not hate? A same-sex couple that sees straight couples that have more rights than they have, even though they've been together in a deep commitment to each other for over ten years, while some straight people go through three or more marriages in that time (certainly this goes both ways, as many homosexual couples are not so long lasting), leads to feelings of contempt and scorn that are not healthy for society as a whole, and will bring worse consequences of discrimination and inequality down the road. We really need to learn from past mistakes and accept people, rather than ostracizing them. Make life as good as we can for all people everywhere - that should be our primary concern.

No, I don't think that at all. Marrying someone of the opposite sex rarely helps in becoming straight. I don't recommend this at all. I'm saying that a "gay" person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like anyone else. "Gays" and all others thus have equal civil rights simply because the same law is equally and fairly applied to everyone.

I don't advocate hate. Not extending special rights and privileges demanded by those who practice homosexual behavior is not hate.

Why should a same-sex couple look at a heterosexual couple and compare marriage rights? A same-sex relationship is clearly different from a marriage relationship, so we should not expect to find the same rights in both kinds of relationships. Not all relationships are created equal.

Divorce is not a good thing for marriage. Similarly calling same-sex relationships "marriage" would not strengthen the institution of marriage but weaken it.

If to accept people means to you that we must condone their behavior, even when that behavior is not in the best interest of society, then I disagree with you. We should love people and not ostracize them, but we should never surrender our moral principles just to win the friendship of others.

When people are on a self-destructive path it is not making life good for them by pretending that all is well. Our primary concern should be for a person's eternal welfare, which means warning people that homosexual behavior will destroy them from within. If you see someone pick up a deadly snake, is it better to laugh and pat them on the back and make life easy for them, or to yell and holler to throw the snake away, thus disturbing their peace? Which is the more loving, and which the more hateful?

[Yarjka]

No, I don't think that at all. Marrying someone of the opposite sex rarely helps in becoming straight. I don't recommend this at all. I'm saying that a "gay" person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like anyone else. "Gays" and all others thus have equal civil rights simply because the same law is equally and fairly applied to everyone.

I don't advocate hate. Not extending special rights and privileges demanded by those who practice homosexual behavior is not hate.

I apologize for misinterpreting your words. I should have reread the entire thread before posting a response to your last comment.

If to accept people means to you that we must condone their behavior, even when that behavior is not in the best interest of society, then I disagree with you.

We definitely disagree, but not as you've phrased it. No one should ever have to condone behavior that they feel is sinful, but they should recognize that others might not feel the same way as they do, and should be respectful of those beliefs. When we try to make laws based only on the majority opinion of what is right and what is wrong, this inevitably leads to inequality. As society advances, we should be learning lessons from our past, not repeating our mistakes. Somehow tolerance has become a bad word in some circles, meaning the same thing as acceptance of sin. Tolerance for each other's differences is a vital component of society. The majority of homosexual individuals in this country do not feel equal, whether or not you say they are. This problem needs to be addressed, not to condone their lifestyle, but to allow people to live life without hiding their true feelings, without pretending to be something they are not. As long as people continue to claim, like Neologism above, that gay couples are somehow participants in a less-useful union (which is the implication of his words, and I think from your words that you agree) because they can't have children, then they are not being treated equally. I think this is the point at which we disagree most: I see homosexual unions as equal to heterosexual unions, and you do not. Therefore, you feel they should not have equal status, and I do. In my opinion, anyone who disagrees in this equality fails the call for truly equal rights, regardless of how 'equal' the laws may be on paper.

Yes, I understand your point that you have repeated: both gays and straights have the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex. I say, big deal. This is not equality.

[Imogen]

well said, yarjka. it actually made me think of an episode of south park. mr. garrison is trying to get fired for being gay and committing EXTREME behaviors. If he gets fired, he can sue for millions of dollars. Lots of stuff happens, but mr. garrison makes the point that tolerating something doesn't mean you ACCEPT it unconditionally, just that you TOLERATE it.



and vorpal, we extend special rights to people ALL THE TIME. What do you think the ADA is? it's the government creating special rights of access for people with disabilities. There are special rights for disabled students within school districts. There are special rights for all sorts of people in many situations. But gay people don't see being allowed to have the financial and legal benefits of marriage as a special right. It's just a right. A right that all Americans should have, regardless of who they marry. Why does my same-sex marriage weaken your straight marriage? what does my marriage have to do with your marriage at all? or my divorce for that matter. should i stay in an unhappy marriage because YOU or a senator or a president THINKS divorce weakens marriage. i don't think so. marriage is still doing ok, despite divorces and same-sex couples.

marriage is about more than your religious convictions. because the government has rights attached to it, it's about civil rights. because i benefit on my tax returns and in terms of inheritance when i sign that magic piece of paper FROM THE STATE, than THE STATE should provide rights to all equally, regardless of who they love or what's between their legs.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

marriage is about more than your religious convictions. because the government has rights attached to it, it's about civil rights. because i benefit on my tax returns and in terms of inheritance when i sign that magic piece of paper FROM THE STATE, than THE STATE should provide rights to all equally, regardless of who they love or what's between their legs.

I somewhat agree with you. I agree that marriage has become more due to all the rights that government grants, but that marriage itself shouldn't be in the hands of the government. We may have talked about this before, but I view that being joined under marriage is not a right and cannot be stipulated by the government.

Basically if we all had to have civil unions with all the same rights, for everyone, that would separate them. And then you could go to whichever church and get married. It probably won't happen, but it would be the ideal in my mind.

[Imogen]

marriage is about more than your religious convictions. because the government has rights attached to it, it's about civil rights. because i benefit on my tax returns and in terms of inheritance when i sign that magic piece of paper FROM THE STATE, than THE STATE should provide rights to all equally, regardless of who they love or what's between their legs.

I somewhat agree with you. I agree that marriage has become more due to all the rights that government grants, but that marriage itself shouldn't be in the hands of the government. We may have talked about this before, but I view that being joined under marriage is not a right and cannot be stipulated by the government.

Basically if we all had to have civil unions with all the same rights, for everyone, that would separate them. And then you could go to whichever church and get married. It probably won't happen, but it would be the ideal in my mind.

that's what they do in france, every couple must go to the courthouse to get a civil union, and then they can do whatever religious thing they want, but only the civil union is recognized by the government. but even the civil unions are restricted to heterosexual couples only because of france's extremely catholic history. nevermind that only about 10-20% of the population goes to mass regularly...

personally, i think that's the best idea, but only if done as you suggest it, nanti. everyone has to get a civil union for the legal protections, and if you want more than that (a mass, a temple marriage, going to mosque, getting married in a field, whatever) than more power to you. unfortunately, as long as the government continues to regulate marriage, it will be an issue of inequality. because the government uses the word marriage to cover all these legal protections, people will consider it a right to be given by the government.

[Neologism]

hmmm...after talking to some people about this issue, I disagree with my previous post, at least the children part. And I think that Nanti's (I think it was him that brought it up first...) mention of having civil contracts separate from church marriages would be an ideal set up and would correct my other argument that marriage is a sacred union and should be treated religiously. (Obviously, as Imogen said, we would have to have it not be like in France where only heterosexual couples could get the civil contract.)

[Identity Crysis]

Tolerance is being willing to coexist with people of different views/lifestyles/religions/etc.

I may disapprove of gay lifestyles but I tolerate it because I like living in a free society.

Now this means when it comes to a vote... I'm going to vote to keep marriage between a man and a women. This is great! And if you love gay marriage... Feel free to vote for it!

The issue is this. California voted. They voted gay marriage down. It was a fair vote. International and national gay rights organizations poured money into it. Churches poured money into it. Individuals poured money into it. People voted and the proverbial die was cast.

Unfortunately... This was not good enough for the gay extremists. The gay extremists DO NOT WANT TOLERANCE.

They want FORCED ACCEPTANCE.

If the vote had fallen the other way, I would have been very disappointed, but it still would have been a fair vote and the people would have decided. If I vehemently disagreed with the outcome to the point where I felt I could not live in a society that supported gay marriage... I would have moved out of California.

If you don't feel strongly enough to leave a society that does not support your beliefs, then you obviously have your priorities in order (comfort is greater than standing up for that particular ideal)

If you don't want to move because you think that society should change for you (meaning the vote has already passed but you didn't like the result)... well then you fall just as far into the forced acceptance category as the extremist gays or any other intolerant extremist group.

People today do not ask you if you can tolerate their beliefs/views. They are asking the government to force you to accept them.


Some notes:
-We shall assume the vote was fair, as this is not the issue at stake. If it was an unfair vote, then that's an entirely different argument on political ethics
-The tolerance I refer to is personal tolerance. Society is as tolerant or as intolerant as the laws we create.

[Yarjka]

There have been many propositions made over the years that have been later overruled as society has progressed. Just because the majority opinion states that something should be a certain way does not mean that it is correct. If the majority had voted to allow gay marriage, you would be in the minority, and you would still feel that gay marriage is wrong. I feel that not allowing gay marriage is wrong, and I still feel it is wrong, but apparently, I'm in the minority (at least in the case of the most recent vote in California). This doesn't at all affect my argument that homosexual marriages should be allowed the same as heterosexual marriages. Your proverbial die is simply a matter of opinion that sways in the wind of change. Nothing is permanent in a democracy. Our very constitution itself can be changed if it is so desired, all for the sake of improving society.

No one will ever agree 100% with all of the laws of their society. If I look through the law books, I'll see all sorts of things I disagree with. This is why we have elections, and why we have any form of activism and public service. People want to improve society through enacting proper laws and reviewing and correcting current laws (in addition to properly enforcing and properly applying these laws to particular cases). If everyone left their society at the first sign of disagreement, there would be no society to speak of.

I think that we would all do best to not associate all gay people with the gay extremists you mention. Gay extremists may very well want forced acceptance. Heck, gay extremists of the most extreme may even want all people to become gay themselves. But I could just as easily say that straight extremists want forced suppression. That straight extremists of the most extreme want to exterminate the gays to save them from their sins. But there will always be extremists on any issue. We need to be concerned with the large number of people that are suffering in life due to the inequality they face. Happiness should not be a gift given only to those chosen by the majority to be deserving of it. We should desire a society that is the best it can be for all people, and this requires tolerance of different lifestyle choices.

[Identity Crysis]

There is a difference between re-voting over time and attempting to force the vote now.

And, obviously, gay marriage may not be an issue you feel strongly enough about to leave society... But there is probably something that would eventually make you say "This society is corrupt and I refuse to live in it." It may not be gay marriage, but there is a point at which you'd leave.

And I totally agree with you about extremism, as you'll notice... But obviously trying to assign forced acceptance to all gays would be inappropriate... (and inaccurate)

[Identity Crysis]

Perhaps I should define tolerance and acceptance more concretely...

Walking down the street and not punching everyone who disagrees with you is a basic level of tolerance most people have.

Treating gay people just like everyone else is showing a high level of tolerance...

When you vote, you are showing acceptance. If you vote for gay marriage, you are showing that you accept their life decisions. If you vote against it, you are showing that you reject these life decisions.

You can be tolerant whether you vote for or against the issue. Tolerance has only to do with how you treat others. Acceptance is whether you accept and support their lifestyle.

If you do not accept the gay lifestyle and you vote for it anyway... That is not tolerance, it's hypocrisy.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

There have been many propositions made over the years that have been later overruled as society has progressed. Just because the majority opinion states that something should be a certain way does not mean that it is correct. If the majority had voted to allow gay marriage, you would be in the minority, and you would still feel that gay marriage is wrong. I feel that not allowing gay marriage is wrong, and I still feel it is wrong, but apparently, I'm in the minority (at least in the case of the most recent vote in California). This doesn't at all affect my argument that homosexual marriages should be allowed the same as heterosexual marriages. Your proverbial die is simply a matter of opinion that sways in the wind of change. Nothing is permanent in a democracy. Our very constitution itself can be changed if it is so desired, all for the sake of improving society.

Since California has been brought up again, why do you think that not allowing gay people to be married in California is wrong? It was merely a change in wording and definition that was up for vote. The only thing that the gay community would have gained by winning is being joined under marriage with all the same rights they have under civil marriages now.
As for me, I don't think it is a right to be joined under the term of 'marriage', nor that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that people feel like they're equal, but rather ensuring that they are equal legally. As in protection from being fired because of sexual orientation, as in ensuring the same rights protections that heterosexual couples for gay couples, which to me does not extend to what the civil institution is named or how it is defined.

Anyway, I just want to know your thoughts on the matter.

[vorpal blade]

We definitely disagree, but not as you've phrased it. No one should ever have to condone behavior that they feel is sinful, but they should recognize that others might not feel the same way as they do, and should be respectful of those beliefs. When we try to make laws based only on the majority opinion of what is right and what is wrong, this inevitably leads to inequality. As society advances, we should be learning lessons from our past, not repeating our mistakes. Somehow tolerance has become a bad word in some circles, meaning the same thing as acceptance of sin. Tolerance for each other's differences is a vital component of society.

Thank you, Varjka, for taking the time to think about what I write and responding to what I actually say. It’s frustrating when people don’t do that.

I’m sorry, it is just that in my experience phrases such “tolerance for each other’s differences,” and we “should be respectful of” the beliefs of others are often code words for “Shut up and get out of the way so that my values can dominate.”

I was trying to think of an example of a law based only on the majority opinion of what is right and what is wrong, which lead to inequality. It reminded me of Mosiah 29:26-27. “Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.”

I did remember that in May 2008, we had an example of the majority of the California Supreme Court, a tiny minority of the people, who ruled that the definition of marriage should extend to same-gender couples. It is interesting to read their opinions. They agreed that in California same-gender unions and marriage had equal legal rights and privileges; the problem they were addressing was that most people in California refused to give moral assent to the equality of status and esteem. In the eyes of four out of seven California Supreme Court Justices the majority of the people in California had skewed values, so they decided by judicial fiat to redefine marriage in order to force us to accept a moral equivalence of homosexual behavior and traditional marriage. That may sound bizarre to you, but read the Court opinion.

The majority of homosexual individuals in this country do not feel equal, whether or not you say they are. This problem needs to be addressed, not to condone their lifestyle, but to allow people to live life without hiding their true feelings, without pretending to be something they are not. As long as people continue to claim, like Neologism above, that gay couples are somehow participants in a less-useful union (which is the implication of his words, and I think from your words that you agree) because they can't have children, then they are not being treated equally. I think this is the point at which we disagree most: I see homosexual unions as equal to heterosexual unions, and you do not. Therefore, you feel they should not have equal status, and I do. In my opinion, anyone who disagrees in this equality fails the call for truly equal rights, regardless of how 'equal' the laws may be on paper.

Yes, I understand your point that you have repeated: both gays and straights have the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex. I say, big deal. This is not equality.

Since those with a same-sex attraction have the same legal rights as the rest of us the difference must be social acceptance of homosexual behavior. I can understand a person feeling that he is not equal in society as long as his behavior is looked down on and not given the same status as traditional marriage. For some people we will be unequal until we all practice homosexuality. For others the feelings of inequality will persist until we all stand around and sing the praises of homosexual behavior. Anyone who remains quiet will be labeled intolerant and bigoted, and that will make those who practice homosexuality feel unequal. They will demand that the quiet one be more accepting of others. What they say of the non quiet objectors will be worse.

The role of government in family and marriage is to protect the welfare of children. In order to ensure a proper environment for the rearing of children the government recognizes or gives special rights, privileges, protections, and responsibilities to parents. The government has no particular interest in who loves whom. Marriage has status in our society because it is the fundamental unit which is so important to the nurture and education of children, enabling them to become responsible citizens.

The government strives to promote the ideal relationship for children to have both a father and mother. This is beneficial to our civilization. Other relationships between individuals have lesser value, no value, or negative value. A relationship of slave to master may have a positive value to the master, but most people agree with me that slavery has negative value to the society at large.

Not all potential marriage relationships have equal value in our society. We do not value a marriage between a man and his mother. Or between a man and his sister. Or between a man and an eight-year old child. The majority has decided, against the wishes of a minority, that these relationships have negative value to society as a whole. As a result such marriages are forbidden by law.

What value does a same-gender union have for society at large? Why should the government support and encourage homosexual behavior? I believe that my religion teaches me that homosexual behavior is very sinful, and sinful behavior is destructive to the individual and to society at large. It seems to me that same-gender unions have negative value. Why would you wish to promote, reward, and encourage homosexual behavior? Another person may make a different value judgment, but is no less a value judgment than mine.

You may disagree with me. That is your right. But our government is under no obligation to bestow privileges and benefits on a relationship which the majority feels does not benefit society, simply because other relationships, which do benefit society, receive those privileges and benefits. That would be a false sense of equality.

[Identity Crysis]

This has been beaten so much it doesn't even resemble a dead horse anymore.

It's so ground up we could make horse-burgers out of it!

[Nanti-SARRMM]

This has been beaten so much it doesn't even resemble a dead horse anymore.

It's so ground up we could make horse-burgers out of it!

I think after this much beating, it's not even edible for the dogs to eat.

[vorpal blade]

This has been beaten so much it doesn't even resemble a dead horse anymore.

It's so ground up we could make horse-burgers out of it!

Well, I was going to say that I agree with Identity Crysis and Sam....