With the honor code stipulating that different sexes cannot reside together in the same residence, most likely because this can create more temptations and potentially lead to violations of the law of chastity, shouldn't those with same gender attraction be required to not live with those they potentially could be attracted to?
Don't the residents they potentially could share an apartment, or even a room with, be notified that the person(s) occupying their residence have same sex attraction?
Obviously, those with same sex attraction are not attracted to everyone, just like those with opposite sex attraction are not attracted to everyone, BUT, shouldn't everyone be required to follow the same regulations?
Isn't the point of the honor code to avoid placing people in temptations way?
Perhaps this has already been brought up, but I didn't notice it, and wonder what people think...
They shouldn't have to reveal their sexual orientation even if they are gay. That will just lead to unfair prejudice and awkwardness – maybe not definitely, but most likely. There is a difference between a guy with a girl in his bedroom and a guy with a gay roommate. First of all, relationships between men and women are considered the norm, thus in a heterosexual relationship, moral and ethical questioning concerning the sexes of the individuals involved is absent. As a result, it is assumed that intimacy or passion between such individuals, while perhaps not correct in a religious sense, is correct in a general sense (meaning it is socially acceptable) – therefore, I believe that issues such as violations of the law of chastity are much more likely between a man and woman than they are between a straight man and a gay man. If, for instance, two men were roommates, one of which was gay, temptations might be felt on the part of the homosexual individual – however, it takes two to tango, meaning it would take temptations from both males for an act of immorality to occur. Now, there always is the possibility that two roommates, either two girls or two guys, could both be gay (and as Chris mentioned in class, close to around 200 people at BYU alone struggle with feelings of homosexuality). In that case, I can see how immoral acts could be a serious problem. However, I think that #1) such a situation has a very low probability of occurring, and #2) due to the nature of BYU, it could be assumed that most homosexual people are not too keen on letting everybody know that they are same-sex attracted for fear of ridicule or embarrassment. So no, I don't think people should have to reveal their sexual orientation and thereby be subjected to differentiated treatment.
ReplyDeleteI don't think people should have to reveal their sexual orientation. As we have been taught in this class it is not a sin if you are not acting on the feelings. It would be unfair for people with these tendencies to have to reveal to others something so close to them. The guest speaker in class told us that he did not even come out until years after he had attended BYU, served a mission, and was married. Obviously, coming out was one of the hardest things he's had to do. If people had to reveal this upon being accepted to BYU, it would discourage them from attending this university; many would refuse to reveal this attribute about themselves or just lie about it. I just don't think that it would be beneficial in any way.
ReplyDeleteI assume that the honor code operates under the idea that the majority of students inhabiting student housing at/around BYU are opposite sex attracted, and have made those rules to deter morally hazardous situations from occurring.
ReplyDeleteWould it not be fair to opposite sex attracted students, whose orientation is apparent, to know the ones who are same sex attracted?
I am assuming that the premise of the honor code stipulation is to prevent and deter potentially morally hazardous incidents from happening, couldn't the same argument be made from the standpoint of those who aren't same sex attracted, that they could not act on their feelings should they have a opposite sex roommate?
I do not feel that approved co-habitation would be a necessary answer, but I just wonder, if the idea of the co-habitation rule is to prevent things from happening, wouldn't it be better for all involved to not have added temptation?
Most of the roommates I've had aren't always fully dressed, wouldn't this be more of a temptation for same sex attracted males?
"Shouldn't those with same gender attraction be required to not live with those they potentially could be attracted to?"
ReplyDeleteJust who would you have us live with, then?
If the church has no problem sending us (same-sex attracted men and women) on missions to live 24/7 with someone of the same sex, then I believe there should be no reason to consider such a rule. Same-sex attraction is really nobody's business, except the people with whom the gay student willfully chooses and feels comfortable sharing it with.
You are also assuming that gay BYU students are all at the same stage of openness and acceptance about their own orientation. There are many BYU students that have not even been able to admit to themselves they are gay, let alone fill out a waiver form about it for BYU Housing. And others could suffer great emotional and social turmoil to have their roommates know they are same-sex oriented. You can't lump all same-sex attracted persons into one category, either. Considering or enacting such a rule would accomplish nothing whatsoever.
(As a sidenote, I suppose there are some heterosexual men who feel that they are so terribly attractive as to be an irresistible temptation to every hot-blooded woman and gay male. To them I would have to burst their bubble and say that they just aren't. And even if they were, like Juliet says, it takes two to tango.)
I agree with all the comments so far. The first thing that comes to my mind with this issue is the signing of the honor code in the first place. When a student signs it, he or she agrees to follow particular guidelines and agrees to abstain from certain behaviors, such as consuming alcoholic beverages or viewing inappropriate images. The same thing goes for behaviors that compromise chastity. Whether a student is heterosexual or homosexual, they agree to abide by the strict chastity guidelines or else lose the privilege to attend BYU. Perhaps the temptation would be greater if a homosexual student lived with a member of the same gender, but it doesn't mean that they would necessarily act upon the temptation. We all sign the honor code and I'm sure face various temptations depending on our situations. For example, a person that may have struggles with pornography may be much more tempted to indulge in bad thoughts in a housing complex that has a pool and hot tub as residents will be much less clothed, or someone who has a hard time going to church would be more tempted to skip meetings if their roommates were not members of the church or chose not to attend for whatever reason. They may be tempted, but they can choose to still follow the honor code because they respect themselves and maintaining their honor. These are not exactly comparable situations, but the principle is the same. An individual always has control over his or her actions.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it is very possible that a homosexual student who ended up living with a member of the same sex may simply not even be attracted to their roommates. As a heterosexual woman, I know I am not attracted to every man out there and would not be inclined to pursue him. I can't speak from experience, but I can imagine that the same would go for a homosexual student. It is possible that they would be physically attracted to their roommate, but it's also likely that the attraction would be so weak that they would never be interested. I also agree with you, Juliet...it really does take two and even if the homosexual person is interested, it's highly likely that the heterosexual roommate is going to let anything happen.
Regardless, I don't think housing has any business forcing people to reveal their orientation before moving in. When people sign the honor code and promise to abide by the laws of chastity, what else matters? Perhaps members of the church struggling with same sex attraction need the BYU atmosphere more than anything as a support system, so why complicate things by forcing them to decide if they truly are homosexual or not? If it was a big enough concern, then the housing application could include an optional box to check under the roommate preferences so they could elect to reveal their orientation in order to get a better roommate match.
1. Is it fair to assume that the church has a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policy about SSA men and women in regards to serving full-time missions?
ReplyDelete2. I can see your point with regards to the statement that “Same-sex attraction is really nobody’s business, except the people with whom the gay student willfully chooses and feels comfortable sharing it with.” However, what about the idea that when a straight student moves in with roommates, he/she is assuming that they will be straight like themselves—is it wrong to assume this? Basically, is it possible to also respect the straight student’s wishes who may wish to know if they are living with someone who is SSA? Yes, the homosexual student has wishes which they want respected, but what about the heterosexual student’s wishes as well?
3. I brought this comment up because it illustrates to me a flaw in the honor code. I personally believe that the honor code, which was started by students, operates under the premise to avoid potentially harmful situations. But, just as a homosexual person can live with heterosexual people, whether on a mission or in housing, and still remain moral and chaste, couldn’t the same be applied to two members of the opposite sex who are heterosexual and live together being moral and chaste?
4. Yes, I agree with you that not all homosexuals are attracted to ALL men, or women respectively, but the church teaches to stay away from temptation as much as possible, to not get as “close to the line” as possible and prove how strong one is by not giving in—rather, stay away from potentially harmful situations. Humans ARE sexual beings—missionaries and roommates aren’t always fully clothed, and regardless of if you are attracted to them or not, being exposed to nudity that one is attracted to can lead to potentially harmful situations, whether with those people or others. Perhaps people should always be properly clothed, but the fact remains that they aren’t always, and in their mind why should they if it doesn’t bring in immoral thoughts. Women sometimes lounge around in their bras—Men sometimes walk around in their underwear, or even less…and to the heterosexual person, this isn’t a problem because they are doing so under the notion that everyone they live with in the comfort of their home is heterosexual, and thereby not going to be potentially aroused by such behavior.
Derek, I can see that you're concerned about this issue.
ReplyDelete1. The church does NOT have a "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding missionary service. SSA members are free to say they are gay and still be called on missions. They can ask. We can tell.
2. Students assume all sorts of things of their roommates. I may assume they are going to obey curfew, keep girls our of their bed, not smoke pot, attend church, not bring home booze, stay shaved every day, etc. Maybe you shouldn't assume these kinds of things, but I think a better solution would be to just worry about your own personal commitment to your standards. Then if a problem does arise, you can handle it with BYU honor code office appropriately.
Secondly, you seem to be overly concerned that a gay person will not abide by the honor code, and maybe start to infringe on your comfort zone. You ask, "Is it possible to respect the straight student's wishes who may wish to know if they are living with someone with SSA" as if you are entitled to know. I don't know why a person should feel entitled to know that. I suppose if you were worried that your roommate is going to seduce you, which I have tried to assure you is not likely to be the case.
3. I don't know where you get the idea that the honor code was written by students. While students may be consulted on occasion (like when it was clarified in matters of same-sex attraction), it is managed and written by BYU administration.
While the honor code can certainly help students overcome temptation, it is not designed to remove all temptation. That would be impossible and, from a theological standpoint, contrary to God's plan for his children.
The basis of the honor code is just that--honor. It depends on the honor of the individual in order to function effectively.
Yes, a man and a woman can live together and still be "moral and chaste." We agree. So can two men at BYU. And two women.
4. Yes, the church teaches that we should avoid temptation. However, you say that "humans are sexual beings." This is a little base. We ought also to be moral beings. And yes, even gay people have morals. Just because we are sexual beings doesn't--or at least shouldn't--mean we are going to act out willy-nilly every time we are tempted.
I want to make it clear that just because one is gay, does not mean one cannot control him or herself. You seem to suggest that. A roommate can flaunt around the apartment naked all he likes and I can still have my own commitment to morals. The Honor Code is not trying to forcibly eliminate temptation. It should be encouraging people to live their lives based on their own moral compass, and in my opinion, the less rules there are, the better proof that we are living righteously.
In your case, if you are so concerned about a possible gay roommate seeing you in your underwear or naked, then don't flounce around your apartment in your underwear or naked.
While you don't like the idea of gay men living with straight men, you don't pose any sort of solution. Are you okay with gay BYU students being worthy and accepted at BYU? Are you open and accepting of the possiblility of having a SSA roommate? Because if not, then the problem is not the honor code housing policy, but overcoming your own feelings of homophobia.
Based on your comments, I feel like you are worried about gay people being tempted by roommates. While I see your point, and I think it is good to think about these things, I also think it is important to be concerned about yourself first. If you worry first and foremost about staying faithful to your standards, then you won't have to worry about whether or not a roommate might be gay
I appreciate your comments and thoughts. I am not a homosexual man, and therefore I do not have the experiences which one may have, who is, such as yourself. So my view on things could be, perhaps, out of ignorance, since I have not personally experienced what it is like to live in a Mormon society being homosexual.
ReplyDeleteI do realize that the bulk of what I posited is hypothetical, however, through hypothetical queries one can sort things out, should they arise. Therefore, it is needful to say that not everything I pose I have or do personally encounter. This is why I wanted to discuss and address the issue, because, sadly, in society regulations, etc., come about as a reaction instead of an action.
I am curious, did the church ask if you were an SSA male when going on your mission? Perhaps things have changed since I served, and they do.
I am also curious, how does one become his “brother’s keeper,” if you will, when he is minding his own business and not being concerned about the regulations of the honor code with those he resides?
I brought up the underwear/nakedness issue, not because of anything I personally do, but because of others who are, shall we say, less ashamed of their nakedness?
My main thought process in opening this dialogue was not to lambast anyone who is SSA—we both know, hopefully, that one can be SSA and still lead a moral life, and stand clean before God—it was mainly to discuss and try to reconcile an issue in the honor code which was of interest to myself. If a man and a woman can live together and be morally chaste as well as two men or two women can, why not do away with this aspect of the honor code? My thinking is, that if the honor code was implemented to prevent and deter immoral behavior for heterosexual people, couldn’t there be a way for this to help prevent immoral behavior for homosexual people? Wouldn’t you, as a SSA person, like to be treated the same as a straight person?
And no, not all SSA men or women are attracted to every person of the respective sex they are attracted to (and, of course, if you will humor me to use the “but I know a homosexual so I cannot possibly be homophobic” example, one of my past roommates came out a few months after I lived with him, and I never would have even guessed he was homosexual, nor do I think less of him now that he is out), but it seems to me that if a male SSA was more comfortable living with women, and felt less tempted, then couldn’t that be a possibility?
I do realize that this opens up a myriad of problems, namely, how would one prove they are SSA, etc.
I appreciate the way in which you present your ideas, but I am attempting to reconcile, albeit through hypothetical means, issues which come about presently.
I also appreciate the view that you illustrate, that of rights of privacy. I am merely bringing up the alternate view, that of the rights of those who want to know who they are living with.
ReplyDeleteAs a brief endnote, when I brought up who implemented the honor code, I was not meaning to imply that students run the honor code now, but historically, it was implemented by students.
“I remind you that the Honor Code of Brigham Young University was not initiated by the board and the administration. It is an outgrowth of the action of a group of students who felt strongly that the acceptance of a code of honor by those who attended this school would have a salutary effect upon all.
By an evolutionary process it has continued, with modifications, until it has become the standard behavior of those of the university and has been endorsed by its board of trustees.”
See Codes and Covenants, Gordon B. Hinckley, 18 October 1994
You have asked what I think solutions would be. I think that, perhaps, there is no “perfect” solution to the issues I addressed, and that the way the system is intact now is perhaps the closest to ideal. However, I also realize that I do not know everything, or look at the world in an unbiased way (nor does anyone if you really think about it), hence why I would be curious if you think there is a more ideal way?
I was asked by a previous student of mine to post this comment anonymously:
ReplyDeleteDerek, I have a few thoughts I would like to share with you in response to some of your statements.
1. "I am also curious, how does one become his 'brother’s keeper,' if you will, when he is minding his own business and not being concerned about the regulations of the honor code with those he resides?"
Let me begin by saying that a person's sexuality is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. If someone chooses to share that part of themselves with you, then that is their choice. You have no right to ask. Along those same lines, it is not your job to watch over or babysit your roommates or friends to ensure that they are keeping the Honor Code (whether they be gay or straight). If you ever witness behavior that makes you uncomfortable or violates the HC, then by all means, report it. I simply do not see how knowing your roommates' sexual orientation would make keeping the honor code easier.
2. "it seems to me that if a male SSA was more comfortable living with women, and felt less tempted, then couldn’t that be a possibility?"
I have a few issues with this suggestion. You may or may not be aware that sexuality is very much a continuum. On one side, are those strongly attracted to the opposite sex who feel ill at the thought of being intimate with those from their own gender. On the other side is the complete opposite - those who are so attracted to the same gender that being intimate with the opposite gender in turn makes them ill. Then you have everything in between. You have no real way of determining just how far along the continuum everyone is in their sexuality. Even if this were possible, do you really think that it would be considered appropriate at BYU to have single men and women living together? There are clear physical differences between the two sexes that would make this... impractical (to say the least). And what do you propose for those who fall somewhere in the middle of this continuum? Should they be forced to find secluded housing, away from both genders?
You ask in your previous post if those with SSA would like to be treated the same as straight people. Of course we do. We ask that you treat us with respect. We ask that you don't second guess our morality based on our orientation. Finally, we ask that you stop asking. We have every right to be open about our sexuality on our own terms, when we feel comfortable doing so.
'Should BYU require students to voluntarily submit their orientation before attending?'
ReplyDeleteI don't feel this is a good option at all. Juliet said, "That will just lead to unfair prejudice and awkwardness." I think this is totally true. But I'm worried about gay students congregating in off campus housing and living with each other. Then, I feel, temptation would be higher because the opportunities to act on their feelings would increase. Could it be possible to tell a non-biased party about the same sex attraction so that housing situations such as this could be prevented? Meaning the honor code would not allow gay students to house with gay student and this would be regulated my administrators who keep their information completely confidential. Now obviously this would be all up to the gay individual. They can choose to tell the administrator or whomever. If they don't want to tell, then there is nothing we can do to stop them. Hopefully this would just be an opportunity to help those with SSA live the standards of the church.