Might the NCAA eventually kick out religious schools (LGBT-related)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/04/26/religious-schools-policy-ncaa-lgbt-student-athletes/83299356/



Some appear to be calling for schools to be more "inclusive" or face expulsion from the NCAA athletics programs. A few mentions of BYU happen--and it appears the the crux with BYU is that the Honor Code forbids any homosexual activity--yet allows heterosexual relations under marriage. Its not at a breaking point yet, but who knows what the future will hold.

Yes. The answer is yes.

It would require a simple majority of the 1,281 members of the NCAA.



As a private entity, even though the majority of members are public institutions, the NCAA can do what it wants.



Here another article on the subject, ftom an organization that monitors how the media treat religion:



http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/4/26/usa-today-do-doctrinally-defined-private-colleges-have-a-right-the-ncaa-brand

The entire gay lobby is an attack on religious freedom. So, the answer to your question is Yes.

I read the article. I disagree strongly with the author's premise that, since the NCAA is a private entity, then it can do what it pleases, irrespective of the 1st Amendment and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.



First of all, no alternate sexual orientation people are disenfranchised by a private institution's rules, because they are free to choose from a plurality of state sponsored schools. Meanwhile, there is only one NCAA and therefore, exclusion from it would be a major disenfranchisement. It would essentially be a persecution exerted against a major program to not be able to participate with and compete with their peers.



Second, the gay rights lobby cannot have it both ways. They cannot accept a ruling that a privately owned bakery may not refuse to cater to a gay wedding upon request, and then turn around and say that a privately run NCAA may refuse to allow the participation of a university sports program based on its religious beliefs or expressions there of. This is unbelievable hipocrasy, and for this I say, shame on the article's author, as well as on USA Today for this disappointing display of bigotry. They love and embrace the gays, but to hell with religious institutions and other private entities that only wish to continue practicing their beliefs.

I should clarify: I thought the author of the "Get Religion" piece was OK; he is merely exposing the inconsistencies and contradictions in the USA Today article. It is the USA Today authors/editors that I criticize as above.

I see the gay attack on BYU coming in the form of two gay activists lying thier way into becoming BYU students then running down to LasVegas and getting married and the demanding that the school accept them and force the HCO to expel them so they can further attack the school and church. They will claim that sex in marriage is acceptable at BYU and they are married so they must accept it.

It is not a question of whether, but when.

BoiseBYU wrote:
It is not a question of whether, but when.

That is my perception of the situation. Things really are spiraling out of control of what used to be morals and now is deemed to be restrictive of other's rights. I see this continuing because those that back this are beginning to exceed those that oppose.

I was kind of hoping this topic would come up on this forum. It's difficult to post my question on CougarBoard because of all of the inconsiderate members of that forum that have to denigrate just about anything said because they are buffoons and do it for sport and for some reason I've never come to understand. Forget discussing anything on FaceBook as the attacks are amped up even greater.



Here is my serious question for those that believe that gay relationships and marriage is okay because they were born with these attractions and therefore they should be allowed. I understand that logic if logic is what ruled our existence. I don't believe it does and that's the linchpin of the argument and why the chasm may just be too wide between the two positions.



Where I can't follow their argument is that a pedophile could have the same premise. I don't believe those with that challenge of attraction to children on a sexual basis could not argue the same that they "feel" that inclination naturally and didn't simply decide to have that attraction. Is my understanding correct that those supporting the LGBT view draw the line with the fact that they promote rights only that do not cause harm to others and isn't part of mutual consent? Clearly then, a child is in no position to ever be able to grant consent with an adult about what the adult wants them to do sexually, and therefore the LGBT would conclude that such an orientation isn't right or should be supported.



Logically I can't make that same connection if the belief that drives LGBT rights rests entirely on the premise of that's the way they were born. Am I understanding their position correctly?

EM_Puma wrote:
I was kind of hoping this topic would come up on this forum. It's difficult to post my question on CougarBoard because of all of the inconsiderate members of that forum that have to denigrate just about anything said because they are buffoons and do it for sport and for some reason I've never come to understand. Forget discussing anything on FaceBook as the attacks are amped up even greater.



Here is my serious question for those that believe that gay relationships and marriage is okay because they were born with these attractions and therefore they should be allowed. I understand that logic if logic is what ruled our existence. I don't believe it does and that's the linchpin of the argument and why the chasm may just be too wide between the two positions.



Where I can't follow their argument is that a pedophile could have the same premise. I don't believe those with that challenge of attraction to children on a sexual basis could not argue the same that they "feel" that inclination naturally and didn't simply decide to have that attraction. Is my understanding correct that those supporting the LGBT view draw the line with the fact that they promote rights only that do not cause harm to others and isn't part of mutual consent? Clearly then, a child is in no position to ever be able to grant consent with an adult about what the adult wants them to do sexually, and therefore the LGBT would conclude that such an orientation isn't right or should be supported.



Logically I can't make that same connection if the belief that drives LGBT rights rests entirely on the premise of that's the way they were born. Am I understanding their position correctly?

For what its worth I feel the same way. I understand that the "born this way" is actually not supported by the science. As I understand it is a combination of born a certain way and some unknown trigger in development.



Either way, I see it not so much a pedophilia, but more like alcoholism, and other disorders. There are some people who cannot listen to the sound of eating toast, or people chewing gum. Those sounds literally drive those folks batty. Yet they are not the current cause de jour, so there is no talk of "being inclusive" enough to ban toast, gum or alcohol.

The obvious difference, of course, is that two consenting adults are different than an adult and a child who is unable to make decisions for themselves.

I am no expert, and perhaps I am misunderstanding your question, but I think most LGBT activists do not hang their arguments on the notion that they were "born this way." For some of them, at least, that sounds like an excuse and a justification. And they are not looking for justification. Their position is there is no basis legally to distinguish between their same sex sexual preferences (at least with consenting adults) and a heterosexual's sexual preferences and for anyone to make such distinctions, whether by the government or private entities is a "discrimination" that should not be allowed. The problem is there are various instances when there should not be any distinction made. This is why the Church has agreed to various proposed laws that do prohibit various types of distinction based upon sexual orientation. Housing access is one area that comes to mind. The Church has drawn the line at marriage. LGBT activists are unwilling to accede to that distinction and society at large seems to be more willing to back them. The more minority the Church's view gets, and the more tools LGBT activists marshal to coerce or punish those unwilling to go along with their agenda, the more likely we will see such proposals or actions like barring BYU from NCAA sports. As much as I love BYU sports, though, I am far far more worried about BYU some day losing accreditations. That would gut the school and make it unlikely that students could go on to graduate programs etc. I hope I am not over reacting, but I do not like the trend lines I am seeing.

Most LGBT activists and new laws focus on civil rights and freedom issues.



It is extremely hypocritical to give the NCAA the green light to discriminate against religious institutions that don't agree with the majority's agenda. This is the scary part of the entire scenario for our society- and this is why it's extremely important to fight for freedom of speech and religion for all: Muslims, Mormons, voodoo, atheists, communists, LGBT activists, etc.



I've often asked myself in this context, why is polygamy illegal? why is government involved in marriage licensing?

YNot wrote:
Most LGBT activists and new laws focus on civil rights and freedom issues.



It is extremely hypocritical to give the NCAA the green light to discriminate against religious institutions that don't agree with the majority's agenda. This is the scary part of the entire scenario for our society- and this is why it's extremely important to fight for freedom of speech and religion for all: Muslims, Mormons, voodoo, atheists, communists, LGBT activists, etc.



I've often asked myself in this context, why is polygamy illegal? why is government involved in marriage licensing?

I have tried to make this point as well. If the LGBT advocates make an argument of consent among adults, then why are they so judgmental and negative regarding consenting adults that desire plural marriage? They can counter with the accusation of underage females being coerced, and we concur about that being wrong. However, the same thing happens when homosexuals are also targeting children. Pedophilia is wrong in either scenario, and is likely more prevalent among homosexuals than with polygamists, because of the more clandestine, in-the --closet nature of homosexual pedophilia.



Another issue is that I have never seen convincing evidence that homosexuality is innate. As a physician, my ears prick up whenever a report comes along regarding studies of genetics. Invariably, these studies have been lacking in any real discovery or evidence for the genetic basis for homosexuality. The headlines are often misleading, or sensationalistic, meaning that you must read through the fine print to be able to realize that nothing is there. It is very similar to the studies that seem to support AGW. There is a strong preconception for an outcome that will be supportive of the agenda. Grant money provides a reward for expressions of goodwill regarding the agenda, irrespective of the actual hard data. There is a preponderance of mish-mash in the summary comments, including excuses and apologies for contradictory evidence, as well as professions of continued belief in the popular hypothesis. They then write about how more studies are needed, and how those studies will hopefully provide more supportive evidence for the popular agenda. Meanwhile, the headlines allow the casual reader to believe that a gay gene sequence has been discovered, or that there is proof that a 70 parts per million CO2 bump has driven global warming. The activist groups and governments that put up the money can then get a consolation prize in the form of propaganda for steering the public, while the stooge scientists also get to procure more grants.

BOID wrote:

Another issue is that I have never seen convincing evidence that homosexuality is innate. As a physician, my ears prick up whenever a report comes along regarding studies of genetics. Invariably, these studies have been lacking in any real discovery or evidence for the genetic basis for homosexuality. The headlines are often misleading, or sensationalistic, meaning that you must read through the fine print to be able to realize that nothing is there. It is very similar to the studies that seem to support AGW. There is a strong preconception for an outcome that will be supportive of the agenda. Grant money provides a reward for expressions of goodwill regarding the agenda, irrespective of the actual hard data. There is a preponderance of mish-mash in the summary comments, including excuses and apologies for contradictory evidence, as well as professions of continued belief in the popular hypothesis. They then write about how more studies are needed, and how those studies will hopefully provide more supportive evidence for the popular agenda. Meanwhile, the headlines allow the casual reader to believe that a gay gene sequence has been discovered, or that there is proof that a 70 parts per million CO2 bump has driven global warming. The activist groups and governments that put up the money can then get a consolation prize in the form of propaganda for steering the public, while the stooge scientists also get to procure more grants.

Still I wonder about the "wiring" of different persons. All individuals who are gay do not have the same stereotypical personality that is often portrayed in movies and TV. Some who now profess that tendency or orientation you would not guess in observing them or engaging them in a conversation, but there is a whole huge segment of gay men that have a bit of what we would call a feminine personality.



Some years ago I worked in a department at the HQ of a prominent religious society. To borrow a phrase from the movie O Brother Where Out Thou, "See, I belong to a certain secret society -- I don't believe I gotta mention it's name..." My job at that time was to review the letters that came to the HQ that were generically addressed and which you couldn't determine on the envelope to which department to send it. Consequently I received a lot of what I would call "quack" mail. What emerged for me from the experience (I did it for 5 years) is that there is a definite pattern for a certain segment of paranoid individuals along the line of their specific issues and how they expressed them. First, they all most exclusively wrote their letters in cursive or print--rarely typing them. Secondly, they would use the whole page, including the margins and then the tops of the letters when they ran out of space on the regular page. Thirdly, most of their issues were about the same from letter to letter. One may have perceived that they were being watched by secret satellites put in orbit by this church, or another individual claimed it was the local congregational leader who was conducting this secret surveillance, but my point was to read the thousands of letters I read over those five years, it was almost like they had gone to the same class to learn how write these letters. There was a definite pattern that had to be driven by their inner wiring or something. It would seem impossible that these patterns had arisen by coincidence. There was too much empirical evidence. I was amazed because I never suspected that there was a sort of mold of people who share common issues or challenges. I never could understand how people could suffer from these challenges and not just suddenly say, "Well, this isn't right, I think I'll change and not be this way." Here I was seeing that even though every thumbprint is expected to be different, the general look of the thumb itself is consistent from hand to hand.



So how these personality patterns seem to exist, I have no idea whatsoever. Genetics? Inner wiring? I don't know, but there is something afoot.

"Inner wiring" is as good a description as I have heard for a seemingly unchangible behavioral trait shared by many people. To me, the fact that the homosexual trait is shared by a wide variety of personality types, is actually somewhat contradictory to the hypothesis of innate beginnings of the trait. I think that an innate tendency would provide more of a similarity of personalities. Nevertheless, this is also mere conjecture. Personality traits are generally believed by psychologists to be influenced by both genetic and environmental factors.



One environmental factor that has been observed to be common among homosexuals, is the lack of a strong, nurturing relationship with an adult male role model who is heterosexual. Many gay men have been observed to come from a childhood with a father that was either dysfunctional or absent. Thst role can be filled with an uncle, a grandfather, family friend, or even an older brother.



The imprinting of gender identity at an early age (3 to 8 years), is a very powerful thing. It doesn't have to be genetic or congenital, in order for it to be difficult to change. People can be very strongly wired by experiences in childhood.



It's not really that simple a situation regarding causes, of which there could be many. I don't pretend to have all the answers.

It seems that the number of LGBT individuals is drastically higher than what I remember from 30 years ago. I'm not sure why the numbers are increasing.

I dont know if the number is higher, or if it is less something that has to be absolutely hidden. Society is much more accepting now, and that may account for the seeming increase. Its difficult to tell definitively.

lawngnome wrote:
I dont know if the number is higher, or if it is less something that has to be absolutely hidden. Society is much more accepting now, and that may account for the seeming increase. Its difficult to tell definitively.

I've wondered that same exact thing and concluded likewise. I grew up in northeastern Ohio in a small town outside of Akron. To my knowledge, to this date, in the soon 40 years since 360 some of us graduated from high school that year, not one has "come out" and pronounced that they are gay. My wife from Akron, who had a class twice as large, had at least a dozen fellow students that had made such a claim back then. She still believes that my fellow alumni have just not been willing to make such known because they are still living in the thought that such a pronouncement is taboo. I still don't believe any were, so we agree just to disagree.



Today, even in my LDS culture, I can name several members of families in my ward who have extended family members or friends that have come out. I don't know if there has ever been a generation such as mine that has ever experienced such a vast and drastic change in society as ours has in just a few decades.