Comments on: Homosexuality: A Straight BYU Student’s Perspective

By: fiona64

fiona64 — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:05:22 +0000

Hi, Miriam. I’m sure that you have sources for your assertions re LD 1020, right?

BTW, the definition of marriage has been changed numerous times throughout history — including in my own lifetime. I was three years old when Loving v Virginia was decided. Up until then, as I’m sure you are aware, people of different ethnicities were not permitted to marry in the vast majority of states. The same arguments that created the so-called anti-miscegenation laws are the ones that you and others like you are using to deny my gay and lesbian friends the right to marry. My first husband has been married four times now; I’ve been married twice. I have gay friends who’ve been together longer than I’ve been alive, and you would deny them the right to marry even once.

I’m kind of embarrassed for you, to tell the truth. I don’t know how you can say “charity for all, malice toward none” when your obvious dislike for GLBT people drips from every word. Just because you think that a given group is “icky” does not mean they should be denied equal protection under the law.

I mentioned Loving v. Virginia earlier in this post; that decision cites marriage as a basic civil right. Which of your basic civil rights should we put on the ballot, Miriam? Because that’s the real slippery slope of what you advocate: if some tyrannical (and, I hasten to point out, temporary) majority decides that you are icky, your rights could be next. Is that really okay with you?

By: Miriam

Miriam — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:34:29 +0000

I would like to add my perspectives (one at a time) which begin with charity for all, malice towards none. I was surprised to discover that the phrase “same sex marriage” is nowhere to be found in the laws or pending legislation of states where so called “same sex marriage” has been passed or is being considered. The definition of marriage is what has been changed and is being considered for change on both state and federal levels. Along with the radical change in defining marriage also comes the radical change and neutralization of all familial terms associated with family relationships. I am familiar with Maine’s LD1020 that was vetoed by the people. If LD 1020 had been enacted, terms such as mother and father would have been mandated genderless under the law. This I see as one of the many and legitimate “caution lights” that are appearing as we travel on this highway at high speed. More to come.

By: Brad Carmack

Brad Carmack — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:21:23 +0000

Thank you very much Sam and R. Thank you Laura for the review. Thank you Jeff, fiona64, and Tom for weighing in.

@R. - I also hope that more students will be assertive and insistent about exercising the privilege of addressing difficult and controversial issues while at BYU, as I think both the school and the students will be richer for it.

For those that prefer watching to reading, my book is available on youtube as well (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2F830C2AEB5281F9). Email homosexualityperspectiveatyahoo.com if you’d like to purchase a hard copy.

I look forward to continued dialogue on these issues.

By: R. Johnson

R. Johnson — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 05:24:42 +0000

Brad,

I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your courage and your book.
There are no words to describe how I grateful I am. This means there are other students at BYU that will question and may demonstrate leadership by creating change and an opportunity for discussion.

Your book was so needed and you did it. Just wow!

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:31:06 +0000

Mr. Carmack, has done an extrodinary job at approaching the issue of homosexuality and the LDS church while at the same time conveying the need to be tolerant and have compassion for those who are living with same gender attraction. Regardless of whether we agree on the issue of gay marriage or other civil rights for members of the LGBT community we should all be able to agree that we are all members of the human race and as LDS theology teaches, are created in the image of God and are thus his sons and daughters, and are therefore divinely entitled to experience a basic level of civility even from those who disagree with our positions on certain issues, including divisive ones such as homosexualty. Brad, has the nessicary background from both a scientific and legal aspect to be a credible and powerful source on this controversial issue. I would respectfully argue that those who are muddying the “issue ” are those who refuse to reconsider their beliefs on this matter after recieving more evidence or more ” light ” on the issue. As a gay man, I’m thrilled that Mr. Carmack has ventured out and is taking a stand to ensure that people such as me, continue to be heard in the public square, and have a equal chance at the same legal rights as my heterosexual brothers and sisters from all differant religious, economic, and racial backgrounds.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:46:29 +0000

Jeff, God has hinted that cold blooded murder sinful too. Did you know Jared laughner from Tuscon Arizona still is constitutionally protected to marry?
While we are at it, all felons, drug and alcohol addicts, and spouse abusers can marry.
–
Why is this do you suppose?

By: fiona64

fiona64 — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:07:13 +0000

Dear Jeff:

I am hopeful that you can show me the part of the U.S. Constitution (that document on which laws in this country are based) that has exceptions for equality under the law based on whether or not one is homosexual. I am also hopeful that you will show me the part of the U.S. Constitution that says it is based on any kind of religious law.

I’ll wait.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:15:45 +0000

I’ve read this, and I find it to be entirely unpersuasive. For example, the “25 reasons” are only (somewhat) valid if we were living within a hypothetical scenario that isn’t even the case. By the author’s own admission, he is describing a counterfactual world, and listing reasons that only adhere “if homosexual conduct is not necessarily sinful,” a world that, by the author’s own admission, is independent and different from the world in which we live. But, having presented these reasons, he then uses them as reasons we should accept them in our world, a world in which God has revealed that homosexual conduct is sinful.

I believe that this book is a form of sophistry, and an attempt to throw dust in the air and muddy the issue.

By: fiona64

fiona64 — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:40:07 +0000

Thank you for sharing this, Laura. I really appreciate Brad’s scholarly, fact-based approach. I think a key factor in this matter is avoiding emotional rhetoric. Examining facts in the cold, hard light of day make the matter a slam-dunk in favor of equality all the way around.

By: Laura

Laura — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:53:17 +0000

Brad has a limited number of hard copies of his book available. You may contact him using the information in the biography paragraph above. He’s also working to updated the ldshomosexuality.com website, and you may be able to follow some of his work there.