BYU now a target for LGBT groups

[Calm]

Not sure if this was posted:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659832/So-how-are-gay-athletes-coaches-and-fans-treated-when-their-teams-play-at-BYU.html

"PROVO — BYU always welcomes LGBT players, coaches and fans to sporting events on campus, school leaders said Tuesday.

BYU athletic director Tom Holmoe, who often tweets multiple times a day, stuck to a single message on Twitter all day Tuesday in response to concerns raised by some LGBT groups that lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender athletes might face discrimination when their teams compete in Provo:  

LGBT players, coaches and fans are always welcome to the BYU campus. Everyone should be treated with respect, dignity and love. Tom

— Tom Holmoe (@TomHolmoe) August 9, 2016...."

"The guidelines do not apply to visitors. Gay athletes can compete at BYU without adhering to the honor code.

"As Tom Holmoe emphasized today," BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said, "LGBT players, coaches and fans are always welcome to the BYU campus. Tom has told me that in the last 11 years he has been our athletic director, he has not heard of a time where someone has complained about participating in or attending an athletic event and being discriminated against for being a member of the LGBT community. This is as it should be. Everyone deserves and should be treated with respect and dignity on our campus."

One Utah LGBT leader said Tuesday that BYU wouldn't stop an athlete for competing or eject an athlete or his family from a sporting event for holding hands.

"Obviously there are stereotypes that people have about Brigham Young University and Utah in general," said Troy Williams, the executive director of Equality Utah, which was one of 24 LGBT groups to sign the Athlete's Ally letter. "I think that comes about because, historically, there has not been a good relationship with the LDS Church and the LGBT community," he added. "A lot of gay and transgender athletes don't know if they'll be welcome on the campus of BYU."

Carina Brunner, 28, Vancouver, Washington, wasn't out as androgynous and bisexual but wore men's clothes when she attended about 20 BYU baseball, basketball and softball games during the four years she lived in the Provo area and attended Utah Valley University.

"My experiences were fine," she said. "I didn't get discriminated against or anything crazy like that. Based on my experience, LGBT people might get looks at a BYU game, but the main focus is sports. I think the worst thing would be some stares."

During the 2014-15 college basketball season, an openly gay player at the University of Massachusetts, Derrick Gordon, played a game with UMass at BYU without public incident."

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not sure if this was posted:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659832/So-how-are-gay-athletes-coaches-and-fans-treated-when-their-teams-play-at-BYU.html

"PROVO — BYU always welcomes LGBT players, coaches and fans to sporting events on campus, school leaders said Tuesday.

BYU athletic director Tom Holmoe, who often tweets multiple times a day, stuck to a single message on Twitter all day Tuesday in response to concerns raised by some LGBT groups that lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender athletes might face discrimination when their teams compete in Provo:  

LGBT players, coaches and fans are always welcome to the BYU campus. Everyone should be treated with respect, dignity and love. Tom

— Tom Holmoe (@TomHolmoe) August 9, 2016...."

"The guidelines do not apply to visitors. Gay athletes can compete at BYU without adhering to the honor code.

"As Tom Holmoe emphasized today," BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said, "LGBT players, coaches and fans are always welcome to the BYU campus. Tom has told me that in the last 11 years he has been our athletic director, he has not heard of a time where someone has complained about participating in or attending an athletic event and being discriminated against for being a member of the LGBT community. This is as it should be. Everyone deserves and should be treated with respect and dignity on our campus."

One Utah LGBT leader said Tuesday that BYU wouldn't stop an athlete for competing or eject an athlete or his family from a sporting event for holding hands.

"Obviously there are stereotypes that people have about Brigham Young University and Utah in general," said Troy Williams, the executive director of Equality Utah, which was one of 24 LGBT groups to sign the Athlete's Ally letter. "I think that comes about because, historically, there has not been a good relationship with the LDS Church and the LGBT community," he added. "A lot of gay and transgender athletes don't know if they'll be welcome on the campus of BYU."

Carina Brunner, 28, Vancouver, Washington, wasn't out as androgynous and bisexual but wore men's clothes when she attended about 20 BYU baseball, basketball and softball games during the four years she lived in the Provo area and attended Utah Valley University.

"My experiences were fine," she said. "I didn't get discriminated against or anything crazy like that. Based on my experience, LGBT people might get looks at a BYU game, but the main focus is sports. I think the worst thing would be some stares."

During the 2014-15 college basketball season, an openly gay player at the University of Massachusetts, Derrick Gordon, played a game with UMass at BYU without public incident."

What a bunch of propaganda crap. The issue is not that LGBT are not welcome. The issue is that the honor code discriminates against those LGBT that do go to BYU. They can't hold hands, kiss, date, hug even though those activities are allowed straight students straight students that are married can attend but married gay students can not.

Look, I get this is in keeping with church policy but does the church have to distort  and deceive the public in order to stand up for its principles?  This is the same kind of distortion and misleading crap that the church pulled to deceive the public in order to pass Prop 8. Eventually it all caught up with them  

More than anything, this kind of crap shames the church which is suppose to stand for principles of honesty and truthfulness. It kinda makes those temple recommend questions hollow and empty when someone representing the church teachings tries to openly deceive the public.  Honor code. Lol. It is a farce when the church pretends that they don't know what the issue is and puts out this kind of crap whose sole purpose is to deceive the public and convince them that BYU treats gay students equally. 

The whole proparganda is only for the stupid. Those making the decision I am sure know exactly what the issue is. If I was deciding whether to let BYU in, this would cement my decision. And I would be quite clear why I made such a decision. Shame on BYU.  

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But sexual orientation isn't fluid. That's the whole point of it. As I stated above, once 'one embraces the concept of sexual orientation, one has automatically embraced the notion of its immutability'. This is one of the reasons why the propagation of sexual orientation/identity has had such an impact in Western and Western-influenced societies over the past 140 years.

I'm not sure that's true. Many gay mormons have had a strong belief that their attraction to the same gender was some kind of passing phase that could be overcome with commitment to LDS doctrine. They are still unable to change who they are attracted to.Sexual orientation is a valuable and ultimately inevitable construct that makes sense of sexual attraction.

 

Quote

In stark contrast, only 30 years ago, many societies along the southern coast of New Guinea engaged in distinctively 'Melanesian' expressions of sexuality. Men and boys lived in men's compounds whilst women, girls and small children lived in women's compounds. Unmarried males in the former were initiated through an elaborate complex of myth and ritual into the importance of ingesting semen so that they too would one day be capable of fathering children. In addition to initiating younger males into potent manhood, married men also visited their wives in the women's compounds specifically for the purposes of reproduction.

Here we have sexual expression which was (1) not overly sexualised, it being primarily based on duty; (2) clearly not gendered in any way, intercourse with both males and females being necessary for the survival of the species; and (3) not immutable. This last point becomes obvious when one considers that this constellation of sexual behaviour has virtually completely disappeared from the New Guinea coast -- and did so in the space of only a few years -- as a consequence of the preaching of Christian missionaries. The change has been so thorough that younger people from these societies -- who now live in nuclear families, with sexual behaviour restricted to monogamous married couples -- when confronted with ethnographic descriptions from just a few decades ago, have sometimes refused to believe what they have read until it has been confirmed for them by their parents and grandparents.

Both the US prison system and the religiously-motivated practice of mixed orientation marriage shows that while expression of sexual behavior is not strictly bounded by sexual orientation and can be changed according to circumstance, sexual attraction is not normally changeable.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Gray

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Many gay mormons have had a strong belief that their attraction to the same gender was some kind of passing phase that could be overcome with commitment to LDS doctrine. They are still unable to change who they are attracted to.

It can certainly be agonisingly difficult to break free from a totalising, hegemonic discourse, especially when so often the proffered 'escape' is really just more of the same: in this came, becoming 'straight' or 'changing whom one is attracted to'. Joyfully, I know many who have broken free.

Quote

Sexual orientation is a valuable and ultimately inevitable construct that makes sense of sexual attraction.

'Valuable' is a completely subjective -- though in your case, quite possibly revealing -- assessment. Personally, I'm not a fan of any socially constructed identity whose ultimate aim is to limit the exercise of agency.

'Inevitable' is easily the single most ahistorical thing you've written in this entire thread. The vast majority of men and women who've ever walked this planet have lived and died without a 'sexual orientation', and even today the penetration of this particular social construct is far from universal, and hundreds of millions of people will still live and die without being personally impacted by it despite its persistent propagation by the American entertainment industry and so many other neo-imperial Western institutions.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It can certainly be agonisingly difficult to break free from a totalising, hegemonic discourse, especially when so often the proffered 'escape' is really just more of the same: in this came, becoming 'straight' or 'changing whom one is attracted to'. Joyfully, I know many who have broken free.

'Valuable' is a completely subjective -- though in your case, quite possibly revealing -- assessment. Personally, I'm not a fan of any socially constructed identity whose ultimate aim is to limit the exercise of agency.

'Inevitable' is easily the single most ahistorical thing you've written in this entire thread. The vast majority of men and women who've ever walked this planet have lived and died without a 'sexual orientation', and even today the penetration of this particular social construct is far from universal, and hundreds of millions of people will still live and die without being personally impacted by it despite its persistent propagation by the American entertainment industry and so many other neo-imperial Western institutions.

Are we suppose to take anyone serious who believes being gay or straight is a recent construct. While the labels may be recent, being gay or straight is not. People attracted to their own sex has been recorded throughout history and in every culture. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are we suppose to take anyone serious who believes being gay or straight is a recent construct.

Yes, actually. As I've written above, I don't know a single serious historian who doesn't accept this point. You don't have to like it -- and it certainly doesn't suit your agenda -- but trying to dismiss it as 'unserious' is embarrassing.

Quote

People attracted to their own sex has been recorded throughout history and in every culture.

And this is a demonstrably false statement.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, actually. As I've written above, I don't know a single serious historian who doesn't accept this point. You don't have to like it -- and it certainly doesn't suit your agenda -- but trying to dismiss it as 'unserious' is embarrassing.

And this is a demonstrably false statement.

How would you demonstrate that to be a false statement?

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How would you demonstrate that to be a false statement?

By asking California Boy to provide the primary evidence ... and waiting for him to inevitably fail. I hadn't wanted to go there.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

What a bunch of propaganda crap. The issue is not that LGBT are not welcome. The issue is that the honor code discriminates against those LGBT that do go to BYU. They can't hold hands, kiss, date, hug even though those activities are allowed straight students straight students that are married can attend but married gay students can not.

Look, I get this is in keeping with church policy but does the church have to distort  and deceive the public in order to stand up for its principles?  This is the same kind of distortion and misleading crap that the church pulled to deceive the public in order to pass Prop 8. Eventually it all caught up with them  

More than anything, this kind of crap shames the church which is suppose to stand for principles of honesty and truthfulness. It kinda makes those temple recommend questions hollow and empty when someone representing the church teachings tries to openly deceive the public.  Honor code. Lol. It is a farce when the church pretends that they don't know what the issue is and puts out this kind of crap whose sole purpose is to deceive the public and convince them that BYU treats gay students equally. 

The whole proparganda is only for the stupid. Those making the decision I am sure know exactly what the issue is. If I was deciding whether to let BYU in, this would cement my decision. And I would be quite clear why I made such a decision. Shame on BYU.  

My, this is a prime example of what you are accusing BYU of doing.  The statements are only about non-BYU students being on campus for sporting events.  It does not even address the BYU students body that has agreed to live by the Honor Code in order to be a student.

Just to be clear - I could care less about college sports in general.  I love to watch college sports, but it has long since evolved into something different than amateur sporting events between neighboring universities.  

You dish the propaganda out pretty heavily, but that is pretty typical of all gay activists.  Most thinking individuals have come to expect it and discount almost all gay activists because of it.  

It is a shame that we cannot all live in a Nazi state where everyone is told what to think and how to behave and force everyone to tow the line if they want to work and if they want to live.  Ah, the smell of napalm in the morning as we burn the evil religious people that do not bow down to the Gay God of tolerance, inclusiveness, and joy.  Burn them!  Hang them all on crosses!  The joy of living in a liberal, free-thinking society.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By asking California Boy to provide the primary evidence ... and waiting for him to inevitably fail. I hadn't wanted to go there.

You claimed it was a demonstrably false statement.  That means that you must be able to demonstrate that it is false.  Asking CB to provide primary evidence to the contrary does not make it a "demonstrably false statement".

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  the judiciary is incapable of mistakes in your world view?

That's not what I said. Not even close.

You used significant hyperbole to attack the courts and then stated they were "meddling" as if they were not functioning in a legal and proper way which is why I suggested a brief civics lesson. I still think it would be a good idea.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, USU78 said:

Same to you, sweetie!

Quote

Jeanne- Actually, I want to apologize.  I am not rescinding anything in the above post, but I don't want to get the level that our conversation is heading.  You and I have different takes and worldview obviously..but hopefully we can call a truce with some much needed respect.  Just know that I have already been in your shoes in belief..I have also walked out the doors and seen a world that though imperfect..has so many redeeming qualities.  Peace to you.

I just wanted to give props to both of you. That conversation was heading south quickly but the maturity for each to apologize is fantastic! Great example to us.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

What a bunch of propaganda crap. The issue is not that LGBT are not welcome. The issue is that the honor code discriminates against those LGBT that do go to BYU. They can't hold hands, kiss, date, hug even though those activities are allowed straight students straight students that are married can attend but married gay students can not.

Look, I get this is in keeping with church policy but does the church have to distort  and deceive the public in order to stand up for its principles?  This is the same kind of distortion and misleading crap that the church pulled to deceive the public in order to pass Prop 8. Eventually it all caught up with them  

More than anything, this kind of crap shames the church which is suppose to stand for principles of honesty and truthfulness. It kinda makes those temple recommend questions hollow and empty when someone representing the church teachings tries to openly deceive the public.  Honor code. Lol. It is a farce when the church pretends that they don't know what the issue is and puts out this kind of crap whose sole purpose is to deceive the public and convince them that BYU treats gay students equally. 

The whole proparganda is only for the stupid. Those making the decision I am sure know exactly what the issue is. If I was deciding whether to let BYU in, this would cement my decision. And I would be quite clear why I made such a decision. Shame on BYU.  

I heard D. Michael Quinn state that things have evolved quite a bit since the Joseph Smith days. Men would hold hands and kiss all the time, they would sleep together also. But it was more emotional than sexual or they didn't mention anything sexual. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N04_119.pdf

These 19th century Mormons would be kicked off the campus.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Tacenda

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It can certainly be agonisingly difficult to break free from a totalising, hegemonic discourse, especially when so often the proffered 'escape' is really just more of the same: in this came, becoming 'straight' or 'changing whom one is attracted to'. Joyfully, I know many who have broken free.

I'm sure you have met or know of people who have changed their self-identified orientation. That does not mean they've changed their physical orientation, which goes a beyond how we might wish to label ourselves. Attempts to change sexual orientation, as you probably know, are very closely associated with discredited, crank therapies.  

Quote

'Valuable' is a completely subjective -- though in your case, quite possibly revealing -- assessment. Personally, I'm not a fan of any socially constructed identity whose ultimate aim is to limit the exercise of agency.

'Inevitable' is easily the single most ahistorical thing you've written in this entire thread. The vast majority of men and women who've ever walked this planet have lived and died without a 'sexual orientation', and even today the penetration of this particular social construct is far from universal, and hundreds of millions of people will still live and die without being personally impacted by it despite its persistent propagation by the American entertainment industry and so many other neo-imperial Western institutions.

Of course you're right that "valuable" is completely subjective; so are your views on sexual orientation. With or without the concept of orientation, homosexuality and heterosexuality exist. It's a part of human and animal nature. Mammals were warm blooded and fed their young milk long before scientists came up with the term "mammal" "Mammal" is a construct, but that does not mean that mammals may become, in any physical sense, reptiles, merely by choosing to self-identify as reptiles.  

Homosexual and heterosexual are valuable constructs in the same way that mammal and reptile are valuable constructs. Of course if you were morally opposed to the idea of mammals, you might be just as strenuously objecting to the word whenever it was brought up. "Mammal is just a construct, it didn't exist before 1758."

There might be some value in talking about the difference between sexual orientation as an identity and sexual orientation as a biological fact. There are, after all, biological females who self-identify as male. Their maleness is an identity and should be respected, but at the same time that does not mean that biological gender does not exist. It does not mean that the only important thing about gender is about what we think we are. There is a physical reality that exists apart from identity. 

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Gray

[USU78]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's not what I said. Not even close.

You used significant hyperbole to attack the courts and then stated they were "meddling" as if they were not functioning in a legal and proper way which is why I suggested a brief civics lesson. I still think it would be a good idea.

So  ...  I am not sufficiently acculturated into the Larry Tribe brand of constitutional analysis that you apparently ascribe to?  Sorry to say, I take federalism very seriously, especially the 10th Amendment, and decry judicial fief-building.  Every time a law is passed or judicial pronouncement made, I cringe and cry for the death by a thousand cuts the law suffers at the hands of Socialist adventurism.  But the old gal isn't dead yet, so  ...  there's hope.

And, no, I won't comply.  Larry Tribe was an outcome-only guy, when it comes right down to it, and the outcome is always and ever the Socialist's wet dream and the religionist's nightmare.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  I am not sufficiently acculturated into the Larry Tribe brand of constitutional analysis that you apparently ascribe to?  Sorry to say, I take federalism very seriously, especially the 10th Amendment, and decry judicial fief-building.  Every time a law is passed or judicial pronouncement made, I cringe and cry for the death by a thousand cuts the law suffers at the hands of Socialist adventurism.  But the old gal isn't dead yet, so  ...  there's hope.

And, no, I won't comply.  Larry Tribe was an outcome-only guy, when it comes right down to it, and the outcome is always and ever the Socialist's wet dream and the religionist's nightmare.

More hyperbole.  Makes it rather difficult to have a reasoned discussion.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

What a bunch of propaganda crap. The issue is not that LGBT are not welcome. The issue is that the honor code discriminates against those LGBT that do go to BYU. They can't hold hands, kiss, date, hug even though those activities are allowed straight students straight students that are married can attend but married gay students can not.

Look, I get this is in keeping with church policy but does the church have to distort  and deceive the public in order to stand up for its principles?  This is the same kind of distortion and misleading crap that the church pulled to deceive the public in order to pass Prop 8. Eventually it all caught up with them  

More than anything, this kind of crap shames the church which is suppose to stand for principles of honesty and truthfulness. It kinda makes those temple recommend questions hollow and empty when someone representing the church teachings tries to openly deceive the public.  Honor code. Lol. It is a farce when the church pretends that they don't know what the issue is and puts out this kind of crap whose sole purpose is to deceive the public and convince them that BYU treats gay students equally. 

The whole proparganda is only for the stupid. Those making the decision I am sure know exactly what the issue is. If I was deciding whether to let BYU in, this would cement my decision. And I would be quite clear why I made such a decision. Shame on BYU.  

I'm really confused.  This has quotes from LGTB organization leaders and gay people.  Are you suggesting that they are creating propaganda for the church?  

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm really confused.  This has quotes from LGTB organization leaders and gay people.  Are you suggesting that they are creating propaganda for the church?  

I think he's just saying that this article is not addressing the issue at hand.  It's nice BYU will let gay people come and watch sports, or will let gay athletes play (odd does BYU think there are ways to test gayness of fans or athletes anyway?), but that isn't really the issue that was raised by the group when contesting BYU being admitted to Big12. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

What a bunch of propaganda crap. The issue is not that LGBT are not welcome. The issue is that the honor code discriminates against those LGBT that do go to BYU. They can't hold hands, kiss, date, hug even though those activities are allowed straight students straight students that are married can attend but married gay students can not.

 

The tweets were specifically in response to one part of the complaint against BYU that was in regards to visiting sports people.  Are they not allowed to answer others' concerns because they haven't answered yours without being labeled as lying?

"On Monday, a national LGBT group called Athlete's Ally opposed BYU's bid, in a letter to Big 12 leadership, in part because it claims "LGBT coaches, players and fans who attend and/or compete at any Big 12 events hosted at BYU would be subject to discrimination since BYU remains exempt from Utah’s LGBT nondiscrimination law."

This is a significant part of the argument for why other teams should not come to BYU, possibly the most relevant part for their case if the Big 12 are more interested in what directly involves them and not so much being a mechanism for social change...not q claim I am making, just saying if so) and BYU has every right to address it.  A tweet can address something as specific as this.  I assume that there will be a fuller statement addressing the fullest complaint.  In a world where people expect instant responses, it seems reasonable to me that something that can behandled in a small brief way was chosen by one individual to get out something positive so that there was some balance (in his view) in the discussion.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

The tweets were specifically in response to one part of the complaint against BYU that was in regards to visiting sports people.  Are they not allowed to answer others' concerns because they haven't answered yours without being labeled as lying?

"On Monday, a national LGBT group called Athlete's Ally opposed BYU's bid, in a letter to Big 12 leadership, in part because it claims "LGBT coaches, players and fans who attend and/or compete at any Big 12 events hosted at BYU would be subject to discrimination since BYU remains exempt from Utah’s LGBT nondiscrimination law."

This is a significant part of the argument for why other teams should not come to BYU, possibly the most relevant part for their case if the Big 12 are more interested in what directly involves them and not so much being a mechanism for social change...not q claim I am making, just saying if so) and BYU has every right to address it.  A tweet can address something as specific as this.  I assume that there will be a fuller statement addressing the fullest complaint.  In a world where people expect instant responses, it seems reasonable to me that something that can behandled in a small brief way was chosen by one individual to get out something positive so that there was some balance (in his view) in the discussion.

has this question or issue been raised before? 

I find the explanation quoted to be fine, and indirectly relevant.  it's good BYU clarified this in this whole affair. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I heard D. Michael Quinn state that things have evolved quite a bit since the Joseph Smith days. Men would hold hands and kiss all the time, they would sleep together also. But it was more emotional than sexual or they didn't mention anything sexual. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N04_119.pdf

You can see this type of behaviour in other cultures where so much physical behaviour between adults outside of competition in sports hasn't be confined to sexual expression.  If you were to tell them it had sexual undertones, you would be laughed at in all probabilty.

It has not been the Mormons who effected this massive social change of sexualizing almost all parts of our culture in one way or the other.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think he's just saying that this article is not addressing the issue at hand.  It's nice BYU will let gay people come and watch sports, or will let gay athletes play (odd does BYU think there are ways to test gayness of fans or athletes anyway?), but that isn't really the issue that was raised by the group when contesting BYU being admitted to Big12. 

Did the group raise the issue of visiting LGBT or did it not?

If it did, why can't BYU address that part of a concern in a tweet without it being called "crap"?  If this is all they do, then criticism is fair, but attacking them for not responding to the issue by attacking a response to an actual written out, expressed concern that is part of the presented issues seems selfcentered as in 'no one else's concerns matter but the ones I care about!'

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Did the group raise the issue of visiting LGBT or did it not?

If it did, why can't BYU address that part of a concern in a tweet without it being called "crap"?  If this is all they do, then criticism is fair, but attacking them for not responding to the issue by attacking a response to an actual written out, expressed concern that is part of the presented issues seems selfcentered as in 'no one else's concerns matter but the ones I care about!'

I agree.  It's not crap.  It certainly had it's purpose and I appreciate that BYU said it. 

[Calm]

The letter divides the reasoning for the Big 12 to get involved and reject BYU into two parts, the first is what the tweet resonded to, visiting LGBT sports individuals.  The second deals with potential LGBT BYU students.

Both are valid concerns.  It is not appropriate to ignore either of the issues but it seems inappropriate to slam BYU because of one individual's unofficial efforts to counter part of the claim.  

"The Big 12 is known for its dedication to its sports community (fans, coaches, staff and players, etc.) and its commitment to the welfare of its student-athletes. BYU’s membership to the Big 12 would jeopardize both. First, LGBT coaches, players and fans who attend and/or compete at any Big 12 events hosted at BYU would be subject to discrimination since BYU remains exempt from Utah’s LGBT nondiscrimination law. Moreover, any student-athlete who identifies as LGBT, and subsequently selects BYU due to its Big 12 membership, would be subjected to BYU’s unabashed discrimination. This would endanger the student-athlete’s NCAA eligibility and mental health. The Big 12’s sports community, especially its student athletes, deserve better than this."

http://www.athleteally.org/big-12-conference-letter/

Thread closed. Contention is arising on both sides.