What knowledge do you have about Dick Cheney's homophobia?

Didn't he at one point disown his own daugther because of her sexuality?

No, I don't think he did.

ETA: just from wiki, we know what that's good for but; "In the biography, Cheney discusses how she came out to her parents, noting her father's initial reaction: "You know, look, you're my daughter and I love you and I just want you to be happy."

You want to know how being a virgin keeps appearing as part of the argument. Macallan I respect you so I'm not going to personally insult you over this (plus I will never ever stop laughing at 'I hope you get stung by many bees' or 'I hope you get hit by a bus').
If someone cites that their GLO is a christian organization, it stands to reason that they will endorse christian virtues. Thus if homosexuality is considered immoral when we base the value system upon the bible, it's a logical progression that you will also embrace other moral behaviours such as celibacy, teetotaling (or at least not drinking to a state of drunkenness or for the purpose of being drunk), attending church every Sunday and making an attempt to be an upstanding christian.

You haven't said that your moral belief system is based upon christianity so I won't assume that it is. But this is where the virgin comparison is coming from.

As to your letting in a gay guy-I would only care if your only reason for denying someone a bid was sexual orientation. However, membership selection is a private matter so I'm wondering how anyone outside the chapter would ever know your true reasoning for not handing a bid to someone.
That's what I'm curious about with these bylaws really-how would anyone outside the chapter be able to enforce these laws in the case of membership selection? One thing that's repeated over and over is that it's a private matter to be kept inside the chapter room and among active members only.

Oh.......now instead of Neanderthals.......we're homophobes.

Jesus, some of you people shouldn't be allowed to think without supervision.

If that is the case, I stand corrected. Though I think the point still stands, that there are gay children even in ultra-conservative, traditional families. I am sure they are often the ones in these fraternities that are so deeply closeted that people would never suspect they were gay.

Well, actually, the use of the term homophobe in this case is technically correct....to quote the definition of it, from wikipedia:

"Homophobia (from Greek ὁμο homo(sexual), "same, equal" + φοβία (phobia), "fear", literally "fear of the same") is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[3][4] Several dictionaries also associate irrationality with this type of fear.[attribution needed] It can also mean hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry"

In my fraternity, our "nationals" doesn't make the rules - we do. In 2002 we expanded our anti-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation.

It was proposed by undergraduates, promoted by undergraduates, submitted by undergraduates, and unanimously approved by the undergraduates.

We think for ourselves, and yes, we can let in whomever we want.

@SNUIGC I know nothing, if I don't know language :).

I understand what you are saying, definitely. I don't think we profess ourselves as a Christian organization...at least not our chapter in Austin, other SAEs may do differently. We have an abundance of church going Christians as members, but that isn't something we would normally state in characterizing our chapter. We are a social organization, simple as that.

As for your question, I don't know how anyone can enforce membership selection by-laws. You would have to have some hard evidence that they were cut based on sexual orientation, race, etc. Unless it's in writing, all I can see you ending up with is a one voice against many type situation.

@Little32 Hey, I've gotta protect a sister when she's in the right...what type of Southern Gentleman would I be if I let that happen?

And when the national organization embraces a policy that a chapter doesn't like, the chapter can leave the organization if it's actually a matter of principle worth taking a stand about, or they can quietly ignore the policy, telling themselves that "there just aren't any XYZ quality guys who are ________ at this school" and no one will be able to prove otherwise.

They've been doing it with other groups for years.

If an national group has too many membership policies that too many chapters are ignoring, it makes you question how strong the national group is. And if it turns out that the strength lies primarily in the chapters who ignore the policies, the national organization may find itself in a strange position, losing several of its strongest chapters over an issue about which the policies were meaningless at best. (Chapters likely to follow the policy aren't likely to need it; the ones more in need will never follow.)

Our governing body is the ultimate decision maker in what happens in our fraternity.

Congratulations. We "think for ourselves" also.

Excuse me, you're an SAE???!!! A very good friend of mine is an SAE here in NC. I believe last year, he was President of the whole NC province or whatever it is you all call it. For starters, he definitely acts gay and I would put money that he will come out before he graduates. They also have an active brother that has come out of the closet. So, before you go saying all sorts of things about "we can let in whoever we want" and gay people are immoral, just keep in mind that you have brothers that are gay. Other chapters are not nearly as closed minded as you and your chapter brothers.

Oh, wait, you probably don't consider the gay ones your brothers.

Here's your creed to remind you of what your fraternity stands for:

"The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe."
-John Walter Wayland

Just something to think about......

Can we all back off Macallan a little and agree to disagree? Personally I commend him for being brave enough to voice his opinion, as unpopular as it is here.

I'm pretty sure the SAEs don't drive around in a pack in Austin, looking for gay guys to beat up. It is possible to act civilly towards a person, no matter how much you disapprove of a certain aspect of that person.