Well, that's good. You never can tell sincerity without emoticons.

Being gay is not a lifestyle anymore than being straight is a lifestyle. The homophobic community invented the term "gay/homosexual lifestyle", trying to sound a little more politically correct, switching the focus from who a person is, to what a person does. In other words, a person's behavior instead of a person's being, as in "we don't care if you're gay, it's your lifestyle we have a problem with."

The truth is, it's all the same old bigotry wrapped up in new package.

Gay people seldom, if ever, use the term "gay lifestyle" because their lives are substantially the same as everyone else's.

Now, if you were a vegan who lives in the woods at the top of a Sequoia tree, that might be an "alternative lifestyle", but it has no bearing on the subject at hand.

What exactly is this "homosexual lifestyle"? I mean you exclude sexual activity so what else differentiates a "heterosexual lifestyle" from a "homosextual lifestyle"?

Normal things in life. People have and pursue relationships that don't involve sexual activity. Thus, a dude talking about going out with another guy, some guy coming around to pick up the other guy for a date, etc. I think it would either result in discomfort for both parties, or it would result in the gay person being extremely introverted. Neither are positives for a fraternity, I think.


I live a straight lifestyle. I am attracted to women and act on it. The idea that "homosexual lifestyle" is a concept created by homophobic people is a banal liberal talking point.

I think Shinerbock is right that not all chapters are even close to a representative sample of even that particular college's demographics. I agree with him that there's no reason that they should be. Most of our groups exist because a group of people wanted to belong to a smaller community that was set apart from the student population at large.

Now, personally exclusion of homosexual members isn't something I'm interested in. I'll admit this is lame and not a good reason for avoiding a stronger stance about including lesbian members, but my only concern, even back in the early 1990s when I was in college, about having a lesbian member of my chapter would have been the stupidly middle school level fear that we would be compromised during recruitment.

I don't know how it is today, but back them to be publicly out at UGA resulted in people regarding a person essentially in terms of sexual orientation: it wasn't just regarded as one of the multi-dimensional aspects of identity; it was the defining one. And it would have been at best a novelty and at worst fodder for tent talk that a group had openly lesbian members.

But just as I don't object to homosexual members, I don't object to individual chapters being able to make membership decisions based on the comfort level of current group. Although I do think the day is coming when sexual orientation is regarded just as race, religion, national origin or ethnicity are, I don't think everyone is there yet, and I don't think GLOs will get there by compelling chapters to take members they are uncomfortable with.

No, I meant exactly what I said. If you endorse and condone immoral behavior -- if you in fact exclude potential members for having overly strict morals -- then you should keep on doing it, but you should drop the hypocritical charade that you are a Christian organization or one devoted to high ethical principles.

An organization devoted to high ethical principles can be made up of sinners. But if it's worthy of the label, it does have to encourage members to STRIVE to live by those principles. Does your fraternity seek chaste rushees and encourage brothers to stay chaste? Do your brothers admit to one another in shame that they got laid last night but that they repent their lapse? Do you view a commitment to total sobriety as a desirable quality in an underage rushee? I bet you don't, and I don't either. So let's can the crap about how you exclude gay people because they're immoral or un-Christian. You exclude them because you don't like them. Their taste in sins is too different from yours. People who are unrepentantly, proudly immoral in ways that you like are more than welcome.

To summarize, since you seem bent on twisting my words: Your organization should tolerate exactly those behaviors you want to tolerate and exclude those you don't. But if you've high-fived a brother for fornicating with a drunken woman he just met, don't feed us the BS that you have to keep gays out because you're holding to some kind of high moral line. You're a social club dedicated to having fun with buddies who are similar to you, and that's fine. Do what you want, be who you are, but don't lie to us (or to yourselves) about what you're doing.
________

Hmmm, good food for thought. I await an intelligent, non-emotional response to this likewise intelligent and non-emotional response.

And that is where you and I vehemently disagree--why would anyone choose to be an object of scorn or hate crimes? I didn't "choose" to be Black, but that is my genetic make up. And there is nothing I can do about it but celebrate the positiveness of it.

By the same token, I did not choose to be heterosexual. Like my Blackness it was who I was wired to be.

Trust if some had told me that I could choose to be White and not have to face the racism I have been subjected to for many years (remember I am a child of the 60s) then I may have considered it. I feel the same thing is true for GLBTQAs if it really was a choice.

But I respect your opinion, just as I hope you will respect mine.

And here where it starts to go downhill
 

What began as a simple question about whether or not sexual orientation was a part of any GLOs anti-discrimination clauses (or the like) is about, I fear, to get ugly and into a discussion of whether or not being homosexual is an inborn trait or learned behavior. Those who hold an opinion one way or the other are not going to have their minds changed by a post on GC.
It certainly is not as clear cut as race. You can look at someone, and in most cases make a general determination of race. That isn't the case with sexual orientation.
So, getting back on topic somewhat - there are now homosexual GLOs. How do you think they figure into this discussion? I know that there was a chapter of an NPC group that was known as the "lesbian" sorority at my alma mater, and I think it really hurt them. How have the homosexual GLOs changed the face of greekdom? Has having their own GLOs made them more comfortable than dealing with coming out to the straight brothers/sisters of more traditional GLOs?

lol - No, no one took over my account. And please do not think that my original post was attacking you in any way.

"I don't see this making any progress." Truer words were never spoken. Just as SWTXBelle said in her post, this started out as a slight discussion, but is starting to go downhill. I had purposely not made any more posts because I felt that I said my piece and didn't have any more to elaborate.

(Now, so no one will misunderstand, mentally picture me saying this in a calm, conversational tone, not an angry rant. One of the biggest lessons you learn in teaching is how tone of voice can be misconstrued.)

SEC Domination- Do I personally know that any of your brothers are gay? No. Haven't seen them, haven't met them, etc. But, from my own life experiences with my own chapter and friends from other chapters I am suggesting that there is a possibility.

He is the guy who is terrified that his friends will find out, because he 'knows' they will not want to be friends any longer.

He is the guy who always has a date or a girlfriend, because then his brothers will not suspect that he has a crush on Tebow.

He is the guy who always volunteers and goes out of his way to be friends with everybody: Maybe then, if they ever do find out, they will still like him as a friend.

He is even the guy who will make the biggest stink against gays, because he is as terrified of the prospect himself as some of his brothers.

I had a friend in college who played football, belonged to a fraternity. Mr. Happy Go Lucky, Mr. Campus Leader. Went to all of the sorority dances because the girls loved him. Called me 3 years after graduation, wanting to kill himself, because he was so miserable. We talked for 4 hours. We still talk to this day. I have been on vacations with him and his partner. Just a blast to be around. I can not imagine him not being in my life just because of who he sleeps with. And, believe me, I was raised in a very conservative religion (Church of Christ), so it took some changes on my part.

You have your ideals and opinions. I'm not telling you to totally give up your belief system. Just know that there are many situations coming up in life that will change your views.

There are quite a few people that I knew ever since they were born and they have always acted stereotypically gay. So it was definitely not something they could hide...

From what I have seen, the people that join gay GLO are already REALLY out. It's rare to find people who are struggling with their sexuality to join a gay GLO. You have to be really secure to join a gay GLO. I believe there will always be "closet cases" in traditional GLOs.

1. A lifestyle is always a choice. Being vegan and adopting a vegan lifestyle is a choice. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. You can stop being a vegan. It's just a dietary habit...

2. Can you yourself choose to be gay if you want to? That's what you're insinuating gay people do. You cannot decide your sexuality on a whim. "oh, I can't seem to pull enough chicks on this campus, I'm going to be gay now and see if I can get guys." Or, "I haven't encountered enough adversity and hate in my life yet, I think I'll be gay and see how it is."
FYI-if you're going to quote the Bible as a reason it's immoral, I also hope you're not enjoying seafood, shaving, eating hamburgers or pork barbeque or working on the sabbath. Wait, that's the old testament, not done yet.
I also hope that you're not engaging in pre-marital sex because that is also considered immoral by Paul in the New Testament. In fact, Paul thinks you should abstain from all sexual activity, unless you cannot, in which case you need to go marry asap. Oh, one more thing-the New Testament was written largely in Greek. According to my knowledge, there's no word for homosexuality in Greek (the Greeks kinda liked that stuff), so it was shoved in much later, let's say, 10 translations down the road to be generous.

I don't care if you want to believe it's a choice-just don't try to use the Bible to justify why it's immoral. If you're not a Jew you cannot use the Old Testament to prove your point, if we start following the NT, let's remember that Paul never said homosexuality.

Lanesig
 

Without quoting your post and making this thread longer, I completely agree! While we all have our opinions of whether being gay is a 'learned behavior' or not, it's just that - an opinion - and everyone is entitled to one. Although, I would love to hear from someone who is gay or knows someone who's gay to have said that they choose to be gay.

Ironically, I had my best friend, and fraternity brother, come out to me last weekend. He's spent the last 30 years of his life living 'straight'. He said he's known he was gay since he was 10, but for him it was 'never an option to be gay'.

I have no idea how someone at that age can 'learn' that behavior. It's sad that our society places such a stigma on this.

Also, while I give TOTAL support to the belief that each fraternity or sorority has every right to decide who they wish to admit to their membership, the belief that any one of our houses hasn't had a member who is gay, is not realistic.

Not exactly. You're right that the Greeks did not have a word for "homosexuality," nor did they have anything like a modern understanding of "homosexuality," despite their "kinda liking that stuff." They did, however, have words referring to male same-sex activity, and Paul did use some of those words.

I always think the choice/not-a-choice debate is a red herring. All of us miserable sinners are born with traits, conditions and leanings, or we learn them at such an early age that we might as well have been born with them. The crucial question to me is: What decisions will we make given the hand we've been dealt?

And, again for me, a second question follows: Will my own struggles to make the right decision teach me some humility regarding the struggles of others to make the right decisions?

My opinion is that fraternities (and sororities) serve to provide a learning experience that covers areas not found in the classroom. Ask yourself, what are most of you going to be doing later in life?

In general, most people get married, and have kids.

Your house should have a positive influence in making a brother a potentially better husband and father, as well as improve the odds of finding a better mate, and improving his climate for raising kids. In my house, I made efforts to attact quality women (as a freshman, my house had a poor reputation among women, but as a senior, I, and other brothers made it into a good reputation). So,, my brothers had both a good selection of possible mates, as well as experience around quality women, for those who selected wives in later life.

A homosexual brother, acting as a brother, would not be interested in this aspect of his fraternity, which would probably be OK. But a leader in the house who was homosexual would probably resist this initiative, which would be a disservice to most of the brotherhood.

I do have some personal experience, from my undergrad days, and if anyone wants to discuss it individually, feel free to e-mail me. I'm not into bashing anyone, but a forum is a difficult place to discuss some topics; one-on-one e-mail makes it easy to clarify misinterpretations.

I wasn't really making a comparison between the "lifestyles" of women who've had an abortion and those of men who practice homosexuality. The comparison I was making (or at least, trying to make) was that a sorority who has a member who has had an abortion isn't endorsing abortion; likewise, a fraternity who has a member who is gay isn't endorsing homosexuality.

On topic, I think the original question is very interesting. I would actually like to see a list of the official stances taken by NPC, NIC, NPHC, etc... I realize that some chapters might not fully adopt the official policy, but I'd still be interested to see what's on paper.

I understand why an official policy would need to be in place, but I also wonder how much the slippery slope fallacy factors into what decisions are ultimately made (i.e., if we specify that we won't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, will we also need to say we won't discriminate on the basis of weight, or eye color, or family income, etc...?).

*(Note: I'm not suggesting that there's anything comparable between sexual orientation and eye color. I'm simply saying that if you have a policy concerning one group of people, how many groups do you have to address? This - the slippery slope - may be the reason some orgs have decided not to actually make specific policies about particular groups.)

So the whole point of being in a fraternity is to find quality breeding stock to populate the earth with your offspring?

Just to let you know, Leave It To Beaver and Mad Men are not documentaries of life in the year 2007.

(insert projectile barf icon here)

Lulz! I am sure the excessive drinking, hazing, copious amounts of pre-marital sex and perhaps a little drug usage is going to go very far in training you to be a good husband and father.

Sorry, I learned nothing in my sorority to teach me to be a good mother and wife. I got that from my own mother, kthx.

I didn't twist your words at all. I summarized what I thought you were saying, and I think it was a fair assumption. Now that you've provided more detail, I can respond in a more directed fashion. Please see above.

No I understand your point. However, in my mind at least, if you accept a woman who continuously has abortions (we're stretching this pretty far now), it would be an endorsement of her activities.

For a more reasonable example, lets say it isn't a sorority, but rather professional women's club (but with similar close contact--like that of a sorority). If it is a screened organization with standards for membership, in my mind, granting membership to a doctor known for performing abortions would be endorsing their "lifestyle" or at least their chosen profession. Members quite obviously reflect upon the overall group. Regardless of whether you believe like I do (that you essentially endorse many aspects of a person when bringing them into your organization), people on the outside will perceive that you are doing so.

> So the whole point of being in a fraternity is to find quality breeding stock ...

Nope, not the whole point. But, I assume the majority of fraternity and sorority members get married, sometime in life. And, the majority of those have kids. Some of your members might want some positive mentoring in these areas, while others just might not be interested. But, I don't think a house would be doing its members a good thing by working against what most of your members will do, eventually.

Another aspect of greek life is to learn to live with different kinds of people and lifestyles. And most of these people have positive lifestyles and relationships that, though different than mine (or yours) are still positive. They just may not be the primary paradigms that drive your house (but could be the primary paradigms that drive another house).

I just looked at your other posts and I guess some of this is an age disconnect, but wow, that first paragraph is so far from truth or reality it's not even funny.

And the second paragraph contradicts the first.

First paragraph is pretty accurate where I'm from.

You have how to be a good husband classes or something? Seriously???

Honestly, if you pledge someone who's gay, it doesn't mean you're going to have to listen to Liza Minelli records all day and wear a dress. That's what it seems like he's saying - that one gay apple will gayify the whole bunch. Which is ridiculous.

Is there a gay-gene ? I really am serious. Has this been proven?

um.....well, yes and no. Sexual attraction is controlled, primarly i belive, by the hypothalimus, a structure in the brain. The size of the hypothalimus (spelling?) is determined by genetics. Straight women and gay men have the same size, or around the size hypothalimus. Lesbians and straight men have similiar sizes as well.

So I would say yes...homosexuality is influenced (i would guess soley) by genetics

This is something WebMD had to say about this two years ago:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationshi...there-gay-gene

"The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality... In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers. The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone."

But this is taking the OP's question way beyond what she asked. I don't know if the answer to the "gay gene" question in any way helps AF find answers to her question about whether MS policies are in place regarding sexual orientation.

There isn't one gene persay, as far as I know, but there are a lot of indications to suggest that homosexuality is in part controlled by other biological factors. These include how many sons a mother has had before (hormonal changes in the womb environment), exposure to testosterone in the womb, identical twins are more likely to both be gay than fraternal twins, many gays say that they first had an inkling they were attracted to the same gender in childhood, when the environment factor is still in flux, etc. Do I believe homosexuality is a choice? No. After hearing countless stories (and witnessing friends go through it) of the attempts to 'be normal,' to supress homosexual tendencies, the fallout it often leaves in its wake when one comes out - it's so much emotional pain that I don't think most sane people would voluntarily take that upon themselves as a 'choice.' That said, I don't believe homosexuality is strictly genetically controlled, but I do believe biology has a large role to play in determining who we're attracted to.

This article gives a good overview: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

Straight women and gay men are more likely to have index and ring fingers that are the same size. Straight men and gay women are more likely to have ring fingers that are longer than their index fingers. It has to do something with hormones exposed in the uterus.

I don't remember where I read this, but it is (briefly) mentioned here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_finger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio

Interesting stuff.

My ring finger is shorter than my index finger. What does that make me?

Single.:p

33, from what I read the first paragraph was saying that most people in fraternities and sororities are of the mindset that they'll marry and become family-focused individuals. This is common just about everywhere around here, but especially among greeks, who tend to be more traditional.

Well, I think the people that join are of that mindset to begin with, rather than they acquire/are taught that mindset when they join, which seemed to me what modorney was saying. I don't think a lot of the fraternity members in the southern chapters need to be "mentored" to want to get married & have kids. They've been thinking of that since 6th grade.

I just had a mental picture of every GCer with children going home and saying, "Show me you hands. Oh, my God."

Amazing you bseem to get something right?

Are you from the South?

You are a Peach?:rolleyes:
Well maybe a grapefruit?:rolleyes:

Again with the lulz!

No one can decide on a "unified theory" because I am of the opinion that there are two types of gay men - those who were born that way and those who were imprinted later on. In fact, the "later on" imprinting can determine to a great extent what one finds attractive, whether gay or straight.

The first type is outwardly effeminate; the second type looks like any other guy. Neither one makes a deliberate choice. It's simply who there are, for whatever reason.

Of interest here is that historically, gay men in fraternities were of the straight-looking (Type II) variety. No one knew they were gay unless they were revealed in some way. A lot of them even dated girls!

More recently, we've been seeing more of the Type I accepted into fraternities, and that's what this thread is really all about.

A number of years ago, my chapter gave a bid to a kid who looked gay from a mile away, but no one mentioned anything about it. Not to me, anyway. He got initiated, "served his time", and graduated. He now has a MySpace page listing himself as Gay, and has lots of friends in his list - straight brothers - who post on his page.

I commend the brothers in my chapter for being so open-minded and willing to accept a good person for what he is in all respects, and I'm sure they will pass that same good nature on to their children - some of whom just might turn out to be gay.

You never know.

Respectfully, I believe it's hard for you to explain your reasoning because this isn't an opinion you reached through a process of logical reasoning. It's an emotional gut reaction. That doesn't make it evil, but it does make it pretty pointless to try to back it up with reasoning.

Also, I don't understand why it matters whether homosexuality is biologically determined. We know very well that being a Baptist is not biologically determined. But we also know that being one -- or not being one -- goes right to the core of many people's sense of self. We all understand that while people sometimes have a religious change of heart during life, it's almost impossible to join or abandon a religion just because you WISH your beliefs would change. Faith is too close to the core of your being to be denied.

I think that most of us further agree that it's morally wrong to hate 5 million people you've never met because they are Methodist instead of Catholic. The fact that religion is not innate and immutable like race has nothing to do with the immorality of religious bigotry.

That's what I was asking about when I posed the question about the kind of teetotaling, virginity-pledging rushee who'd call the police if he saw underage drinking in the house. Is that kind of guy an ideal candidate for your Christian-based organization with its high ethical standards? Or is he just too darn moral to fit into the group? I bet it's the latter.

How come you get to decide the terms of the debate? I'm arguing that if you (meaning any fraternity, not just yours) claim that you're excluding gay people on moral grounds, you better welcome teetotaling virgins, or you're a dishonest hypocrite. That's quite germane to the question of "legitimacy." Generally, I view dishonest and hypocritical actions as illegitimate.

In other words, if you exclude gay people because you don't like them, you should come right out and say so. Right now that's perfectly legal in most of the country. I may conclude that you're a bigot, but I'll agree that it's a legitimate decision.
________
WEB SHOWS

What does being a virgin have anything to do with homosexuality? I fail to see the correlation. I see nothing wrong with fraternities excluding homosexuals from membership based on moral grounds.

Okay, why is homosexuality immoral?