Question of the hour.

Unnatural, does a disservice to the human race.......those are a couple that come to mind. My beliefs are besides the point. I simply stated I have no problem with fraternities excluding gays based on moral grounds.

Man, I keep wanting to add my .08 to this discussion, but then I ask myself "What's the point?"

Don't be dissuaded by the Neanderthals. There is actually intelligent life here. Go ahead and add your .08.

Moral grounds?? You are correlating homosexuality and immorality.
For starters, I think that's total bull. Secondly, I'm someone who believes homosexuals are born that way just like you were born heterosexual. I see nothing wrong with homosexuality. Everyone needs love and if love from the same gender is what someone needs-GO FOR IT.

No one should be denied membership into a GLO because of their sexual preference. Now, if there are other things defined in MS for that organization and that person does not meet those standards, I am all for not extending that person a bid. But, merely because of their sexual preference??? That's retarded.

And, as for immorality. It is defined by dictionary.com as:
"1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious."

Under those definitions, everyone on this board is probably immoral. I'm sure we've all said things or done things that were not acceptable by society. I'm sure you have as well. Seriously, we are living in the 21st century and a lot of things that weren't so accepted when your parents were growing up are a lot more common place now.

If you can find some other reason that "Gay Bobby PNM" should not be offered membership under you MS criteria, that's cool. But, not giving him a bid because he's gay is down right immoral.

And, fyi-I have a bisexual SAI sister and she is the ONLY sister in the entire chapter that makes as effort to form a friendship with every woman in the room. No, not because she wants to date them, but because she loves the org.

You could be missing out on some great people.


*And, she steps down from the soapbox*

Well, just jumping in here, I can't speak on alot of stuff being said here...however, I will speak on the original point.

My chapter at my school (lets just say that we're in the very deep south), we are the first IFC chapter in our school's history to admit a "minority student" into our ranks (black, but, that doesn't matter) and will hopefully be adding several more this coming year (because they're a bunch of good guys)... maybe it's just because we've re-colonized here and we find it so much easier to go against the grain....

That being said, I have a good friend from back home who is closeted gay and I would very much like for him to pledge here. All my brothers who have met him love the guy, even after they found out that he was gay (because he wanted to say that up front, no secrets). ...then again, maybe they all love the guy because he could probably beat every other fraternities intramural teams by himself. :D

I don't approve of homosexuality, so that makes me a Neanderthal?

To be blunt......I don't give a shit if being gay is common place and acceptable now. I don't approve of it. I was raised very traditionally and conservatively....where it is highly looked down upon. My fraternity is made up of men brought up in the same styles/familys/social circles, etc. With that said, we are a private organization and can give whomever we damn well please a bid.

This is getting ridiculous. This is turning into a "people that don't cater to and accept gays are immoral neanderthals" load of garbage. If that's the case......then I'm done.

Congratulations on your bisexual sister. I don't know a single man in my house that hasn't made an effort to be friends with his entire chapter.

Although I know that this is probably going to throw fuel on the fire...and I probably shouldn't type this...but, I can't restrain myself, sorry.

That sounds almost exactly what a fraternity guy here said when Jesse Jackson came years and years ago... the IFC people here wouldn't let "negros" into the fraternities...so, he came down and asked why... one of the fraternity guys said, "We don't have to, so, fuck off."

My question is...where will it be in 40 years? Back in the sixties blacks were in an even worse situation...yet look what's happened in that time. People were making the same arguments about why we shouldn't let black people onto campuses, into fraternities, etc. that it's immoral, unethical, etc., but look at where it's gone since then.

Some 50 years ago, I was raised very traditionally and conservatively too. Then I realized I had a brain and that I could think for myself. What a wonderful thing.

"So easy, a caveman can do it."

Highly disrespectful, tasteless, and unclassy thing to say and act (even though it is a complete idiot like Jesse Jackson).........but, again, to be brutally honest........the guy is right. Until our nationals make some kind of change to how we, as students, run our chapters.......we can let in whomever we want.

I don't know where it will be in 40 years. Hell, we might not have fraternities in 40 years. My response is........why does it matter? Why is it such a travesty for us to let in who we want to in our chapters? Why do our memberships processes have to be called in to question all the time?

They've joined chapters on campuses progressive enough to be open to them?

Other chapters and campuses remain segregated, but in most cases the problem seems to be almost as much about the lack of diversity of people going through recruitment as it does intentional discrimination by the groups. (Sure, I wish everyone who put forth some extra in this area through COB or special efforts at getting pre-rushing people into participating in formal, but that's not the point here so much: the point is that the social groups have finally accepted prevailing social norms and they are reflected in the membership of groups.)

I suppose I just find it surprising that some of you expect Greek organizations to be more progressive than society at large in various regions. I tend to think that private social clubs are much more likely to be more conservative, in the sense of resisting change, at least because it's going to tend to be a group of like minded people. When the people in the groups regard members of various demographic groups to be socially similar to them, then the groups will invite members of those groups to membership.

It's going to take some chapters longer than others, but unless you've had openly gay and lesbian members and anti-discrimination clauses about sexual orientation for a LONG time, maybe you should get off your moral high horses about people are who slower to realize what your organization may have just realized in the last ten years?

You know, I'm trying to be civil with you. But honestly, fuck off.

I am well capable of "having a brain" and "thinking for myself" all the while keeping true to my upbringing. Sorry you can't accept the fact that I don't approve of homosexuality. No reason to start calling me names like a goddamned 5 year old.

You are, what, 50+ years old? How about you act like it.

OK. You crack me up. What is ironic is that the biggest homophobes here are going to end up with a child that is gay, because that is just how these things seem to work out. (*cough* Dick Cheney *cough*)

As I said, at least twice in my post. I will applaud you for excluding a man from membership if he does not meet the guidelines set out in your MS criteria. But, I will not condone a person being excluded solely based on their sexual orientation. It's just not right. It would be like me saying--"I can't let you into my club because you have brown hair." It's retarded and stupid.

If your fraternity is full of closed minded men who know nothing other than what mommy taught them, then you deserve each other and would be better off without the gay community in your org. Your too damn close minded to see what nonsense you are spitting out.

I hope you have a gay son.

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.

Yes. And I think we can appreciate that the right to select the members we want is a fundamental one for each chapter, disagree as we might about what chapters ought to want.

If you want to be a "technical" asshat and call me a homophobe because I "disapprove" of homosexuality....be my guest.

Personally, I save the homophobe moniker for people who have a little more extreme feeling toward gays. Yeah, I disapprove of homosexuals. I also disapprove of tomatoes. Doesn't mean I'm scared of them, or have a fear of them, or am hostile towards them, or show them hatred.

Agreed. Gotta respect someone that holds firm to their convictions as firmly as he has.

*Agree to disagree*

Screw that shit, some opinions are stupid.

^^LOL! Plus, I don't think that folks are only coming down on macallen, though he is the only one responding right now, but rather on a type of perspective which has had many advocates in this thread. Notice, I said homophobes plural, not singular.

Yup. That's why I like you, my fellow double-letter grad chapter Greek. Always thinkin'. *tappin' forehead*

By stupid, you mean the idea that chapters should be able to choose members they are comfortable with or that homosexuality is immoral? Or both?

I don't have a problem with Macallan himself, but I do have a problem with people having this opinion. He is openly saying that he or his chapter or whatever don't offer gays/bisexuals a bid for that very reason.

It's sick and disgusting. Not only that, he is also claiming that they are immoral--which I don't agree with. Some of my closest and most trusted friends are lesbians.

Am I attacking Macallan on this board? Yes, but it is only because he represents the ignorance that makes life for my friends harder. And, hell yes, I'll fight for them.

AlwaysSAI.....who in the hell are you to label me and my entire chapter? I'd be willing to bet you don't know a thing about me or any one of my fraternity brothers. I'm pretty sure that I can be open-minded while still disapproving of certain things in life. As far as having gay brothers.........what does that have to do with anything? Explain that one.....because I'm at a loss.


As far as you quoting the TG.......spare me the self-righteous garbage. I have no problem stating that I am a very respectable gentleman and that I alway try to present myself like one. The fact that I don't approve of homosexuality does not, in any way, mean that I am incapable of treating homosexuals with the same civility and personal respect that I would a straight man or woman. Just because I don't approve of someone being a member of my fraternity.......doesn't mean that I don't respect them or think that they are good people.

This is a off-topic tangent, but I had to share the irony. I'm watching the 11 o'clock news as I'm reading this thread, and the current story is about a pastor that put a sign up saying "Help For the Homosexual" outside the church. This story broke a couple days ago, but the new twist is that the pastor has a lesbian daughter who is speaking out against him tonight.