Re: Well...
 

Very true.

In general, sex roles aren't changing much at all. Adding homosexuality into the picture won't make a difference. People are starting to acknowledge that there are tons of masculine gay men and feminine lesbians. These masculine and feminine traits continue to reinforce sex roles regardless of sexual orientation.

I think that fact that I refused to go along with the group in getting drunk and high was the major factor. The Gay thing was the excuse for my diffrence. I think if I had spent my time drunk and or high, the gay issue would have been tolorated more. I might not ahve been shuned. I was not ask to resign my membership, I went inactive, and am not an active alumni member.

So, you were not really discriminated against because of your sexual orientation. Your brothers could not relate to you in other realms and everything else fell by the wayside. It is important to distinguish your experience from what this thread is generally about.

But the thread is about how Greeks feel about having gay brothers or sisters -- at least, that's what the OP asked about. While you're right that edmund's description of his experience suggests he wasn't discriminated against because he is gay, perhaps if "it didn't matter," then the fact that he was gay would not have been as available as "the excuse" for his difference.

"He's gay, that's why he doesn't drink and do drugs with us."

Or is it.....

"He doesn't hang out with us (drink and do drugs), we wonder why? Is it because he's gay?"

Or....

"We don't accept our gay brother so let's find a way to exclude him. I heard he doesn't drink heavily or do drugs."

Which one is edmund talking about?

I think he was going for option C. I think what Edmund was getting at is that his brothers used his light use of alcohol and drugs as the excuse behind the real reason.

x. Skylar

It might be safe to say that he wasn't comfortable with them, they with him or a combination of both.

Too bad.

Such is life.

Maybe.

I belive it is C. I have little if any contact with those Brothers. That aspect of my life is in the past.

Thanks for answering my question.

Edmund, Thank you for sharing your experience. It took a lot of courage to do so.

I am sorry to hear about your experience with the UK Chapter. My hope is that perhaps it was an isolated incident. Isolated in that those individuals that shunned you etc. are not indicative of the chapter.

For what it is worth, I'd like to point out that the Delta Epsilon (UK) chapter *I* know, was (is) one of the finest chapters around. Of any fraternity. My freshman roommate at UK is a Delt and I was privileged to meet many of his brothers. Two of his pledge brothers came out while pledging and I'm happy to say they were accepted without any issues or incidents. Not only by their Delt brothers, but by the UK Greek community. Granted, this was back in the late 1970's when there wasn't such 'lifestyle issues' as there are now. Actually, as I recall, most every fraternity had open Gay members. Frankly, it just wasn't an issue.

In any case, my hope for you is that you come to understand (if you haven't already) that Delta Tau Delta is more than just those few members who were perhaps not as enlighten as they should/could have been. And that being a Delt is for life. It's a great brotherhood.

Sorry I have taken too long to respond... BUT, did you read this link... the only accusation towards homosexuality as a sin (besides that in Leviticus, which also says some other wild stuff like that you cant eat a bat, or wear mix-linens) is not made by bible refrences, but by commentary. Most of that stuff like the Sodomn and Gamora comes from sexual perversion such as rape, lust and orgies... There are many a book on the topic, and many a debate. I recently took a class on the very topic, and its actually quite fascinating. To quote you website... "Jesus said nothing about gays, lesbians, or homosexuality as such"

There are two openly gay undergrads in the chapter I advise. No one has/had a problem with it. They kind of stick to themselves but the rest of the chapter has done an awesome job at making them feel comfortable.

Pushing the envelope even more, the two undergrads used to date each other. Ya know what, the chapter survived. They dated for about a year and then broke up. All hell did not break loose. They were just a mature and respectful of each other and the rest of the chapter as they had always been.

When I was an undergrad, as now, as long as the guy was a good fit, then it was cool. If being flamboyant and ubergay meant he wasnt a good fit, then so be it. But if there was a guy who everyone liked and was a blue chip prospect and then they found out her was gay, it wouldnt change anything.

I do remember some brothers who voted against a PNM that everyone had suspected was gay, when they had voted yes on all 32 of the other PNM's. When quized, they would never give a reason why they voted no. Their choice indeed.

Did you actually read the website, including the references to the first chapter of Romans and the sixth chapter of I Corinthians?

As you said, there is a lot of debate on this, and a lot of commentary/interpretation, including the interpretation that "stuff like the Sodomn and Gamora comes from sexual perversion such as rape, lust and orgies" or from lack of hospitality. That itself is an interpretation, and it is a fairly recent one.

And as you say, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality "as such." (He said nothing about a lot of things.) But what does that mean? In his context -- he was an observant Jew who would have known quite well that the Mosaic Law forbad any form of homosexuality -- one could assume that had he disgreed with the way this prohibition was understood, interpreted or applied he would have said so (he did on other subjects) and that silence may well indicate an acceptance of the prohibition. And there is what he said in the 19th chapter of Matthew, where, after having been asked about divorce, he refers back to the creation story:

"Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Here, he echoes the gist of Genesis, which certainly implies if not expressly states, that male-female "relations" are normative. He then goes on to say that those who cannot cannot accept this teaching should remain celibate. (He also explains that the Mosaic law allowed for divorce as an accomodation to those too weak to live up to the expectation of marriage for life, so again he can and does point out places where the Law is designed to accomodate us.)

Please do not get me wrong -- as far as the OP's question goes, I have no problem with gay brothers and I never have. I also have no problem with my gay family members, co-workers and friends. And the Biblical/theological debate on the issue is something I take seriously and try to approach with compassion and the "law of love" rather than with legalism and judgmentalism. But that said, I simply think it is inaccurate to characterize what the Bible has to say about homosexuality as being limited to Leviticus (which brings on whole new discussions of the moral law vs. the ritual law and, for Christians, Jesus's comment that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it), or to "close the book," so to speak, by saying "Jesus never said anything about it," as if that settles the matter. Rather, I think hinders meaningful discussion on the subject.