Not near as bad. Not even within the same realm actually.

I always find this debate interesting. If some fraternities want to welcome gay members into their organization, by all means, they should feel comfortable doing so. However, I think many are reluctant to do this, and I think that is understandable for a couple of reasons:

1) A lot of fraternities value Christian ideals. Many see homosexuality as immoral, and may be hesitant to endorse that lifestyle. Of course, some will likely see such an objection as hypocritical, considering other practices that are common in fraternities. That being said, tolerating or even encouraging some morally questionable activities isn't a persuasive reason to accept or encourage other objectionable activities.

2) Inviting someone into your fraternity usually leads to significant and extended contact with that person. In my opinion, doing so requires more than the level of "tolerance" that is often trumpeted in the workplace or other organizations. Many or most of these people will live together, take trips together, and experience social lives that are intertwined. A lot of guys get uncomfortable around overt homosexual activity. In my opinion this is usually natural, and not indicative of any conscious intolerance.

-I have a problem with the idea that fraternities are expected to be places of diversity. Fraternities, at least the ones I was around, did not intend to be microcosms of society. They were places for like-minded people to join together to pursue common interests and goals. If you like a potential member overall, then take him. However, I don't think fraternities should necessarily abide by the reasoning that they should take a potential member because they like him in every aspect except for his homosexuality. One's sexual orientation may be a big deal to an organization, and I don't have a problem with it being a deal breaker (nor do I have a problem with religion or ideology being one).

Why not? Beacuse you can get off watching them?

Hey, try to tone down the bitch attitude. That would be great. Evidently you have a problem with me having a problem with living with a gay man who hid from me the fact that he likes to pack fudge.......which I highly disagree with and don't approve of.

To answer your question.......no......pretty much because I am a strait, non-homosexual, woman loving male. I wouldn't care if I walked in on my roommate wearing out a hot sorostitute in my dorm room. I'd leave and give him a five later, when he's done. Voyeurism isn't really my thing.

Nicely put, Shinerbock.

Agree.

right, but if we never talk about who we are dating, or whatever....i mean yeah, there are secrets from brothers but in order to be brothers you have to share some secrets

I was reading this thread and it reminded me of one of my good friends who was a PIKE at FSU in the 80's. Ever since I've known him, I knew he was gay and we've talked about whether his homosexuality was an issue in college.

According to him, none of his brothers knew he was gay. They thought he was just a little different because his family was from Charleston.

To this day, that still cracks me up...:D

It's a darn good reason to drop the hypocritical charade that you are in some sense a "Christian" organization.
________

I see... so because we tolerate some immoral acts, we should tolerate all immoral acts.

Or at least that was what he said up there. Your little jab is unresponsive.

Bitch attitude? Actually I think I have been rather nice. I just forgot to put the laughing icon after the sentence.

I do immoral things on a daily basis. That does not mean I'm going to open myself to other immoral things just because I'm already tainted.

I guess I just don't buy into the idea that sinners shouldn't oppose sin.

Some people view certain things as "more" immoral than others. I'm not saying there is a hierarchy of immoral activity, but that very well may be the argument in refusing to accept homosexuals into an organization. I don't think its a great argument, but I don't agree that the morality argument is simply a cover for hating gay people. It would also be wrong to ignore those groups who truly strive to abide by their principles, as not all fraternities are involved in rampant substance abuse and promiscuity.

I think accepting a homosexual into your fraternity is an endorsement of their lifestyle, or at least it ought to be. In my mind, if you knowingly accept a drug user, you're stamping your letters as approval on that person. I think the same is true in this case. This isn't a club that meets once a week and talks about how we're going to be farmers in the future. This isn't about tolerance, it should be about brotherhood. I completely understand people who have a problem forming that bond with a person who lives a life they don't agree with. I know plenty of people who didn't join a particular group because of the activities they're involved in. I don't see why it should be any different when it comes to the groups deciding who they want to invite in.

By "overt" activity I meant that which isn't hidden and which is involved with living a homosexual lifestyle. I'm not referring exclusively to explicit sexual activity, but just the everyday aspects that are unique to a homosexual lifestyle.

I have no idea what my national fraternity says about inclusion. We let in who we want to based on our own set of factors. My fraternity is not inclusive of all people, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I have no need to make excuses for the lack of such a clause.

I'm not trying to stir the pot, I promise.

I think it's fair to say that all chapters "let in" who they want based on the degree to which a potential member fits into that chapter. And I think it's also fair to say that we (in the Greek community) are perfectly fine with that.

I'm not trying to say that every group should let in anyone who wants to be part of said group. But when someone says that their group doesn't include a group of people because their behavior is considered immoral, it just smacks of hypocrisy. Especially when, as you pointed out, some groups often participate in less-than-moral activities.

I think perhaps I mostly disagree with your belief that accepting someone into a group means endorsing that person's behavior. There were women in my chapter who had had an abortion. But I don't think it's accurate to say that our chapter was endorsing abortion. While each group is represented by the individuals within it, it isn't fair to say that every person in every group maintains and practices the same principles.

This debate brings to mind the questions often associated with teaching values--who's value do we teach? If we teach yours, are others given a voice? In this case, which fraternity member/members values do we follow?? Some groups do value inclusion, or at the very least, diversity--isn't that ok?

I also think that anyone who says there are no gays in their group just doesn't know. With approximately ten percent of the college going population identfying themselves as GLBT, more than likely many groups have at least one member who is gay, possibly someone who does not know yet or does not "live out." For those opposed to having gay members, are we to turn our backs on these people later, people who we pledged brother/sisterhood to, if they chose to live as they really are?