I just don't understand the reasoning behind the alternative. I'm a sinner, I have immoral moments. If acknowledging this and still turning away from other immoral activity is hypocritical, then yeah, I guess I'm a hypocrite. If a fraternity presents itself to the world as a Christian organization and condemns homosexuality, all while fostering an environment that condones or promotes drug use and promiscuity, then yes, I think that is a hypocritical stance. That being said, I don't think the solution is to abandon all standards because some have been breached. Is it wrong to tolerate some immoral activities more than others? Probably, yes. Is the solution to become an equal-opportunity acceptor of immoral activity? I don't think so.

My chapter, and many who would probably hesitate to admit homosexual members, doesn't consist of a plethora of people from all walks of life who harbor a variety of distinct viewpoints. Sure, even within a room of white republicans there is diversity, but our mission is not simply to replicate the world outside. We're there because we share common goals, opinions and interests. I'm not sure that the abortion comparison is a good one. While I think abortion is immoral, I don't think a girl who had one is continually living in immorality. Sure, remnants will linger, but it is obviously possible to move on from that. However, to some people, homosexuality would be viewed as an ongoing lifestyle, not simply one immoral decision or lapse in judgment.

My friend just started wearing headphones...to drown out the spanking noises.

I think this is one of those things that women and men see different. For most women I know, the thought of their roommate getting it on, while they are in the room, is gross. Dudes seem to take it a little more in stride, and then talk about their roommate after the fact. :p:)

Chapters and nationals struggle with this every day. It's been that way for a long long long long time. This is just something else added onto the pile.

Sure, I imagine in lots of groups there are people masking their lifestyle. However, I think the idea that there is a homosexual in every group is rather ridiculous. You can't simply transpose a statistic like that onto these groups. Not all colleges are the same. Some self-selection will keep homosexuals from going to certain schools, through rush, and to certain fraternities.

I absolutely believe this happens, but at every school, in almost every chapter? I find that highly unlikely.

Funk that. Where on earth is the out resident lesbo on here? Not bi. Not lesbian and flying below the radar. But totally OUT?...and hot.

I'm female and it totally depends on who the two people are...if I get totally grossed out or totally turned on.

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.