Originally Posted by SWTXBelle (Post 1509795)

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?

Originally Posted by SECdomination (Post 1509746)

I agree with someone's previous post about homosexuality being a lifestyle. Fornication with some random drunk girl can be a habit that is eliminated. You can't just keep changing your sexuality. Being gay is a much bigger commitment.

Here's my stance- go ahead and grill me:
Being gay is not something you are born with- it is a choice.

Originally Posted by AlexMack (Post 1509840)

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.

Originally Posted by shinerbock (Post 1509522)

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.

Originally Posted by modorney (Post 1509873)

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.

Originally Posted by modorney (Post 1509873)

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.

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp (Post 1509738)

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.

For having overly strict morals? I'm not sure what you're saying there. However, I think you're basically reiterating what I already said. If you condemn others for immoral activity while condoning or endorsing other brands of said activity, that is hypocritical. My point was fairly clear the first time I said that.

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.

Once again, I've already spoken to this. Also, you're making this about me and my organization, which it originally wasn't. I still don't understand why you think that because an organization has sinners, they can't use what they perceive as immoral activity when determining not to extend membership. I do immoral things. That doesn't mean I won't let moral considerations into my analysis when making decisions. I've never excluded a gay person from membership, much less excluded one on faith-based grounds. However, it is quite possible that it would be a consideration when making such a determination. For example, lets say there is someone who would fit in well in all areas, but participates in some sort of immoral activity. Also, there is another person who is a homosexual. While the membership might be able to look one aspect (the straight person's immorality) because of their other attributes, they may be less willing to tie themselves to something they perceive as sin, while also taking on the discomfort involved with accepting an openly gay person into the group. This isn't a debate about whether it is the right thing to do, or whether the group is hypocritical. The debate is whether a fraternity might legitimately decide to not offer membership in part because of the potential member's moral deficiencies. Do people use faith as a cover for their dislike for homosexuality? I'm absolutely positive that they do. However, I don't think that simply because some immoral activity is tolerated, other immoral activity factoring into a no-offer is merely a veil for bigotry in every situation.

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.

Originally Posted by SydneyK (Post 1509876)

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.

Originally Posted by modorney (Post 1509986)

> 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).

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1510035)

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.

Originally Posted by shinerbock (Post 1510043)

First paragraph is pretty accurate where I'm from.

Originally Posted by ladygreek (Post 1509752)

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.