Originally Posted by Low C Sharp
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.
|