Dirty Mike06 states
[i]"... one has to ponder testing the limits of morality, character, and conduct. Somewhere, somehow, and at some point, someone has to draw the line."[i/]
This is precisely what I am calling for, us to define exactly what "Manly" is so that we can draw a definite line where the debate can cease and we can better assess and demand things from a more morally homogenous brotherhood. So that when the brothers say "Alpha Phi Alpha is....." we know that there will be a general, more homogenous understanding. I just question why draw the line squarely around homosexuality? What does this say about our identity as men when we feel threatened by a homosexual presence but not by other types of bruhs, those who may indulge too much in the flesh of women, those who admittedly are greedy, or those who will drink way too much? Yet we call these things "sowing oats" or "ambition" or "puttin' hairs on your chest". I am not trying to present an arguement that says that homosexuality is morally okay, I am posting more of a protest about moral relativism, where we pick and choose , sometimes with illogical reasons, what we call "good character" and "manly" that often sprouts out from masculine insecurity rather than a desire to see true righteousness, "good character" and "Manly Deeds".
Blackwatch!!!!!!
|