|
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.
|
Threaded Mode
