Sexual orientation and MS

[Low C Sharp]

so because we tolerate some immoral acts, we should tolerate all immoral acts.

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.
________

[ladygreek]

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.

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

I didn't twist your words at all. I summarized what I thought you were saying, and I think it was a fair assumption. Now that you've provided more detail, I can respond in a more directed fashion. Please see above.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

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

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.

[SWTXBelle]

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?

[zchi2]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

There are quite a few people that I knew ever since they were born and they have always acted stereotypically gay. So it was definitely not something they could hide...

From what I have seen, the people that join gay GLO are already REALLY out. It's rare to find people who are struggling with their sexuality to join a gay GLO. You have to be really secure to join a gay GLO. I believe there will always be "closet cases" in traditional GLOs.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

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.

Is there a gay-gene ? I really am serious. Has this been proven?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Is there a gay-gene ? I really am serious. Has this been proven?

um.....well, yes and no. Sexual attraction is controlled, primarly i belive, by the hypothalimus, a structure in the brain. The size of the hypothalimus (spelling?) is determined by genetics. Straight women and gay men have the same size, or around the size hypothalimus. Lesbians and straight men have similiar sizes as well.

So I would say yes...homosexuality is influenced (i would guess soley) by genetics

[mystikchick]

There isn't one gene persay, as far as I know, but there are a lot of indications to suggest that homosexuality is in part controlled by other biological factors. These include how many sons a mother has had before (hormonal changes in the womb environment), exposure to testosterone in the womb, identical twins are more likely to both be gay than fraternal twins, many gays say that they first had an inkling they were attracted to the same gender in childhood, when the environment factor is still in flux, etc. Do I believe homosexuality is a choice? No. After hearing countless stories (and witnessing friends go through it) of the attempts to 'be normal,' to supress homosexual tendencies, the fallout it often leaves in its wake when one comes out - it's so much emotional pain that I don't think most sane people would voluntarily take that upon themselves as a 'choice.' That said, I don't believe homosexuality is strictly genetically controlled, but I do believe biology has a large role to play in determining who we're attracted to.

This article gives a good overview: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

um.....well, yes and no. Sexual attraction is controlled, primarly i belive, by the hypothalimus, a structure in the brain. The size of the hypothalimus (spelling?) is determined by genetics. Straight women and gay men have the same size, or around the size hypothalimus. Lesbians and straight men have similiar sizes as well.

So I would say yes...homosexuality is influenced (i would guess soley) by genetics

Straight women and gay men are more likely to have index and ring fingers that are the same size. Straight men and gay women are more likely to have ring fingers that are longer than their index fingers. It has to do something with hormones exposed in the uterus.

I don't remember where I read this, but it is (briefly) mentioned here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_finger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio

Interesting stuff.

[33girl]

My ring finger is shorter than my index finger. What does that make me?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by 33girl

My ring finger is shorter than my index finger. What does that make me?

Single.

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by Dionysus

Straight women and gay men are more likely to have index and ring fingers that are the same size. Straight men and gay women are more likely to have ring fingers that are longer than their index fingers. It has to do something with hormones exposed in the uterus.

I just had a mental picture of every GCer with children going home and saying, "Show me you hands. Oh, my God."

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by LaneSig

I just had a mental picture of every GCer with children going home and saying, "Show me you hands. Oh, my God."

Again with the lulz!

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Is there a gay-gene ? I really am serious. Has this been proven?

This is something WebMD had to say about this two years ago:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationshi...there-gay-gene

"The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality... In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers. The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone."

But this is taking the OP's question way beyond what she asked. I don't know if the answer to the "gay gene" question in any way helps AF find answers to her question about whether MS policies are in place regarding sexual orientation.