Gays in fraternites (pt. 2)

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by starang21

i guess i'm not a hypocrite because i think homosexuality is disgusting and that's the reason i wouldn't vote a gay dude in.

LOL

shut up

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by jon1856

I had to just about stop reading this at the very first line.
Double standards at some Fraternities???
Off the top of my head I can recall: Rape, drug use, destruction of public property,theft, riot, under age drinking, and hazing. And the line is drawn at a person being gay?
Perhaps I need to read the whole posting when I have the time too.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Regardless of where the line is drawn at the individual level, it is wonderful that the law recognizes the difference between illegal behaviors (underage drinking, rape, etc.) and perceived deviant and immoral behaviors (homosexuality, sex before marriage, promiscuity, etc.).
That's all.

Sex before marriage and promiscuity and rape (in full definition), to me, can be connected on the same tree.
Laws just codify social actions.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'll give you underage drinking, but surely you are not suggesting that rape, drug use, destruction of public property, theft and riot (or hazing, for that matter) happen in every chapter? (I have feeling that by "some fraternities," shinerbock meant "some chapters of some fraternities.") Because unless you are, the "some fraternities" fits.

Read RM threads and tell me.
Not every chapter, not every GLO, not every campus.
But in some combination of the above, yes.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Jon, I don't get what you're saying.
Because fraternities based on Christian tenets sometimes condone or ignore sinful behavior, they should openly welcome other sinful behavior? Maybe that is rational response in some universe, just not in mine.

What does rape have anything to do with it? I've certainly never been a part of any group that condones rape, or anything remotely close to rape. I hope you haven't either.

I do not condone rape at all. Yet I know it happens. I live every day knowing of at least one date rape that happened in my chapter while I was there.
And I am sure that "no" was taken as a "yes" more than once.
I am sure that your Saturday and Sunday mornings have been very much like reading Penthouse Letters a few times.
And the same can be said for the other issues I bought up and a list of more.

We as groups judge each other and others all the time.
During rush, during pledging and during Brother/Sisterhood.
You want to be part of a group that, for the most part, you fit in with well.
So, as pointed out by a few others here, is in not rather hypocritical to to turn your back on a person who may share everything but sexual preference and yet embrace a person who breaks laws or social contracts?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Sex before marriage and promiscuity and rape (in full definition), to me, can be connected on the same tree.
Laws just codify social actions.

jon1856.....

[shinerbock]

Jon, in your scenario, it probably is hypocritical. Double standard for sure.

But we're also not in reality with this hypo, and I don't think it would matter anyway. If you find a republican gay guy who likes to hunt, fish, play golf and drink, I'd like to see it. I'm sure there is someone out there like that, but chances are they're in the small minority, and they'll likely never have the desire to rush.

That said, you still have the problems I mentioned earlier. Who does he bring to formal? Is that guy gonna bring his bf around the house? That would be very uncomfortable for everyone. Are people gonna bite their tongue when talking about how they think homosexuality is wrong or immoral? Doesn't that take away some of the purpose of a fraternity of like minded individuals?

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

If you find a republican gay guy who likes to hunt, fish, play golf and drink, I'd like to see it. I'm sure there is someone out there like that, but chances are they're in the small minority, and they'll likely never have the desire to rush.

I know people like this. There were tons of Republican gay dudes at W&L and even some who were "fratty." Some of them only came out of the closet after graduation. Not that me knowing people like this proves anything to you.

You probably know people like this too, but just don't realize they're gay.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

I know people like this. There were tons of Republican gay dudes at W&L and even some who were "fratty." Some of them only came out of the closet after graduation. Not that me knowing people like this proves anything to you.

You probably know people like this too, but just don't realize they're gay.

You're right. I mean, I have no reason to believe you're not being truthful, but anecdotal evidence doesn't mean overly much. I know/have known a lot of gay folks, and none of them really fit that bill. My experience has just been different. But regardless, I still think that the people we're describing are a very small percentage. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

About the last part, who knows. I think it is sometimes a cop out when people say this, as I don't think lines are drawn that clearly. Maybe somebody I would never have thought will turn up gay, but I think it is just as likely that this won't happen. But many will respond that "oh, well they are gay, they just never come out." Perhaps so, but these are certainly convenient ways to never admit being wrong in such arguments.

But even if people were gay in my fraternity, for example, that doesn't really aid the argument that they should be included in membership. So they're like us in a lot of ways, except for a rather major one (sexual orientation). Obviously they don't feel comfortable coming out in that environment, but this has been discussed extensively above.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Read RM threads and tell me.
Not every chapter, not every GLO, not every campus.
But in some combination of the above, yes.

Certainly it happens -- more often than anyone would like to admit, probably (as to some of your examples) -- but I think you're over-reaching stating it the way you did and for the argument you did.

[DSTRen13]

Regarding hypocrisy: Of course Shiner is a hypocrite. I am a hypocrite, as well. All Christians are hypocrites. It's the nature of Christianity. We acknowledge our faults, and acknowledge that there are rights and wrongs (while we may all disagree on what those are). Therefore, we do things CONSTANTLY that we know are wrong, and we will still tell you that those things are wrong, and that other things are wrong as well. If we don't, then we can't try to do better.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

Regarding hypocrisy: Of course Shiner is a hypocrite. I am a hypocrite, as well. All Christians are hypocrites. It's the nature of Christianity. We acknowledge our faults, and acknowledge that there are rights and wrongs (while we may all disagree on what those are). Therefore, we do things CONSTANTLY that we know are wrong, and we will still tell you that those things are wrong, and that other things are wrong as well. If we don't, then we can't try to do better.

DST, I certainly engage in hypocritical behavior, but perhaps we're not quite as bad as you make out.

When I think of hypocrite, I think of someone condemning others, alleging they live a nearly-faultless life, while ignoring their own mass of sin. Perhaps my definition is too narrow, but I think there are a lot of us that openly acknowledge our faults, and publicly note that while we think A, B and C are wrong, we know they're not any worse than D, E and F that we engage in. Being a fallible person certainly doesn't mean you can't acknowledge other moral inadequacies.

But it doesn't matter, I'm not really worried about being labeled a hypocrite. As long as people know that when I assert that certain acts are immoral, it doesn't mean I'm proclaiming to be morally superior. I certainly fail on a regular basis to live the type of life I should, so I'm not overly worried about the semantics.

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

DST, I certainly engage in hypocritical behavior, but perhaps we're not quite as bad as you make out.

When I think of hypocrite, I think of someone condemning others, alleging they live a nearly-faultless life, while ignoring their own mass of sin. Perhaps my definition is too narrow, but I think there are a lot of us that openly acknowledge our faults, and publicly note that while we think A, B and C are wrong, we know they're not any worse than D, E and F that we engage in. Being a fallible person certainly doesn't mean you can't acknowledge other moral inadequacies.

But it doesn't matter, I'm not really worried about being labeled a hypocrite. As long as people know that when I assert that certain acts are immoral, it doesn't mean I'm proclaiming to be morally superior. I certainly fail on a regular basis to live the type of life I should, so I'm not overly worried about the semantics.

I think we basically agree The idea that you have to be perfect to have a moral problem with anything is ridiculous. And so, if that makes us all hypocrites, that's fine. All Christians, of all flavors, are hypocrites.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

Regarding hypocrisy: Of course Shiner is a hypocrite. I am a hypocrite, as well. All Christians are hypocrites. It's the nature of Christianity. We acknowledge our faults, and acknowledge that there are rights and wrongs (while we may all disagree on what those are). Therefore, we do things CONSTANTLY that we know are wrong, and we will still tell you that those things are wrong, and that other things are wrong as well. If we don't, then we can't try to do better.

Hardly. That's not what hypocrisy means. It's not hypocritical to hold others and (one's self) to high standards even though we know we will all from time to time fail to meet them.

Hypocrisy, by definition, is pretending to have values or moral standards that you do not actually have. It is holding others to a standard, and giving the appearances of holding yourself to that same standard, when in fact you do not hold yourself to that standard.

As long as you are acknowledging your faults and trying to do better, than it's not hypocrisy.

[AOII Angel]

After reading the thread, I'd have to agree...hypocrisy is not the correct term. Hubris is more apt (one of the seven deadly sins, I might add!) If straight guys don't want to be friends with gay guys, I'm sure the gay guys aren't missing out on anything with that group other than condemnation and contempt. To the frat guys who go on and on about the "disgusting" behavior of gay men, don't think that God sees your sins in any better light. Drinking to excess, fornicating with women (some of whom did not agree to said activity), etc are all disgusting in his eyes. Don't fool yourself that you are any better than any gay man walking the earth.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

After reading the thread, I'd have to agree...hypocrisy is not the correct term. Hubris is more apt (one of the seven deadly sins, I might add!) If straight guys don't want to be friends with gay guys, I'm sure the gay guys aren't missing out on anything with that group other than condemnation and contempt. To the frat guys who go on and on about the "disgusting" behavior of gay men, don't think that God sees your sins in any better light. Drinking to excess, fornicating with women (some of whom did not agree to said activity), etc are all disgusting in his eyes. Don't fool yourself that you are any better than any gay man walking the earth.

Everybody that answered the guy gave honest and mature responses. Has anyone been cocky or arrogant about it either?, that's ridiculous. I've read this entire thread for the most part and haven't really seen that at all.

What "frat guys" on here have said anything about the "disgusting behavior of gay men"? Perhaps I missed that part too. Furthermore, trying to use the whole "you drink and have sex so you aren't any better" b.s. cop-out has already been run into the ground.

Also, has anybody said anything about being "better" than anyone either? I don't think so, maybe someone has.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That's the reason I label it as hypocrisy. Most of the same fraternity guys who will use "morality" as a reason to exclude gays are not acknowledging their faults and trying to do better. Instead they've labeled their faults as manly or cool and homosexuality as disgusting and immoral. JMO.

I see your point. I was really responding to DSTRen13:

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

Regarding hypocrisy: Of course Shiner is a hypocrite. I am a hypocrite, as well. All Christians are hypocrites. It's the nature of Christianity. We acknowledge our faults, and acknowledge that there are rights and wrongs (while we may all disagree on what those are). Therefore, we do things CONSTANTLY that we know are wrong, and we will still tell you that those things are wrong, and that other things are wrong as well. If we don't, then we can't try to do better.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As long as you are acknowledging your faults and trying to do better, than it's not hypocrisy.

That's the reason I label it as hypocrisy. Most of the same fraternity guys who will use "morality" as a reason to exclude gays are not acknowledging their faults and trying to do better. Instead they've labeled their faults as manly or cool and homosexuality as disgusting and immoral. JMO.