Sexual orientation and MS

[Low C Sharp]

tolerating or even encouraging some morally questionable activities isn't a persuasive reason to accept or encourage other objectionable activities.

It's a darn good reason to drop the hypocritical charade that you are in some sense a "Christian" organization.
________

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

It's a darn good reason to drop the hypocritical charade that you are in some sense a "Christian" organization.

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

Or at least that was what he said up there. Your little jab is unresponsive.

[shinerbock]

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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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'm not trying to stir the pot, I promise.

I think it's fair to say that all chapters "let in" who they want based on the degree to which a potential member fits into that chapter. And I think it's also fair to say that we (in the Greek community) are perfectly fine with that.

I'm not trying to say that every group should let in anyone who wants to be part of said group. But when someone says that their group doesn't include a group of people because their behavior is considered immoral, it just smacks of hypocrisy. Especially when, as you pointed out, some groups often participate in less-than-moral activities.

I think perhaps I mostly disagree with your belief that accepting someone into a group means endorsing that person's behavior. There were women in my chapter who had had an abortion. But I don't think it's accurate to say that our chapter was endorsing abortion. While each group is represented by the individuals within it, it isn't fair to say that every person in every group maintains and practices the same principles.

[LPIDelta]

This debate brings to mind the questions often associated with teaching values--who's value do we teach? If we teach yours, are others given a voice? In this case, which fraternity member/members values do we follow?? Some groups do value inclusion, or at the very least, diversity--isn't that ok?

I also think that anyone who says there are no gays in their group just doesn't know. With approximately ten percent of the college going population identfying themselves as GLBT, more than likely many groups have at least one member who is gay, possibly someone who does not know yet or does not "live out." For those opposed to having gay members, are we to turn our backs on these people later, people who we pledged brother/sisterhood to, if they chose to live as they really are?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

This debate brings to mind the questions often associated with teaching values--whose value do we teach? If we teach yours, are others given a voice? In this case, which fraternity member/members values do we follow?? Some groups do value inclusion, or at the very least, diversity--isn't that ok?

Chapters and nationals struggle with this every day. It's been that way for a long long long long time. This is just something else added onto the pile.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

I also think that anyone who says there are no gays in their group just doesn't know. With approximately ten percent of the college going population identfying themselves as GLBT, more than likely many groups have at least one member who is gay, possibly someone who does not know yet or does not "live out." For those opposed to having gay members, are we to turn our backs on these people later, people who we pledged brother/sisterhood to, if they chose to live as they really are?

Sure, I imagine in lots of groups there are people masking their lifestyle. However, I think the idea that there is a homosexual in every group is rather ridiculous. You can't simply transpose a statistic like that onto these groups. Not all colleges are the same. Some self-selection will keep homosexuals from going to certain schools, through rush, and to certain fraternities.

I absolutely believe this happens, but at every school, in almost every chapter? I find that highly unlikely.

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

And here I thought I was the only one.

I hope you don't try to take any of my shine as the resident gay black hottie. Watch yourself, okay?

lol

Funk that. Where on earth is the out resident lesbo on here? Not bi. Not lesbian and flying below the radar. But totally OUT?...and hot.

Originally Posted by Little32

My friend just started wearing headphones...to drown out the spanking noises.

I think this is one of those things that women and men see different. For most women I know, the thought of their roommate getting it on, while they are in the room, is gross. Dudes seem to take it a little more in stride, and then talk about their roommate after the fact.

I'm female and it totally depends on who the two people are...if I get totally grossed out or totally turned on.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I'm not trying to stir the pot, I promise.

I think it's fair to say that all chapters "let in" who they want based on the degree to which a potential member fits into that chapter. And I think it's also fair to say that we (in the Greek community) are perfectly fine with that.

I'm not trying to say that every group should let in anyone who wants to be part of said group. But when someone says that their group doesn't include a group of people because their behavior is considered immoral, it just smacks of hypocrisy. Especially when, as you pointed out, some groups often participate in less-than-moral activities.

I think perhaps I mostly disagree with your belief that accepting someone into a group means endorsing that person's behavior. There were women in my chapter who had had an abortion. But I don't think it's accurate to say that our chapter was endorsing abortion. While each group is represented by the individuals within it, it isn't fair to say that every person in every group maintains and practices the same principles.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind the alternative. I'm a sinner, I have immoral moments. If acknowledging this and still turning away from other immoral activity is hypocritical, then yeah, I guess I'm a hypocrite. If a fraternity presents itself to the world as a Christian organization and condemns homosexuality, all while fostering an environment that condones or promotes drug use and promiscuity, then yes, I think that is a hypocritical stance. That being said, I don't think the solution is to abandon all standards because some have been breached. Is it wrong to tolerate some immoral activities more than others? Probably, yes. Is the solution to become an equal-opportunity acceptor of immoral activity? I don't think so.

My chapter, and many who would probably hesitate to admit homosexual members, doesn't consist of a plethora of people from all walks of life who harbor a variety of distinct viewpoints. Sure, even within a room of white republicans there is diversity, but our mission is not simply to replicate the world outside. We're there because we share common goals, opinions and interests. I'm not sure that the abortion comparison is a good one. While I think abortion is immoral, I don't think a girl who had one is continually living in immorality. Sure, remnants will linger, but it is obviously possible to move on from that. However, to some people, homosexuality would be viewed as an ongoing lifestyle, not simply one immoral decision or lapse in judgment.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm not sure that the abortion comparison is a good one. While I think abortion is immoral, I don't think a girl who had one is continually living in immorality. Sure, remnants will linger, but it is obviously possible to move on from that. However, to some people, homosexuality would be viewed as an ongoing lifestyle, not simply one immoral decision or lapse in judgment.

I wasn't really making a comparison between the "lifestyles" of women who've had an abortion and those of men who practice homosexuality. The comparison I was making (or at least, trying to make) was that a sorority who has a member who has had an abortion isn't endorsing abortion; likewise, a fraternity who has a member who is gay isn't endorsing homosexuality.

On topic, I think the original question is very interesting. I would actually like to see a list of the official stances taken by NPC, NIC, NPHC, etc... I realize that some chapters might not fully adopt the official policy, but I'd still be interested to see what's on paper.

I understand why an official policy would need to be in place, but I also wonder how much the slippery slope fallacy factors into what decisions are ultimately made (i.e., if we specify that we won't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, will we also need to say we won't discriminate on the basis of weight, or eye color, or family income, etc...?).

*(Note: I'm not suggesting that there's anything comparable between sexual orientation and eye color. I'm simply saying that if you have a policy concerning one group of people, how many groups do you have to address? This - the slippery slope - may be the reason some orgs have decided not to actually make specific policies about particular groups.)

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I wasn't really making a comparison between the "lifestyles" of women who've had an abortion and those of men who practice homosexuality. The comparison I was making (or at least, trying to make) was that a sorority who has a member who has had an abortion isn't endorsing abortion; likewise, a fraternity who has a member who is gay isn't endorsing homosexuality.

No I understand your point. However, in my mind at least, if you accept a woman who continuously has abortions (we're stretching this pretty far now), it would be an endorsement of her activities.

For a more reasonable example, lets say it isn't a sorority, but rather professional women's club (but with similar close contact--like that of a sorority). If it is a screened organization with standards for membership, in my mind, granting membership to a doctor known for performing abortions would be endorsing their "lifestyle" or at least their chosen profession. Members quite obviously reflect upon the overall group. Regardless of whether you believe like I do (that you essentially endorse many aspects of a person when bringing them into your organization), people on the outside will perceive that you are doing so.

[Animate]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

What exactly is this "homosexual lifestyle"? I mean you exclude sexual activity so what else differentiates a "heterosexual lifestyle" from a "homosextual lifestyle"?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Animate

What exactly is this "homosexual lifestyle"? I mean you exclude sexual activity so what else differentiates a "heterosexual lifestyle" from a "homosextual lifestyle"?

Normal things in life. People have and pursue relationships that don't involve sexual activity. Thus, a dude talking about going out with another guy, some guy coming around to pick up the other guy for a date, etc. I think it would either result in discomfort for both parties, or it would result in the gay person being extremely introverted. Neither are positives for a fraternity, I think.


I live a straight lifestyle. I am attracted to women and act on it. The idea that "homosexual lifestyle" is a concept created by homophobic people is a banal liberal talking point.

[UGAalum94]

I think Shinerbock is right that not all chapters are even close to a representative sample of even that particular college's demographics. I agree with him that there's no reason that they should be. Most of our groups exist because a group of people wanted to belong to a smaller community that was set apart from the student population at large.

Now, personally exclusion of homosexual members isn't something I'm interested in. I'll admit this is lame and not a good reason for avoiding a stronger stance about including lesbian members, but my only concern, even back in the early 1990s when I was in college, about having a lesbian member of my chapter would have been the stupidly middle school level fear that we would be compromised during recruitment.

I don't know how it is today, but back them to be publicly out at UGA resulted in people regarding a person essentially in terms of sexual orientation: it wasn't just regarded as one of the multi-dimensional aspects of identity; it was the defining one. And it would have been at best a novelty and at worst fodder for tent talk that a group had openly lesbian members.

But just as I don't object to homosexual members, I don't object to individual chapters being able to make membership decisions based on the comfort level of current group. Although I do think the day is coming when sexual orientation is regarded just as race, religion, national origin or ethnicity are, I don't think everyone is there yet, and I don't think GLOs will get there by compelling chapters to take members they are uncomfortable with.

[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.
________