Sexual orientation and MS

[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.