Sexual orientation and MS

[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!

[JonoBN41]

No one can decide on a "unified theory" because I am of the opinion that there are two types of gay men - those who were born that way and those who were imprinted later on. In fact, the "later on" imprinting can determine to a great extent what one finds attractive, whether gay or straight.

The first type is outwardly effeminate; the second type looks like any other guy. Neither one makes a deliberate choice. It's simply who there are, for whatever reason.

Of interest here is that historically, gay men in fraternities were of the straight-looking (Type II) variety. No one knew they were gay unless they were revealed in some way. A lot of them even dated girls!

More recently, we've been seeing more of the Type I accepted into fraternities, and that's what this thread is really all about.

A number of years ago, my chapter gave a bid to a kid who looked gay from a mile away, but no one mentioned anything about it. Not to me, anyway. He got initiated, "served his time", and graduated. He now has a MySpace page listing himself as Gay, and has lots of friends in his list - straight brothers - who post on his page.

I commend the brothers in my chapter for being so open-minded and willing to accept a good person for what he is in all respects, and I'm sure they will pass that same good nature on to their children - some of whom just might turn out to be gay.

You never know.

[Low C Sharp]

It's just difficult to explain the reasoning to people who do accept them when they already feel so strongly.

Respectfully, I believe it's hard for you to explain your reasoning because this isn't an opinion you reached through a process of logical reasoning. It's an emotional gut reaction. That doesn't make it evil, but it does make it pretty pointless to try to back it up with reasoning.

Also, I don't understand why it matters whether homosexuality is biologically determined. We know very well that being a Baptist is not biologically determined. But we also know that being one -- or not being one -- goes right to the core of many people's sense of self. We all understand that while people sometimes have a religious change of heart during life, it's almost impossible to join or abandon a religion just because you WISH your beliefs would change. Faith is too close to the core of your being to be denied.

I think that most of us further agree that it's morally wrong to hate 5 million people you've never met because they are Methodist instead of Catholic. The fact that religion is not innate and immutable like race has nothing to do with the immorality of religious bigotry.

For having overly strict morals? I'm not sure what you're saying there.

That's what I was asking about when I posed the question about the kind of teetotaling, virginity-pledging rushee who'd call the police if he saw underage drinking in the house. Is that kind of guy an ideal candidate for your Christian-based organization with its high ethical standards? Or is he just too darn moral to fit into the group? I bet it's the latter.

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.

How come you get to decide the terms of the debate? I'm arguing that if you (meaning any fraternity, not just yours) claim that you're excluding gay people on moral grounds, you better welcome teetotaling virgins, or you're a dishonest hypocrite. That's quite germane to the question of "legitimacy." Generally, I view dishonest and hypocritical actions as illegitimate.

In other words, if you exclude gay people because you don't like them, you should come right out and say so. Right now that's perfectly legal in most of the country. I may conclude that you're a bigot, but I'll agree that it's a legitimate decision.
________
WEB SHOWS

[macallan25]

What does being a virgin have anything to do with homosexuality? I fail to see the correlation. I see nothing wrong with fraternities excluding homosexuals from membership based on moral grounds.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by macallan25

What does being a virgin have anything to do with homosexuality? I fail to see the correlation. I see nothing wrong with fraternities excluding homosexuals from membership based on moral grounds.

Okay, why is homosexuality immoral?

[Animate]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

Okay, why is homosexuality immoral?

Question of the hour.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

Okay, why is homosexuality immoral?

Unnatural, does a disservice to the human race.......those are a couple that come to mind. My beliefs are besides the point. I simply stated I have no problem with fraternities excluding gays based on moral grounds.

[Little32]

Man, I keep wanting to add my .08 to this discussion, but then I ask myself "What's the point?"

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Unnatural, does a disservice to the human race.......those are a couple that come to mind. My beliefs are besides the point. I simply stated I have no problem with fraternities excluding gays based on moral grounds.

Moral grounds?? You are correlating homosexuality and immorality.
For starters, I think that's total bull. Secondly, I'm someone who believes homosexuals are born that way just like you were born heterosexual. I see nothing wrong with homosexuality. Everyone needs love and if love from the same gender is what someone needs-GO FOR IT.

No one should be denied membership into a GLO because of their sexual preference. Now, if there are other things defined in MS for that organization and that person does not meet those standards, I am all for not extending that person a bid. But, merely because of their sexual preference??? That's retarded.

And, as for immorality. It is defined by dictionary.com as:
"1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious."

Under those definitions, everyone on this board is probably immoral. I'm sure we've all said things or done things that were not acceptable by society. I'm sure you have as well. Seriously, we are living in the 21st century and a lot of things that weren't so accepted when your parents were growing up are a lot more common place now.

If you can find some other reason that "Gay Bobby PNM" should not be offered membership under you MS criteria, that's cool. But, not giving him a bid because he's gay is down right immoral.

And, fyi-I have a bisexual SAI sister and she is the ONLY sister in the entire chapter that makes as effort to form a friendship with every woman in the room. No, not because she wants to date them, but because she loves the org.

You could be missing out on some great people.


*And, she steps down from the soapbox*

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Unnatural, does a disservice to the human race.......those are a couple that come to mind. My beliefs are besides the point. I simply stated I have no problem with fraternities excluding gays based on moral grounds.

You want to know how being a virgin keeps appearing as part of the argument. Macallan I respect you so I'm not going to personally insult you over this (plus I will never ever stop laughing at 'I hope you get stung by many bees' or 'I hope you get hit by a bus').
If someone cites that their GLO is a christian organization, it stands to reason that they will endorse christian virtues. Thus if homosexuality is considered immoral when we base the value system upon the bible, it's a logical progression that you will also embrace other moral behaviours such as celibacy, teetotaling (or at least not drinking to a state of drunkenness or for the purpose of being drunk), attending church every Sunday and making an attempt to be an upstanding christian.

You haven't said that your moral belief system is based upon christianity so I won't assume that it is. But this is where the virgin comparison is coming from.

As to your letting in a gay guy-I would only care if your only reason for denying someone a bid was sexual orientation. However, membership selection is a private matter so I'm wondering how anyone outside the chapter would ever know your true reasoning for not handing a bid to someone.
That's what I'm curious about with these bylaws really-how would anyone outside the chapter be able to enforce these laws in the case of membership selection? One thing that's repeated over and over is that it's a private matter to be kept inside the chapter room and among active members only.

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by macallan25

I see nothing wrong with fraternities excluding homosexuals from membership based on moral grounds.

I don't have a problem with Macallan himself, but I do have a problem with people having this opinion. He is openly saying that he or his chapter or whatever don't offer gays/bisexuals a bid for that very reason.

It's sick and disgusting. Not only that, he is also claiming that they are immoral--which I don't agree with. Some of my closest and most trusted friends are lesbians.

Am I attacking Macallan on this board? Yes, but it is only because he represents the ignorance that makes life for my friends harder. And, hell yes, I'll fight for them.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

I don't have a problem with Macallan himself, but I do have a problem with people having this opinion. He is openly saying that he or his chapter or whatever don't offer gays/bisexuals a bid for that very reason.

It's sick and disgusting. Not only that, he is also claiming that they are immoral--which I don't agree with. Some of my closest and most trusted friends are lesbians.

Am I attacking Macallan on this board? Yes, but it is only because he represents the ignorance that makes life for my friends harder. And, hell yes, I'll fight for them.

Would you quit putting words in my mouth? Hahah, I mean sweet Christ, you are getting borderline ridiculous. Where did I say that homosexuals were immoral. Can you find where I plainly stated......."homosexuals are immoral". Pretty sure I have continually stated that I simply do not agree with homosexuality. It is my God given right to approve and disapprove of whatever I damn well please. Enough with your baseless tirade.

I don't talk about membership procedures on message boards. Or how about, I don't talk about membership procedures with anyone but my chapter. Me stating that I don't have a problem with chapters not offering bids to homosexuals based on morals is in no way stating that my chapter follows this procedure or that I feel that homosexuals are immoral.

Once again, membership in my chapter is none of your business. The fact that you may find that "sick and disgusting" means absolutely nothing to me. You can cry, and bitch, and whine, and moan all you want. I will be civil and treat homosexuals with respect. That is all you need to know.

You are attacking me based on your personal experiences with homosexuals......which is completely asinine. I find nothing "ignorant" about how I conduct myself on a day to day basis.

Have a good one.

[fantASTic]

macallan:

A question for you, and not directed in a hateful way [so don't take it wrong!]:

How do you rationalize SAEs that ARE gay? Your chapter may not have any, no one knows, but there ARE brothers who are gay. Do you consider them brothers? What do you think about that?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Don't be dissuaded by the Neanderthals. There is actually intelligent life here. Go ahead and add your .08.

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Some 50 years ago, I was raised very traditionally and conservatively too. Then I realized I had a brain and that I could think for myself. What a wonderful thing.

"So easy, a caveman can do it."

You know, perhaps the biggest beef I have with many true liberals I've run across is this inane idea that anyone who doesn't agree with them is either (1) stupid or (2) just has thought about it enough/learned enough.

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

I did not make a judgment about you or your entire chapter.

I think when one posts something like this (complete with emphasis added, no less):

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

Here's your creed to remind you of what your fraternity stands for:

"The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe."
-John Walter Wayland

Just something to think about......

one is most certainly making a judgment about the person the post is directed to. It's an accusation that he doesn't live up to the ideals of his own fraternity.