Sexual orientation and MS

[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?"

[JonoBN41]

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

[SNUIGC]

Well, just jumping in here, I can't speak on alot of stuff being said here...however, I will speak on the original point.

My chapter at my school (lets just say that we're in the very deep south), we are the first IFC chapter in our school's history to admit a "minority student" into our ranks (black, but, that doesn't matter) and will hopefully be adding several more this coming year (because they're a bunch of good guys)... maybe it's just because we've re-colonized here and we find it so much easier to go against the grain....

That being said, I have a good friend from back home who is closeted gay and I would very much like for him to pledge here. All my brothers who have met him love the guy, even after they found out that he was gay (because he wanted to say that up front, no secrets). ...then again, maybe they all love the guy because he could probably beat every other fraternities intramural teams by himself.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

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

I don't approve of homosexuality, so that makes me a Neanderthal?

[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*

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

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*

To be blunt......I don't give a shit if being gay is common place and acceptable now. I don't approve of it. I was raised very traditionally and conservatively....where it is highly looked down upon. My fraternity is made up of men brought up in the same styles/familys/social circles, etc. With that said, we are a private organization and can give whomever we damn well please a bid.

This is getting ridiculous. This is turning into a "people that don't cater to and accept gays are immoral neanderthals" load of garbage. If that's the case......then I'm done.

Congratulations on your bisexual sister. I don't know a single man in my house that hasn't made an effort to be friends with his entire chapter.

[SNUIGC]

Originally Posted by macallan25

To be blunt......I don't give a shit if being gay is common place and acceptable now. I don't approve of it. I was raised very traditionally and conservatively....where it is highly looked down upon. My fraternity is made up of men brought up in the same styles/familys/social circles, etc. With that said, we are a private organization and can give whomever we damn well please a bid.

This is getting ridiculous. This is turning into a "people that don't cater to and accept gays are immoral neanderthals" load of garbage. If that's the case......then I'm done.

Congratulations on your bisexual sister. I don't know a single man in my house that hasn't made an effort to be friends with his entire chapter.

Although I know that this is probably going to throw fuel on the fire...and I probably shouldn't type this...but, I can't restrain myself, sorry.

That sounds almost exactly what a fraternity guy here said when Jesse Jackson came years and years ago... the IFC people here wouldn't let "negros" into the fraternities...so, he came down and asked why... one of the fraternity guys said, "We don't have to, so, fuck off."

My question is...where will it be in 40 years? Back in the sixties blacks were in an even worse situation...yet look what's happened in that time. People were making the same arguments about why we shouldn't let black people onto campuses, into fraternities, etc. that it's immoral, unethical, etc., but look at where it's gone since then.

[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.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

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.

I understand what you are saying, definitely. I don't think we profess ourselves as a Christian organization...at least not our chapter in Austin, other SAEs may do differently. We have an abundance of church going Christians as members, but that isn't something we would normally state in characterizing our chapter. We are a social organization, simple as that.

As for your question, I don't know how anyone can enforce membership selection by-laws. You would have to have some hard evidence that they were cut based on sexual orientation, race, etc. Unless it's in writing, all I can see you ending up with is a one voice against many type situation.

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by macallan25

I understand what you are saying, definitely. I don't think we profess ourselves as a Christian organization...at least not our chapter in Austin, other SAEs

Excuse me, you're an SAE???!!! A very good friend of mine is an SAE here in NC. I believe last year, he was President of the whole NC province or whatever it is you all call it. For starters, he definitely acts gay and I would put money that he will come out before he graduates. They also have an active brother that has come out of the closet. So, before you go saying all sorts of things about "we can let in whoever we want" and gay people are immoral, just keep in mind that you have brothers that are gay. Other chapters are not nearly as closed minded as you and your chapter brothers.

Oh, wait, you probably don't consider the gay ones your brothers.

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......