Sexual orientation and MS

[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.

[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."

[macallan25]

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, I'm trying to be civil with you. But honestly, fuck off.

I am well capable of "having a brain" and "thinking for myself" all the while keeping true to my upbringing. Sorry you can't accept the fact that I don't approve of homosexuality. No reason to start calling me names like a goddamned 5 year old.

You are, what, 50+ years old? How about you act like it.

[Little32]

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."

OK. You crack me up. What is ironic is that the biggest homophobes here are going to end up with a child that is gay, because that is just how these things seem to work out. (*cough* Dick Cheney *cough*)

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Little32

OK. You crack me up. What is ironic is that the biggest homophobes here are going to end up with a child that is gay, because that is just how these things seem to work out. (*cough* Dick Cheney *cough*)

What knowledge do you have about Dick Cheney's homophobia?

[Little32]

Didn't he at one point disown his own daugther because of her sexuality?

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Little32

OK. You crack me up. What is ironic is that the biggest homophobes here are going to end up with a child that is gay, because that is just how these things seem to work out. (*cough* Dick Cheney *cough*)

Oh.......now instead of Neanderthals.......we're homophobes.

Jesus, some of you people shouldn't be allowed to think without supervision.

[SNUIGC]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Oh.......now instead of Neanderthals.......we're homophobes.

Jesus, some of you people shouldn't be allowed to think without supervision.

Well, actually, the use of the term homophobe in this case is technically correct....to quote the definition of it, from wikipedia:

"Homophobia (from Greek ὁμο homo(sexual), "same, equal" + φοβία (phobia), "fear", literally "fear of the same") is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[3][4] Several dictionaries also associate irrationality with this type of fear.[attribution needed] It can also mean hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry"

[macallan25]

Highly disrespectful, tasteless, and unclassy thing to say and act (even though it is a complete idiot like Jesse Jackson).........but, again, to be brutally honest........the guy is right. Until our nationals make some kind of change to how we, as students, run our chapters.......we can let in whomever we want.

I don't know where it will be in 40 years. Hell, we might not have fraternities in 40 years. My response is........why does it matter? Why is it such a travesty for us to let in who we want to in our chapters? Why do our memberships processes have to be called in to question all the time?

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Why do our memberships processes have to be called in to question all the time?

As I said, at least twice in my post. I will applaud you for excluding a man from membership if he does not meet the guidelines set out in your MS criteria. But, I will not condone a person being excluded solely based on their sexual orientation. It's just not right. It would be like me saying--"I can't let you into my club because you have brown hair." It's retarded and stupid.

If your fraternity is full of closed minded men who know nothing other than what mommy taught them, then you deserve each other and would be better off without the gay community in your org. Your too damn close minded to see what nonsense you are spitting out.

I hope you have a gay son.

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Until our nationals make some kind of change to how we, as students, run our chapters.......we can let in whomever we want.

In my fraternity, our "nationals" doesn't make the rules - we do. In 2002 we expanded our anti-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation.

It was proposed by undergraduates, promoted by undergraduates, submitted by undergraduates, and unanimously approved by the undergraduates.

We think for ourselves, and yes, we can let in whomever we want.

[UGAalum94]

And when the national organization embraces a policy that a chapter doesn't like, the chapter can leave the organization if it's actually a matter of principle worth taking a stand about, or they can quietly ignore the policy, telling themselves that "there just aren't any XYZ quality guys who are ________ at this school" and no one will be able to prove otherwise.

They've been doing it with other groups for years.

If an national group has too many membership policies that too many chapters are ignoring, it makes you question how strong the national group is. And if it turns out that the strength lies primarily in the chapters who ignore the policies, the national organization may find itself in a strange position, losing several of its strongest chapters over an issue about which the policies were meaningless at best. (Chapters likely to follow the policy aren't likely to need it; the ones more in need will never follow.)

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

In my fraternity, our "nationals" doesn't make the rules - we do. In 2002 we expanded our anti-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation.

It was proposed by undergraduates, promoted by undergraduates, submitted by undergraduates, and unanimously approved by the undergraduates.

We think for ourselves, and yes, we can let in whomever we want.

Our governing body is the ultimate decision maker in what happens in our fraternity.

Congratulations. We "think for ourselves" also.