Sexual orientation and MS

[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......

[AlexMack]

Can we all back off Macallan a little and agree to disagree? Personally I commend him for being brave enough to voice his opinion, as unpopular as it is here.

I'm pretty sure the SAEs don't drive around in a pack in Austin, looking for gay guys to beat up. It is possible to act civilly towards a person, no matter how much you disapprove of a certain aspect of that person.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

Can we all back off Macallan a little and agree to disagree? Personally I commend him for being brave enough to voice his opinion, as unpopular as it is here.

I'm pretty sure the SAEs don't drive around in a pack in Austin, looking for gay guys to beat up. It is possible to act civilly towards a person, no matter how much you disapprove of a certain aspect of that person.

Yes. And I think we can appreciate that the right to select the members we want is a fundamental one for each chapter, disagree as we might about what chapters ought to want.

[Animate]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

Can we all back off Macallan a little and agree to disagree? Personally I commend him for being brave enough to voice his opinion, as unpopular as it is here.

I'm pretty sure the SAEs don't drive around in a pack in Austin, looking for gay guys to beat up. It is possible to act civilly towards a person, no matter how much you disapprove of a certain aspect of that person.

Agreed. Gotta respect someone that holds firm to their convictions as firmly as he has.

*Agree to disagree*

[Senusret I]

Screw that shit, some opinions are stupid.

[Little32]

^^LOL! Plus, I don't think that folks are only coming down on macallen, though he is the only one responding right now, but rather on a type of perspective which has had many advocates in this thread. Notice, I said homophobes plural, not singular.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Screw that shit, some opinions are stupid.

By stupid, you mean the idea that chapters should be able to choose members they are comfortable with or that homosexuality is immoral? Or both?