Sexual orientation and MS

[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?

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by 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?

I consider every man that is a member of SAE a "brother" in the sense that they are members of my fraternity and have accepted the responsibility of being a member of my fraternity.

I honestly don't concern myself with SAEs that I don't know. Sure, I'll treat them the same I would anyone else, but I wouldn't consider them in the same category as the men in my chapter whom I have grow close with and built long lasting friendships and relationships with. If I met Joe Blow from a chapter of SAE 3000 miles away, I probably wouldn't go around introducing him as my "fraternity brother". To me, my fraternity brothers are those that I pledged with and that I am with in the same chapter. Even when we go back home for holidays and such and I see friends that are SAEs at different schools.......I don't go around calling them my fraternity brothers.

If there are SAEs that are gay......I honestly don't really care. That is their choice. I consider them a brother in my fraternity just as I would any other brother that I don't know.

[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.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Interesting and not at all joking, but that is my impression of most conservative-minded folks that I know, which is why I generally won't argue with them.

Case in point:

Originally Posted by macallan25

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Little32

Interesting and not at all joking, but that is my impression of most conservative-minded folks that I know, which is why I generally won't argue with them.

True to a point.

My experience is that many (certainly not all) hard core conservatives will accuse anyone who doesn't agree with them of being stupid or ignorant. While many (again, not all) hard core liberals will make the same accusations, it is almost always, in my experience, the hard core liberals who will throw out the additional accusation that someone just hasn't learned enough or thought about it enough.

I'll never forget the very liberal friend who (in a discussion on the topic at hand in this thread, as it happened) said, "I just don't understand how any thinking person" could take a more conservative view of things. She was a bit taken back when I said, "And that's part of the problem. You're not taking the time to try to understand a position that differs from yours; instead, you're just writing it off as incomprehensible and unenlightened. Nobody's going to get anywhere that way. It's always so much easier simply to demonize someone who disagrees with you than to accept the possibility that someone as 'thoughtful' as you didn't come to the same conclusion you did."

I think the subject chamged at that point.

[Little32]

Conservative-minded people tend, on the other hand, to reduce liberal thinking to emotional (read irrational, illogical--this is a comment that I often hear conservative-minded folks make) knee-jerk, politically correct, guilt-laden responses to the issue at hand (look over on AKA Ave. or DST Blvd. for some examples of this).

I guess that happens on both sides, with zealous conservatives and liberals. It doesn't really serve anybody for people to be so closed to the ideas of others. In fact, part my definition of liberal means being open to an receptive to all ways of thinking, willing to listen to them, even if you ultimately don't agree with them.

Also, I am a teacher, so I hear all manner of interesting philosophies from my students.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Little32

In fact, part my definition of liberal means being open to an receptive to all ways of thinking, willing to listen to them, even if you ultimately don't agree with them.

I would agree with that, adding that to be truly liberal in the root sense of the word (which may or may not coincide with politically or socially liberal), one must always remain open to the possibility of being persuaded that one is wrong about any given thing.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by Little32

Interesting and not at all joking, but that is my impression of most conservative-minded folks that I know, which is why I generally won't argue with them.

Case in point:

I notice that on both "sides" and am pretty much tired of talking to anyone who gives their identity over to a label. The only label I will accept is that of human. If someone wants to discuss things with me as rational human beings great. But conserveative and liberal have become terms like lutherean and calvanist in the reformation. Believe/think/worship/behave in the same manner as I do otherwise you are stupid/immoral/ and if you are a centrist then you are weak willed and a fense sitter and can't make up your mind. All of it's a load of horse skyte if you ask me.

[Little32]

^^We have already hugged it out, and you can too.

@Sugar, Thank your Soror!

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Little32

Interesting and not at all joking, but that is my impression of most conservative-minded folks that I know, which is why I generally won't argue with them.

Case in point:

I said that because I was called a Neanderthal, and then a Homophobe..........by you......because of the way I felt.

I have never tried to condemn anyone because they didn't think exactly like I do about homosexuals. You took what I said completely out of context. I was nothing short of berated by a majority of the people in this discussion, and not once did I try to tell any of them that they were stupid/ignorant/short sighted/close minded for thinking they way they do.

Thanks.

[Little32]

I never called you a neanderthal, and all I can say is if the homophobic shoe fits, wear it. I never singled anyone out specifically and said that "You are a homophobe."

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Little32

I never called you a neanderthal, and all I can say is if the homophobe shoe fits, wear it. I never singled anyone out specifically and said that "You are a homophobe."

I said I was called one and then a homophobe.......by you. Do I think the shoe fits? Absolutely not.

You didn't have to single anyone out. Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who you were referring to. You can backpeddle all you want, but it was pretty obvious who you were referring to. You quoted a response from JonoB that was nothing but meant specifically for me.

You misquoted me and took what I said about "thinking without supervision" completely out of the context in which it was said. Simple as that. Again, not once have I condemned anyone in this discussion for how they feel about homosexuals. I can't say the same for the responses towards me.