Sexual orientation and MS

[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.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by SNUIGC

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"

If you want to be a "technical" asshat and call me a homophobe because I "disapprove" of homosexuality....be my guest.

Personally, I save the homophobe moniker for people who have a little more extreme feeling toward gays. Yeah, I disapprove of homosexuals. I also disapprove of tomatoes. Doesn't mean I'm scared of them, or have a fear of them, or am hostile towards them, or show them hatred.

[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.

[Senusret I]

Yup. That's why I like you, my fellow double-letter grad chapter Greek. Always thinkin'. *tappin' forehead*

[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?

[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]

AlwaysSAI.....who in the hell are you to label me and my entire chapter? I'd be willing to bet you don't know a thing about me or any one of my fraternity brothers. I'm pretty sure that I can be open-minded while still disapproving of certain things in life. As far as having gay brothers.........what does that have to do with anything? Explain that one.....because I'm at a loss.


As far as you quoting the TG.......spare me the self-righteous garbage. I have no problem stating that I am a very respectable gentleman and that I alway try to present myself like one. The fact that I don't approve of homosexuality does not, in any way, mean that I am incapable of treating homosexuals with the same civility and personal respect that I would a straight man or woman. Just because I don't approve of someone being a member of my fraternity.......doesn't mean that I don't respect them or think that they are good people.

[SOPi_Jawbreaker]

Originally Posted by Little32

If that is the case, I stand corrected. Though I think the point still stands, that there are gay children even in ultra-conservative, traditional families. I am sure they are often the ones in these fraternities that are so deeply closeted that people would never suspect they were gay.

This is a off-topic tangent, but I had to share the irony. I'm watching the 11 o'clock news as I'm reading this thread, and the current story is about a pastor that put a sign up saying "Help For the Homosexual" outside the church. This story broke a couple days ago, but the new twist is that the pastor has a lesbian daughter who is speaking out against him tonight.

[AlwaysSAI]

I did not make a judgment about you or your entire chapter. You are the one that made the statement. I just merely quoted it.

And, you may treat a gay man who comes into your house with respect while he is there, but if you are excluding him from membership solely because of his sexual orientation, then you are not giving him the respect he deserves as a PNM of your fraternity.

[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.

[Kevin]

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.

That's all well and good. It's just that when any member can deny membership to any person by writing "no" on a little piece of paper and turning it in anonymously, such anti discrimination clauses really aren't worth the paper they're written on or the ink they're written with.

Going around trumpeting how our organizations are so tolerant of this or that group doesn't really mean much. Do you think that because Sigma Nu voted to integrate back in the late 60's that all chapters are now racially diverse?

The bottom line, I think is that we are all the masters of our own chapters. It is none of our business who Texas at SAE will initiate or not. Personally, I really don't care.

As for my chapter, I really, honestly don't know whether or not we'd discriminate based upon sexual orientation. I'm an alum, I don't get a vote. I don't think I would have really cared. In my day, we had several candidates who I'm quite certain were gay -- none ever made it through. None of them ever made it as far as a vote (oddly, they all left school or dropped out of their candidate classes on their own accord). I wonder how things would have turned out..

At any rate, within my own chapter, when it came to membership decisions, I always respected everyone's choice whatever the reason.

That said, when we're talking about membership selection in another chapter or another organization -- who really even cares??? Some of you seem really bothered by this. Why would you want to ask an organization to accept members when other members don't to be forced to do so?

That's just not how (most) fraternities and sororities work folks. We're selective -- sometimes for some pretty absurd reasons. I figure that sexual orientation will be a big deal for some and not for others. What another organization/chapter does is really none of my concern.

[shinerbock]

Homophobia sure has taken on a broad meaning hasn't it.

I don't sit around thinking of ways to discriminate against gays. I don't strive to be intolerant or to interfere with their lives. I don't force myself to gag when I see two guys make out.

I love how it is natural for two guys to be attracted to each other, but my vomit reflex is simply a result of a hostile and artificial attitude towards something I don't understand because of my Neanderthal nature.

Rewind like 3 pages to the whole hypocrisy thing. I've never debated the hypocrisy of such situations, and please stop including me and my fraternity in this. I'm not there anymore, nor did we ever take any stand on this issue. My point is and has been that hypocrisy does not preclude a group from legitimately considering morality when making membership decisions. We may let in somebody who drinks a lot, but not someone who abuses drugs. Is that hypocritical? Perhaps, yes. Lines are drawn in a multitude of places. Just because we see them as hypocritical doesn't mean a legitimate consideration of moral propriety wasn't included in the process.

[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?