How do you feel about this controversial topic?

[texas*princess]

Originally posted by madmax
I am against it.

If you are in favor of having members with a different sexual orientation are you also in favor of having members of the opposite sex?

what are you talking about? Those are two completely different things

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by madmax
I am against it.

If you are in favor of having members with a different sexual orientation are you also in favor of having members of the opposite sex?

No, that's a totally different ballgame. We were founded to promote the highest type of womanhood, not to love men. So having a woman who loves another woman is fine. I don't think men can promote the highest type of womanhood.

[PSK480]

Madmax: I'm sure what ever GLO you are a member of has a value, principle, goal of brotherhood, character, honor, etc. By making that statement it shows that you are not willing to try to live up to the ideals, goals, principles, and values that your organization is based on. How is a gay man any less capable of deminstrating brotherhood? The answer is he is not!! By making that statement you have shown that you do not believe in brotherhood, character, or the honor of all men. If you do not honor others how can you honor yourself?

[madmax]

Originally posted by PSK480
Madmax: I'm sure what ever GLO you are a member of has a value, principle, goal of brotherhood, character, honor, etc. By making that statement it shows that you are not willing to try to live up to the ideals, goals, principles, and values that your organization is based on. How is a gay man any less capable of deminstrating brotherhood? The answer is he is not!! By making that statement you have shown that you do not believe in brotherhood, character, or the honor of all men. If you do not honor others how can you honor yourself?

Great speech. Now, how about I substitute the word woman everywhere you used the word man. Should your fraternity start pledging women for all the same reasons that you just gave me.
Do you pledge women? If not then why not? Whatever your reason is, is probably the same reason why I prefer not to have gay members.

[zchi2]

Originally posted by madmax
Great speech. Now, how about I substitute the word woman everywhere you used the word man. Should your fraternity start pledging women for all the same reasons that you just gave me.
Do you pledge women? If not then why not? Whatever your reason is, is probably the same reason why I prefer not to have gay members.

The reason why an all male fraternity wouldn't pledge women is because it's creed and principles are for men not women. Are you trying to say gay men aren't men? You're confusing me. You need a better analogy.

[madmax]

Originally posted by zchi2
The reason why an all male fraternity wouldn't pledge women is because it's creed and principles are for men not women. Are you trying to say gay men aren't men? You're confusing me. You need a better analogy.

My analogy is fine. You need better reading comprehension skills. I never said gay men aren't men. You said that.

I simply believe that if your fraternity/sorority can choose not to recruit members of a different sex, then another can choose not to recruit members of a different sexual orientation for the same reasons.

[Moxie]

madmax, don't get so defensive and start telling people what they need. this is a touchy subject for people, and perhaps people are just trying to understand where you are coming from. the fact is, discrimination is discrimination. using the point about male fraternities not pledging women for the same reason they may not pledge a homosexual is VERY poor logic. it is definitely not the same thing, or close to the same thing, and the fact that you are using it as an analogy proves that you are just grasping at straws to see what you can come up with.

[zchi2]

Originally posted by madmax
My analogy is fine. You need better reading compreshension skills. I never said gay men aren't men. You said that.

I simply believe that if your fraternity/sorority can choose not to recruit members of a different sex, then another can choose not to recruit members of a different sexual orientation for the same reasons.

I really don't know your organization, but isn't it against a rule somewhere for your fraternity that a woman can't be a member??? I really didn't think that was a "choice."

So it's ok to say that you don't want a certain race in your chapter too?

[PSK480]

Originally posted by madmax
Great speech. Now, how about I substitute the word woman everywhere you used the word man. Should your fraternity start pledging women for all the same reasons that you just gave me.
Do you pledge women? If not then why not? Whatever your reason is, is probably the same reason why I prefer not to have gay members.

I don't know if you slept through school or not so I'll take this nice and slow for you. See a woman is very different from a man. I'm sure everyone on here would agree with me. For starters they have different genetalia than men do. They have more pronounced and defined breasts. Women have different sets of values in most cases. Also what works for a man most of the time does not work for a woman and vice versa. My fraternity was set up for men, all men are welcome in Phi Sigma Kappa. We at one time had a little sister system also. Not sure why it was ended not really my problem. But, my point is, how is a gay man any different from you other than his sexual orientation?

[zchi2]

Well I would give it to madmax and say that at least he is honest. But apparently he knows that it's something wrong with his views because he doesn't identify what organization he is apart of. On behalf of your fraternal brothers, THANK YOU for not telling us what organization you are apart of.

[Tom Earp]

00PS, NOW WE GET INTO THE TEENIE WEENIE SYNDROM!!!!

baaaaaa waaaaaa!

Max, does have his way of getting things going!

[MTSUGURL]

For religious reasons, the gay lifestyle is not something that I agree is right.
HOWEVER:
Throughout my adolescent and adult life (so far) I have had several friends come out, both male and female. If I professed to love and care for these friends before they came out, and then cut them off afterwards, what kind of love or friendship is that?
I don't base whether or not someone is my friend on their sexual orientation. One guy that I was particularly close to had enough people desert him when he came out. If I had done the same, that would speak volumes about my character. My exboyfriend's sister came out a few months ago, and we have talked extensively about my not agreeing, but that I love her, she is my friend, and we continue to be close.
Homphobia is defined as: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." I don't consider myself to be homophobic - I believe that I can disagree with a lifestyle yet unconditionally love the people practicing that lifestyle. Were I in a sorority, I would never suggest someone be cut on the basis of sexual orientation. Nor would I tolerate anyone treating my gay or lesbian friends with less respect and humanity than they would treat my straight friends.

[CMora1980]

Hi everyone. This is my first post to the Forum so if I seem a little new at this forgive me.

First to MKSUGURL, you shouldn't prepare to be blasted for respectfully posting a valid opinion. Blasting someone else's opinion only shows insecurity in the validity of one's own set of beliefs.

Second, I do disagree with you but not on your opinion on the "right"ness of the "gay lifestyle," but on the presumptions that lay beneath that statement. When I think of lifestyle, it puts me in the mind of the 1980s show "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" with Robin Leach...something that people have a choice in pursuing, which in my mind makes it open to comment, public or private.

The term "gay lifestyle" is a misnomer. That would be like saying the "female lifestyle" or the "black lifestyle." One does not choose their gender or their ethno-racial background. In turn one does not choose their sexual orientation. A person DOES have the choice of whether or not to accept themselves for who they are. Prior to the late 1960s in America, and even to a some extent to date in Latin America particularly, many fair-skinned persons otherwise considered black chose not to (publicly) accept their ethnicity and passed for white. Similarly in 2003, many gays, lesbians, bisexuals, etc. who either do not conform to stereotypes of said sexuality or slip past our radar screens make the same choices fair-skinned blacks made.

Here is where the mistake is generally made. A person who "comes out of the closet" is not choosing to be gay, rather they are choosing to publicly accept that fact. There, I suppose, one could make the argument that said person makes a lifestyle choice. How a person could be faulted for choosing honesty and self-acceptance over shame and self-depracation is beyond my comprehension, but that is a moral/religious debate for another thread.

All of this relates back to Madmax's posts concerning an organization's discretion in its admissions policies. If you see homosexuality as a choice, it could be somewhat logical to, having disagreed with that choice, discourage membership of individuals who have already, or are prone to make the disagreeable value judgments. Honestly, that is what selective criteria is designed to promote.

However, if you see it as something innate, or at the least something over which one does not control, using a person's sexuality against them gets away from the character judgment these criteria purport to encourage. Such a judgment would be equivalent in its justifiability to a judgment based on hair color, height, or race. It does differ from gender-based judgment in that single-sex fraternities are generally (at least historically) based on promotion of certain gender-based ideals. It would not make sense to admit a woman to an organization promoting the development of men, and vice-versa.

Being gay makes one no less of a man than being short or blond does. This being the case, there is a difference in choosing not to admit women to a fraternity and choosing not to admit a man to the same organization based on his sexual orientation.

All this having been said, I hope I have not blasted or disrespected anyone by this post.

Respectfully,
C. Mora

[Opie25]

Originally posted by MTSUGURL
For religious reasons, the gay lifestyle is not something that I agree is right.
HOWEVER:
Throughout my adolescent and adult life (so far) I have had several friends come out, both male and female. If I professed to love and care for these friends before they came out, and then cut them off afterwards, what kind of love or friendship is that?
I don't base whether or not someone is my friend on their sexual orientation. One guy that I was particularly close to had enough people desert him when he came out. If I had done the same, that would speak volumes about my character. My exboyfriend's sister came out a few months ago, and we have talked extensively about my not agreeing, but that I love her, she is my friend, and we continue to be close.
Homphobia is defined as: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." I don't consider myself to be homophobic - I believe that I can disagree with a lifestyle yet unconditionally love the people practicing that lifestyle. Were I in a sorority, I would never suggest someone be cut on the basis of sexual orientation. Nor would I tolerate anyone treating my gay or lesbian friends with less respect and humanity than they would treat my straight friends.

You shouldn't be blasted for your personal or religious beliefs...that's just as wrong as discriminating against someone who is lesbian/gay/bisexual...but it is hard for some people to reconcile the whole religious aspect and being gay...sometimes (and wrongfully so) religion is often used to discriminate against those individuals who are lesbian/gay/bisexual...so it is very hard for a gay/bisexual individual to listen (and be open) once someone throws in the word "religion" and I think that is unfortunate...it really is left up to interpertation and beliefs and everyone (yes big generalization) but EVERYONE believes what they want and puts a little different spin or interpertation into their life/beliefs, based upon their experiences, etc. I am glad that you choose to stand by your friends that have come out, and hope that you will continue to do so and support them without judgement...it sounds like you would be a great friend to have!

-o.p.i.e.

[AZpinkkittie]

I was raised in a very tolerant household, with a few gay couples that were friends with my parents. I knew right away that this may not be the "norm", seeing all the straight couples in the world, and my parents or course, but I also never thought it was wrong, just different. These people loved each other just as much as the other couples I'd seen, so I never really thought there could be a problem. As I got older, I encountered not only more gay people that were my age, but more people that had a problem with it. Along with being tolerant of peoples sexual choices, I am tolerant of peoples opinions (I think it's hard to be one without the other) so I understand that people can be raised with the religious beleif that homosexuality is wrong, and I respect that, but many religions also teach to love thy neighbor, and to not judge others, because you will be judged yourself. So when people use their faith as an excuse to HATE homosexuals, I just don't understand. I would like to beleive that the majority of people feel the way MTSUGirl feels, it may be "wrong" in your faith, but that doesn't mean they aren't good people. Which is why I find completely ridiculous that an org wouldn't let someone in because they were gay. Your girlfriend isn't an issue with your capacity to be a good brother, so why should another guy's boyfriend??

Who someone chooses to share their bed and life with is none of my business. I like them or don't like them for who they are, not who they're sleeping with.