Sexual orientation and MS

[zchi2]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

What began as a simple question about whether or not sexual orientation was a part of any GLOs anti-discrimination clauses (or the like) is about, I fear, to get ugly and into a discussion of whether or not being homosexual is an inborn trait or learned behavior. Those who hold an opinion one way or the other are not going to have their minds changed by a post on GC.
It certainly is not as clear cut as race. You can look at someone, and in most cases make a general determination of race. That isn't the case with sexual orientation.
So, getting back on topic somewhat - there are now homosexual GLOs. How do you think they figure into this discussion? I know that there was a chapter of an NPC group that was known as the "lesbian" sorority at my alma mater, and I think it really hurt them. How have the homosexual GLOs changed the face of greekdom? Has having their own GLOs made them more comfortable than dealing with coming out to the straight brothers/sisters of more traditional GLOs?

There are quite a few people that I knew ever since they were born and they have always acted stereotypically gay. So it was definitely not something they could hide...

From what I have seen, the people that join gay GLO are already REALLY out. It's rare to find people who are struggling with their sexuality to join a gay GLO. You have to be really secure to join a gay GLO. I believe there will always be "closet cases" in traditional GLOs.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I agree with someone's previous post about homosexuality being a lifestyle. Fornication with some random drunk girl can be a habit that is eliminated. You can't just keep changing your sexuality. Being gay is a much bigger commitment.

Here's my stance- go ahead and grill me:
Being gay is not something you are born with- it is a choice.

1. A lifestyle is always a choice. Being vegan and adopting a vegan lifestyle is a choice. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. You can stop being a vegan. It's just a dietary habit...

2. Can you yourself choose to be gay if you want to? That's what you're insinuating gay people do. You cannot decide your sexuality on a whim. "oh, I can't seem to pull enough chicks on this campus, I'm going to be gay now and see if I can get guys." Or, "I haven't encountered enough adversity and hate in my life yet, I think I'll be gay and see how it is."
FYI-if you're going to quote the Bible as a reason it's immoral, I also hope you're not enjoying seafood, shaving, eating hamburgers or pork barbeque or working on the sabbath. Wait, that's the old testament, not done yet.
I also hope that you're not engaging in pre-marital sex because that is also considered immoral by Paul in the New Testament. In fact, Paul thinks you should abstain from all sexual activity, unless you cannot, in which case you need to go marry asap. Oh, one more thing-the New Testament was written largely in Greek. According to my knowledge, there's no word for homosexuality in Greek (the Greeks kinda liked that stuff), so it was shoved in much later, let's say, 10 translations down the road to be generous.

I don't care if you want to believe it's a choice-just don't try to use the Bible to justify why it's immoral. If you're not a Jew you cannot use the Old Testament to prove your point, if we start following the NT, let's remember that Paul never said homosexuality.

[TPASIGEP]

Without quoting your post and making this thread longer, I completely agree! While we all have our opinions of whether being gay is a 'learned behavior' or not, it's just that - an opinion - and everyone is entitled to one. Although, I would love to hear from someone who is gay or knows someone who's gay to have said that they choose to be gay.

Ironically, I had my best friend, and fraternity brother, come out to me last weekend. He's spent the last 30 years of his life living 'straight'. He said he's known he was gay since he was 10, but for him it was 'never an option to be gay'.

I have no idea how someone at that age can 'learn' that behavior. It's sad that our society places such a stigma on this.

Also, while I give TOTAL support to the belief that each fraternity or sorority has every right to decide who they wish to admit to their membership, the belief that any one of our houses hasn't had a member who is gay, is not realistic.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

Oh, one more thing-the New Testament was written largely in Greek. According to my knowledge, there's no word for homosexuality in Greek (the Greeks kinda liked that stuff), so it was shoved in much later, let's say, 10 translations down the road to be generous.

Not exactly. You're right that the Greeks did not have a word for "homosexuality," nor did they have anything like a modern understanding of "homosexuality," despite their "kinda liking that stuff." They did, however, have words referring to male same-sex activity, and Paul did use some of those words.

I always think the choice/not-a-choice debate is a red herring. All of us miserable sinners are born with traits, conditions and leanings, or we learn them at such an early age that we might as well have been born with them. The crucial question to me is: What decisions will we make given the hand we've been dealt?

And, again for me, a second question follows: Will my own struggles to make the right decision teach me some humility regarding the struggles of others to make the right decisions?

[modorney]

My opinion is that fraternities (and sororities) serve to provide a learning experience that covers areas not found in the classroom. Ask yourself, what are most of you going to be doing later in life?

In general, most people get married, and have kids.

Your house should have a positive influence in making a brother a potentially better husband and father, as well as improve the odds of finding a better mate, and improving his climate for raising kids. In my house, I made efforts to attact quality women (as a freshman, my house had a poor reputation among women, but as a senior, I, and other brothers made it into a good reputation). So,, my brothers had both a good selection of possible mates, as well as experience around quality women, for those who selected wives in later life.

A homosexual brother, acting as a brother, would not be interested in this aspect of his fraternity, which would probably be OK. But a leader in the house who was homosexual would probably resist this initiative, which would be a disservice to most of the brotherhood.

I do have some personal experience, from my undergrad days, and if anyone wants to discuss it individually, feel free to e-mail me. I'm not into bashing anyone, but a forum is a difficult place to discuss some topics; one-on-one e-mail makes it easy to clarify misinterpretations.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm not sure that the abortion comparison is a good one. While I think abortion is immoral, I don't think a girl who had one is continually living in immorality. Sure, remnants will linger, but it is obviously possible to move on from that. However, to some people, homosexuality would be viewed as an ongoing lifestyle, not simply one immoral decision or lapse in judgment.

I wasn't really making a comparison between the "lifestyles" of women who've had an abortion and those of men who practice homosexuality. The comparison I was making (or at least, trying to make) was that a sorority who has a member who has had an abortion isn't endorsing abortion; likewise, a fraternity who has a member who is gay isn't endorsing homosexuality.

On topic, I think the original question is very interesting. I would actually like to see a list of the official stances taken by NPC, NIC, NPHC, etc... I realize that some chapters might not fully adopt the official policy, but I'd still be interested to see what's on paper.

I understand why an official policy would need to be in place, but I also wonder how much the slippery slope fallacy factors into what decisions are ultimately made (i.e., if we specify that we won't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, will we also need to say we won't discriminate on the basis of weight, or eye color, or family income, etc...?).

*(Note: I'm not suggesting that there's anything comparable between sexual orientation and eye color. I'm simply saying that if you have a policy concerning one group of people, how many groups do you have to address? This - the slippery slope - may be the reason some orgs have decided not to actually make specific policies about particular groups.)

[33girl]

Originally Posted by modorney

In general, most people get married, and have kids.

Your house should have a positive influence in making a brother a potentially better husband and father, as well as improve the odds of finding a better mate, and improving his climate for raising kids. In my house, I made efforts to attact quality women (as a freshman, my house had a poor reputation among women, but as a senior, I, and other brothers made it into a good reputation). So,, my brothers had both a good selection of possible mates, as well as experience around quality women, for those who selected wives in later life.

A homosexual brother, acting as a brother, would not be interested in this aspect of his fraternity, which would probably be OK. But a leader in the house who was homosexual would probably resist this initiative, which would be a disservice to most of the brotherhood.

So the whole point of being in a fraternity is to find quality breeding stock to populate the earth with your offspring?

Just to let you know, Leave It To Beaver and Mad Men are not documentaries of life in the year 2007.

(insert projectile barf icon here)

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by modorney

My opinion is that fraternities (and sororities) serve to provide a learning experience that covers areas not found in the classroom. Ask yourself, what are most of you going to be doing later in life?

In general, most people get married, and have kids.

Your house should have a positive influence in making a brother a potentially better husband and father, as well as improve the odds of finding a better mate, and improving his climate for raising kids. In my house, I made efforts to attact quality women (as a freshman, my house had a poor reputation among women, but as a senior, I, and other brothers made it into a good reputation). So,, my brothers had both a good selection of possible mates, as well as experience around quality women, for those who selected wives in later life.

A homosexual brother, acting as a brother, would not be interested in this aspect of his fraternity, which would probably be OK. But a leader in the house who was homosexual would probably resist this initiative, which would be a disservice to most of the brotherhood.

I do have some personal experience, from my undergrad days, and if anyone wants to discuss it individually, feel free to e-mail me. I'm not into bashing anyone, but a forum is a difficult place to discuss some topics; one-on-one e-mail makes it easy to clarify misinterpretations.

Lulz! I am sure the excessive drinking, hazing, copious amounts of pre-marital sex and perhaps a little drug usage is going to go very far in training you to be a good husband and father.

Sorry, I learned nothing in my sorority to teach me to be a good mother and wife. I got that from my own mother, kthx.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

No, I meant exactly what I said. If you endorse and condone immoral behavior -- if you in fact exclude potential members for having overly strict morals -- then you should keep on doing it, but you should drop the hypocritical charade that you are a Christian organization or one devoted to high ethical principles.

For having overly strict morals? I'm not sure what you're saying there. However, I think you're basically reiterating what I already said. If you condemn others for immoral activity while condoning or endorsing other brands of said activity, that is hypocritical. My point was fairly clear the first time I said that.

An organization devoted to high ethical principles can be made up of sinners. But if it's worthy of the label, it does have to encourage members to STRIVE to live by those principles. Does your fraternity seek chaste rushees and encourage brothers to stay chaste? Do your brothers admit to one another in shame that they got laid last night but that they repent their lapse? Do you view a commitment to total sobriety as a desirable quality in an underage rushee? I bet you don't, and I don't either. So let's can the crap about how you exclude gay people because they're immoral or un-Christian. You exclude them because you don't like them. Their taste in sins is too different from yours. People who are unrepentantly, proudly immoral in ways that you like are more than welcome.

Once again, I've already spoken to this. Also, you're making this about me and my organization, which it originally wasn't. I still don't understand why you think that because an organization has sinners, they can't use what they perceive as immoral activity when determining not to extend membership. I do immoral things. That doesn't mean I won't let moral considerations into my analysis when making decisions. I've never excluded a gay person from membership, much less excluded one on faith-based grounds. However, it is quite possible that it would be a consideration when making such a determination. For example, lets say there is someone who would fit in well in all areas, but participates in some sort of immoral activity. Also, there is another person who is a homosexual. While the membership might be able to look one aspect (the straight person's immorality) because of their other attributes, they may be less willing to tie themselves to something they perceive as sin, while also taking on the discomfort involved with accepting an openly gay person into the group. This isn't a debate about whether it is the right thing to do, or whether the group is hypocritical. The debate is whether a fraternity might legitimately decide to not offer membership in part because of the potential member's moral deficiencies. Do people use faith as a cover for their dislike for homosexuality? I'm absolutely positive that they do. However, I don't think that simply because some immoral activity is tolerated, other immoral activity factoring into a no-offer is merely a veil for bigotry in every situation.

To summarize, since you seem bent on twisting my words: Your organization should tolerate exactly those behaviors you want to tolerate and exclude those you don't. But if you've high-fived a brother for fornicating with a drunken woman he just met, don't feed us the BS that you have to keep gays out because you're holding to some kind of high moral line. You're a social club dedicated to having fun with buddies who are similar to you, and that's fine. Do what you want, be who you are, but don't lie to us (or to yourselves) about what you're doing.

I didn't twist your words at all. I summarized what I thought you were saying, and I think it was a fair assumption. Now that you've provided more detail, I can respond in a more directed fashion. Please see above.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I wasn't really making a comparison between the "lifestyles" of women who've had an abortion and those of men who practice homosexuality. The comparison I was making (or at least, trying to make) was that a sorority who has a member who has had an abortion isn't endorsing abortion; likewise, a fraternity who has a member who is gay isn't endorsing homosexuality.

No I understand your point. However, in my mind at least, if you accept a woman who continuously has abortions (we're stretching this pretty far now), it would be an endorsement of her activities.

For a more reasonable example, lets say it isn't a sorority, but rather professional women's club (but with similar close contact--like that of a sorority). If it is a screened organization with standards for membership, in my mind, granting membership to a doctor known for performing abortions would be endorsing their "lifestyle" or at least their chosen profession. Members quite obviously reflect upon the overall group. Regardless of whether you believe like I do (that you essentially endorse many aspects of a person when bringing them into your organization), people on the outside will perceive that you are doing so.

[modorney]

> So the whole point of being in a fraternity is to find quality breeding stock ...

Nope, not the whole point. But, I assume the majority of fraternity and sorority members get married, sometime in life. And, the majority of those have kids. Some of your members might want some positive mentoring in these areas, while others just might not be interested. But, I don't think a house would be doing its members a good thing by working against what most of your members will do, eventually.

Another aspect of greek life is to learn to live with different kinds of people and lifestyles. And most of these people have positive lifestyles and relationships that, though different than mine (or yours) are still positive. They just may not be the primary paradigms that drive your house (but could be the primary paradigms that drive another house).

[33girl]

Originally Posted by modorney

> So the whole point of being in a fraternity is to find quality breeding stock ...

Nope, not the whole point. But, I assume the majority of fraternity and sorority members get married, sometime in life. And, the majority of those have kids. Some of your members might want some positive mentoring in these areas, while others just might not be interested. But, I don't think a house would be doing its members a good thing by working against what most of your members will do, eventually.

Another aspect of greek life is to learn to live with different kinds of people and lifestyles. And most of these people have positive lifestyles and relationships that, though different than mine (or yours) are still positive. They just may not be the primary paradigms that drive your house (but could be the primary paradigms that drive another house).

I just looked at your other posts and I guess some of this is an age disconnect, but wow, that first paragraph is so far from truth or reality it's not even funny.

And the second paragraph contradicts the first.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I just looked at your other posts and I guess some of this is an age disconnect, but wow, that first paragraph is so far from truth or reality it's not even funny.

And the second paragraph contradicts the first.

First paragraph is pretty accurate where I'm from.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

First paragraph is pretty accurate where I'm from.

You have how to be a good husband classes or something? Seriously???

Honestly, if you pledge someone who's gay, it doesn't mean you're going to have to listen to Liza Minelli records all day and wear a dress. That's what it seems like he's saying - that one gay apple will gayify the whole bunch. Which is ridiculous.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

And that is where you and I vehemently disagree--why would anyone choose to be an object of scorn or hate crimes? I didn't "choose" to be Black, but that is my genetic make up. And there is nothing I can do about it but celebrate the positiveness of it.

By the same token, I did not choose to be heterosexual. Like my Blackness it was who I was wired to be.

Trust if some had told me that I could choose to be White and not have to face the racism I have been subjected to for many years (remember I am a child of the 60s) then I may have considered it. I feel the same thing is true for GLBTQAs if it really was a choice.

But I respect your opinion, just as I hope you will respect mine.

Is there a gay-gene ? I really am serious. Has this been proven?