Do you....

[MooseGirl]

It is Phi Sig that also has a policy on this

In our Multiculturalism and Diversity Awareness Policy:
"Therefore be it resolved that membership in each chapter shall be determined by performance, educational achievement and criteria related to the goals and purpose of the fraternity. Membership is open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, age, handicap, disability, ancestry, citizenship, marital status, sexual orientation or any other classification protected by law or ordinance. "

However, like stated before...this wouldn't keep an individual sister from voting against a PNM based on discrimination.

I was talking to a sister once about gays and lesbians and she said if she found out one of her close friends was lesbian, she wouldn't be friends with her anymore. She based this on the "she would be attracted to me" theory. She would still be kind to her and civil, but the closeness would be gone.
This same sister though, has gay friends and doesn't have a problem with that!
She knows her opinion isn't viewed "right", but she just knows she's uncomfortable around lesbians.

I, on the other hand, have a different view. I have had aquaintances that are gay and lesbian. In fact I preferred it when they came out! I think, on a whole, my chapter would be accepting of a bi/lesbian member.

So, there really is no answer to this...it really is based on the individual sister, and if enough individuals in a chapter feel the same way, a PNM might just be excluded for what some of us see as a "wrong" reason.

[sugar and spice]

Thanks, yall -- I should have known it would be Phi Sig. They've always struck me as one of the more progressive sororities in a number of ways.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
Thanks, yall -- I should have known it would be Phi Sig. They've always struck me as one of the more progressive sororities in a number of ways.

That doesn't surprise me at all either. I wonder if it has anything to do with being a relatively young sorority--that the leadership is less mired in tradition, and is willing to make moves that some of the older groups aren't, or did not for whatever reason? AGD comes to mind--weren't they the first to initiate a non-white member? (I'm not saying AGD is young now--but they were 50 years ago.) Maybe it's easier for a younger group to make those changes?

Originally posted by GeekyPenguinYes, I am from up north and have no idea what a large school's recruitment is like - but if you're going to be that shallow, you aren't living by the ideals of Gamma Phi Beta, and I KNOW that at least according to creeds, most other groups have those values.

This deserves to be repeated. Over and over.

[AXWhoah]

Someone said this earlier, we should all agree to disagree. There are some of us who may never be comfortable having a gay sister. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't hire her for a job if she were the best for it or even that I wouldn't be her friend. When it comes to something as personal and inimate as sisterhood there are just some lines that some of us have to draw. You cannot make someone comfortable with lesbianism just because you tell them they are small minded and when I am around my sisters I NEED to be at my highest comfort level. And people talk about diversity and I do appreciate a certain level of diversity but at the end of the day I want to be surrounded by people who have SOMETHING in common with me. It's one of the reasons I went Alpha Chi over another chapter that I felt was just as wonderful but I didn't feel like I had anything in common with them.
Someone said something about the Bible never explicitly saying that being gay was wrong but the whole thing about Christian religion is that it's built upon interpretation of the Bible. I mean that's one of the reasons there isn't just Chrisitianity but Catholics, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. And so some people do interpret the Bible as saying that sort of lifestyle is wrong. And finally, as far as I have ever seen homosexuality is more of a moral issue than an objective issue with concrete rights and wrongs. So how can you tell someone that they're wrong and closed-minded when there actually isn't a right or wrong, but just opinions. Or how can you ask someone to compromise their own morals for what you deem as right when again there isn't right or wrong. Basically what I am trying to say (and I'm sorry, I know I rambled) is that it's really great if you believe in having all kinds of gay women in your chapter and you have some. Maybe that's one of the reasons you felt at home there. But I should also be allowed to have my own opinions and to feel at home in a chapter that maybe isn't so forward thinking without feeling berated or somehow not as good of a person as the rest of you.

[Buttonz]

It's time to agree to disagree....I have alot of friends (and family) who don't understand why I am so comftable around some of my sisters but I am. Sisters are sisters...just like you wouldn't hit on a very good friend of the oppistie sex, a sister isn't going to hit on anothor sister (at least one that isn't lesbian or bi). However ,when you have two sisters that are going out and then break up, it can be hard...wew had one girl that was thinking about dropping her letters after breaking up with her gf, who also is an active sister (thank god we convinced her to stay)....Let's agree to disagree on this issuse

[33girl]

Originally posted by Munchkin03
That doesn't surprise me at all either. I wonder if it has anything to do with being a relatively young sorority--that the leadership is less mired in tradition, and is willing to make moves that some of the older groups aren't, or did not for whatever reason? AGD comes to mind--weren't they the first to initiate a non-white member? (I'm not saying AGD is young now--but they were 50 years ago.) Maybe it's easier for a younger group to make those changes?

I think it has more to do with being founded in NY (as they both were, NYC and Syracuse respectively) than the age of the group, truthfully.

[DZHBrown]

It's time to agree to disagree

I agree with that, however, it seems a bit unfair to call the people who said they'd be uncomfortable close-minded, antiquated, whatever for their opinion. If you agree to disagree, then you should respect each other's feelings and opinions, whether you agree or not.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by 33girl
I think it has more to do with being founded in NY (as they both were, NYC and Syracuse respectively) than the age of the group, truthfully.

You're absolutely right (another example: AOPi, founded at Barnard in response to discriminatory clauses), even though I think that the age of the organization does have some small factor in it. It's easier to reform an organization that isn't mired in tradition, right? Some of the post-1900 organizations were founded specifically without discriminatory clauses. So, yes, age does make a difference.

I can't help but thinking that when some of you are saying, "I'd never feel comfortable with having a lesbian as my sister," that not that long ago, you could replace "lesbian" with "Negro," "Asian," "Catholic," or "Jewish," and no one would have said anything, perhaps using Scripture as justification for racial and religious segregation. Those forms of discrimination were accepted once upon a time--soon the sexual orientation barriers will seem as irrational as the racial and religious ones do today.

[justamom]

Originally posted by Munchkin03

I can't help but thinking that when some of you are saying, "I'd never feel comfortable with having a lesbian as my sister," that not that long ago, you could replace "lesbian" with "Negro," "Asian," "Catholic," or "Jewish," and no one would have said anything, perhaps using Scripture as justification for racial and religious segregation. Those forms of discrimination were accepted once upon a time--soon the sexual orientation barriers will seem as irrational as the racial and religious ones do today

I have a leaning to agree with this, but can't agree 100%.
I think a lot of us HAVE been "victims" of discrimination and don't even realize it.
In first grade at public school a little boy could not hold my hand because I was Catholic. Transferred to St. Joseph's next year!
Was told I'm going to hell BECAUSE I WAS CATHOLIC...my daughter has heard the same speech... AT LSU!!! But I just don't give a "blipity blip", nor does she, and avoid those people. I don't try to forge (I said FORGE not force) a friendship.

I don't know about homosexuality ever being on the same acceptance level as different religions or race. We are talking about a sexual issue and that alone puts it into a completely different category. Like Emeral would say it "kicks it up a notch". There is so much involved in this issue-TONS of arguments centered on teachers alone! It's not going to happen through MY collective generation, but maybe yours will make some strides.
I HONESTLY think TV is a useful tool. Like the Cosby show-even though it angered some of the black community, I think it presented a family of likable people doing ordinary things. It helped blur the unknown. I think Will and Grace are doing the same thing. It's making people LIKE these characters and realizing they could be a friend. At least for those who watch the show. One step at a time. The last bastion in my mind will be
those individual organizations that are exclusive AND PRIZED for their exclusivity. GLOs, on numerous campuses, fall into that category.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by Munchkin03
I can't help but thinking that when some of you are saying, "I'd never feel comfortable with having a lesbian as my sister," that not that long ago, you could replace "lesbian" with "Negro," "Asian," "Catholic," or "Jewish," and no one would have said anything, perhaps using Scripture as justification for racial and religious segregation. Those forms of discrimination were accepted once upon a time--soon the sexual orientation barriers will seem as irrational as the racial and religious ones do today.

Munchkin, thank you for saying what I was trying to express.

And I think I have every right to believe that thinking that way is outdated. In my opinion, it is!

[justamom]

"I'd never feel comfortable with having a lesbian as my sister," that not that long ago, you could replace "lesbian" with "Negro," "Asian," "Catholic," or "Jewish," and no one would have said anything, perhaps using Scripture as justification for racial and religious segregation. Those forms of discrimination were accepted once upon a time

yeah, by the KKK! I trying to keep this light!