Gays

Professor · #1 10-08-2003, 07:03 PM

Brothers and I do mean all Brothers,

Let me be the first to apologize to anyone who found the thread about homosexuals in poor taste. This issue continues to be one of debate. The only thing that I know that we can agree upon is there are gays in every BGLO. Some like it and some don't. Regardless of personal opinions on this subject, nationals have yet to require all Brothers to be heterosexual. To this end, I can only suggest that a Brother is a Brother - most are straight but some are gay.

fato · #2 10-08-2003, 07:22 PM

I just remembered why I stopped logging into GC about a year ago; I'm allergic to cats. Bros. that are afraid to discuss anything real. It is an issue and this is not the national website, so why delete what people write?

People like yall are the reason we have more skeletons in our closet than ever before. Put the sh*t on center stage and handle it!

Peace to the Alpha Tau Bros. and other Mid-West Bros. on GC that keep it real. This is Fato's last post!

blackwatch06 · #3 10-08-2003, 07:34 PM

Because I think that it speaks to insecurities that all black men have about masculine identity. With that being said,
THIS DISCUSSION IS WAY PASSED DUE not only for Alpha Phi Alpha, But for black men in general.

Are there gay brothers of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. ? YES!!!!

Can we "rid" the frat of them? NO!!!! (as long as there is a "closet" that they can retreat to, I think there will always be gay brothers of Alpha Phi Alpha).

Should we "rid" the frat of them? This is the "rub" so to speak of this discussion. The most heralded objection to gay brothers is that homosexuality is not "manly" and does not adhere to the aims of our fraternity. What is "manly" anyway? I wrote my master's thesis on this very issue. One chapter talked about the homosexual "thug" that is present in the black community, one who enjoys gay sex, but hates, with a disdain unreal, any "femininity" in men. One "homo-thug" noted that he was "secure enough in [his] manhood to admit that [he] liked homosexual sex"

! As strange as this sounds, I think that it speaks to an uncertainty about the masculine identity in general. It really made me think about what we call "masculinity" and what we call "femininity". Did the Jewels define specifically what "manly" actually means? Though I don't necessarily agree with that "homo-thug", I think he poses a powerful question about masculine identity. Does it have to depend exclusively on sexual preference? Does enjoying "gay sex" automatically exclude you from the ranks of being a "manly man"? If so, why? Where do we get these ideas from? What about righteousness? Does a straight man that steals money have more "masculinity" than a man that has gay sex? Is a man that rapes women have more "manliness" than a gay man?

The next argument against homosexuals in the frat is character. Character is a very precarious term. If we say that a homosexual is not of "good character" what do we base this claim on? Do we base it on homosexuality being immoral according to various holy books? If so, then we have to weigh other activities that these same holy books claim to be "immoral" when we consider the character of any aspirant (including pre and extra marital sex, imbibing until the point of intoxication, greed, etc.). According to this logic, then any aspirant that has ever gotten drunk, had sex and was not married, or wants to live exorbitantly would also
not be fit to join the brotherhood,nor would any brother guilty of these activities be worthy of the brotherhood and should be "gotten rid of". If we base the immorality of homosexuality on what we as a brotherhood as defined as "manly", then have we, as a brotherhood, defined "manly" in any substantive and regulative way? If so, where? In the ritual? I think what is "manly" is one of those "unexamined realities" of our lives (kinda like why some go to church, they really don't examine why, they just accept that they do go to church). What happens with these "unexamined realities" is that they often become illogical assumptions that validate our insecurities, rather than Truth that can liberate us from those very insecurities.

So the question that I am asking is this....

WHAT MAKES A MAN "MANLY" ?

I think if we define terms, then we can have a more substantive discussion, as Bro. Dr. Cornell West often states.

Blackwatch!!!!!!

TonyB06 · #4 10-08-2003, 07:59 PM

Blackwatch,

Your post raises points worthy of debate and I'll come back after re-reading and thinking on it and share my thoughts.

Bro. Professor, I respectfully, also disagree with the removal of the earlier thread on this topic. Offensive posts/threads will occasionally happen in the free exchange of ideas. While I think at times more heat than light was generated, surely we're adult enough to debate reasonably. To pull the thread, IMO, was unnecessary.

If anything, I was more troubled by some of the dialogue which I considered unbrotherly. But that's business best handled "in the house."

Peace among all my brothers and to all in the GC family.

sphinxpoet · #5 10-08-2003, 11:56 PM

Brothers the only reason it was not deleted earlier is because I felt we can have a discussion about homosexaulity and feelings on it without it desolving to a personal attack but the further it went the more silly it became........We are the intellectual hope and if we cannot discuss issues affecting not only Alpha but our community as a whole in a professional manner then we are going to have problems in the long run.

Fraternally

Sphinxpoet

The Original Ape · #6 10-09-2003, 01:24 AM

Yall deleted the first post among JUST US in how many years? Because it insulted the very infiltrators we all should want out of our frat?

As long as we speak POSITIVELY about gay dudes, we can have a discussion without fear of it being deleted?

Some of yall betta check ya drawers cause the sugar's showin'!

I guess it's time for me to find a different electronic playground where REAL BRUHS ROAM!

I'm out!

AKA2D '91 · #7 10-09-2003, 08:13 AM

If I may interrupt....

Why don't you all create a Yahoogroup or something where you all can discuss ANY AND EVERYTHING. Remember, SOME of your issues or topics don't have to be discussed in PUBLIC.

I know some of you are very, very passionate about this, but....

Have a good day!

dirtymike1906 · #8 10-09-2003, 09:13 AM

Fato, you're more than welcome at AT any time!

Blackwatch, you make good points, albeit one has to ponder testing the limits of morality, character, and conduct. Somewhere, somehow, and at some point, someone has to draw the line. After all, it was questioning the limits of conduct that actually led to the demise of intake procedures.

Just how far do we stretch the limits?

Should we stop requesting GPAs, references, and degrees? I don't think they fully define the character of an individual.

My brotherly apologies to anyone who may have found any of my comments offensive. Kinda sad the thread had to go. I guess now we'll go back to more about sports, favorite TV shows, and celebrity gossip.

UFN, like Fato and OA, dirtymike is out!

Professor · #9 10-09-2003, 10:02 AM

Thanks to all for the PM - - -

The thread was deleted because of what was perceived as a personal
attack on a Brother. Some suggest because this is a public forum
one should be able to post anything. I contend that there is always a
standard - that being Alpha. To show brotherly love should always
be the consideration.

Personally, I don't give a damn of who is or is not gay as long as
it does not affect me. For those that find this issue most important
among many critical issues, I suggest that the Brother look at his
own security - perhaps he has had some experience that he is not
ready to deal with. Furthermore, good debate of this subject does
not require any of us to make any personal calls about some other
Brother. I've not known any Brother to go to the General Convention
and raise the questions why do we accept the membership from gays.
If the matter is so pressing, raise the question! You certainly won't have
objections from me. Until then, if the matter is to be discussed it should
be done without any personal attack and in a manner that is respectable
of all Brothers.

TonyB06 · #10 10-09-2003, 11:32 AM

I didn’t raise this topic but felt it had merit because it’s an issue of concern to all the BGLO frats, not just Alpha Phi Alpha. I had planned a more detailed response to Blackwatch’s earlier post, but in light of the tenor/direction of this “debate” that response no longer seems worth the effort.

I will say this – I served earlier this year on the campaign team of one of the candidates for General President. In that capacity I’ve traveled and talked to (and more importantly, listened to) brothers across the nation on their issues/concerns. At least in the present timeframe, I think I may have a little more insight into some of the brothers’ general concerns than perhaps some others. Those who think this is an inconsequential issue are mistaken. I readily agree that a more professional discussion should have taken place here, but the underlying concern remains.

As Dirtymike suggested, perhaps our GC conversations will now return to the surface (sports, TV shows and gossip) over the substantive, which is probably ok, too. But I think a chance to exchange ideas, shape (or reshape) some critical thinking, and make some progress was missed.

Blackwatch · #11 10-10-2003, 04:19 PM

Dirty Mike06 states
[i]"... one has to ponder testing the limits of morality, character, and conduct. Somewhere, somehow, and at some point, someone has to draw the line."[i/]

This is precisely what I am calling for, us to define exactly what "Manly" is so that we can draw a definite line where the debate can cease and we can better assess and demand things from a more morally homogenous brotherhood. So that when the brothers say "Alpha Phi Alpha is....." we know that there will be a general, more homogenous understanding. I just question why draw the line squarely around homosexuality? What does this say about our identity as men when we feel threatened by a homosexual presence but not by other types of bruhs, those who may indulge too much in the flesh of women, those who admittedly are greedy, or those who will drink way too much? Yet we call these things "sowing oats" or "ambition" or "puttin' hairs on your chest". I am not trying to present an arguement that says that homosexuality is morally okay, I am posting more of a protest about moral relativism, where we pick and choose , sometimes with illogical reasons, what we call "good character" and "manly" that often sprouts out from masculine insecurity rather than a desire to see true righteousness, "good character" and "Manly Deeds".

Blackwatch!!!!!!

enlightenment06 · #12 10-10-2003, 04:29 PM

I guess there's no way to get those deleted posts back eh?

I'm a big proponent of the freedom of speech, and if someone said something that was offensive, SO WHAT!?!

I thought this was a fraternity, a brotherhood family. Family don't always say things you like but they still you're family.

I agree with other bruhs that one of problems is that we don't want to discuss anything. Sometimes you just have to get stuff out and it doesn't always come out in the most civil manner. Now I'm saying we should personally attack anyone, cuz that's not fraternal either; but if we keep hiding our true feelings (and that includes about intake also) then NOTHING IS EVER GOING TO CHANGE.

I think we should continue the discussion where the last thread left off.

TonyB06 · #13 10-10-2003, 05:33 PM

------
Blackwatch wrote:This is precisely what I am calling for, us to define exactly what "Manly" is so that we can draw a definite line where the debate can cease and we can better assess and demand things from a more morally homogenous brotherhood. ... I just question why draw the line squarely around homosexuality? (rest deleted for space...)
------

My brother, I easily accept your point on the moral relatavism of this. If we accept that homosexuality, drunkenness, excessive fleshly desires, etc.. are all less than desirable outcomes, you’re right; why is one worse than another? However we must live in the real world. I ask you why do you think homosexuality (or the distaste for its display) is such a galvanizing issue for so many groups? Not just Alpha, or the other frats; look at the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church and other organizations that have taken similar stands, whether codified in their by-laws or not. Rightly or wrongly, it’s a matter of degree. In the minds/hearts of most heterosexual men, the alternative lifestyle is simply anathema to what we consider our core goals and what we stand for as men, and in this case Alpha Men. And I think it has nothing to do with being homophobic, or judgemental, or feeling threatened in our own masculinity (or any of the other barbs usually thrown at most people who speak against this issue).

I think it'll snow in July before we ever arrive at a clear definition of what “Manly” is. As Brothers we exemplify it daily in our personal and civic lives but it’s hard to pinpoint. But I think it’s clear that the majority of our bruhs (and others) have a definition of what it is not. …can that many people, of so many diverse backgrounds, all arrive at the same point and be wrong?

It’s a slippery slope. Everyone’s got the right to live as they see fit. But others have the right to their opinions and beliefs as well. Sometimes that extends to group association as well. We all have work to do on making our standards more uniform across a variety of issues, but any step in the right direction, however uneven, is progress.

Peace to all in “our house” and others.

Professor · #14 10-10-2003, 05:43 PM

I totally agree - - -

Quote:

Originally posted by TonyB06
------
Blackwatch wrote:This is precisely what I am calling for, us to define exactly what "Manly" is so that we can draw a definite line where the debate can cease and we can better assess and demand things from a more morally homogenous brotherhood. ... I just question why draw the line squarely around homosexuality? (rest deleted for space...)
------

My brother, I easily accept your point on the moral relatavism of this. If we accept that homosexuality, drunkenness, excessive fleshly desires, etc.. are all less than desirable outcomes, you’re right; why is one worse than another? However we must live in the real world. I ask you why do you think homosexuality (or the distaste for its display) is such a galvanizing issue for so many groups? Not just Alpha, or the other frats; look at the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church and other organizations that have taken similar stands, whether codified in their by-laws or not. Rightly or wrongly, it’s a matter of degree. In the minds/hearts of most heterosexual men, the alternative lifestyle is simply anathema to what we consider our core goals and what we stand for as men, and in this case Alpha Men. And I think it has nothing to do with being homophobic, or judgemental, or feeling threatened in our own masculinity (or any of the other barbs usually thrown at most people who speak against this issue).

I think it'll snow in July before we ever arrive at a clear definition of what “Manly” is. As Brothers we exemplify it daily in our personal and civic lives but it’s hard to pinpoint. But I think it’s clear that the majority of our bruhs (and others) have a definition of what it is not. …can that many people, of so many diverse backgrounds, all arrive at the same point and be wrong?

It’s a slippery slope. Everyone’s got the right to live as they see fit. But others have the right to their opinions and beliefs as well. Sometimes that extends to group association as well. We all have work to do on making our standards more uniform across a variety of issues, but any step in the right direction, however uneven, is progress.

Peace to all in “our house” and others.