# Touchy Subject



## lilhancock

This may not be fully appropriate but I thought I would ask anyway. In masonry, eastern star, shrine, york and scottish rite one of the things that is thought is to love each other. Tolerance and acceptance is key if the person presents the beliefs and character to join one of these fine organizations. 

Therefore I ask this: a man or woman petitions the lodge or star and is gay. Do you check your individual beliefs at the door of the lodge/chapter room and base your votes on their character? Or, even in this day and age, do you view that as being in bad character?

I know this is a touchy subject, maybe it is more touchy that recognition of PHA members. I do not mean to offend anyone by any means. But does this issue arise often? I am not looking for "judgements" or "attacks"...merely serious discussion on a very touchy subject. Thank you.


----------



## TCShelton

We've kicked this one around before.  Many of us don't have a problem with it, some do.  Pretty even split, I think.


----------



## scottmh59

> Do you check your individual beliefs at the door of the lodge



yep


----------



## Hippie19950

I kind of take the military approach, "Don't ask, don't tell"... If nothing is imposed on me, I don't concern myself with a person's preference personally.


----------



## Blake Bowden

Hippie19950 said:


> I kind of take the military approach, "Don't ask, don't tell"... If nothing is imposed on me, I don't concern myself with a person's preference personally.



Agreed. BTW, we love to discuss those "touchy subjects" :21:


----------



## rhitland

Hippie19950 said:


> I kind of take the military approach, "Don't ask, don't tell"... If nothing is imposed on me, I don't concern myself with a person's preference personally.



I would be fine with this also if we all adhere to this but I hear many all the time myself being one talking of their wifes so if a gay man cannot talk about his partner because you will know he is gay then we need to all keep clues to our sexuality quite. Seeing in my opinion this is impossiable b/c when you love somebody you love them and hiding that love is bad news. We should not make anyone choice between love for another human or Masonry.


----------



## ddreader

if gays want to be masons. maybe they could start their own grand lodge system. and find a great light in masonry for themselves. so when they say ( as the rule and guide to our faith and practice) it will not be a lie. like it would be if they used ours. and then they could meet upon the level and part upon the square. as we do. we should not have to lower our standards. i am not being hateful. i am just making a suggestion. that might help them out. may god bless all of us.


----------



## MGM357

What does it say in the law book?


----------



## Bill Lins

Nothing.


----------



## Traveling Man

Please do not read any more or less into this dialogue:

I make these posits only within the scope of the art of conversation.

As we have approached this very subject before I see that some of members that reject co-masonry feel that there would not be a problem with “mixed gender preference lodges“, aren’t these in theory the same? As an example the idea of don’t ask, don’t tell, defies logic, I believe the same applies here. I’ll attempt to explain; one would no more entertain the idea of having men and women mixed without separate accommodations in a personal environment than to play this idea out to it’s logical conclusion. Just as in reality, there are differences between men and women.

I see that someone here has mentioned the equivalent of an “affinity lodge” just for “them”. I would like to mention that these type of lodges do indeed exist. (Different strokes for different folks). In the same vein there are affinity lodges for the “arts”, “sciences“, “musicians“, “military”, etc. all of these fulfill specific needs for their members. Just some food for thought…

Any ideas?

May peas and hominy prevail…


----------



## ddreader

thank you. for your insight into this touchy subject. i do not hate these people, they are gods children too. and i do not feel like we as masons should have make special exceptions for them. we are not asking to join them, they are asking to join us. and we should not have to change our beliefs, or our organization to meet their standards, they should be more than willing to comply to ours, no matter what type of beliefs they have. and if their beliefs do not allow them the ability to take an obligation on our great light in masonry. with a clear conscience. is that our problem or theirs?


----------



## lilhancock

no one has said anything about their beliefs being different...just who they go home to. I know several God fearing gay men. All I was wondering if you would check your belief of their lifestyle at the door and accept him/her as a brother or sister in the lodge/chapter?


----------



## ddreader

my beliefs are based on my teachings from the holy bible. i will not check that belief at the door. for anybody. for any reason. period. would you?


----------



## lilhancock

ddreader said:


> my beliefs are based on my teachings from the holy bible. i will not check that belief at the door. for anybody. for any reason. period. would you?




My beliefs teach tolerance. If they represent the qualities to be a member then who they go home to is none of my business. If I personal choose to be uncomfortable with it then that's on me...but they are my brother or sister none the less.


----------



## ddreader

just trying to respond to the topic at hand. i know that we all are different, and that we can respectfully agree to disagree as brothers. as i stated before we are all gods children. i do not hate them, i myself know some of them, and they are good people. and i have, and will continue to welcome them as friends.  now then with all due respect i would not ask them to check their beliefs at the door, if they were to enter my lodge. nor should they expect the same from me. my belief teaches tolerance also. and i am very good at it. but at what point do we go from tolerance. to submission?  i have no problem turning the other cheek. but i will not turn my back on what makes me who i am. our what i believe. nor should they have to either. we are all gods children and we will answer for or beliefs one day.   i hope i have respectively answered your question.


----------



## Blake Bowden

Sexual orientation should be left at the door just as religion and politics.


----------



## Nate C.

In my opinion, what happens in a person's bedroom between consenting adults is their own personal business and should remain that way. How that person reconciles his conduct within the parameters of the scripture is his own burden to bear. We don't come down too hard on brethren who are unmarried and 'shacked up', or who have gotten divorced, and I believe the VSL speaks to those issues as well.

That's just my opinion, which in the past has proven to not get me invited back to a lot of places.

Now, co-masonry, that's a whole 'nother can of worms...


----------



## rhitland

I think the discussion got a little off topic with the assumption we have to check our religious beliefs at the door which could not be further from the truth. Fact of the matter that is what lead you to Masonry. I took the question to be if a gay man of woman was talking about their problems at home with their partner or gave any clue they where gay would that be a problem for you. You can believe someone is in the wrong on their decision but can you still treat them like a Brother? Can you dwell with them in unity for the better of Masonry never allowing their lifestyle to be a problem? Can you in believe being gay is a sin and allow them the same right to believe it is not?


----------



## rhitland

blake said:


> Sexual orientation should be left at the door just as religion and politics.



Brother Blake that is much easier said than done. I am talking Lodge only here but to exclude your sexual orientation from lodge would be dang near imposable. This means both parties would have to submit to this rule otherwise someone who is quite about their orientation would be known to be gay. My orientation was given away on the petition when I was asked if I was married.


----------



## ljlinson1206

Hippie19950 said:


> I kind of take the military approach, "Don't ask, don't tell"... If nothing is imposed on me, I don't concern myself with a person's preference personally.



I have thought about this subject and must say that I agree with several Brothers in here about don't ask, don't tell.  That being said I can also say that i believe a persons sexuality is a matter of prefference, just like the use of tobacco or alcohol.  Now, I understand I will get much opposition for my opinion on this matter but it is just that, MY OPINION.

I am not going to judge someone for thier own sexual preference nor am I going to look down upon someone for it. I do not believe in it and I am not going to practice it. The word of My God said it is wrong and therefore I must follow the path of my conviction, but My God also said "Judge not lest ye be judges".  If a man, or woman, choses to be with one of thier own, then he/she will have to stand before God on the day of judgment and reep what they have sewn.

And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## lilhancock

rhitland said:


> Brother Blake that is much easier said than done. I am talking Lodge only here but to exclude your sexual orientation from lodge would be dang near imposable. This means both parties would have to submit to this rule otherwise someone who is quite about their orientation would be known to be gay. My orientation was given away on the petition when I was asked if I was married.



Thank you Brother for both of your posts. I knew we got off topic but I did not quite know how to work a back on topic post. That is/was my point exactly. We are asked if we are married off the bat. Or our husbands/wives are invited to events. Therefore it became a question for me if, in this day and age, could you believe it's a sin or not but still call them brother or sister if they posses those qualities. 

You have all been extremely helpful and I really appreciate the professionalism of this conversation.


----------



## Nate Riley

rhitland said:


> Brother Blake that is much easier said than done. I am talking Lodge only here but to exclude your sexual orientation from lodge would be dang near imposable. This means both parties would have to submit to this rule otherwise someone who is quite about their orientation would be known to be gay. *My orientation was given away on the petition when I was asked if I was married*.



Couldn't a candidate just be a single (unmarried) male?  We have inititiated several single fellows in the past few months.  I have no idea what their sexual orientation is based on the petition.  

But I will give you this, if you put married, I would have to assume that you are straight.


----------



## ljlinson1206

In sticking to the topic, I believe that if there were an event that was being held, for instance, the Christmas Dinner, then it would not be appropriate for a Gay man to bring his partner to said event.

This is not to say I don't think he should be a member of the lodge, but homosexual conduct is not an accepted practice within the Masonic Community.  That's where it falls along the line of "Don't ask, Don't tell".

There again, this is just my own opinion.


----------



## lilhancock

ljlinson1206 said:


> homosexual conduct is not an accepted practice within the Masonic Community.



The OES Constitution says we're open to all faiths accept no faith. And I could be wrong but isn't Masonry the same? If so... where in your constitution does it state that he cannot bring his partner to a Masonic Christmas party? That it is against Masonry values for him to "practice" his homosexual ways?


----------



## TCShelton

lilhancock said:


> The OES Constitution says we're open to all faiths accept no faith. And I could be wrong but isn't Masonry the same? If so... where in your constitution does it state that he cannot bring his partner to a Masonic Christmas party? That it is against Masonry values for him to "practice" his homosexual ways?



+1.


----------



## rhitland

ljlinson1206 said:


> In sticking to the topic, I believe that if there were an event that was being held, for instance, the Christmas Dinner, then it would not be appropriate for a Gay man to bring his partner to said event.
> 
> This is not to say I don't think he should be a member of the lodge, but homosexual conduct is not an accepted practice within the Masonic Community.  That's where it falls along the line of "Don't ask, Don't tell".
> 
> There again, this is just my own opinion.



Would you be okay if you had to leave the person you loved most at home while you went to the Christmas party? 
Many men if not most believe Lodge to be a place for men only. When I asked if we could get a few things at Lodge for the kids and wife to do @ Lodge I was told this is not a place for women and children, but in a much more direct way. Even though the majority in my Lodge frown on women and children up there that does not stop me from bringing them nor should it stop a gay man or woman from brining their soul mate. We all have the right to have our own prerogatives and believes and Masonry is designed to strengthen those for you but we are still required to meet on the level with all kinds of opinions.


----------



## JTM

For once, I chose to keep my big mouth (fingers?) out of this conversation for a while so that I could think about it again.  

For me it's as simple as this.  What if you found out an already master mason was a brother?  Would you bring charges?  Would you keep him out of lodge?  Would you bring it up in lodge, and under what auspice?  

Peace and harmony must prevail in a lodge, and I figure anything that unnecessarily breaks that is more of a transgression than being gay in lodge.  I'm sure there are many good (gay) men out there, and some need help to become better.


----------



## Nate Riley

JTM said:


> For once, I chose to keep my big mouth (fingers?) out of this conversation for a while so that I could think about it again.
> 
> For me it's as simple as this.  What if you found out an already master mason was a brother?  Would you bring charges?  Would you keep him out of lodge?  Would you bring it up in lodge, and under what auspice?
> 
> *Peace and harmony must prevail in a lodge*, and I figure anything that unnecessarily breaks that is more of a transgression than being gay in lodge.  I'm sure there are many good (gay) men out there, and some need help to become better.



That was my thought.  If bringing his lover around the lodge causes a disruption in the peace and harmony, then its a problem.  The same would be true if my wife were a trouble maker, a drunk, etc. and disrupted the peace and harmony.  I would expect the master or officers of the lodge to keep the peace and harmony.

Additionally, the lodge is no place for political or cultural statements.


----------



## TCShelton

Nate Riley said:


> That was my thought.  If bringing his lover around the lodge causes a disruption in the peace and harmony, then its a problem.  The same would be true if my wife were a trouble maker, a drunk, etc. and disrupted the peace and harmony.  I would expect the master or officers of the lodge to keep the peace and harmony.



Yeah, but this same situation applies when a nonwhite petitions a lot of lodges as well.  Some old guys get their feathers ruffled about "not sitting in lodge with a..."  What if a guy's spouse is black?  Where's the difference as far as peace and harmony is concerned?  Do we do what is blatantly wrong for the sake of peace and harmony?  Or is it different when it is race and not sexuality?


----------



## Nate Riley

TCShelton said:


> Yeah, but this same situation applies when a nonwhite petitions a lot of lodges as well.  Some old guys get their feathers ruffled about "not sitting in lodge with a..."  What if a guy's spouse is black?  Where's the difference as far as peace and harmony is concerned?  Do we do what is blatantly wrong for the sake of peace and harmony?  Or is it *different when it is race and not sexuality*?



This will probably ruffle some feathers. I feel that sexuality, or at least the open practice thereof, is a matter of choice.  Race is not.


----------



## TCShelton

Nate Riley said:


> This will probably ruffle some feathers. I feel that sexuality, or at least the open practice thereof, is a matter of choice.  Race is not.



Either way, both are a matter of "peace and harmony," which was the reason for exclusion of homosexual partners from lodge functions.


----------



## JTM

TCShelton said:


> Yeah, but this same situation applies when a nonwhite petitions a lot of lodges as well.  Some old guys get their feathers ruffled about "not sitting in lodge with a..."  What if a guy's spouse is black?  Where's the difference as far as peace and harmony is concerned?  Do we do what is blatantly wrong for the sake of peace and harmony?  Or is it different when it is race and not sexuality?



yeh, there's a right and a wrong way to do things.  i'm the "throw it in their face and have them eat it" kind of guy.  doesn't really always work out though, even though i feel like it should.


----------



## TCShelton

JTM said:


> yeh, there's a right and a wrong way to do things.



I'm listening.  As far as I am concerned, peace and harmony is peace and harmony.  If it only applies in certain situations, it is a cop out.


----------



## JTM

i agree.  it's a cop out.  to preserve peace and harmony.  

i'm the kind of guy to walk in the room and slam the gavel.  being 6'7'', sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.  alienating some lodges so that they'll suddenly figure it all out and we'll magically have peace and harmony isn't going to fix it, though.  

there's always something that'll mess it up.  if not homosexuality, then race, if not that, then something else.

edit: then when i think about that, it's a cop out as well.  i'm with shelton.


----------



## ljlinson1206

OK, it seems I may have upset some people with my previous statements.  This was not my intention.  

Before continuing, let me say that my views and opinions are my own and not a reflection of any other Brother or Lodge.

The point I was trying to get across and apparently didn't was that in the culture in which we live in, that being TX, openly being gay has not been socially accepted. It is more so than in the past and is seen more openly in present time, but seeing the affections of two people of the same sex is has not been socially accepted.

Think about this.  You walk through the grocery store and see a man and woman kiss or give each other an affectionate hug, noone thinks twice or pays attention or even cares.  Some people would even say "oh, look how cute".  See the same thing with two people of the same sex and now it's morally unacceptable.  Again, this is within the culture and social acceptance of Central TX.  I cannot speak about other areas.  I'm sure in some places and states it is viewed differently, but here we have not "caught up with the times".  Even in Bryan/College Station, you don't see it as much as you would in say Austin or Houston, within certain areas.  The same used to be true with innerracial couples, but as time goes by and we begin to see more, it becomes more socially accepted.  "Dumb Rednecks" don't frown upon it any longer and it becomes the norm.  That's the point I was trying to get across.

All that being said, Let me give you a bit of my history.  I have a daughter who is gay and a granddaughter that is half black.  Her father being black was not her decision and cannot be undone.  My daughter being gay is a chioce, not a faith.  I love both of them very dearly.  I accept my daughters chioce of being gay and I've seen her with her partner.  I do not agree with her chioce, but I do accept her for her.  I will not shun her or disown her because of her decision no more than I would if she was a crack addict.  But there again, It is a chioce.  

So in closing, I was trying to say that within the confines of the area I'm from, Central TX, it would not be socially accepted.  There are no bylaws or charters that state that if you are gay you cannot participate of have your significant other participate within lodge functions.  As time passes and it becomes more prevelant, I think it will become common place.  I hope this will clear things up a little.


----------



## Dredd17

Wow, this is a hot topic with a lot of views. Here's my thought on such issues. What peoples personal likes or beliefs is theirs to have. I do my best to try not to judge those who dont believe the same things that I do. However, I do not try to force my beliefs on others. I believe in the peace and harmony of the lodge as much as the next guy. I do not believe that a Mason should intentionaly push his sexual or racial rights on the lodge just because he can. Just because you have the right to do something doesnt necessarily mean that its the right thing to do when it comes to the big picture. I have been a police officer for 14 years. There were several times in my career where I could have shot and killed someone. The law gave me the right to do so, however it was not necessarily the best solution to the problem. So back to what I was getting at, for example IF I was a homosexual, I would think twice about bringing my partner around/openingly displaying my sexual preference. Not because I would not be allowed, but because in the big picture I know it would cause problems within the lodge. Those actions could cause a major rift in the brotherhood of that lodge. I would have gained nothing but to make a point that didnt have to be made. Some things just dont need to be aired out in the lodge. As Masons we should strive to be tolerant and accepting of others that dont have the same beliefs as us.


----------



## TCShelton

ljlinson1206 said:


> My daughter being gay is a chioce...



I think that is where a lot of the problems come about.  Some say it is a choice, others don't.  Unfortunately, right now that can't be proven.  I for one, do not believe it is a choice.  All humor aside, I can't fathom why someone would WANT to be gay.  That concept just doesn't seem appealing to me in the least, and I cannot foresee how it could be a choice.

Brother, I understand what you are saying about a gay couple not being accepted in many parts of the state.  However, a lot of those same parts don't accept interracial couples either.  I am not a fan of watching a gay couple make out in public, but neither am I a fan of watching a hetero couple make out in public.  I think all relationships should be carried out in a tasteful manner while in public, gay or straight.


----------



## JTM

if i had to pick one, i'd say being gay can be a choice in some cases, and i'm sure there are genes out there that would incline you to be more or less gay than other people.  i'm also positive it's not an on-off switch like blue or green eyes, but more of a sliding scale.

if gay were in your genes, it would be selected against, unless there is some evolutionary advantage to being gay.  it may be like the case sickle cell anemia, where by itself, sickle cell anemia is bad, but with malaria around, it saves you.  perhaps there's some trick to why gay genes stick around, but I still really have no reason to believe that besides speculation.


----------



## rhitland

Dredd17 said:


> So back to what I was getting at, for example IF I was a homosexual, I would think twice about bringing my partner around/openingly displaying my sexual preference. Not because I would not be allowed, but because in the big picture I know it would cause problems within the lodge. Those actions could cause a major rift in the brotherhood of that lodge. I would have gained nothing but to make a point that didnt have to be made. Some things just dont need to be aired out in the lodge. As Masons we should strive to be tolerant and accepting of others that dont have the same beliefs as us.



This is why gay men probably will not join in mass b/c they have to hide who they are to be accepted. I am not sure what point a gay man is trying to make when he brings a loved one to a function I can only think he is trying to make the point he loves somebody. Now if we are talking malicious in your face sexual behavior that would not be tolerated by no one in my lodge straight or gay.
Making people feel comfortable at the cost of right is not a good way to build a solid lodge.  
If being gay is natural or a choice I am not sure how this plays into the conversation at hand. What is the difference if it is a choice or not how does that play into us meeting on the level. 
When the word gay is mentioned I think everybody goes to extremes and thinks of some flaming queen half dressed in drag but this is not the case. Most men and women that are gay are not in your face about it but nor do they try to hide it. They have a right to love whom they want and do as they please in this country and as Masons we have a job to make them feel welcome in our Lodge if they are good men.


----------



## ljlinson1206

I know we are WAY off subject now, but let me put it this way.

If one of your lodge members in his middle ages, someone you have known for years, got divorced and then began dating a 17 year old in high school, would that not raise some eyebrows within your lodge?  It is completely "LEGAL".  But in this area not socially acceptable.  Perhaps one day it will be, but not this day.  And before you say that doesn't happen, I've had parents call me and ask what they can do about this.  No lodge members thank goodness, but and olderman and a teenage girl none the less.  And you can't say it's not the same, because when you get right down to the heart of the question it's all about what is socially acceptable to the area in which you are from.  How one is raised and what they are taught.

Just like the rise and fall of the economy, it starts in a certain area and moves across the nation until everyone is effected.  So goes social boundries.  What is acceptable in California right now is not in the south. Perhaps one day it will be but not at this time.  This is the point some of us are trying to make.  And just like Brother Ferrell/ Dredd stated, if a man knows he is going to cause problems in the lodge by taking his partner, why do it.  Peace and harmony goes both ways.


----------



## Sirius

rhitland said:


> Now if we are talking malicious in your face sexual behavior that would not be tolerated by no one in my lodge straight or gay.



We have gays in Lodge?
=====================

To those that say:
"God doesn't approve of  gays" 

&

"marriage is between a man and a woman"

I have the following questions:
_
Who is bold enough to claim to know the mind of God? _


_If a man and a man say they are married how does this affect a straight marriage?_ Does a man love his wife a little less because in the house across the street there are two men on the couch watching NCIS?


----------



## Traveling Man

Sirius said:


> Who is bold enough to claim to know the mind of God?


Let’s see here… Maybe those individuals that wrote that pesky book called the VSL, you know the one on the altar? Without cherry picking from that inerrant book…

These opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the writer…

I’m just sayin’, you know what I mean? (I’m repeating some of the dialogue I hear in these “Christian Lodges”).

Those are the who!


----------



## Sirius

Traveling Man said:


> Let’s see here… Maybe those individuals that wrote that pesky book called the VSL, you know the one on the altar? Without cherry picking from that inerrant book…



I know it well. Cherry picking is right. Many cherry pick to find the justification for belief.

That very VSL say I can have my children stoned top death for misbehaving, is that of the mind of God?


----------



## ddreader

no body knows the mind of god. and that goes for both sides of this issue. maybe its time to agree to disagree.


----------



## Traveling Man

ddreader said:


> no body knows the mind of god. and that goes for both sides of this issue. maybe its time to agree to disagree.


 
I donâ€™t see that there is any disagreement here, I hope that no one is misinterpreting that there is any more than pure speculation without condemnation occurring here, just a civil dialogue.


----------



## Sirius

Traveling Man said:


> I donâ€™t see that there is any disagreement here, I hope that no one is misinterpreting that there is any more than pure speculation without condemnation occurring here, just a civil dialogue.



Nothing tests faith more than logic and reason. 

This is where the conversation breaks down around here on these issues. One group sees the Bible as the literal word of God, yet they have absolutely no response as to why it sanctions filicide or the murder of your own child.  It's a fatal error of logic. How can the Bible be the literal word of God and say you can have your children stoned to death? It doesn't make sense. But, if you take into consideration history, the man made content, and the allegory you'll find God. Still there. God doesn't need a book to make Him true. 

Created in Gods image, man has limitless capacities for genius. We were given those capacities for a reason, to think.


----------



## Traveling Man

Sirius said:


> Nothing tests faith more than logic and reasonâ€¦
> We were given those capacities for a reason, to thinkâ€¦


 
We couldnâ€™t agree moreâ€¦

For fear of offending some here I will leave this sleeping dog lie. With one caveat; anyone ever read â€œAge of Reasonâ€œ by Thomas Paine? I will now remain silentâ€¦

May G_d bless and good night.


----------



## vanderson78102

I mulled over this idea for quite a while.  I will only say this on the topic.  

If you think back to the obligation, we are not to accept a libertine.  Would most of you be willing to accept someone that drinks to excess?  How about one, who abuses drugs?  What about a thief?  In most cultures, a homosexual is considered a libertine in the traditional sense of the word just as one who is an alcoholic, drug addict, or anyone else of loose morals.  

I'd choose to vote my conscious and in line with the obligation I have taken as a mason.


----------



## rhitland

and that is your Right, but would you treat that man like a Brother if he got voted in despite you believing he should not be a Mason?


----------



## lilhancock

rhitland said:


> and that is your Right, but would you treat that man like a Brother if he got voted in despite you believing he should not be a Mason?



Thank you for bringing us back to our original post. We're thought that once someone is in the lodge/chapter they are a brother/sister. Despite your outside beliefs...would you shake their hand, look them in the eye, and call them brother/sister?


----------



## Sirius

lilhancock said:


> Thank you for bringing us back to our original post. We're thought that once someone is in the lodge/chapter they are a brother/sister. Despite your outside beliefs...would you shake their hand, look them in the eye, and call them brother/sister?



Yes. 

Gays aren't looking to 'social engineer' Masonry or some other nonsense. Gays have been to and are members of my Lodge and the only one who know are the ones who care enough to know about who a brother is. Many events have gone off without an issue, and with gays present. I think this is one of those what ifs, that can be blown out of proportion. What if 100 dancing Liza Mannelli's danced there way in lodge? What if Dorthy's house landed next to the Lodge and out came rainbows, drag-queens, and gogo boys?

Fact of the matter is, we've all probably met or know a gay Mason, and don't know it.


----------



## Zack

Sirius said:


> Fact of the matter is, we've all probably met or know a gay Mason, and don't know it.



And are none the worse for it.


----------



## rhitland

Sorry for leaving off Sister, my Sister.


----------



## vanderson78102

rhitland said:


> and that is your Right, but would you treat that man like a Brother if he got voted in despite you believing he should not be a Mason?



Now that is a much tougher question for me to answer and one I'd have to think about for some time.


----------



## rhitland

A great subject that seems to tread into moral law and personal views.  How can so many believe this is morally correct and so many believe it is wrong?  I also often wonder how a brother can truly meet on the level with someone they believe morally incorrect?  In the bible and many other VSL it says thoughts are as binding as actions so if you think the brother is bad according to most VSL this is the same as telling him he is bad?   Would this not prevent true levelness among you and the brother or sister who is gay?


----------



## Dave in Waco

Personally I have to default to the letter of the law on this.  As long as he is a man and professes a belief in deity, then IMO he qualifies to be a Mason.  Unless he shows a character flaw that comes out during his investigation, I don't see a reason why a gay man couldn't or shouldn't be a Mason.  I don't think it's fair to hold him to standards of our faith when that is supposed to be between a man and his faith.  Now that being said, I wouldn't want to look over at an event and see him and his date making out, but that would be for any couple regardless of their makeup.  

And for the record, I had a friend back in high school.  Halfway through his senior year, his dad makes an announcement in church, he was a preacher, that he was coming out of the closest to his wife, kids, and neighbors.  The whole church and his family all went into shock.  No one had any idea.  So being married isn't always a good indicator.


----------



## peace out

Thanks, Rhit.

Perhaps it best to define two sects of morals; societal and religious morals.

These overlap to a great extent.  If a moral is strictly religious and not societal, then perhaps the lodge should be hands off.  Nevertheless, there are several societal morals which are not true morals, but are simply racist or bigot in disguise.  Interracial marriage comes to mind here.  

So what is homosexuality?  Ignoring choice vs genetic, is it immoral in societal terms?  I like a comment Dredd17 made in post #37...."not the best solution."  This can apply to both those that might be choosing homosexuality and those shunning homosexuality.

Show me a logical proof (trigonometry term) where homosexuality threatens mankind's pursuit of happiness, either individually or as a whole.


----------



## rhitland

Good point Brother, I would love to see that proof as well.  I see proof to the contrary that society is no worse and maybe even a little better for the diversity.  I have always felt ignorance is our biggest flaw as humans and it is something we all share in common.  No matter how smart we get there is always something that we will be ignorant to and why do we spend so much time worrying about things that have no bearing on the pursuit of knowledge and get caught up in pointing the finger.  I wish we could put the fingers up and lay the judgement to the side for the time and pursue knowledge together in peace and harmony.  I have peace that God loves us all but most of all I believe we will all have to answer to Her for our actions so why worry about your fellow man's actions that have no effect on you?  Judging ones life to your believes does absolutely no good for you as an individual.  We all have a right to freedom and that freedom includes all aspect of private life so why not mind your own?


----------



## cemab4y

I am a Kentucky Mason. I am delighted with the decision, recently made, with respect to this issue. I have no problem, at all, with men who travel the gay path, deciding to be Freemasons. Live and let live.

see:

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/10/20/1486725/kentucky-masons-vote-against-outlawing.html


----------



## Hippie19950

THANKS Brother Rhit...


----------



## rhitland

great article Brother


----------



## peace out

And to those who might take the Libertine stance, I quote Albert MacKey.

_Of the Moral Qualifications of Candidates._ 

The old charges state, that "a Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey  the moral law." It is scarcely necessary to say, that the phrase,  "moral law," is a technical expression of theology, and refers to the  Ten Commandments, which are so called, because they define the  regulations necessary for the government of the morals and manners of  men. The habitual violation of any one of these commands would seem,  according to the spirit of the Ancient Constitutions, to disqualify a  candidate for Masonry.


The same charges go on to say, in relation to the religious character  of a Mason, that he should not be "a stupid atheist, nor an irreligious  libertine." A denier of the existence of a Supreme Architect of the  Universe cannot, of course, be obligated as a Mason, and, accordingly,  there is no landmark more certain than that which excludes every atheist  from the Order.


The word "libertine" has, at this day, a meaning very different from  what it bore when the old charges were compiled. It then signified what  we now call a "free-thinker," or disbeliever in the divine revelation of  the Scriptures. This rule would therefore greatly abridge the  universality and tolerance of the Institution, were it not for the  following qualifying clause in the same instrument:--
 "Though in ancient times Masons were charged in every country to be  of the religion of that country or nation, whatever it was, yet it is  now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which  all men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves; that  is, to be good men and true, or men of honor and honesty, by whatever  denominations or persuasions they may be distinguished."
 The construction now given universally to the religious qualification  of a candidate, is simply that he shall have a belief in the existence  and superintending control of a Supreme Being.


These old charges from which we derive the whole of our doctrine as  to the moral qualifications of a candidate, further prescribe as to the  political relations of a Mason, that he is to be "a peaceable subject to  the civil powers, wherever he resides or works, and is never to be  concerned in plots and conspiracies against the peace and welfare of the  nation, nor to behave himself undutifully to inferior magistrates. He  is cheerfully to conform to every lawful authority; to uphold on every  occasion the interest of the community, and zealously promote the  prosperity of his own country."
 S
uch being the characteristics of a true Mason, the candidate who  desires to obtain that title, must show his claim to the possession of  these virtues; and hence the same charges declare, in reference to these  moral qualifications, that "The persons made Masons, or admitted  members of a lodge, must be good and true men--no immoral or scandalous  men, but of good report."


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

mch4970 said:


> Show me a logical proof (trigonometry term) where homosexuality threatens mankind's pursuit of happiness, either individually or as a whole.


 Don't hold your breath. Not that there won't be lots of attempts, just none that qualify as logically sound. I'll spare us the listing of the likely premises that will fail on even a cursory examination. But I'd like to think that we might find a way, as Masons, to avoid even that level of contention. 

A religious proscription, while not logically defensible, is, Masonically, a perfectly valid "rule and guide" for the individual who chooses to embrace such dogma _for the purposes of governing his own behavior_. It is only when he attempts to apply such proscriptions to others that the friction starts. I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, but then I don't believe that eating my chicken fried steak with country gravy is a sin either, but if a Brother wants to swear off both because they're proscribed in his Bible, I believe he should. Moreover, I believe that I should do what I can to help him walk the path he has chosen _for himself_, but he also needs to understand that he does not get to make that choice for anyone but him.


----------



## David Duke

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Don't hold your breath. Not that there won't be lots of attempts, just none that qualify as logically sound. I'll spare us the listing of the likely premises that will fail on even a cursory examination. But I'd like to think that we might find a way, as Masons, to avoid even that level of contention.
> 
> A religious proscription, while not logically defensible, is, Masonically, a perfectly valid "rule and guide" to for the individual who chooses to embrace such dogma _for the purposes of governing his own behavior_. *It is only when he attempts to apply such proscriptions to others that the friction starts. I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, but then I don't believe that eating my chicken fried steak with country gravy is a sin either, but if a Brother wants to swear off both because they're proscribed in his Bible, I believe he should. Moreover, I believe that I should do what I can to help him walk the path he has chosen for himself, but he also needs to understand that he does not get to make that choice for anyone but him*.



Well said brother.


----------



## Heirophant

Although Homosexuals are often pleasant people to be around, Homosexuality does not give birth to Humanity. This is Nature's Law brought forth by Nature...not by man. Aside from that, Masonry has been described by many as a sort of "Men's Support Group". Surely by "Men" they mean "Men" that are trying to raise children (of their own). Men that are hoping to make the best of the world around them. Men that have wives. Traditionally, it's obvious to me that Masonry was designed for Heterosexuals.


----------



## coachn

Blake Bowden said:


> Sexual orientation should be left at the door just as religion and politics.


Agreed. This makes sense since the issue is both Political and Religious oriented. 


ljlinson1206 said:


> ...That being said I can also say that i believe a persons sexuality is a matter of prefference, just like the use of tobacco or alcohol.


I used to think that too until published research told me otherwise. 


Nate Riley said:


> But I will give you this, if you put married, I would have to assume that you are straight.


Me too. Until of course, the person in question's behavior shows me differently.


ljlinson1206 said:


> In sticking to the topic, I believe that if there were an event that was being held, for instance, the Christmas Dinner, then it would not be appropriate for a Gay man to bring his partner to said event.


I believe a Lodge that knew of his orientation before hand should not object to this. 


Nate Riley said:


> This will probably ruffle some feathers. I feel that sexuality, or at least the open practice thereof, is a matter of choice. Race is not.


Open expression of sexuality --Straight of Gay -- in Lodge and Lodge activities should not occur. It's simply not the place for it.


Sirius said:


> ...That very VSL say I can have my children stoned top death for misbehaving, is that of the mind of God?


Not to mention that multiple wife trend started by that guy Tubal...


Dave in Waco said:


> ...I wouldn't want to look over at an event and see him and his date making out, but that would be for *any couple regardless of their makeup*. ...


Agreed!


mch4970 said:


> ...Show me a logical proof (trigonometry term) where homosexuality threatens mankind's pursuit of happiness, either individually or as a whole.


Even if this were possible, Logical Proofs are no guarentee of valid conclusions. Logic can be flawless and still not provide Light other than flawless Logic. They are not one in the same thing.


JohnnyFlotsam said:


> ... But I'd like to think that we might find a way, as Masons, to avoid even that level of contention.
> 
> A religious proscription, while not logically defensible, is, Masonically, a perfectly valid "rule and guide" for the individual who chooses to embrace such dogma _for the purposes of governing his own behavior_. *It is only when he attempts to apply such proscriptions to others that the friction starts. *
> 
> ...if a Brother wants to swear off both because they're proscribed in his Bible, I believe he should. Moreover, I believe that I should do what I can to help him walk the path he has chosen _for himself_, *but he also needs to understand that he does not get to make that choice for anyone but him.*


Agreed! Rejection or resistance should not be accompanied by uncivil or hostile acts.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Heirophant said:


> Although Homosexuals are often pleasant people to be around, Homosexuality does not give birth to Humanity. This is Nature's Law brought forth by Nature...not by man.


If you are trying to assert that homosexual behavior is unnatural, you are demonstrably wrong. It exists throughout nature. 
Would you please cite your reference for "The Laws of Nature"?



> Aside from that, Masonry has been described by many as a sort of "Men's Support Group". Surely by "Men" they mean "Men" that are trying to raise children (of their own).


Fatherhood is neither a requirement nor a stated purpose of membership in our Fraternity. 



> Men that are hoping to make the best of the world around them. Men that have wives. Traditionally, it's obvious to me that Masonry was designed for Heterosexuals.



How, exactly, is that "obvious"? Again, please cite your references.


----------



## bullrack33

lilhancock said:


> Do you check your individual beliefs at the door of the lodge/chapter room and base your votes on their character?



While it may be hard to do at times, I do indeed....even if it takes a minute of quiet time and reflection to make it happen.


----------



## bullrack33

ddreader said:


> if gays want to be masons. maybe they could start their own grand lodge system. and find a great light in masonry for themselves. so when they say ( as the rule and guide to our faith and practice) it will not be a lie. like it would be if they used ours. and then they could meet upon the level and part upon the square. as we do. we should not have to lower our standards. i am not being hateful. i am just making a suggestion. that might help them out. may god bless all of us.



So, does this mean that all of the Brethren who are of the Wiccan faith must demit because they are tolerant of homosexuals?


----------



## bullrack33

mch4970 said:


> Show me a logical proof (trigonometry term) where homosexuality threatens mankind's pursuit of happiness, either individually or as a whole.



This is yet another good point on the subject. I personally, have never seen proof of this. 

The bottom line is that society determines what is acceptable and what is not. This varies from area to area and from time period to time period. In ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt, homosexuality was a normal practice. It is currently acceptable in Australia, many parts of Europe, North America, Asia and most of South America.


----------



## Dave in Waco

bullrack33 said:


> This is yet another good point on the subject. I personally, have never seen proof of this.
> 
> The bottom line is that society determines what is acceptable and what is not. This varies from area to area and from time period to time period. In ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt, homosexuality was a normal practice. It is currently acceptable in Australia, many parts of Europe, North America, Asia and most of South America.



Really when you look at it there is only one legitimate arguement against homosexuality, and that's would be that it does not promote procreation.  So the only real threat of homosexuality is population growth.  But considering most say the world is overpopulated as is, that really takes away that threat.  

So if we Masons do stand for tolerance, why should we have any problems with homosexual brothers?  Homosexuality's morality is really determined by one's faith, so if each brother's faith is his own business, why do we would we hold only homosexuals to the standards of our faith?


----------



## cemab4y

I have been a Mason for 28 years, and I have visited lodges in 13 states, Washington DC, and five foreign countries. I have never seen any mention of a person's sexual orientation come up. As far as I am concerned, I would have no problem at all with a gay man petitioning my lodge. One woman once asked me, if I knew any gay masons. I told her the only mason I ever heard of who was gay, was J. Edgar Hoover 33rd, the late FBI director. 

I have heard of an incident, where a mason in California, had sexual-reassignment surgery, and became a woman. She then tried to attend her lodge, dressed as a woman. The lodge refused her entrance, and expelled her.


----------



## Blake Bowden

Just throwing this out....If Freemasonry espouses tolerance, why not open the floodgates and allow women as well?


----------



## coachn

Blake Bowden said:


> Just throwing this out....If Freemasonry espouses tolerance, why not open the floodgates and allow women as well?


That's been done already. They are referred to as "Co-Masonry" and "Female-Craft Masonry."


----------



## Bill Lins

I think Bro. Blake was referring to GLoT, which does not recognize female "Masons" nor any "GL" which does.


----------



## AhimanBeard

ddreader said:


> if gays want to be masons. maybe they could start their own grand lodge system. and find a great light in masonry for themselves. so when they say ( as the rule and guide to our faith and practice) it will not be a lie. like it would be if they used ours. and then they could meet upon the level and part upon the square. as we do. we should not have to lower our standards. i am not being hateful. i am just making a suggestion. that might help them out. may god bless all of us.


 


That would conflict heavily with many Episcopalian Brethren like myself who have no issue with homosexuality.
Mind you, good moral standing often reflected upon what was legal. Since, morality, as defined by faith, was something left up to the individual interpreter of a lodge and the faith he practices.

Were one to not consider the faiithful options of other believers, that would be fairly intollerant and unmasonic.

If find myself lucky to know many brethren here in Philly who are gay and masons. There is nothing, so long as they act legally and with good virtue and consent (and follow the law) that discredits them from freemasonry.

Keep in mind, brethren, Bro. Oscar Wilde. Brilliant author, mason and a homosexual. 




ddreader said:


> my beliefs are based on my teachings from the holy bible. i will not check that belief at the door. for anybody. for any reason. period. would you?


 
I would, have & do. Because that's what we do. 



I can say, and will give a better biboliography, that the UGLE issued a book called "So You Want To Be A Freemason" wherein a spouse was refereed to as "wife or partner". 
This is how it should be, in my humble opinion. Remember, again, there are many brethren of more liberal christian or jewish denominations which have no issue with homosexuality so long as it is consensual.

I tell people that since there's nothing explicitly against it, then yes, homosexuals can (and have) become freemasons.


----------



## AhimanBeard

I should also point out, again in my opinion, has no one learnt from either our sense of tolerance, respect or from the controversy which still surrounds us from the racial discrimination which lead to prince hall?



ljlinson1206 said:


> I accept my daughters chioce of being gay and I've seen her with her partner.


 
Ehhh, see, here's an issue. It's been proven quite often to not be a choice.

I should say that we, as an order, face enough controversy (unneeded mind you) as is and it would be detrimental to it for discrimination to become a legitimate policy.

I would, personally, reconsider my membership were it the case.


----------



## Bill Lins

"Tolerance" can be taken too far & "discrimination" is not always bad. I have no tolerance for and discriminate against thieves, murderers, pedophiles, and the like, and would not allow such to be admitted into Masonry. There's a great difference between such, which relates to morality & behavior, and discrimination against, or lack of tolerance of, someone strictly due to his skin color or other attribute over which he has no say or control.


----------



## Bill Lins

AhimanBeard said:


> Ehhh, see, here's an issue. It's been proven quite often to not be a choice.


 
_Proven_ how? Has a homosexual gene been discovered?

I think that, to most people, the jury's still out on that question and, lacking scientific evidence one way or the other, will be for quite some time to come.


----------



## ddreader

When did Homosexuality become a race. I thought it was a choice?  I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT I AM NOT A RACIEST!! ( Now then If perception is reality) When your perception of reality leads you to believe that my opinions are unmasonic. Would it be unmasonic of me if felt the same way about yours as you do about mine? I THINK I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD ON THIS ONE. As for our Wiccan brothers who may or may not have a problem with homosexuality. How that fits in to the original question that was asked. I have not a clue. My believes are mine. I will be judged one day for them. By my GOD. I am good with that and am willing to accept it. You are more than welcome to disagree with what i think. I only ask that you try to respect my opinions as much as you want me to respect yours. May GOD bless you. In what ever you choose to do in life. Fraternally Dennis.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> "Tolerance" can be taken too far & "discrimination" is not always bad. I have no tolerance for and discriminate against thieves, murderers, pedophiles, and the like, and would not allow such to be admitted into Masonry.


 Surely you don't mean to equate homosexuality with any of the above?


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> _Proven_ how? Has a homosexual gene been discovered?
> 
> I think that, to most people, the jury's still out on that question and, lacking scientific evidence one way or the other, will be for quite some time to come.


 Perhaps so, but it really doesn't matter? If someone chooses to be gay, it affects us not in the least, does it?


----------



## coachn

ddreader said:


> When did Homosexuality become a race. I thought it was a choice? ...


1) The label does not denote "race."  

2) It is not "a choice" for the majority who call themselves or identify as such.  For the majority of males who have this orientation, it is a "biological wiring" which, from research, sets itself while within the womb.  

According to this research, the manner in which the female body gestates males has an influence on its orientation.  The more males she gives birth to, the more likely they will have this orientation.  Researchers think it has something to do with how the female body compensates for the testosterone produced by the male fetus.  In some cases, all it takes is one male fetus for the same compensation.  In any case, the result is the brain of the male fetus is wired differently.

There is no conclusive proof regarding this same situation with female fetuses.


----------



## QPZIL

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> _Proven_ how? Has a homosexual gene been discovered?
> 
> I think that, to most people, the jury's still out on that question and, lacking scientific evidence one way or the other, will be for quite some time to come.


 
What the poster above me is referring to is chromosome Xq28, which is shown by scientific evidence to be present in homosexual males.
Here's a link to the research article,
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v11/n3/abs/ng1195-248.html


----------



## Blake Bowden

QPZIL said:
			
		

> What the poster above me is referring to is chromosome Xq28, which is shown by scientific evidence to be present in homosexual males.
> Here's a link to the research article,
> http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v11/n3/abs/ng1195-248.html



"A further study of these results in 1999 disputed the results. Studying Canadian material consisting of 52 pairs of gay brothers, George Rice and others found no statistically significant linkage in alleles and haplotypes and concluded against an X-linked male homosexuality gene."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28


----------



## ShadyGrove821

ddreader said:


> When did Homosexuality become a race. I thought it was a choice?


 
When did you choose to be straight? Please view the video below:
http://tinyurl.com/when-did-you-choose


----------



## Tcragsdale

IMO, being gay should not exclude anyone from becoming a mason. If a guy takes care of his people and his buisiness then what is the problem? I'm seeing it like this, if a gay dude joins my lodge, there is one more person to help those in need and one more person for me to know that wishes to improve himself. IMO, the world is running low on people who wish to help those in need and to improve themselves, so what good would it do to turn someone away over something that is none of your buisiness in the first place? mabey being gay is a choice, mabey its biology, and mabey its the BPA in plastics...? fact of the matter is they're here and they're queer and we might as well get used to it.


----------



## Blake Bowden

Like I've said before, sexual orientation should be left at the door along with race, religion, etc. Does that mean I have to agree with his lifestyle or set my morals aside? Of course not.  I don't agree with many of the teachings of Islam, but I wouldn't blackball someone if they followed that faith. Different strokes different folks. What makes Masonry unique is that we can all meet in peace and harmony at Lodge. Now, let's get this topic back on course...full speed ahead!


----------



## AhimanBeard

ShadyGrove821 said:


> When did you choose to be straight? Please view the video below:
> http://tinyurl.com/when-did-you-choose


 
I recommend this video whole heartedly. 

I also recommend taking a look at this (I didn't see if anyone posted it) conserning the GL of Kentucky who voted against a ban on homosexuals. 

http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2010/10/grand-lodge-of-kentucky-votes-against.html

I'll say that regardless of their personal views, the incredibly crude and offensive messages sent by many brethren who were against homosexuality were incredibly disturbing.

Okay, so, this may be wordy so prepare to bare with me.
A few points that I'll divide up.


*CHANGING TIMES*:    As many, not all, of us (freemasons) in the united states are christian. I believe it's important to take into consideration the ways and places where many denominations have changed their views on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. We have seen in the Episcopal, Evangelical Lutherans, Methodist, Many Presbyterian and Many Congregationalist denominations have changed their official outlook on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. These previously listed churches do not believe it's a sin. 
*HOW IT REFLECTS ON US*: I'll point out, as if it's not over apparent, that I am a very liberal person. I am a registered green party member and I am still very very patriotic. As a young liberal mason, many of my friends often wonder how I can be a member since they believe it's a conservative order. I point out to them that politics are banned from the lodge and I feel that it's often a misplaced view of our proud patriotism rather than something in our history. It can, however, be seen that many feel our racial discrimination (a unique quality of freemasonry sadly only found in america. Something I'm sure many of us wish hadn't been) is something which did do some damage politically. I don't think we need to add anything else to our list of discriminations.
*ON A DONT ASK DONT TELL-ESQ POLICY*: That's fine and all and most members probably won't have a reason to say anything until, of course, a family function. As I mentioned in a previous post, a book written with guidance from the UGLE about become a freemason often refers to things as "Wife or Partner". Here in america, it's all about wives and women, especially with regards to the family. Would one expect a gay brethren to not bring his partner or husband to a family event if their relationship is just as solid and grounded in good morals as the next brethren's? That makes it the one area wherein it's truly touchy to not tell anyone (remember, straight people can show it off and do and have). 
*ON OTHER CONFLICTS OF FAITH*: It's strange to think of in this light, but lets remember we come together under the harmony and precept that all members believe in a higher power. However, some people who do believe may hold beliefs which conflict with others, maybe even be found immoral. I'll use a personal example which doesn't make me want to ban the following from joining lodges, but I do find morally questionable at times. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (mormons) has a strange history and tradition. Now what I find morally questionable is their practice of baptism of the dead, wherein a person stands in the place of deceased people (often not related and often not mormon) and are baptized for them. I find this morally disturbing, especially in the case of many many Jews who were killed in the holocaust that were baptized posthumously into the mormon faith. Now, two things here. I know and am friends with man mormons and have no issue with their faith. Like the homosexuals I'm close with, none of these things make them Morally Unsound persons. And though my own tastes and ethics may be against this practice (which is, mind you, a choice unlike someone's orientation, which is not), it would not make me blackball them or feel that they need to stay out of our order.

So that's my incredibly lengthy opinion on the matter.  

Again, I know many brethren who are gay and proudly masons. 
There is nothing in our order that explicitly bans it.
And remember, the one great example of a very brilliant gay mason is none other than Oscar Wilde.


----------



## Bill Lins

Blake Bowden said:


> I don't agree with many of the teachings of Islam, but I wouldn't blackball someone if they followed that faith. Different strokes different folks.


 
OK, since you brought this up- let's say you are on an investigating committee & you visit the prospective candidate at his home. You notice books espousing "jihad" on his coffee table. In the course of the interview, you learn that he strongly sympathizes with al Queda and believes it is morally correct to subjugate or annihilate "infidels". Would you recommend him? Why or why not? Remember, he believes in a Supreme Being, as we require, and, as stated elsewhere in this thread, "There is nothing in our order that explicitly bans it."


----------



## coachn

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> OK, since you brought this up- let's say you are on an investigating committee & you visit the prospective candidate at his home. You notice books espousing "jihad" on his coffee table. In the course of the interview, you learn that he strongly sympathizes with al Queda and believes it is morally correct to subjugate or annihilate "infidels". Would you recommend him? Why or why not? Remember, he believes in a Supreme Being, as we require, and, as stated elsewhere in this thread, "There is nothing in our order that explicitly bans it."


Brother Bill,

Please let me know if I'm getting your question correct.
*You want to know if I would gleefully, willfully and without reservation, recommend a man who, from all outward appearances, would take any and all necessary steps to subjugate or annihilate every last Lodge member, if he could, who didn't believe as he did?*​As tempting as I might be to allow such a man to enter through our Western gate, I would always be left wondering if such character might be slightly at odds with Lodge Harmony during his subjugation or annihilation phase.

On the up-tick though, there would certainly be harmony -- ultimately. But I have to weigh very carefully the great expense of these actions to bring harmony about. I would have to believe that this expense is well justified.

If I believed the majority of our Brothers would opt for subjugation, I might be inclined to carefully review this path with my fellow interviewers as a possible fast track toward an ideal goal of harmony.  *I think that we will all agree that harmony is a very worthy goal.*

If I believed the majority of our Brothers would opt for annihilation, I'm inclined to advise against admittance since the candidate would have no one to help him open the Lodge once he enacted his plans.   

Of course, networking must be considered in this decision.  I don't know from your information if this character has connections into his community which would turn out to be a rich vein of future candidates. * If this were the case, the annihilation path would appear to no longer be problematic.*

F&S,

Bro. Coach N

(Darn!  I forgot to dis-engage humor mode!)


----------



## Bill Lins

coachn said:


> I don't know from your information if this character has connections into his community which would turn out to be a rich vein of future candidates.


 
That would be for the investigating committee to determine, wouldn't it? :wink:


----------



## coachn

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> That would be for the investigating committee to determine, wouldn't it? :wink:


:wink:So True!


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Coach, I bow to your mastery of rhetorical satire! The response that I was preparing to Brother Bill's question is a humble apprentice's offering by comparison. 



> OK, since you brought this up- let's say you are on an investigating  committee & you visit the prospective candidate at his home. You  notice books espousing "jihad" on his coffee table. In the course of the  interview, you learn that he strongly sympathizes with al Queda and  believes it is morally correct to subjugate or annihilate "infidels".  Would you recommend him? Why or why not? Remember, he believes in a  Supreme Being, as we require, and, as stated elsewhere in this thread,  "There is nothing in our order that explicitly bans it."


He is not a suitable candidate. This should be painfully obvious, not  because he is Muslim, but because he believes in forcing his religious  beliefs on others. The exact same thing would be true of any candidate,  regardless of his faith. For example, there are passages in the  Christian Bible that call for actions no less horrific than anything Al  Queda has ever done. Do we disqualify all Christians by virtue of that  fact? Of course not. 
A candidate seeking membership in our fraternity deserves far more serious consideration than what labels he, or others, might apply to him.


----------



## coachn

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Coach, I bow to your mastery of rhetorical satire! The response that I was preparing to Brother Bill's question is a humble apprentice's offering by comparison.


Thanks Brother Johnny.  I sometimes forget to turn it off.  Glad ya caught it.


JohnnyFlotsam said:


> He is not a suitable candidate. This should be painfully obvious, not because he is Muslim, but because he believes in forcing his religious beliefs on others. The exact same thing would be true of any candidate, regardless of his faith. For example, there are passages in the Christian Bible that call for actions no less horrific than anything Al Queda has ever done. Do we disqualify all Christians by virtue of that fact? Of course not.
> A candidate seeking membership in our fraternity deserves far more serious consideration than what labels he, or others, might apply to him.


I agree! (yes... seriously!)


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

Mr. Jihad would get a big old giant cube from me.

That being said, I have traveled to a number of Muslim countries and can't fathom why a jihadist would want to be a Mason.  All radical factions of Islam hate Masonry...by name.  So I can't fathom him wanting to yolk himself to infidels.

But why in the heck do we find out what his house is like, what his religion is, etc. at this point in time?  Why didn't we take the time to get to know this man long before it ever reached an investigations committee?


----------



## Bill Lins

OK- all of you missed the point. Remember the phrase "and believes it is morally correct to..." ?

The point is that it doesn't matter what the _prospect_ believes to be morally correct- it is up to the members of the Lodge to make that determination. If the Brethren believe a prospect to be immoral, they have the duty to reject him. Does the word "libertine" ring a bell?


----------



## Bill Lins

Frater Cliff Porter said:


> But why in the heck do we find out what his house is like, what his religion is, etc. at this point in time?  Why didn't we take the time to get to know this man long before it ever reached an investigations committee?


 
In theory you are absolutely correct but we both know that, in actuality, most Lodges hustle through the petition process to get the application to the committee. Maybe we're afraid that if we make the process slower & more strenuous, the prospect may become disheartened & withdraw his petition.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Speaking of missed points...
How is it that one would judge a gay man as "immoral", simply be virtue of the fact that he is gay?


----------



## Hippie19950

Man oh man!!! I'm going back out to my shop and work on a Harley or two. Maybe even get an import (Jap) bike, none of them are hard as this subject is!!!! 
   Actually, it is all good, as it makes one think. Just as I find myself being in agreement with a response, someone comes up with another view. This is good. It makes folks think, and gives us a wider view.
   Thanks! To all who have responded.
Hippie...


----------



## Bill Lins

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Speaking of missed points...
> How is it that one would judge a gay man as "immoral", simply be virtue of the fact that he is gay?


 
Many believe that homosexuality is a choice consciously made, ie, willful behavior, and their religious beliefs hold that homosexuality is immoral. Until & unless scientific proof is discovered to the contrary, who are we to say that they are incorrect? They are just as entitled to their beliefs as is the jihadist discussed earlier.


----------



## Bill Lins

Hippie19950 said:


> Just as I find myself being in agreement with a response, someone comes up with another view.


 
Yup- we're having fun now!  :wink:


----------



## AhimanBeard

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> OK, since you brought this up- let's say you are on an investigating committee & you visit the prospective candidate at his home. You notice books espousing "jihad" on his coffee table. In the course of the interview, you learn that he strongly sympathizes with al Queda and believes it is morally correct to subjugate or annihilate "infidels". Would you recommend him? Why or why not? Remember, he believes in a Supreme Being, as we require, and, as stated elsewhere in this thread, "There is nothing in our order that explicitly bans it."


 


Al Queda is explicitly anti-american. As an order which may not be political, but does require a sense of patriotism and love for country/law, this would disqualify him.


----------



## AhimanBeard

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Many believe that homosexuality is a choice consciously made, ie, willful behavior, and their religious beliefs hold that homosexuality is immoral. Until & unless scientific proof is discovered to the contrary, who are we to say that they are incorrect? They are just as entitled to their beliefs as is the jihadist discussed earlier.


 
Ugh, still not getting the point. 

Look. Homosexuality is attraction. It is harmless. Pure and simple. There is no gay agenda. If it were a choice, don't you think all of those who have suffered oppression and degradation would go back to choosing being straight? 


Remember also. We, Masons, Shared the \ chambers of the holocaust with these men and women. They, like us and the jews and roma, were persecuted and lost their lives. 
Mind you, again, in such a scenario, were it a choice at all, don't you think they'd flip coins and go straight? Or in the radical islamic nations, like ones where al queda rules, wouldn't they rather switch the straight switch instead of running a risk of dying?

Their lives would be so easy, wouldn't it?

It'd be sad that any preacher of god would say that they have a choice in the matter. Furthermore, don't you think, as a christian, our lord and savior Jesus would've said something had he thought it to be of huge christian importance. Remember, verily, it's not Jesus that says anything, but Paul, a disciple who is a saint but not divine as christ is, therefore, human and eligible for mistakes.


----------



## Bill Lins

AhimanBeard said:


> Al Queda is explicitly anti-american. As an order which may not be political, but does require a sense of patriotism and love for country/law, this would disqualify him.


 
Where is _that_ in our tenets & obligation?


----------



## Bill Lins

AhimanBeard said:


> There is no gay agenda.



That is pure & utter nonsense. Gay Pride parades? Insistence in being allowed to be in charge of Boy Scout troops? Demanding the same or greater rights as legally married couples? Repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell"?



AhimanBeard said:


> If it were a choice, don't you think all of those who have suffered oppression and degradation would go back to choosing being straight?



Wouldn't criminals quit committing crimes? Wouldn't pedophiles quit molesting little kids? Wouldn't rapists quit raping? Apparently prison & the loss of one's rights are not large enough deterrents. Do you believe criminals are born that way? Do you entirely discount the effect of environment?



AhimanBeard said:


> were it a choice at all, don't you think they'd flip coins and go straight? Or in the radical islamic nations, like ones where al queda rules, wouldn't they rather switch the straight switch instead of running a risk of dying?



Do you not understand that some, like some of the members of al Queda, _choose_ to risk death in the furtherance of their ideals? Some because they are fanatical, some because they think they have no prospects for a better life, some because the sponsoring organization makes promises regarding support for their families.

There is no end to the list of reasons why people make the choices they make.



AhimanBeard said:


> It'd be sad that any preacher of god would say that they have a choice in the matter.


 
If that truly is his belief, he is as entitled to it as are you to hold a differing belief- neither is any more valid than the other. Thus far, no scientific proof has been discovered to support either position.


----------



## JTM

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Where is _that_ in our tenets & obligation?


 
well, the EA charge... peaceable citizen and all that.  promising to believe in the constitution of the US on the petition, etc.  wouldn't overly anti-american folks be DQ'd there?


----------



## Bill Lins

JTM said:


> well, the EA charge... peaceable citizen and all that.



For the sake of the argument, let's say he is a resident alien. As all that he has done is to tell you his beliefs, how has he violated any of the EA charge? He _has_ been "peaceable" (up to this point, anyway). "True to _your_ government & just to _your_ country" ?  See the problem here?  "Conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live" ? Hasn't he, so far, done so? That's one I have a bit of a problem with, myself!



JTM said:


> promising to believe in the constitution of the US on the petition


 
All the petition asks is "Do you believe in the Constitution of the US?" As a foreign citizen, he could truthfully answer "No". There is no requirement that he believe in it & I'd bet most committees would give him a pass on that one due to his citizenship.

There just ain't no easy answers, is there?


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Many believe that homosexuality is a *choice *consciously made...


We could debate this. While the question is far from settled, my view is that it is nothing of the sort (a choice), for no rational person would ever make such a choice when faced with the rank abuse and discrimination that the members of the LGBT community face throughout their lives, but let's not bother with that issue. For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that it is a choice, freely made.

How then is such a choice, which has no affect whatsoever on you or me, immoral?



> ...religious beliefs hold that homosexuality is immoral.


There it is. You are injecting _your _religious beliefs into the argument. Your religious beliefs and any strictures that they impose on behavior are _yours _to grapple with as applied to _your_ behavior. The VSL that each of us has _chosen _is given as the rule and guide of our respective faiths. It is entirely unfitting for us, as Masons, to apply them to another man. To be sure, there is a universal morality upon which we can all agree, but if all we've got is sectarian dogma to support our judgment of a man's particular _choice, _then such a judgment should probably not be made. The _choice_ to do so is at the heart of every great inhumanity that this or that group has inflicted upon another. 

So I ask again. Absent the misapplication of our individual religious beliefs, how is it that a gay man is "immoral"?


----------



## QPZIL

edit-- whoops accidentally responded to an old post.


----------



## coachn

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> OK- all of you missed the point. Remember the phrase "and believes it is morally correct to..." ?
> 
> The point is that it doesn't matter what the _prospect_ believes to be morally correct- it is up to the members of the Lodge to make that determination. If the Brethren believe a prospect to be immoral, they have the duty to reject him. Does the word "libertine" ring a bell?


But Brother Bill,

You are asking your brothers to use their Brains and Hearts and to "*JUDGE*." hmy:


Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Many believe that homosexuality is a choice consciously made, ie, willful behavior, and their religious beliefs hold that homosexuality is immoral. Until & unless scientific proof is discovered to the contrary, who are we to say that they are incorrect? They are just as entitled to their beliefs as is the jihadist discussed earlier.


So, now you're asking your Brothers to *not* use their Brains and Hearts and to *not* "*JUDGE*?!?!?" hmy:


Bill_Lins77488 said:


> ... Do you believe criminals are born that way? Do you entirely discount the effect of environment?


1) Some are.
2) Nope


Bill_Lins77488 said:


> ...If that truly is his belief, he is as entitled to it as are you to hold a differing belief- neither is any more valid than the other. Thus far, no scientific proof has been discovered to support either position.


...none that people universally accept... 

This is a moot point. The issue is one of Lodge Harmony. Would such a Brother promote or demote Lodge Harmony? I believe this depends totally upon its members collective beliefs, attitudes and behaviors.


Bill_Lins77488 said:


> For the sake of the argument, let's say he is a resident alien. As all that he has done is to tell you his beliefs, how has he violated any of the EA charge? He _has_ been "peaceable" (up to this point, anyway). "True to _your_ government & just to _your_ country" ? See the problem here? "Conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live" ? Hasn't he, so far, done so?


Not if his behavior at the interview shows that he didn't represent himself honestly.


Bill_Lins77488 said:


> There just ain't no easy answers, is there?


yup. i don't disagree! :wink:


----------



## Dave in Waco

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> OK- all of you missed the point. Remember the phrase "and believes it is morally correct to..." ?
> 
> The point is that it doesn't matter what the _prospect_ believes to be morally correct- it is up to the members of the Lodge to make that determination. If the Brethren believe a prospect to be immoral, they have the duty to reject him. Does the word "libertine" ring a bell?



IMO the difference between the two isn't so much a matter of who's morality standards to apply, but it comes down to the prinicples of Masonry.  In Masonry, we are taught to be tolerant of other's beliefs.  In the example of the Muslam candidate who believes in the morality of subjugating or annihilating infidels, has shown not only a strong degree of intolerance for the beliefs of others, intolerance is at the core of his beliefs considering al Queda has set that is one of its goals.  It's the same as the "ex-Masons" that now attack Masonry under the guise of their beliefs as a fundimental Christian, who have turned intolerant of others who do not share their belief system.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

I think the beauty of the vote as an exercise of freedom of conscience is that it is ultimately private.  It is between you and God and your real obligation is to vote for the good of Masonry and for the good of your lodge.

Often things die in committee.  For me the vote is not as tough as forum questions would make it sound.  If I...that's right..."I" think he is a good man (I get to apply all kinds of values to this to include my version of morality, my version of peaceable citizen, etc.) and cast a vote.

I have thrown dark and I have thrown clear, but as I stand at our altar and cast my ballot, my conscience is clear.  God gave me a head and I use it.

The charge of a Master of a lodge provides that you should turn away many good men in error before one unfit for the fraternity have a single foot fall through the door of a lodge.

My conscience is clear, my head held high, and I explain my votes to no one (its actually not allowed for discussion in Colorado once the vote it cast...you must leave it to the Brother).

I am glad and thankful it is like this, as it gives the vote a sense of being beyond cliques and desires to let others "see" how you voted.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Frater Cliff Porter said:


> If I...that's right..."I" think he is a good man (I get to apply all kinds of values to this to include my version of morality, my version of peaceable citizen, etc.) and cast a vote.


 
Just because you _can_ do such a thing does not, in the least, make it "right".


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

So what is the "right" way to vote then and who decides?

Masonic writings state that the Mason has been equipped with working tools and we should vote our conscience.

Why would we disregard the writings in Masonry concerning the vote when we vote?

Am I better off if I pick your version of Morality, my friends version?  The Masonic version says I should love God, trust him, return to my sanctuary and have faith, that I should study my volume of sacred law....should I disregard these as well?


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Frater Cliff Porter said:


> So what is the "right" way to vote then and who decides?


 
Each of us does, of course, but again, just because we are free to vote as we choose, does in no way automatically make that choice "right".
Consider, in other threads here it would appear (at least) that there are Masons who would cube a candidate without a second thought, merely because of his different religious beliefs. And no, I'm not talking about the "Al Queda" red herrring. Cube a man, simply because he's Jewish, Muslim, or Sikh. Surely you would agree that doing so is improper. Yes?

So, yet again, how then is an issue that is nothing more than a difference of religious dogma, one which has no impact on anyone, an acceptable reason to cube a gay man?


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

> Cube a man, simply because he's Jewish, Muslim, or Sikh. Surely you would agree that doing so is improper. Yes?



Brother I am a purist in this regard.  I believe that there are ways in which I would vote.  More importantly, because I can control only my vote...I take it seriously.  I vote in men who I believe are good men and, quite frankly, of like enough mind to do what I believe to be right for the Fraternity.

Those that convince themselves that they are beyond personal perspective or subjective thought are being foolish.  So I do not pretend that when I approach a ballot box that my personal perspective isn't present.

That being said, I can not control a brother who harbors racism.  I fear the man who harbors it quietly more than the one who shouts it though, for I can at least engage in conversation with the man who shouts it.

I think the only "right" way to vote is applying the tools of Masonry to your life and voting your conscience.  I might not always agree with a Brothers vote, but you can not legislate free thought, so the Brother is able to vote how he chooses.  

I have never been present in a lodge where race was an issue.  We have white, black and brown Brothers in my lodge, so I would be lying if I said I knew what that was like.  I have been refused a visit in a PHA lodge for being white, and I hold the Brothers no ill will.  I accept it as the way of things and figured that beating my chest or screaming racism wasn't going to change minds.  I write, I vote, I read, I educate, and I try to educate myself.  For me, that is what I feel called to do.


----------



## AhimanBeard

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> EVERYTHINGYOUSAID



This is an excellent rebuttal. Thank you.
Here's mine



JTM said:


> well, the EA charge... peaceable citizen and all that.  promising to believe in the constitution of the US on the petition, etc.  wouldn't overly anti-american folks be DQ'd there?


 

That's what I was about to say.

Furthermore, okay, maybe there's an agenda in 'wanting to be accepted as normal and receive the same benefits that we take for granted'.
Or an agenda may be that they don't want to be discriminated against in the workplace or whatever. 

There is No Agenda for, hell I don't know what paranoid homophobes think, uh, for like turning people gay or to deny anyone religious freedom. That's as crazy as people thinking there's a Masonic Agenda to rule the world.


----------



## LRG

I can translate Timothy 1 /1-10 as being against gays. Its ok for me to know that others don't believe in this way of life. Just as long as I do. Our Almighty Father did not make adam and steve, but adam and eve. 
Furthermore, I believe Men should act like Men and I would vote against a man who acts like a woman. It would be a bad representation of a lodge if one of their own was gay and participated in some gay movement, hugging and kissing on another guy, while wearing Our square and Compasses.


----------



## Blake Bowden

Thread Closed.


----------

