# Grand Lodge of Georgia Bans Gay Men



## Squire Bentley

Here we go again.
http://freemasoninformation.com/2015/09/grand-lodge-of-georgia-bans-gay-men/

Frederic L. Milliken


----------



## Glen Cook

Well, to be more exact, it forbids homosexual activity, not homosexuals.


----------



## Pscyclepath

Here we go again with the "Don't Ask... Don't Tell" program ;-)


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

Pscyclepath said:


> Here we go again with the "Don't Ask... Don't Tell" program ;-)



Yeah. It looks like that is working out well for all of them...


----------



## Akiles

The right headline would be: Grand Lodge of Georgia forbids all kind of sexual activities......included homosexual activity...

Ironic mode on: In fact, I think they are really very open-minded because till now, they permit it......

Ironic mode off: That doesn't mean the homosexuals will be banned at that GL.


----------



## Squire Bentley

If there is homosexual activity the homosexual Mason will be expelled. Therefore, I stand by my headline.


----------



## Warrior1256

Squire Bentley said:


> If there is homosexual activity the homosexual Mason will be expelled. Therefore, I stand by my headline.


The way I understand the article causes me to agree with you. It mentioned adultery and homosexual activity. Well, homosexuals indulge in homosexual activity. Therefore, the way I take it is that they ARE banning homosexuals.


----------



## Glen Cook

The dictionary definition of homosexual is one who is attracted to the same sex, as indicated in the name.  One may or may not engage in sexual activity.  To imply that gays cannot control their sexual urges seems inappropriate.


----------



## Warrior1256

Glen Cook said:


> The dictionary definition of homosexual is one who is attracted to the same sex, as indicated in the name.  One may or may not engage in sexual activity.  To imply that gays cannot control their sexual urges seems inappropriate.


I understand this brother but why should they have to abstain from sexual relations in order to join a lodge? This is really the point I was trying to make "the times, they are a changin'". I am a conservative but I  just feel it is wrong to ban someone because of their sexual orientation.


----------



## Glen Cook

The same reason others should not engage in certain sexual activities, I suppose.


----------



## Warrior1256

Glen Cook said:


> The same reason others should not engage in certain sexual activities, I suppose.


Such as?


----------



## Glen Cook

Warrior1256 said:


> Such as?


There was a time when fornication and adultery were frowned upon from a moral (and legal) view.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

Interesting conversation. Some Masons appear to have sworn a different obligation than me. I swore that I would not have illicit sexual relations with certain close relatives of Brother Masons. The definition of the word illicit seems pertinent here. The obligation I took does not appear to require me have my Brothers approval for all my sexual partners, just those that are close relatives of theirs, and then only that they be acceptable in some fashion that prevents them from being illicit.


----------



## Brother JC

My obligation also used the word "illicit." Another that I have heard uses the phrase "violate the chastity of." I am guessing, in this case, that violate is the operative word, since neither my mother, my sister, nor my ex-wife could be considered "chaste" by definition.
Both versions elude to breaking laws. Being gay is no longer against the law and really shouldn't be regulated by Masonry.


----------



## Companion Joe

The obligation doesn't mention fathers, brothers, or sons because 300 years ago no one ever thought this would be a topic of conversation.


----------



## Glen Cook

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Interesting conversation. Some Masons appear to have sworn a different obligation than me. I swore that I would not have illicit sexual relations with certain close relatives of Brother Masons. The definition of the word illicit seems pertinent here. The obligation I took does not appear to require me have my Brothers approval for all my sexual partners, just those that are close relatives of theirs, and then only that they be acceptable in some fashion that prevents them from being illicit.


The additional strictures are found in the GL laws we promise to follow and not, in my experience, set out separately in the ritual.


----------



## Glen Cook

Companion Joe said:


> The obligation doesn't mention fathers, brothers, or sons because 300 years ago no one ever thought this would be a topic of conversation.


And thus, I had occasion to cause the change in Utah ritual to involve a Master Mason's child, vice his daughter only


----------



## Glen Cook

Brother JC said:


> My obligation also used the word "illicit." Another that I have heard uses the phrase "violate the chastity of." I am guessing, in this case, that violate is the operative word, since neither my mother, my sister, nor my ex-wife could be considered "chaste" by definition.
> Both versions elude to breaking laws. Being gay is no longer against the law and really shouldn't be regulated by Masonry.


Well, atheism is not illegal either. Non-Adherence to Christianity is not illegal.  Supplanting the goals of a Mason is not illegal either.   We place higher standards on ourselves than "it is not illegal."


----------



## Warrior1256

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Interesting conversation. Some Masons appear to have sworn a different obligation than me. I swore that I would not have illicit sexual relations with certain close relatives of Brother Masons. The definition of the word illicit seems pertinent here. The obligation I took does not appear to require me have my Brothers approval for all my sexual partners, just those that are close relatives of theirs, and then only that they be acceptable in some fashion that prevents them from being illicit.


This is the way I see it.


----------



## Glen Cook

Warrior1256 said:


> This is the way I see it.


But  the ob. you took requires you to obey the laws, rules, regulations...of GL, does it not?


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Glen Cook said:


> But  the ob. you took requires you to obey the laws, rules, regulations...of GL, does it not?


It does, without question. And that is why, were I subject to the laws of the GL of Georgia, my demit would have been tendered as soon as I learned of such a fearful, ignorant, and hateful move on the part of that body. Much as it would have pained me to do so, I have lived long enough and been a Mason long enough to know that any substantial move to turn things around would likely have the same end result - one less member of that GL. The sexual orientation of a Brother is not the business of the Lodge. Removing fear and ignorance, by providing light, is the business of the Lodge, which is why this move is so deeply offensive.


----------



## dfreybur

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> It does, without question. And that is why, were I subject to the laws of the GL of Georgia, my demit would have been tendered as soon as I learned of such a fearful, ignorant, and hateful move on the part of that body. Much as it would have pained me to do so, I have lived long enough and been a Mason long enough to know that any substantial move to turn things around would likely have the same end result - one less member of that GL. The sexual orientation of a Brother is not the business of the Lodge. Removing fear and ignorance, by providing light, is the business of the Lodge, which is why this move is so deeply offensive.



Given the events in Florida a couple of years ago when they voted down an edict about religious membership, I would urge Georgia members to wait for the next GL and if possible attend and vote before leaving.  Sometimes our principles of free thought prevail.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

dfreybur said:


> Given the events in Florida a couple of years ago when they voted down an edict about religious membership, I would urge Georgia members to wait for the next GL and if possible attend and vote before leaving.  Sometimes our principles of free thought prevail.


Your advice for temperance is sound, brother,  but frankly I find it more and more difficult to reconcile the ideals with the practical reality where such an outrageous edict could even be brought up for serious discussion. Never mind the fact that it is quite transparently a knee-jerk reaction to certain recent court decisions.


----------



## Warrior1256

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Your advice for temperance is sound, brother,  but frankly I find it more and more difficult to reconcile the ideals with the practical reality where such an outrageous edict could even be brought up for serious discussion. Never mind the fact that it is quite transparently a knee-jerk reaction to certain recent court decisions.


Agreed!


----------



## dfreybur

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Your advice for temperance is sound, brother,  but frankly I find it more and more difficult to reconcile the ideals with the practical reality where such an outrageous edict could even be brought up for serious discussion. Never mind the fact that it is quite transparently a knee-jerk reaction to certain recent court decisions.



Agreed but where else can I go?  I had enough exposure to tobacco when I was in the military so I will not tolerate a smoking Legion post and all of them seem to allow smoking.  Other fraternities are worse off than Masonry for membership and/or more political.

Were I a member of one jurisdiction I might well vote with my feet and wallet given a nonsense move like Arkansas, Florida or Georgia.  When I became a member of my second jurisdiction I realized that if one of the GMs goes nuts I have the ability to demit (terminate plural membership) from that jurisdiction.  It gives me more willingness to work within the system should the problems of one of my jurisdictions reach that level.

So far as I have seen no jurisdiction is without problems.  There's always something I object to at some level - We're all human so how much of that is in myself.  Few have reached the level I have written paperwork for so far.  I did have paperwork circulating in two jurisdictions over the Florida situation.


----------



## cemab4y

Check out what happened in kentucky. 
A lodge there made an interesting decision.

Google:  Kentucky masonry refuses to ban openly gay men


----------



## Warrior1256

cemab4y said:


> Check out what happened in kentucky.
> A lodge there made an interesting decision.
> 
> Google:  Kentucky masonry refuses to ban openly gay men


Great!


----------



## Joaben

Hi.
Dear brethren, viewed from Europe, and european freemasonery, this debate seems surrealistitic !
However, I think we must consider :
- Freemasonery (essntially the one which pretend at "regularity") bans women to participate in masonic activitys. In Europe too !
So, how we can condemn Grand Lodge of Georgia to ban homosexuals and on the same time ban women, atheists, disabled ?


----------



## Jason A. Mitchell

Joaben said:


> how we can condemn Grand Lodge of Georgia to ban homosexuals and on the same time ban women, atheists, disabled ?



Bingo.

EDIT: And it needs to be remembered. This is not new. This is not an edict. This is their Code. The prohibition has been official Masonic Law in GA for decades.


----------



## GKA

I think it appropriate to mention that observance of a law or regulation  by anyone carries with it an obligation to consider the moral justification of that law or regulation
Being free men with a free will and a moral compass entitles us to judge every law and regulation we choose to obey.
This is the very reason why we must have a moral compass, be considerate of others and be educated as to the long and short term ramifications of law


----------



## Jason A. Mitchell

GKA said:


> I think it appropriate to mention that observance of a law or regulation  by anyone carries with it an obligation to consider the moral justification of that law or regulation
> Being free men with a free will and a moral compass entitles us to judge every law and regulation we choose to obey.
> This is the very reason why we must have a moral compass, be considerate of others and be educated as to the long and short term ramifications of law



All the more reason it is disturbing that we don't see calls for changes to their Code, either internally or externally.  But my point is it comes back to us, what is acceptable discrimination in the Craft. We seem to be okay with gender discrimination (no girls), religious discrimination (no atheists), mental health discrimination (no madman), age discrimination (no young or old men adled by age), etc...
Why does this prohibition offend us so greatly? Why aren't we changing our codes?


----------



## goomba

All of the others prohibited from joining are anciently recognized landmarks of Freemasonry.  This prohibition bothers me so much because: 

a. In the US this is a hotly debated political issue, 
b. The GL has no business banning this, oddly enough it makes part of the MM obligation easier to obey for gay men,
c.  Masonry is declining and GL's in the USA are scrambling to "fix" this "problem".  This goes against what most young people believe and will be a turn off for them.  (FYI pun intended)


----------



## Jason A. Mitchell

goomba said:


> All of the others prohibited from joining are anciently recognized landmarks of Freemasonry.  This prohibition bothers me so much because:



There are two problems with that statement:

*Firstly*, The absence of any universally applied landmarks of the Craft. At best, at least within the mainstream US Grand Lodges, you have the standards of recognition used by the Recognition Commission for the COGNMA, but beyond that... nothing. Which is why, the GL of GA is able to say definitively (within the scope of their domain) that Masonry is a Judeau-Christian organization and their laws derive from such principles.

*Secondly*, even if those were landmarks, most of them aren't ancient.

EDIT: I'm not defending the GL of GA, I don't agree with it at all. But I think the better action is for us to correct our Codes at home first, and then worry about GA.


----------



## Bloke

If Freemasonry promotes acceptance and tolerance, how is this ban congruent with that ? Many objections to "gays" are based on religion.... which should not shape Freemasonry's organizational decisions, OR prejudice, which should be made subservient to just actions, treating people with respect and equality seems core to freemasonry and this edict seems at odds with those values. Neither does being a fraternity (not admitting women) seem at odds with them either.

The stupid thing is, homosexual men are already members and valued freemasons, why would you ban them???

For me, being gay is not "unmasonic".

All that said, the GL in question needs to run its own show.... but if something like this was proposed here i would fight it, just as i would respect a lodges decision not to advance an application from a man who would not fit into their lodge....


----------



## Joaben

Banning homos or women or atheist has the same nature. It comes from outside the freemasonery by introducing "moral law" from culture, civil laws, relious tendancies. It has nothing to do with the intemporality of free-masonery where values of fraternity, equality, freedom are for ever.
As we know the "moral law" change depending on countries and times. We cannot lapidate people, do human sacrifices, have slaves, discriminate women or black people. This is THE MORAL LAW of to-day.
In the world we have to fight against muslim integrists who seek in old books laws againt the civil laws.
We must not do the same.
On another point, how you can check if someone is gay or not ? ... if he still really believes in God ?
And women ... what in our rituals should make women innaceptable to receive initiation among men ?
Risks of seduction ? Is-it different at work ?


----------



## Brother JC

JamestheJust said:


> I have certainly seen predatory gays in other contexts but never in a lodge.


I've seen far more predatory straights, and you really never know if they're in lodge...


----------



## coachn

Brother JC said:


> I've seen far more predatory straights, and you really never know if they're in lodge...


----------



## Jason A. Mitchell

Stolen from /r/freemasonry


----------



## Warrior1256

goomba said:


> All of the others prohibited from joining are anciently recognized landmarks of Freemasonry.


I agree! One of the reasons that I joined Freemasonry was because it is a FRATERNITY.


----------



## Glen Cook

Joaben said:


> Banning homos....


Your language is inappropriate and unkind.  Gay, same-sex attraction, even homosexual, but not offensive terms.


----------



## Glen Cook

goomba said:


> All of the others prohibited from joining are anciently recognized landmarks of Freemasonry.  This prohibition bothers me so much because:
> 
> a. In the US this is a hotly debated political issue,
> b. The GL has no business banning this, oddly enough it makes part of the MM obligation easier to obey for gay men,
> c.  Masonry is declining and GL's in the USA are scrambling to "fix" this "problem".  This goes against what most young people believe and will be a turn off for them.  (FYI pun intended)



a. So, we should only make our membership restrictions based on what the public in our country wishes?
b. What rule indicates a GL may not ban this, particularly when we allow only Christian GL's.  All Obs are not the same.  Utah prohibits inappropriate acts with a Master Mason's children since 2009.


----------



## GKA

I find it very disturbing that certain acts which most people would never consider doing have to be specifically regulated
Does anyone else see this as disturbing ?


----------



## coachn

JamestheJust said:


> If the brethren cannot measure uprightness then rules of thumb must be applied.


You're assuming all Plumbs gravitate toward the same center.  They do not.


----------



## Joaben

Which "moral law" applies to freemasons? The charia, torah, inquisition, or The ethic values, human rights, constitution act? And more relevant The constant values or freemasons : fraternity, freedom, equality, uprightness? 
And sexist or homophobic discrimination ? Should not it be offense againt "moral law?


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> Which "moral law" applies to freemasons? The charia, torah, inquisition, or The ethic values, human rights, constitution act? And more relevant The constant values or freemasons : fraternity, freedom, equality, uprightness?
> And sexist or homophobic discrimination ? Should not it be offense againt "moral law?


There is but one moral law and it has two entirely different ways of being stated so that its fullness can be understood:

One should treat all others as one would like all others to treat oneself.
One should treat no one in any way that one would _not_ like to treat oneself. 
There exist hypocrites in positions of authority who hang their hats upon the term "moral law" as an excuse to treat others hatefully and as less than.  Those who support them are equally so.


----------



## Joaben

coachn said:


> There is but one moral law and it has two entirely different ways of being stated so that its fullness can be understood:
> 
> One should treat all others as one would like all others to treat oneself.
> One should treat no one in any way that one would _not_ like to treat oneself.
> There exist hypocrites in positions of authority who hang their hats upon the term "moral law" as an excuse to treat others hatefully and as less than.  Those who support them are equally so.


 I agree with your statement. But it is a statement.


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> I agree with your statement. But it is a statement.


Yes.  It is indeed a statement.


----------



## goomba

Glen Cook said:


> a. So, we should only make our membership restrictions based on what the public in our country wishes?
> b. What rule indicates a GL may not ban this, particularly when we allow only Christian GL's.  All Obs are not the same.  Utah prohibits inappropriate acts with a Master Mason's children since 2009.



a.  No and that is not even almost what I mean.  I am saying the Grand Lodge of GA took a stand on a hotly debated political issue.  In my mind it would be the same as saying "All men who own guns can no longer be Masons".  

b.  True all obligations are not the same nor are any two grand lodges the same.  There isn't a rule saying we cannot ban this.  There isn't a rule saying Grand Lodges cannot ban anything.  However, I see this as going against some of the core teachings of Masonry.


----------



## goomba

Jason A. Mitchell said:


> There are two problems with that statement:
> 
> *Firstly*, The absence of any universally applied landmarks of the Craft. At best, at least within the mainstream US Grand Lodges, you have the standards of recognition used by the Recognition Commission for the COGNMA, but beyond that... nothing. Which is why, the GL of GA is able to say definitively (within the scope of their domain) that Masonry is a Judeau-Christian organization and their laws derive from such principles.
> 
> *Secondly*, even if those were landmarks, most of them aren't ancient.
> 
> EDIT: I'm not defending the GL of GA, I don't agree with it at all. But I think the better action is for us to correct our Codes at home first, and then worry about GA.



There are vast numbers of people who hold Judeau-Christian beliefs who find homosexuality is acceptable with those beliefs.

I know most of them are not ancient it's just what I've always heard them referred to.

I agree brother the grand jurisdiction I was raised in has its own set of problems.  That doesn't change the fact that this topic is good to discuss.  I hope none of what I've said here comes across as harsh or unloving to any of you.


----------



## Glen Cook

goomba said:


> a.  No and that is not even almost what I mean.  I am saying the Grand Lodge of GA took a stand on a hotly debated political issue.  In my mind it would be the same as saying "All men who own guns can no longer be Masons".
> 
> b.  True all obligations are not the same nor are any two grand lodges the same.  There isn't a rule saying we cannot ban this.  There isn't a rule saying Grand Lodges cannot ban anything.  However, I see this as going against some of the core teachings of Masonry.


a. So, if an issue is hotly debated by the public, we may not take a stand?  Where do you find this rule? 
b. What are these core teachings and where do you find them?


----------



## Glen Cook

Joaben said:


> Which "moral law" applies to freemasons? The charia, torah, inquisition, or The ethic values, human rights, constitution act? And more relevant The constant values or freemasons : fraternity, freedom, equality, uprightness?
> And sexist or homophobic discrimination ? Should not it be offense againt "moral law?


So, you believe women and non-believers should be members of the Fraternity?


----------



## coachn

Glen Cook said:


> So, you believe women and non-believers should be members of the Fraternity?


<cough> Well, actually.... they are members of the Fraternity; just not ones that "our" specific Fraternity Recognizes.   But, that's a whole different nut to crack.


----------



## Glen Cook

coachn said:


> <cough> Well, actually.... they are members of the Fraternity; just not ones that "our" specific Fraternity Recognizes.   But, that's a whole different nut to crack.


Well, you are quite correct. I shall clarify CGMNA and Home GL recognized Freemasonry.


----------



## Joaben

Glen Cook said:


> So, you believe women and non-believers should be members of the Fraternity?


1 :The main question is why should You exclude them from Fm? 
2 : no-sexism is widely practiced in FM. For The Benefice of all. 
3 : Fm is it a matter of believing ? In Europe, 70% of FM are non-believers!


----------



## coachn

Glen Cook said:


> Well, you are quite correct. I shall clarify CGMNA and Home GL recognized Freemasonry.


<snicker>


----------



## Joaben

coachn said:


> <cough> Well, actually.... they are members of the Fraternity; just not ones that "our" specific Fraternity Recognizes.   But, that's a whole different nut to crack.


If we follow our rituals there is ONE Universal  fraternity. Multiples fraternity is ... Somthing else which has to do with human conventions, not fm.
Fm is ONE people governed by the same rules.


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> 1 :The main question is why should You exclude them from Fm?


The main answer is this mythical "you" doesn't.  The collective GL of any jurisdiction dictates who is in and who is out.  Each GL is different.  Mob rules apply!  Yes, it can get ugly. 


Joaben said:


> 2 : no-sexism is widely practiced in FM. For The Benefice of all.


Yup.  And each jurisdiction determines this for themselves.


Joaben said:


> 3 : Fm is it a matter of believing ?


For some, yes. 


Joaben said:


> In Europe, 70% of FM are non-believers!


In "merica" it's 100% believers in all Recognized GLs and even in most unrecognized GLs.  And it might very well be the reason why we're not in Europe .


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> If we follow our rituals there is ONE Universal  fraternity.


Is that assuming that there is actually one "ritual" for all to follow? 
In reality, there are the great pontifications that everyone espouses in lodge and then there are the ugly realities that are actually practiced with great zeal.


Joaben said:


> Multiples fraternity is ... Somthing else which has to do with human conventions, not fm.
> Fm is ONE people governed by the same rules.


FM is also multiple peoples mislead by untold common misunderstandings.


----------



## Glen Cook

Joaben said:


> 1 :The main question is why should You exclude them from Fm?
> 2 : no-sexism is widely practiced in FM. For The Benefice of all.
> 3 : Fm is it a matter of believing ? In Europe, 70% of FM are non-believers!


Well, I'm not sure the percentage is that high, particularly if including UK, but point taken. 

So, sexism in Recognized Freemasonry is ok, but no other Ism?

Are you a Freemason of any stripe?


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

coachn said:


> there are the great pontifications that everyone espouses in lodge and then there are the ugly realities that are actually practiced with great zeal.


I have no real comment, I just wanted to quote that.


----------



## coachn

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> I have no real comment, I just wanted to quote that.


<snicker> Does that make your comment unreal?


----------



## Brother JC

No institution has the inherent right to judge my relationships, and any attempt to do so will cause me to disassociate with them. Brethren who are members of the GLGA who disagree with this edict (regardless of orientation) should vote with their feet.


----------



## Glen Cook

Brother JC said:


> No institution has the inherent right to judge my relationships, and any attempt to do so will cause me to disassociate with them. Brethren who are members of the GLGA who disagree with this edict (regardless of orientation) should vote with their feet.


Inherent right?  No. As a condition of association? Quite clearly so.  For instance, regular Masons have limitations on their relationship with clandestine Masons. Religious institutions have any number of limitations on relationships. The military has limitations on relationships, enforced by the power to imprison.


----------



## Joaben

Glen Cook said:


> Inherent right?  No. As a condition of association? Quite clearly so.  For instance, regular Masons have limitations on their relationship with clandestine Masons. Religious institutions have any number of limitations on relationships. The military has limitations on relationships, enforced by the power to imprison.


"Regularity" is just pretention to be ... The FIRST quality for a mason is freedom. So, military comparison is irrelevant. "Clandestine" is another word but just another pretention ! Masonic rules are predominent to profanous rules of GLs. And masonic rules ban sexist, offense on freedom, fraternity, equality.


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> "Regularity" is just pretention to be ...


Regularity has to do with what are accepted standards within a specific jurisdiction.  It is not a pretention.  It is a standard of operation and each jurisdiction has those standards.  When the standards match, are viewed as compatible and  requests for recognition extended, evaluation for potential agreement is explored.


Joaben said:


> The FIRST quality for a mason is freedom.


Yup.  But you are perhaps using the word "mason" and "freemason" synonymously, and when you do, you shall assume that "freedom" is a quality for a freemason.  It is not.  They obligate themselves to a GL and hence are not free; they are bound.


Joaben said:


> So, military comparison is irrelevant.


Well, sort of, but not really.


Joaben said:


> "Clandestine" is another word but just another pretention !


You sure are good at making this up as you go!


Joaben said:


> Masonic rules are predominent to profanous rules of GLs.


Predominent [SIC]?  I hope you mean "foundational and preferred "
Profanous [SIC]?  No such word in the English language, that I can find.  I hope you mean "organizational" without meaning anything disrespectful.


Joaben said:


> And masonic rules ban sexist, offense on freedom, fraternity, equality.


You sure have an odd understanding about all this.  Masonry is about building things.  Freemasonry is about running a theatrical society of which each jurisdiction decides for itself how it wants to do that, and with whom.


----------



## Warrior1256

Glen Cook said:


> So, you believe women and non-believers should be members of the Fraternity?


One of the main reasons that I joined Freemasonry is that it is a fraternity. If the day comes when Freemasonry admits women that will be that day that I demit. Why is it only sexist if it is "males only". I don't hear anyone calling sororities sexist.


----------



## Ressam

Warrior1256 said:


> One of the main reasons that I joined Freemasonry is that it is a fraternity. If the day comes when Freemasonry admits women that will be that day that I demit. Why is it only sexist if it is "males only". I don't hear anyone calling sororities sexist.


Maybe, cause -- girls in these "sororities" may (I don't know how to say) "accept" guys(gay-guys) to their feminine society.
When the gay-boy becomes -- sth. like their "girl-friend", & they talk to each other, go together to WC, etc.
But, yes! You are right! IMHO -- all these "schizms" were bad thing.
Startin' to accept -- women & atheists -- was Big Mistake! IMHO.


----------



## coachn

Ressam said:


> Maybe, cause -- girls in these "sororities" may (I don't know how to say) "accept" guys(*gay-guys*) to their feminine society.
> When the *gay-boy* becomes -- sth. like their "*girl-friend*", & they talk to each other, go together to WC, etc.
> But, yes! You are right! IMHO -- all these "schizms" were bad thing.
> Startin' to accept -- women & atheists -- was Big Mistake! IMHO.


----------



## coachn

Warrior1256 said:


> One of the main reasons that I joined Freemasonry is that it is a fraternity. If the day comes when Freemasonry admits women that will be that day that I demit. ...


I joined a male-craft version of Freemasonry for specific reasons.  Not because it was a "frat!" 

Freemasonry has versions that admit other genders.  I have no interest in them.


----------



## Ressam

coachn said:


> View attachment 4844


Wad up, Coach! 
Shortly, I mean that: ladies in sororities are not opposite to accept men(gay) to their gang/crew.
That's why public don't call them "sexist".


----------



## goomba

Glen Cook said:


> a. So, if an issue is hotly debated by the public, we may not take a stand?  Where do you find this rule?
> b. What are these core teachings and where do you find them?



a.  Again that is not even almost what I said.  When you began to come across with a more brotherly tone then I will reply.
b.  I find them in Freemasonic education and study.


----------



## coachn

Ressam said:


> Wad up, Coach!
> Shortly, I mean that: ladies in sororities are not opposite to accept men(gay) to their gang/crew.
> That's why public don't call them "sexist".



Have you ever considered, even for at least a moment, that your view is itself unbelievably "sexist"?


----------



## Glen Cook

goomba said:


> a.  Again that is not even almost what I said.  When you began to come across with a more brotherly tone then I will reply.
> b.  I find them in Freemasonic education and study.


You mistake the tone.


----------



## Ressam

coachn said:


> Have you ever considered, even for at least a moment, that your view is itself unbelievably "sexist"?


No.
We are *equal *-- women &men! God Love is -- the same for everyone!
The difference is just in -- "functions". 
We got different "duties".


----------



## JJones

coachn said:


> Freemasonry has versions that admit other genders. I have no interest in them.



But is it really Freemasonry?

I've seen topics started before (not necessarily on these forums) where the OP was an atheist, or a woman, and asking if they can still become a Freemason.  My knee jerk reaction is 'nope', but usually someone will direct them to some irregular order.  

Still, I think this is covered pretty well by my obligation, so...either these other 'versions' are not Freemasonry, or brethren are breaking their obligations because they don't want to tell someone 'no'.


----------



## Joaben

"Regularity has to do with what are accepted standards"
OK ! any group have rules and members regular to these rules.
Freedom is the FIRST quality Because RITUALS states by the answer  at "What is a freemason ?"
Sorry, but the quality of freemason does not refer to any GL but through the answer at "How can I recognize you as a freemason ?"  Everything is mentionned at the initiation and known by the tiler.
GL is a facultative body(no GL before 1717 and many lodges are out of any juridiction).
The ones who reject women or atheist as freemasons engage themselves only.
I can say I dont recognize such individuals as humans but it only involves my opinion.
Seriouly, a rational approach shoud examine where you find any reason in the basis of freemasonery to sexism or exigence of an hypocrit belief in something that nobody is able to say what it is.
I can attest that in my lodge in UK about 90 % don't practice any religious ceremony, don't believe in the reality of what is said in the Bible, but sing "God save ... etc".
Even full atheist sing "God save ..."
It is a question a priority : Apparently, for you, freemasonery is affair of "juridiction". For me, freemasonery (no matter any juridiction) states "universal fraternity", equality, freedom before any fidelity to any organisational body.
NB : Sorry ... my Ipad decides for me some words ...


----------



## coachn

Ressam said:


> coachn said: ↑
> Have you ever considered, even for at least a moment, that your view is itself unbelievably "sexist"?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming this.  I suspected it but wanted to see if you had at least considered it for yourself.


----------



## coachn

JJones said:


> But is it really Freemasonry?


Yes.  It is when you understand exactly what Freemasonry actually is.

When you don't understand what it actually is, you're programmed by its rules, mythologies and lore to deny it AND you cannot help but do so.


JJones said:


> I've seen topics started before (not necessarily on these forums) where the OP was an atheist, or a woman, and asking if they can still become a Freemason.  My knee jerk reaction is 'nope', but usually someone will direct them to some irregular order.


Which are red herrings because they are all based upon the mythology and lore and not the reality of what the organization actually is.


JJones said:


> Still, I think this is covered pretty well by my obligation, ...


Yup, the mythology and lore...


JJones said:


> ...so...either these other 'versions' are not Freemasonry, or brethren are breaking their obligations because they don't want to tell someone 'no'.


Or it is something that very few dare to consider: _The Organization is a Franchise Total-Immersion Life-Action Role-Playing Theatrical Society whose rules, mythologies and lore are purposefully designed to maintain the Illusion that it is not AND that sabotage any efforts to establish competitive alternatives to what it offers to a select target market.
_


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

Ressam said:


> Maybe, cause -- girls in these "sororities" may (I don't know how to say) "accept" guys(gay-guys) to their feminine society.
> When the gay-boy becomes -- sth. like their "girl-friend", & they talk to each other, go together to WC, etc.
> But, yes! You are right! IMHO -- all these "schizms" were bad thing.
> Startin' to accept -- women & atheists -- was Big Mistake! IMHO.



I am not sure how much of this post is misunderstood due to "translation barrier" or not. The data remains the same, and not entirely correct.

Sororities (at least here in the United States) do not openly accept men as a rule, homosexual or not. That is the key difference between a Fraternity and a Sorority, men to one... women to the other.


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> "Regularity has to do with what are accepted standards"
> OK ! any group have rules and members regular to these rules.
> Freedom is the FIRST quality Because RITUALS states by the answer  at "What is a *freemason* ?"


Look! do you see it?  You just jumped from what you originally posted: 





> Joaben said: ↑
> The FIRST quality for a *mason* is freedom.


and you are using a different word!  You're using these words synonymously!  No wonder you have such angered confusion.  You also assume that all Rituals have the same response; they do not.


Joaben said:


> "Sorry, but the quality of *freemason* does not refer to any GL but through the answer at "How can I recognize you as a *freemason* ?"


If you're going to use the two words synonymously, you're not going to get any traction here.  *Freemasons are members* of a GL.  *Masons are builders* who follow principles that when applied, assist them in building soundly.  Freemasonry points its members toward Masonry, but it doesn't do anything to help them perfect their Building efforts.


Joaben said:


> Everything is mentionned at the initiation and known by the tiler.


Everything?  The meaning of life, the universe and exact nature of reality kinda stuff?


Joaben said:


> GL is a facultative body(no GL before 1717 and many lodges are out of any juridiction).


yup, sure is facultative...


Joaben said:


> The ones who reject women or atheist as freemasons engage themselves only.


so?


Joaben said:


> I can say I dont recognize such individuals as humans but it only involves my opinion.


WOW!  I guess I should not be surprised at this at this point.


Joaben said:


> Seriouly, a rational approach shoud examine where you find any reason in the basis of freemasonery to sexism or exigence of an hypocrit belief in something that nobody is able to say what it is.


Ah!  There's the rub!  a rational approach!  Good luck with that.  You're not likely to find many supporters who shall do anything more than give you lip service on this one.


Joaben said:


> I can attest that in my lodge in UK about 90 % don't practice any religious ceremony, don't believe in the reality of what is said in the Bible, but sing "God save ... etc".


I'm delighted that you have found a place of comfort.


Joaben said:


> Even full atheist sing "God save ..."
> It is a question a priority : Apparently, for you, freemasonery is affair of "juridiction". For me, freemasonery (no matter any juridiction) states "universal fraternity", equality, freedom before any fidelity to any organisational body.
> NB : Sorry ... my Ipad decides for me some words ...


Understood!  Godspeed you in your Travels.


----------



## Ressam

Bro. Stewart P.M. said:


> I am not sure how much of this post is misunderstood due to "translation barrier" or not. *The data remains the same, and not entirely correct.*
> 
> *Sororities (at least here in the United States) do not openly accept men as a rule, homosexual or not*. That is the key difference between a Fraternity and a Sorority, men to one... women to the other.


You are right, sir.
Excuse me. 
I said sth. else, not related to "sororities".
I meant more -- about life things.


----------



## NY.Light.II

coachn said:


> Look! do you see it?  You just jumped from what you originally posted:
> and you are using a different word!  You're using these words synonymously!  No wonder you have such angered confusion.  You also assume that all Rituals have the same response; they do not.



1. I think it is completely fair to use mason and Freemason interchangeably. For one thing, this concept is already present in the language informally. Most people, when hearing mason, think of the craft. Further, Masons, in the understanding of builders and personal stone worker, are today relatively few in number. Indeed, Donald Trump was the force behind Trump Tower, but I would hardly consider him an operative mason. Even construction workers do not often work with stone building implements directly.  Third, we can take a lesson from grammar here, as auxiliary groups (SR, Shrine, etc) are properly called Masonic bodies, and makes no distinction between Masonic or Freemasonic.

2. In another post on this thread, you cite freemasonry as a theatrical group, with somewhat convoluted secondary clauses. To water-down freemasonry as a theatrical troupe that can only appeal a sub-set "target market" is too simplistic to capture what freemasonry is.  I doubt that when HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent was initiated, he did so to be a royal patron of a troupe of thespians.


----------



## Glen Cook

NY.Light.II said:


> 1. I think it is completely fair to use mason and Freemason interchangeably. For one thing, this concept is already present in the language informally. Most people, when hearing mason, think of the craft. Further, Masons, in the understanding of builders and personal stone worker, are today relatively few in number. Indeed, Donald Trump was the force behind Trump Tower, but I would hardly consider him an operative mason. Even construction workers do not often work with stone building implements directly.  Third, we can take a lesson from grammar here, as auxiliary groups (SR, Shrine, etc) are properly called Masonic bodies, and makes no distinction between Masonic or Freemasonic.
> 
> 2. In another post on this thread, you cite freemasonry as a theatrical group, with somewhat convoluted secondary clauses. To water-down freemasonry as a theatrical troupe that can only appeal a sub-set "target market" is too simplistic to capture what freemasonry is.  I doubt that when HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent was initiated, he did so to be a royal patron of a troupe of thespians.




oooooh, now you've done it.

Where are you a Mason/Freemason/member?


----------



## NY.Light.II

Glen Cook said:


> oooooh, now you've done it.
> 
> Where are you a Mason/Freemason/member?



As I've stated multiple times on this forum, I am not yet a initiated into any fraternal body. I plan to petition once I am permitted to (once I overcome the age requirement).


----------



## coachn

NY.Light.II said:


> As I've stated multiple times on this forum, I am not yet a initiated into any fraternal body. I plan to petition once I am permitted to (once I overcome the age requirement).


Man are you in for an awakening!


----------



## NY.Light.II

coachn said:


> Man are you in for an awakening!



How so


----------



## coachn

NY.Light.II said:


> 1. I think it is completely fair to use mason and Freemason interchangeably. ...


Oh, it certainly is completely fair when you're speaking about the craft in general.  However, when you getting down and dirty into the Craft mud, you have to have some way of distinguishing between wet dirt and fresh fertilizer.  If you wish to keep the fantasy alive, fuzziness is necessary and hence interchangeability is actually preferred.  When you want to break through the veil of illusion, differentiation is a must.


NY.Light.II said:


> 2. In another post on this thread, you cite freemasonry as a theatrical group, with somewhat convoluted secondary clauses.


Once you become a member of the Society, I am open to help you better understand your perceived convolutions.  Or, you can obtain some light upon the subject before hand if you want to understand better what you are getting yourself into.


NY.Light.II said:


> To water-down freemasonry as a theatrical troupe that can only appeal a sub-set "target market" is too simplistic to capture what freemasonry is.


I see that you believe I have watered it down.  I believe you are mistaken.  What I have done is characterize the operations of the organization.  Once again, you are confusing Freemasonry as an operations with the Masonry it uses to offer Moral guidance through its morality plays.


NY.Light.II said:


> I doubt that when HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent was initiated, he did so to be a royal patron of a troupe of thespians.


LOL!  Doubt away.  He most like was under the same misunderstanding that you appear to be under.


----------



## coachn

NY.Light.II said:


> NY.Light.II said: ↑
> As I've stated multiple times on this forum, I am not yet a initiated into any fraternal body. I plan to petition once I am permitted to (once I overcome the age requirement).
> 
> 
> 
> coachn said: ↑
> Man are you in for an awakening!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so
Click to expand...

Wait....  you don't know?  No one told you what to expect?   You're a person of nonage?   

Yup, better be ready to brace yourself!


----------



## Warrior1256

coachn said:


> Freemasonry has versions that admit other genders. I have no interest in them.


Same here.


----------



## Glen Cook

NY.Light.II said:


> As I've stated multiple times on this forum, I am not yet a initiated into any fraternal body. I plan to petition once I am permitted to (once I overcome the age requirement).


I shall be more direct: Perhaps it would be better to wait before giving opinion as to what the Craft is or isn't?


----------



## Glen Cook

coachn said:


> I joined a male-craft version of Freemasonry for specific reasons.  Not because it was a "frat!"
> 
> Freemasonry has versions that admit other genders.  I have no interest in them.


I like that: "versions."


----------



## Glen Cook

Joaben said:


> "Regularity has to do with what are accepted standards"
> OK ! any group have rules and members regular to these rules.
> Freedom is the FIRST quality Because RITUALS states by the answer  at "What is a freemason ?"
> Sorry, but the quality of freemason does not refer to any GL but through the answer at "How can I recognize you as a freemason ?"  Everything is mentionned at the initiation and known by the tiler.
> GL is a facultative body(no GL before 1717 and many lodges are out of any juridiction).
> The ones who reject women or atheist as freemasons engage themselves only.
> I can say I dont recognize such individuals as humans but it only involves my opinion.
> Seriouly, a rational approach shoud examine where you find any reason in the basis of freemasonery to sexism or exigence of an hypocrit belief in something that nobody is able to say what it is.
> I can attest that in my lodge in UK about 90 % don't practice any religious ceremony, don't believe in the reality of what is said in the Bible, but sing "God save ... etc".
> Even full atheist sing "God save ..."
> It is a question a priority : Apparently, for you, freemasonery is affair of "juridiction". For me, freemasonery (no matter any juridiction) states "universal fraternity", equality, freedom before any fidelity to any organisational body.
> NB : Sorry ... my Ipad decides for me some words ...



"I can say I dont recognize such individuals as humans but it only involves my opinion"


????


----------



## Joaben

coachn said:


> I'm delighted that you have found a place of comfort.


A good laugh is good for health but is not an argument.
I think that FM has not to do with supporters but more with uprightness, sincerity, authenticity, freedom.


coachn said:


> WOW! I guess I should not be surprised at this at this point.


I you want to laugh, you must accept 2nd degree example.
And after laghing, I shoud be pleased that you seriously answer to serious question :
"Where do you find sexism in masonic rituals to pretext your female band ?"
And where do you find encouragement to religious devotion ?


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> A good laugh is good for health but is not an argument.


Unless the good laugh is directed at what you are saying.   


Joaben said:


> I think that FM has not to do with supporters but more with uprightness, sincerity, authenticity, freedom.


It can be anything that you want it to be...  We are all free to make up what makes sense to us most.  If these are what you make it to be, God bless you in your choices.


Joaben said:


> I (if?) you want to laugh, you must accept 2nd degree example.


I must?


Joaben said:


> And after laghing, I shoud be pleased that you seriously answer to serious question :
> "Where do you find sexism in masonic rituals to pretext your female band ?"


I have no idea what you are asking.


Joaben said:


> And where do you find encouragement to religious devotion ?


all over the place.


----------



## Joaben

coachn said:


> Unless the good laugh is directed at what you are saying.
> 
> It can be anything that you want it to be...  We are all free to make up what makes sense to us most.  If these are what you make it to be, God bless you in your choices.
> 
> I must?
> 
> I have no idea what you are asking.
> 
> all over the place.



Teasing is one thing, but it does not make argument ! May be no argument ...
Apparently you did not understand the joke .. I will do it more understandable for you :
IF I SHOULD say "I does not consider yu as human, it SHOULD BE just MY opinion" 
It is the same with your pretentions !
Apparently you have no argument to justify YOUR BAN of females from your lodges. OK !
idem with religious devotion ! It is limited to affirmation ... OK !


----------



## Warrior1256

Joaben said:


> Teasing is one thing, but it does not make argument ! May be no argument ...
> Apparently you did not understand the joke .. I will do it more understandable for you :
> IF I SHOULD say "I does not consider yu as human, it SHOULD BE just MY opinion"
> It is the same with your pretentions !
> Apparently you have no argument to justify YOUR BAN of females from your lodges. OK !
> idem with religious devotion ! It is limited to affirmation ... OK !


Why would coachn, or any of us, need to "justify" the ban on women. It was this way when the Grand Lodge system was created in 1727 and the vast majority of us like it the way it is. I don't hear anyone laying the claim of sexism on sororities. We are self sufficient and receive no government funds. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this particular landmark needs no justification.


----------



## Joaben

Warrior1256 said:


> Why would coachn, or any of us, need to "justify" the ban on women. It was this way when the Grand Lodge system was created in 1727 and the vast majority of us like it the way it is. I don't hear anyone laying the claim of sexism on sororities. We are self sufficient and receive no government funds. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this particular landmark needs no justification.


I think that everything has an explanation in masonery. The fact you like it this way is a bit ... short.
In 1717(not 1727), slavery was in the texts. It has changed, since, No ?
"sororities" is a stange word. Do you mean they are not freemasons, not part of "universal fraternity"?
Women lodges which do not accept men in their meetings are sexist as well. By DEFINITION (discrimination based on sex).
Of course this is your right to state sexism or homophobia or religious sectarism in your constitution !(the courts will decide if you must be condemned for that) But it is the right of anybody to criticize it !
I think(but I see that from Europe, not from Georgia or Tenessee) it a shame for freemasonery all over the world to display this kind of behavior.
Freemasonery is at the origin of Constitution Act and Human Rights. It is its glory, certainely not a competition with the most archaic and egoist religious behaviors.
Sorry to be so direct. But th "f" of Freemasonery means "frankness" too, No ?


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> Teasing is one thing, but it does not make argument ! May be no argument ...


Only when you don't take offense...


Joaben said:


> Apparently you did not understand the joke .. I will do it more understandable for you :


If it was a joke, I recommend you not quit your day job.


Joaben said:


> IF I SHOULD say "I does not consider yu as human, it SHOULD BE just MY opinion"


Well, yes, but it speaks to your character and if this was indeed a joke, it is in poor taste, and I would not characterize it as a laughing matter.  No amount of characterizing it as a joke will get you out of these holes.


Joaben said:


> It is the same with your pretentions !


What pretentions?


Joaben said:


> Apparently you have no argument to justify YOUR BAN of females from your lodges. OK !


Have you not been listening?  Apparently you did not understand the reason. I will do it more understandable for you :

The Premier Grand Lodge chose to make the organization that they were creating back in circa 1717 a men's only society. Whatever meaning that you have assigned to that creation is of your own choosing, but it is not in line with the intent of the men who created the organization.

Secondly, it is not my ban.  It is a social construct of which I have chosen to participate.  This social construct has existed for nearly 300 years before I joined.  I have no problem with it since I was looking for a male only organization when I found this one.


Joaben said:


> idem with religious devotion ! It is limited to affirmation ... OK !


huh?


----------



## Joaben

The main problem is not "my joke" but YOUR REALITY, the way you treat brethren (male or female or homo).
You apparently did not understand(or not want to consider) the opposite argument !
In 1717, about all organisation were "men only". as in some times "white only", as "no slaves accepted".
And the constitution of Grand Lodge of London was set, based on these society rules of THESE TIMES.
When slavery was bannished in Europe, FM constitutions changed.
Army, police, religion were "male only" for thousands of years too ! And they changed !
I dont argue about your personal prefrences for "male only" ! That's your point.
But about the official statements of your organisation stating sexism and homophobia as moral(sic) values !
Army, police have changed and abandonned that ! And many FM organisations too !
Not the main stream of pretended "regular" GL !
By the way, are you allowed to visit as mason, feminine or mixed FM lodges ... ?


----------



## NY.Light.II

Joaben said:


> The main problem is not "my joke" but YOUR REALITY, the way you treat brethren (male or female or homo).
> You apparently did not understand(or not want to consider) the opposite argument !
> In 1717, about all organisation were "men only". as in some times "white only", as "no slaves accepted".
> And the constitution of Grand Lodge of London was set, based on these society rules of THESE TIMES.
> When slavery was bannished in Europe, FM constitutions changed.
> Army, police, religion were "male only" for thousands of years too ! And they changed !
> I dont argue about your personal prefrences for "male only" ! That's your point.
> But about the official statements of your organisation stating sexism and homophobia as moral(sic) values !
> Army, police have changed and abandonned that ! And many FM organisations too !
> Not the main stream of pretended "regular" GL !
> By the way, are you allowed to visit as mason, feminine or mixed FM lodges ... ?



Slight modification. Slavery was never banned in Europe as a whole on a specific date. Slavery was outlawed on a piecemeal, country by country basis, and this happened in different years across different countries.


----------



## Ressam

Joaben said:


> The main problem is not "my joke" but YOUR REALITY, the way you treat brethren (male or female or homo).
> You apparently did not understand(or not want to consider) the opposite argument !
> In 1717, about all organisation were "men only". as in some times "white only", as "no slaves accepted".
> And the constitution of Grand Lodge of London was set, based on these society rules of THESE TIMES.
> When slavery was bannished in Europe, FM constitutions changed.
> Army, police, religion were "male only" for thousands of years too ! And they changed !
> I dont argue about your personal prefrences for "male only" ! That's your point.
> But about the official statements of your organisation stating sexism and homophobia as moral(sic) values !
> Army, police have changed and abandonned that ! And many FM organisations too !
> Not the main stream of pretended "regular" GL !
> By the way, are you allowed to visit as mason, feminine or mixed FM lodges ... ?



No! No & Just No, Mr.Joaben!!!
There's no place for women in Free*masonry!!!*
And this is *not discrimination *to our beautiful "flowers", our inspirations, our Best Friends, who are -- Women!
We, just have *different duties/jobs*!
Freemasonry is comin' from -- ancient *MASONS/BUILDERS/CONSTRUCTORS*!
Who were carryin' massive stones, builded Temples, etc.
Did you see women workin' on Constructional Objects anywhere?
No. Women in Freemasonry is mistake. IMHO. Of course, maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> The main problem is not "my joke" but YOUR REALITY, ...


My reality is not a problem, nor is your judgments of it a problem.  Your judgments though are very telling.


Joaben said:


> ...the way you treat brethren (male or female or homo).


The way "I" treat others.  Man are you barking up the wrong tree.


Joaben said:


> You apparently did not understand(or not want to consider) the opposite argument !


Oh, I understood it all right.  I simply think that you're barking up the wrong tree there too.


Joaben said:


> In 1717, about all organisation were "men only". as in some times "white only", as "no slaves accepted".
> And the constitution of Grand Lodge of London was set, based on these society rules of THESE TIMES.
> When slavery was bannished in Europe, FM constitutions changed.
> Army, police, religion were "male only" for thousands of years too ! And they changed !


Yup. and I didn't join an organization that changed the male only requirement because I wanted to belong to an all male organization, and I am very glad that there was one available for me when I did. 


Joaben said:


> I dont argue about your personal prefrences for "male only" ! That's your point.


Ah!  But you are attacking the "all male only" concept that I belong to and that point is absolutely unnecessary.  There are other versions of Freemasonry that offer other options.  I have no interest in them.


Joaben said:


> But about the official statements of your organisation stating sexism and homophobia as moral(sic) values !


But that is exactly the point!  *You are not talking about my organization.*  My organization has made NO SUCH STATEMENTS.  You're talking about another organization that is in your head.


Joaben said:


> Army, police have changed and abandonned that ! And many FM organisations too !


Yes.  Many have.  The one I chose to join and support is still male only.  I like it that way.  It works for me quite well.  If that doesn't work for you, you can join another version.  I joined to work upon changing myself for the better; not work on changing the organization. 


Joaben said:


> Not the main stream of pretended "regular" GL !


I don't truly believe you realize how dismissive and disrespectful you are being here.


Joaben said:


> By the way, are you allowed to visit as mason, feminine or mixed FM lodges ... ?


Not if they are open and doing their work.  But you most likely knew this already so why the unnecessary rhetorical question?


----------



## Warrior1256

Joaben said:


> Sorry to be so direct. But th "f" of Freemasonery means "frankness" too, No ?


You can be as frank as you want and speak your mind as you please but my statement stands unchanged. We do not need to justify our men only rule. If someone is so greatly bothered by that particular landmark they are free to demit and join a co-masonry lodge. If they do not wish to do this but only want to whine and moan about it they can just be ignored.


----------



## coachn

The man's right...


----------



## Bloke

Thread drift is good... but I keep coming in to read about the attitudes of brothers about the "gay ban" and that issue generally..not so much woman.. and not so much about members dueling in words over stuff I see as petty, no profit or pleasure in that...

On the threads topic this was interesting..

"If homosexuality is now accepted as a societal norm (much like minorities were increasingly accepted as equal members of society after the Civil Rights movement of the 1970’s), and causes no inherent harm within the fraternity or to the fraternity’s public image, then where are these regulations rooted? Arguably, much of the resistance to homosexuality in Masonry has roots in Christianity, the principles and dogma of which have long been interpreted as condemning the practice of homosexuality. But whether or not a given brother or grand officer subscribes to those interpretations is irrelevant where Masonry is concerned as religion has no place inside the walls of the lodge..........Friday’s Supreme Court decision has presented our brotherhood with a distinct opportunity to move forward in line with the ideals upon which our great fraternity was founded: tolerance, harmony, and unity. By embracing toleration for all men under the fatherhood of God regardless of race or sexual orientation, we can set ourselves above today’s polarized society. That toleration, in turn, will promote harmony and build unity within our lodges. By celebrating our diversity rather than condemning it, our fraternity will grow stronger and attract innovative, exceptional young men to join our ranks as men and Masons for years to come."

Read on here http://www.midnightfreemasons.org/2015/07/is-homosexuality-unmasonic.html


----------



## Joaben

NY.Light.II said:


> Slight modification. Slavery was never banned in Europe as a whole on a specific date. Slavery was outlawed on a piecemeal, country by country basis, and this happened in different years across different countries.


Slavery in Europe was banned


Ressam said:


> No! No & Just No, Mr.Joaben!!!
> There's no place for women in Free*masonry!!!*
> And this is *not discrimination *to our beautiful "flowers", our inspirations, our Best Friends, who are -- Women!
> We, just have *different duties/jobs*!
> Freemasonry is comin' from -- ancient *MASONS/BUILDERS/CONSTRUCTORS*!
> Who were carryin' massive stones, builded Temples, etc.
> Did you see women workin' on Constructional Objects anywhere?
> No. Women in Freemasonry is mistake. IMHO. Of course, maybe I'm wrong.


IF you are happy with what you say ...
Fortunately, women freemasons do not wait your agreement to be freemasons.
In middle ages, listening to same sentences, women had no soul.
Later, black-skin people were considered half-animals.
There have been in the past,  always people thinking this way.
And they are still active in islamic fundementalism, djiadists nowadays.
*Sorry for you, but in ancient guilds of operative masons, women were there and work as builders.*
Some were master of the lodge !
"different duties/jobs" .... Not so far in time, some think that women cannot work in the army, in police and they can manage companies.
In islam fundementalist they are supposed not able to drive a car.
Apparently, you do not understand the word "discrimination" . If you use these criterias at the entrance of the lodge, you discriminate ! That's DEFINITION ! It has nothing to do with beauty, affection, consideration. "I like you but you are not worthy to come in ! Stay outside and play with other women" ...
Doing that, you are out of the ONLY masonic criteria : You do not follow the only principle "How I recognize you as a mason ?"  You know the answer ! and that there is no question of sex !
Except the fact that you post vigorously which is not an argument, your position has nothing to do with freemasonery but with societal customs of centuries ago.


----------



## Joaben

Warrior1256 said:


> You can be as frank as you want and speak your mind as you please but my statement stands unchanged. We do not need to justify our men only rule. If someone is so greatly bothered by that particular landmark they are free to demit and join a co-masonry lodge. If they do not wish to do this but only want to whine and moan about it they can just be ignored.


Sorry for you. The change of your statement depends only on you ! If you want to keep it, I can not don anymore.
Using the same argument, I can tell you : "if you are not happy, bothered with human rights, evolution, you are free to choose countries were the are not active (Iran, North Corea). This not fair, isn't it ?
The dictatorship ("you accept or go away") is typical.
Freemasonery has reformed in the last 3rd century.


----------



## Joaben

coachn said:


> My reality is not a problem, nor is your judgments of it a problem.  Your judgments though are very telling.
> Ah!  But you are attacking the "all male only" concept that I belong to and that point is absolutely unnecessary.  There are other versions of Freemasonry that offer other options.  I have no interest in them.
> I don't truly believe you realize how dismissive and disrespectful you are being here.


When you say "barking" about me .... I suppose this your way to respect people ?
Considering someone like a dog ...
You apparently forget that FM inte oldest rituals states that there is ONE PEOPLE of FM on the earth... So, "organisations" have nothing to do with freemasonery, just profane rules.
Apparently "your organisation" and its rules for division and exclusion, are more important for you than freemasonery rules.
Do you mean that choice of "male only" is forbidden to any comment ?


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> ...Freemasonery has reformed in the last 3rd century.


Freemasonry was CREATED by a group of men who wanted to have an excuse to get together quarterly to have dinner parties where they could eat, drink, sing, be entertained and have discourse.  That plan was discussed in 1716 and implemented in 1717.


----------



## coachn

Bloke said:


> ... By embracing toleration for all men under the fatherhood of God regardless of race or sexual orientation, we can set ourselves above today’s polarized society. That toleration, in turn, will promote harmony and build unity within our lodges. By celebrating our diversity rather than condemning it, our fraternity will grow stronger and attract innovative, exceptional young men to join our ranks as men and Masons for years to come.


Unfortunately, we are not a progressive society.  Freemasonry as a whole is being dragged, defiantly and belligerently kicking and screaming into the 20th (not 21st) century; all as a result of lowering our standards.  We are no longer the crème de le crème; these issues are a reflection of that.


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> When you say "barking" about me .... I suppose this your way to respect people ?
> Considering someone like a dog ...


Your actions are likened to that of a reactive dog; if the collar fits, then take the light it offers and adjust you behavior accordingly.


Joaben said:


> You apparently forget that FM inte oldest rituals states that there is ONE PEOPLE of FM on the earth...


If I am understanding what you have made effort to communicate through extremely cryptic English, _*you apparently forget that*_ the ritual you may or may not be referring to is not universal.  So forgetting something that is not used in my jurisdiction would be a statement based upon a mistaken assumption on your part.


Joaben said:


> So, "organisations" have nothing to do with freemasonery, just profane rules.


Recognized Freemasonic Organizations are Freemasonry.  They do not teach Masonry.  They teach only those things that support the continuation of their organizations.  Should you wish to learn Masonry, you'll have to follow the road maps they provide you through their rituals.  That's the way it works and has worked from day one.


Joaben said:


> Apparently "your organisation" and its rules for division and exclusion, are more important for you than freemasonery rules.


The "rules for division and exclusion" that you view as a bad thing, is actually a good thing in my eyes.  It separates out with purposeful intent and allows members to enjoy what they seek.  The organizational rules are Freemasonic Rules since Freemasonry IS the organization, Masonic rules are an entirely different thing.  The sooner you realize this, the faster you will find yourself wanting to get off the high horse you're on.


Joaben said:


> Do you mean that choice of "male only" is forbidden to any comment ?


No.  I mean that *condemnation of my choice to join an all male version of the society will be met with a quick dismissal.*

You have a huge problem and it has nothing to do with what you claim.  You want to attack something because you cannot accept that people want what these organizations offer.  You think it is wrong.  We get that.  You are loud and clear.  However, belligerently and obsessively repeating your opinion ad nausea isn't going to change this simple fact: *we don't care that you disagree; our participation has nothing to do with your opinion.*  We like belonging to an all male organization. and don't desire to change this in any way.


----------



## Joaben

Coachn ... your world is very special and arrogant, where you feel allowed to insult others as dogs ... and claim "respect" to you...
I refer about universality on "Emulation working"  statded by Book of Constitutions of UGLE.
I have no opinion on rituals where apparently insulting brethren of "dog" is normal practice.
I have nothing to bother about YOUR choice and no power to make you change ! May be you will have to respond in court about homophobic rules but it is something of your justice. Personnally, I hope that your grand Lodge wille be condemned for that. 
I just have opinion on organisation stating exclusions and the catastropic display that such practices give to Freemasonery in general.
I unsderstand that you are happy with it, may be even proud.
It's true that english is not my mother tongue but it is not an argument either.
I feel deeply anglo-saxon ! I understand there is a huge difference in mentality between Europ in general and Georgia. 
Normally masonic fraternity is a way to weaken these differences.

"Unfortunately, we are not a progressive society." .. How can you say a so anti-masonic sentence ? in total contradiction with the answer to the ritual question : "What are are we doing in lodge" (stated in the oldest rituals !).

"a result of lowering our standards" ... yes! I see ! ... reading you !(sorry ! this is just the dog !).


----------



## Joaben

You have the answer, not coming from "the barking dog" but from  the GLUS

The statement by the GLUS about homophobia


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> Coachn ... your world is very special and arrogant, where you feel allowed to insult others as dogs ... and claim "respect" to you...


So, you feel insulted by what I write but have no problem writing insulting things yourself.  Isn't that hypocrisy?


Joaben said:


> I refer about universality on "Emulation working"  statded by Book of Constitutions of UGLE.


Any jurisdiction can claim universality, but that does not make what is stated universally claimed. 


Joaben said:


> I have no opinion on rituals where apparently insulting brethren of "dog" is normal practice.


But you have no problem insulting those who do not share you opinion.  interesting...


Joaben said:


> I have nothing to bother about YOUR choice and no power to make you change !


I am so glad that you realize this.


Joaben said:


> May be you will have to respond in court about homophobic rules but it is something of your justice.


<sigh> I don't think so.   Have you not been paying attention?  My GL has nothing to do with the GL in question, other than continuing to recognize it.


Joaben said:


> Personnally, I hope that your grand Lodge wille be condemned for that.


So, you believe my GL will be found guilty, even though it has nothing to do with what you claim and it is another GL that you are speaking of?  Guilt by association?  You sure do have a problem keeping things on track and focused.


Joaben said:


> I just have opinion on organisation stating exclusions and the catastropic display that such practices give to Freemasonery in general.


Yes.  You have made that abundantly clear.  But I think it is a bit more than an opinion.  It appears to be a problem for you that you cannot accept.


Joaben said:


> I unsderstand that you are happy with it, may be even proud.


Good.  I'm glad that you can understand this.


Joaben said:


> It's true that english is not my mother tongue ...


Yup, that is clear.


Joaben said:


> ...but it is not an argument either.


Really?


Joaben said:


> I feel deeply anglo-saxon ! I understand there is a huge difference in mentality between Europ in general and Georgia.


I hope you realize I am not a Georgian.  But yes, there is a gap still.


Joaben said:


> Normally masonic fraternity is a way to weaken these differences.


It is also a way of tolerating those who cannot accept these differences.


Joaben said:


> "Unfortunately, we are not a progressive society." .. How can you say a so anti-masonic sentence ?


Because, the organization is not progressive.  It is clear from its behavior and no amount of lip service shall change the reality that is clear from simple observance.


Joaben said:


> ...in total contradiction with the answer to the ritual question : "What are are we doing in lodge" (stated in the oldest rituals !).


Lip service.  You can read a script ad nausea but until you actually follow it, you're not living it.



Joaben said:


> "a result of lowering our standards" ... yes! I see ! ... reading you !(sorry ! this is just the dog !).


Good Boy!


----------



## NY.Light.II

The dog analogy was a bit much. 

Additionally, Europe didn't ban slavery as a whole. The Slavery Abolition Act, prohibiting slavery I'm most of the British empire, was enacted in Westminster in 1834. Greece banned slavery in 1822. France abolished slave trading in 1818, Spain abolished slavery 1811 (with a few colonial exceptions). These are just a few examples that show that slavery was not prohibited at one specific time by one specific edict/law.


----------



## Joaben

Better that accusation :
Have I insulted anyone of "dog" or "barking" ? 
I have criticized some practices ...
You apprently do not read ! "Emulation Working" MENTIONS "Universal fraternity" ... and does not pretend to be universal !

You said "But I think ...."  Please criticize what I really write, not what "you think" is behind !
You can, of course, decide from your political point of view or desires masonery "not progressive" but I talk about *masonic* arguments ...
I do not know your GL but as you apparently support GL of Georgia ...


----------



## Joaben

NY.Light.II said:


> The dog analogy was a bit much.
> Additionally, Europe didn't ban slavery as a whole. The Slavery Abolition Act, prohibiting slavery I'm most of the British empire, was enacted in Westminster in 1834. Greece banned slavery in 1822. France abolished slave trading in 1818, Spain abolished slavery 1811 (with a few colonial exceptions). These are just a few examples that show that slavery was not prohibited at one specific time by one specific edict/law.


OK ! What is the argument ?
To be insulted of dog ... does not matter for me ! It just shows the level of the one insulting ! ... and the arrogance !


----------



## JJones

This 'back and forth' is getting out of hand.  Please take it to PMs if you feel the need to continue.


----------



## coachn

Joaben said:


> Better that accusation :
> Have I insulted anyone of "dog" or "barking" ?  ...


Barking up the wrong tree; chasing the wrong bus -- metaphors!  Not insults.  Lick your imagined wounds dude and move on.


Joaben said:


> ...I do not know your GL but as you apparently support GL of Georgia


You are mistaken.

Bro. JJones is spot on.  I shall say it differently though:  Responding to your future posts dealing with your hurt feelings, imagined slights and off-center opinions is a major waste of time.  Time to move on.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

JJones said:


> This 'back and forth' is getting out of hand.  Please take it to PMs if you feel the need to continue.


Thank you!


----------



## Joaben

coachn said:


> Barking up the wrong tree; chasing the wrong bus -- metaphors!  Not insults.  Lick your imagined wounds dude and move on.
> Bro. JJones is spot on.  I shall say it differently though:  Responding to your future posts dealing with your hurt feelings, imagined slights and off-center opinions is a major waste of time.  Time to move on.


Ok with moderator ! There is nothing to reply to insults ... even not assumed by the one who insult. Your metaphors express lot of contempt. but it does not matter for me ! It just express ... your mentality .. coherent with the opinions you posted before. So I agree it is a waste of time responding to your posts ! One point of agreement. So, ignore me ! I promise to ignore you.


----------



## Ressam

Joaben said:


> *Sorry for you, but in ancient guilds of operative masons, women were there and work as builders.*
> Some were master of the lodge !


Proof-link, please!
P.S. Mr.Joaben,
then, can you, please, explain -- "Why in these Old Masonic Manuscripts, in Old
Landmarks there were strict Rule -- "No Women." Why did they do that? Why they
decided to do so? Why they did not decide to admit women at that times, from the beginnin'?"
They were stupid at that time? And, you want to "correct" their views now?


----------



## Joaben

Ressam said:


> Proof-link, please!
> P.S. Mr.Joaben,
> then, can you, please, explain -- "Why in these Old Masonic Manuscripts, in Old
> Landmarks there were strict Rule -- "No Women." Why did they do that? Why they
> decided to do so? Why they did not decide to admit women at that times, from the beginnin'?"
> They were stupid at that time? And, you want to "correct" their views now?


One example
York manuscripts
_"The one of the elders takeing the Booke / and that *hee or shee *that is to be made mason / shall lay their hands thereon / and the charge shall bee given"._

At these times women wer banished of everything For the catholic church, they even have no soul.
FM did not admit black people, neither jews, neither slaves or vassals or homosexuals or disabled.
Ban of women have nothing to do with masonic reasons but with conformity with society of 18th century in Europe.
Initiating a woman or a black man AT THESE TIMES should have been an offense, not to masonery, but to the civilian society.
Anderson does not give any argument for banishing women. IF Desaguliers, Montaigu, wanted to strat masonery, they had no choice at these times : No-women or FM should be banished. It is a political reason, not a masonic reason. Historical masonic facts have proved the quality of female and mixed masonery.
OUR TIMES are different, no ?
Is there any reason nowadays to conform to the rules of 18th century society ? Masonic rules, yes, society rules, no  !Ethical rules of 21st century, yes ! : No racism, sexism, homophobia .
For the same reason of conformity to civilian rules any discrimination shoud be banished nowadays.


----------



## Zack

If everyone would stop responding to this guy he'll go away.  He's been jerking your chain for a couple of days now


----------



## Warrior1256

Joaben said:


> Sorry to be so direct. But th "f" of Freemasonery means "frankness" too, No ?


You can be as frank as you want and speak your mind as you please but my statement stands unchanged. We do not need to justify our men only rule. If someone is so greatly bothered by that particular landmark they are free to demit and join a co-masonry lodge. If they do not wish to do this but only want to whine and moan about it they can just be ignored.


coachn said:


> Responding to your future posts dealing with your hurt feelings, imagined slights and off-center opinions is a major waste of time. Time to move on.


Agreed. As I stated in my last post regarding this subject, just ignore him. No more replies from me.


----------



## GrandJojo

I am also a European Mason from the Continent - but unlike Joaben, I am from mainstream Masonry (or Regular - which is a term I don't particularly like).

Freemasonry, to me is a school of morality. The requirement of believing in a Supreme Being has more to do with tradition - in that in the 18th century and before that, it was inconceivable that an atheist could be a moral person, morality being found mostly in the Word of God, or the Bible. To think that atheists are immoral people today, is naive at best. Today, the requirement in believing in God can still be defended by arguing that spirituality helps in understanding the lessons we teach, and understand the true essence of maintream Masonry. We can also argue that men of Faith will be more comfortable in a mainstream Lodge, than an "Adogmatic"/Grand Orient type one. Other than that, it's a requirement that I feel is more and more difficult to defend.

Speculative Freemasonry was created in 1717 by men, because women were thought to be immoral at that time and incapable of any intellectual thinking. They were just getting out of the middle ages. Had speculative Freemasonry been created today - I'm not sure we'd have the same rules at all. To some extend, I'm surprised we haven't been sued in courts around the world for discrimination just on the basis of gender. It may still happen and Feminine Grand Lodges might not be immune either. While we are still protected by private club / freedom of association laws, the line between that freedom, and discrimination is not 100% clear to me. 

Now to the heart of the subject. Are gay men immoral, are their sexual activities immoral? Some Churches believe so, some don't - including Christian ones. However, I feel Grand Lodges are not extensions of the Church (whichever one). We keep saying that we are not a Church, we do not offer salvation.

Can gay men better themselves in Freemasonry, can they contribute to Freemasonry? Personally: absolutely. I know a number of gay members and are usually very discreet and even conservative. I belong to a Grand Lodge where we've actively punished members for being publicly homophobic. It's one thing to not like men sexually yourself, but it's an entirely other thing to detest them for being who they are, as if it was a choice on their part.  There is no pill to take to get cured, no scientific shock treatment - and it's not contagious. Do gay men have choose abstinence to join Freemasonry, because some of us feel that what happens in their bedroom is unthinkable? Anger does not make you right, and no one is saying we should have sex with them - and even less so in the Lodge or outside. What happens between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes is their business, and none of mine.


----------



## Warrior1256

GrandJojo said:


> What happens between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes is their business, and none of mine.


Total agree.


----------



## MRichard

Far as I am concerned, potential gender based lawsuits are not an issue just as they are not for other fraternities. Now this trans issue is another matter, I won't  speculate on that. There are still viable reasons that women can't join. They are free to join OES or other clandestine bodies (such as co-masonry).

I could see issues if a gay male couple were to belong to the same lodge. I am not for or against gay men being freemasons. I am pretty sure gay men have secretly been members for quite awhile anyway.


----------



## GrandJojo

MRichard said:


> Far as I am concerned, potential gender based lawsuits are not an issue just as they are not for other fraternities. Now this trans issue is another matter, I won't speculate on that. There are still viable reasons that women can't join. They are free to join OES or other clandestine bodies (such as co-masonry).



Hope you're right.

I agree, the trans-gender thing is a nightmare. I've seen a colleague go through this at work, was hugely embarrassing but not for the reasons you might think. This guy was not exactly good looking - being quite fat, many pimples very tall with think glasses. As a girl, she was much worse looking and also deeply unhappy. Worse, like many guys, she started loosing her hair. In fact she still liked girls, she liked girls when she was a guy. He didn't have any luck with them as a guy, and completely hopeless as a girl. If would be comical if it weren't true. 

 Imagine a Brother of your Lodge you've known for many years, and this happens to him.

Some Grand Lodges have already expelled Masons that had gone through the surgery and legally changed gender.


----------



## Glen Cook

MRichard said:


> ...
> 
> I could see issues if a gay male couple were to belong to the same lodge. ....



and indeed, there have been.  I had to deal with a lodge from which a visiting brother was barred because of his attitude over his ex, a member of that lodge.


----------



## goomba

Joaben said:


> ...the way you treat brethren (male or female or homo)....



You have obviously never meet Bro. Coach.  He is one of the nicest people you will ever meet.  It is extremely obvious within a few seconds of talking to him.


----------



## goomba

Joaben said:


> OK ! What is the argument ?
> To be insulted of dog ... does not matter for me ! It just shows the level of the one insulting ! ... and the arrogance !




In the first post when Bro. Coach said "barking up the wrong tree" that is NOT an insult.  The phrase is a common saying the United States and means:  you are looking in the wrong place.


----------



## Bloke

As others have said, what happens in a bedroom between two consenting adults is their business



MRichard said:


> I could see issues if a gay male couple were to belong to the same lodge. I am not for or against gay men being freemasons. I am pretty sure gay men have secretly been members for quite awhile anyway.



I know members who are "out" and "in the closet". I see that as their decision but most gay freemasons I know are cautious about causing any problems for others because of their sexuality and because of others prejudices or insecurities. 

I'm in regular craft lodges with gay men. I support these men and they make great contributions, one is a senior Grand Officer who has worked in Grand Teams.  In one "progressive" lodge I am in, a bro brought his male partner to a weekend away after encouragement from the WM (me) and Sec. Probably only 10-20% of our members knew he was gay. Being full of generally tolerant men,  and with even more members who were beyond tolerance and actually fully accepting, it was no issue. I was Master at the time and encouraged him to do as he see fit, and he decided to bring his partner along - it was simply no big deal for other members. His decision cause no problem, and he made it with the wisdom of a PM and experienced and good mason.

In an regular lodge, one would expect an absence of any tension between partners. It's one of the things I like about the fraternity. Some couples might be fine in lodges, but a couple at odds, or who favour each other above others might have a potential to cause problems and I sometimes wonder about that- but I also tell myself that's_ a fear _rather than a reality and as a Freemason I should control my passions and prejudices (both emotions) and as fear is one of those emotions, I need to put that fear aside. 

At the end of the day its about the character of the members and its a "cross that bridge if I ever find it" plan for me... also knowing that we've got a couple of heterosexual friends in our lodge who act like old married couples viz Howard and Raj in the TV show the big bang theory... whether a bro favours or conflicts with another normally stands outside sexuality and if sexuality falls into the mix, then like any other issue, one should act in congruence with the values of the Craft and good leadership and action regardless of which gender(s) you or others are attracted to. 

You also need to ask yourself as an individual if your actions and words support or compromise the success of your lodge.

At the end of the day, co-freemasonry copes with this issue of couples in the one lodge and you need to have some faith that we would likewise cope with challenges other organizations meet and overcome.. it all comes back to fear about what *might* happen if  "a couple" cause conflict in a lodge. Such differences need to be resolved using masonic values and means. 

God knows, I often could  not sit in lodge with my partner because we are at variance, if I was gay and hence my male partner could join, I'm not sure I would want my partner in the same lodge LOL...... 

I wonder if there are any gay bros reading this thread. If you are, then you are still my brother equal with all others... but I wonder, would you want your partner in your lodge ?


----------



## MarkR

Joaben said:


> One example
> York manuscripts
> _"The one of the elders takeing the Booke / and that *hee or shee *that is to be made mason / shall lay their hands thereon / and the charge shall bee given"._


That has been shown to be a mis-translation of the original.  The correct translation is "he or they."  "She" was not in the original.  It was originally in Latin, and was translated incorrectly.


----------



## coachn

MarkR said:


> Joaben said: ↑
> One example
> York manuscripts
> _"The one of the elders takeing the Booke / and that *hee or shee *that is to be made mason / shall lay their hands thereon / and the charge shall bee given"._
> Click to expand...
> That has been shown to be a mis-translation of the original. The correct translation is "he or they." "She" was not in the original. It was originally in Latin, and was translated incorrectly.


Both of you are debating the issue using Stonecraft manuscripts as the bone of contention (no, it is not another dog metaphor).   Doing so is arguing over a red herring. (are stinky fish metaphors okay?)

Other than their use as scripting materials for Freemasonic plays, such use of these manuscripts to support arguments is likened to justifying the validity of the movie comedy "1941" as being a legitimate documentary of what occurred in California during WWII; it is obviously not and the same can be said of Freemasonry not being a continuation of Stonecraft.

However, Freemasonry does use Stonecraft as its basic theme for its morality plays.  It also uses it for its symbols and lexicon resources.  That's all that it does though and you can see this if you rip the veil off everything that it does and supports.  The evidence is startlingly clear if you only took the time to examine it.

If you want to justify females not being a part of the recognized society, your argument would be better supported by directing all attention to the fact that to authentically play the role of a theatrical society premised upon medieval morality plays, you would have to exclude females and others who are of questionable moral character because that was the law of the land at that time in areas that had mystery ("mystery" meaning "occupation guild") play  support.  Such individuals were not included and to include such characters in your  morality plays would present anachronistic elements into what was being presented. 

Of course, if you thoroughly examine all elements of what presently occurs in these plays, you'd soon realize we are doing a terrible job keeping out other anachronistic elements.  And the reason we are doing a terrible job at this is because very few members actually know what and why we do what we do.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2




----------



## dfreybur

Zack said:


> If everyone would stop responding to this guy he'll go away.



Click his user name in one of his posts.  A pop up window appears.  One of the radio buttons in the pop up window is Ignore.

I just did that with him.  I don't ignore a lot of members but the few I do it improves the signal to noise ratio.


----------



## coachn

dfreybur said:


> Click his user name in one of his posts.  A pop up window appears.  One of the radio buttons in the pop up window is Ignore.
> 
> I just did that with him.  I don't ignore a lot of members but the few I do it improves the signal to noise ratio.


Just tried this feature... BRO.!!!!  I'd give you a hug if you were in the same room and open to it, THANK YOU!


----------



## JustinCC93

Bloke said:


> I wonder if there are any gay bros reading this thread. If you are, then you are still my brother equal with all others... but I wonder, would you want your partner in your lodge ?




I would be happy to respond to this question, Brother. If my husband ever decided to petition any Lodge, i would be 100% supportive of his decision.  I grew up in a Masonic family. My dad is a Past Master and current District Deputy Grand Master and I will be installed as Worshipful Master of my Lodge in December.  We both would be happy to greet him as a Brother. As it is, he has never expressed interest, but he does attend Masonic functions to support me and his father-in-law.


----------



## Bloke

JustinCC93 said:


> I would be happy to respond to this question, Brother. If my husband ever decided to petition any Lodge, i would be 100% supportive of his decision.... I will be installed as Worshipful Master of my Lodge in December....he has never expressed interest, but he does attend Masonic functions to support me and his father-in-law.



Congratulations WME!

Thanks for the response. Like many things in Freemasonry, i guess it's all all about individuals.

Our GL constitution is silent on sexuality, but our last GM and DGM (now GM) were asked about gay members on our TV show, GM said they were welcome.. our current WM just organised a gay couple into a lodge local to them.... but there is homophobia in our lodge but we also have gay members, there not very camp and are not very open - most are also single - i think they few homophobes we have haven't worked it out... in my other lodge its not an issue and guys bring male partners to socials.....

 i keep hiring our hall out to the bear bar over the road, that started years ago when they approached us to use the hall for an aids fundraiser.... i'm sitting in the hall management meeting an an old PM said something like " the gays accross the road want to hire the hall for a charity fundraiser for aids" and there were raised eyebrows and 100% support with nods of approval on a benevolent cause. It was good to see as a MM knowing i'd joined a group that was not prejudiced.

And I assume you ain't in Georgia!!!


----------



## Warrior1256

dfreybur said:


> Click his user name in one of his posts.  A pop up window appears.  One of the radio buttons in the pop up window is Ignore.
> 
> I just did that with him.  I don't ignore a lot of members but the few I do it improves the signal to noise ratio.


Lol....very good.


----------



## JustinCC93

Bloke said:


> Congratulations WME!
> 
> ...
> 
> And I assume you ain't in Georgia!!!



Thank you, Worshipful Brother.  I am looking forward to serving my Lodge in a new way, having been Secretary for the past five years. 

You assume correctly.  I am not in Georgia.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

..


----------



## Warrior1256

JustinCC93 said:


> Thank you, Worshipful Brother.  I am looking forward to serving my Lodge in a new way, having been Secretary for the past five years.
> 
> You assume correctly.  I am not in Georgia.


Please allow me to add my congratulations brother. I'm sure that you are going to be a great WM.


----------

