# For Freemasons, Is Banning Gays Or Being Gay Un-Masonic? : NPR



## My Freemasonry

Those members who keep insisting that we “shouldn’t air our dirty laundry in public” probably aren’t pleased with this NPR story. But the fact is that by squashing discussion about some of these issues, it creates a climate – indeed, a mindset – that we should *never* talk about some of these issues. We can’t […]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Continue reading...


----------



## Bloke

Listened.... Bro Cook comments..


----------



## jermy Bell

I see this 2 ways. Don't ask, don' tell. But if is being flaunted, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> Listened.... Bro Cook comments..


I never heard it


----------



## David612

What bearing does being gay have on masonry?
As far as I can see and In my experience, there is nothing in our organisation that should exclude a gay man from entering our ranks and enjoying the fraternity.
I suspect there are those that carry ideals of their own or other institutions and use masonry as the scapegoat to perpetuate their bigotry.
People who use the fraternity to forward their own, now unlawful, agenda should be brought up on charges, both Masonic and otherwise.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

A man’s sexual preference has no business within the Lodge.

Until the question is blatantly asked upon the Petition for the Degrees, it has no foundation as an issue.


----------



## CLewey44

People like to pick and choose what they are against. For every one thing they pluck from the Bible (for example) to oppose, they ignore another 10 things. Gay men make some men uncomfortable however if someone is destroying there 'temple' everyday smoking and eating 500 grams of sugar, having diabetes, heart disease etc, that's ok. Two things that are personal things that don't effect others really. If anything, the overweight, unhealthy guy makes our healthcare costs go up for example. (I know some people can't help these things but many can and it's lifestyle choices that cause this) A brother can be uncomfortable with homosexuality and even oppose it but their beliefs, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever, never trumps Masonic beliefs and ideals. They are not to bring up what their VSL says on the matter since we aren't supposed to talk about religion in lodge. We are Free and Accepted Masons and have to be accepting of others as well.


----------



## coachn

David612 said:


> What bearing does being gay have on masonry?...


None on Masonry.

However, on Freemasonry... that depends upon your Grand Lodge.


----------



## Warrior1256

Bro. Stewart P.M. said:


> A man’s sexual preference has no business within the Lodge.
> 
> Until the question is blatantly asked upon the Petition for the Degrees, it has no foundation as an issue.


Agreed.


CLewey44 said:


> We are Free and Accepted Masons and have to be accepting of others as well.


Also agreed.


----------



## dfreybur

Bro. Stewart P.M. said:


> A man’s sexual preference has no business within the Lodge.



Discussion brings sectarian religion into the lodge and is thus a landmark violation.  While we can name religions that disapprove the list of religions that are silent on the topic is very long.  That makes it a slam dunk sectarian religious topic.  For some Brothers all religious discussion is banned in our assemblies.  For others only sectarian religious discussion.  It's generally hard to discuss any religious topic without tripping over the sectarian line.

This crossing of the sectarian religious line is why CA pulled recognition from TN.  So far I haven't heard that being rescinded.


----------



## Rifleman1776

A moot issue, IMHO. People generally associate with those who they feel comfortable being around and share common interests. I believe a known homosexual might have difficulty getting the required signatures on his petition. And, even if he did, a black ball would likely be dropped. But, if there is a gay man in Lodge not flaunting a different 'lifestyle', I say, let him be and accept as any other Brother.


----------



## rpbrown

Bro. Stewart P.M. said:


> A man’s sexual preference has no business within the Lodge.
> 
> Until the question is blatantly asked upon the Petition for the Degrees, it has no foundation as an issue.



I agree


----------



## CLewey44

As I've said before, I don't think there is a line of effeminate gay men beating down the doors to hang out with a bunch of middle aged to older men discussing pancake dinners and shot gun raffles.


----------



## LK600

Bro. Stewart P.M. said:


> A man’s sexual preference has no business within the Lodge.



Completely agree!  I have zero interest hearing about ANYONE'S sexual preference nor exploits.  It has no place in Lodge nor should it be a concern of any of it's members.


----------



## LK600

CLewey44 said:


> As I've said before, I don't think there is a line of effeminate gay men beating down the doors to hang out with a bunch of middle aged to older men discussing pancake dinners and shot gun raffles.



Are you trying to say something along the lines that I may be unattractive??


----------



## CLewey44

LK600 said:


> Are you trying to say something along the lines that I may be unattractive??


Lol, well, I don't think gay men would join Masonry to hook-up.  But, I can't answer that question lolol. I don't get down like that haha.


----------



## Warrior1256

CLewey44 said:


> As I've said before, I don't think there is a line of effeminate gay men beating down the doors to hang out with a bunch of middle aged to older men discussing pancake dinners and shot gun raffles.


Lol....likely very true.


LK600 said:


> Are you trying to say something along the lines that I may be unattractive??





CLewey44 said:


> Lol, well, I don't think gay men would join Masonry to hook-up. But, I can't answer that question lolol. I don't get down like that haha.


LOL!!!!


----------



## Scoops

The only time I could ever conceive of a problem would be if two lodge members were partners and had a disagreement, although I would hope that if Freemasonry had done its job, they would not bring that disagreement into the lodge and disturb the peace and harmony. Other than that, I don't see why the sexuality of a brother is any of my business our concern.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## goomba

jermy Bell said:


> I see this 2 ways. Don't ask, don' tell. But if is being flaunted, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.



I guess this depends on what it means to "flaunt".


----------



## Glen Cook

Scoops said:


> The only time I could ever conceive of a problem would be if two lodge members were partners and had a disagreement, although I would hope that if Freemasonry had done its job, they would not bring that disagreement into the lodge and disturb the peace and harmony. Other than that, I don't see why the sexuality of a brother is any of my business our concern.
> 
> Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


Had something similar in a lodge when a visiting brother was jilted by s member of the lodge. The visitor was eventually barred from visiting.


----------



## goomba

I think it is very dangerous for our fraternity to say much on the topic of sex or sexuality.  Our ritual has a character named King Solomon in it.  Well according to one Holy Book, I've read he wasn't exactly known for restraint in that area.  Incidentally, I think the Eastern Star would love to have the influx of all his wives joining .

1 Kings 11:3a - And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines


----------



## coachn

goomba said:


> I think it is very dangerous for our fraternity to say much on the topic of sex or sexuality.  Our ritual has a character named King Solomon in it.  Well according to one Holy Book, I've read he wasn't exactly known for restraint in that area.  Incidentally, I think the Eastern Star would love to have the influx of all his wives joining .
> 
> 1 Kings 11:3a - And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines


----------



## Warrior1256

Glen Cook said:


> Had something similar in a lodge when a visiting brother was jilted by s member of the lodge. The visitor was eventually barred from visiting.


Interesting! Food for thought.


----------



## David612

goomba said:


> I think it is very dangerous for our fraternity to say much on the topic of sex or sexuality.  Our ritual has a character named King Solomon in it.  Well according to one Holy Book, I've read he wasn't exactly known for restraint in that area.  Incidentally, I think the Eastern Star would love to have the influx of all his wives joining .
> 
> 1 Kings 11:3a - And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines


And he still had time for temple building, Goodness me!


----------



## Warrior1256

David612 said:


> And he still had time for temple building, Goodness me!


LOL!!!!!


----------



## coachn

David612 said:


> And he still had time for temple building, Goodness me!


Sounds like he was building to a climax.


----------



## David612

coachn said:


> Sounds like he was building to a climax.


If I built a temple like that I’m sure I’d have to beat the ladies off with a stick! 
It’s a known fact ladies love a man who can build a temple.


----------



## okielabrat

Who's to say we don't already have gay Masons in our lodges, and have had them for quite some time?

It is none of my business who a Lodge brother cohabitates or even sleeps with. Yes, my Christian faith says homosexuality is sinful, but it also admonishes me to love the sinner and hate the sin. In other words, the consequences of our individual lifestyles and choices are accountable only to God. I work with several folks in healthcare who have let it be known they are gay, but they don't make a fuss about it. I'm OK with brothers who are gay.


----------



## jermy Bell

Don't ask don't tell.


----------



## darsehole

Don’t we actually brag about Oscar Wilde being a Freemason?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## CLewey44

jermy Bell said:


> Don't ask don't tell.


I would modify that to just "dont ask". If they want to tell thats ok. They shouldn't live in the closet or have to "hide" anything either.


----------



## Bloke

darsehole said:


> Don’t we actually brag about Oscar Wilde being a Freemason?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


We do


----------



## LK600

okielabrat said:


> Who's to say we don't already have gay Masons in our lodges, and have had them for quite some time?



A man who is gay should meet all requirements the same way a man who is not, not including those things that would disqualify anyone regardless.  Truly, I do not understand the issue.


----------



## Rifleman1776

Unfortunately that is a simplistic view that does not cover all possibilities. (I may have mentioned this elsewhere, oh well.) My church has a recent new attendee. The person is a large male who, according to our Pastor, "sees" himself as a woman. He dresses like a woman and prefers to be referred to with a female name. From what we know, he (I still think of him as being a "he") is still intact with male organs, etc.  OK, he is coming to church, I have no problem with that. However, it is a fact we are going to lose attendance and members because of this. Several years ago the congregation lost about half it's members when a couple gays began attending. If this happens in a Lodge it could spell the end of that Lodge. Churches and Lodges still need to pay the bills. My church is in the red every month now. That cannot continue indefinitely. We are talking facts here, not bias or bigotry. Tough issue.


----------



## tldubb

Rifleman1776 said:


> Unfortunately that is a simplistic view that does not cover all possibilities. (I may have mentioned this elsewhere, oh well.) My church has a recent new attendee. The person is a large male who, according to our Pastor, "sees" himself as a woman. He dresses like a woman and prefers to be referred to with a female name. From what we know, he (I still think of him as being a "he") is still intact with male organs, etc.  OK, he is coming to church, I have no problem with that. However, it is a fact we are going to lose attendance and members because of this. Several years ago the congregation lost about half it's members when a couple gays began attending. If this happens in a Lodge it could spell the end of that Lodge. Churches and Lodges still need to pay the bills. My church is in the red every month now. That cannot continue indefinitely. We are talking facts here, not bias or bigotry. Tough issue.



WWJD?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Mobile


----------



## CLewey44

Rifleman1776 said:


> .....He dresses like a woman and prefers to be referred to with a female name. From what we know, he (I still think of him as being a "he")......years ago the congregation lost about half it's members when a couple gays began attending...



I look at it as if someone's name is Robert and they prefer to go by Rob or Bob, it's frankly pretty rude to call them Robert just out of spite. Or if someone goes by their middle name and someone insists on calling them by their first name. What does it hurt to call them Rob, Bob or their middle name? As for the last part I just thought it was pretty telling and funny at the same time.


----------



## LK600

Rifleman1776 said:


> Unfortunately that is a simplistic view that does not cover all possibilities. (I may have mentioned this elsewhere, oh well.) My church has a recent new attendee. The person is a large male who, according to our Pastor, "sees" himself as a woman. He dresses like a woman and prefers to be referred to with a female name. From what we know, he (I still think of him as being a "he") is still intact with male organs, etc.  OK, he is coming to church, I have no problem with that. However, it is a fact we are going to lose attendance and members because of this. Several years ago the congregation lost about half it's members when a couple gays began attending. If this happens in a Lodge it could spell the end of that Lodge. Churches and Lodges still need to pay the bills. My church is in the red every month now. That cannot continue indefinitely. We are talking facts here, not bias or bigotry. Tough issue.



We are talking about separate things I think.  I was speaking purely of a man who is gay.  I was not addressing Trans-anything.  Being Gay in and of itself would/should not be a disqualifier.  Now, My feelings towards issues of Trans-gender would be as follows.  A woman who transitions to a man, is now a man and should be able to join.  A man who has transitioned to a woman, is now a woman and can not join.  A Brother who chooses to become a woman, is now a woman, and must leave the craft.  That's as far of an opinion as I have at this point.


----------



## Glen Cook

LK600 said:


> We are talking about separate things I think.  I was speaking purely of a man who is gay.  I was not addressing Trans-anything.  Being Gay in and of itself would/should not be a disqualifier.  Now, My feelings towards issues of Trans-gender would be as follows.  A woman who transitions to a man, is now a man and should be able to join.  A man who has transitioned to a woman, is now a woman and can not join.  A Brother who chooses to become a woman, is now a woman, and must leave the craft.  That's as far of an opinion as I have at this point.


That’s two great minds who feel that way.


----------



## darsehole

LK600 said:


> We are talking about separate things I think.  I was speaking purely of a man who is gay.  I was not addressing Trans-anything.  Being Gay in and of itself would/should not be a disqualifier.  Now, My feelings towards issues of Trans-gender would be as follows.  A woman who transitions to a man, is now a man and should be able to join.  A man who has transitioned to a woman, is now a woman and can not join.  A Brother who chooses to become a woman, is now a woman, and must leave the craft.  That's as far of an opinion as I have at this point.



I agree. Gay and Trans are different, and the debates should be handled differently. 

I know, that personally, I hold different opinions and whether or not to address them as a “brother”. 

However, with the recent UGLE announcement, one can most definitely expect a similar backlash as Georgia and Tennessee are experiencing in their jurisdictions. 

Neither position will benefit the fraternity, on a whole. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256

LK600 said:


> My feelings towards issues of Trans-gender would be as follows. A woman who transitions to a man, is now a man and should be able to join. A man who has transitioned to a woman, is now a woman and can not join. A Brother who chooses to become a woman, is now a woman, and must leave the craft.


This is pretty much the way that I see it.


----------



## WV719

Warrior1256 said:


> This is pretty much the way that I see it.



Unfortunately for us as Kentucky Freemason we have a problem with our book of constitutions the phrase of "moral turpitude" which some of our brothers use to target brothers who could be gay or really for anything that they can squeeze under that.  I personally agree with you I don't care who a brother sleeps with it does not make one bit of difference as to weather or not he can be a good man and a good mason.


----------



## goomba

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm...-1934-appendix-d-grounds-judicial-deportation
https://www.aclualabama.org/en/crimes-moral-turpitude
https://dpa.ky.gov/Public_Defender_Resources/Documents/CollateralConsequencesManualFINAL051513.pdf

I am a federal law enforcement officer.  With that in mind I'd like to address the term "moral turpitude" as I believe a good deal of grand lodges have this catch all phrase in their laws/rules/code/or whatever else governs the Craft.  I have posted three links above dealing with three sovereign jurisdictions stance on moral turpitude.

The justice.gov link speaks of administrative hearings (which I believe is the best context as our Masonic Trials are administrative in nature).  It defines Moral Turpitude as:  a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience.

The State of Alabama has a list of crimes which it determines to be crimes of moral turpitude.

The Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy (2013) defines moral turpitude as:  Moral turpitude means, in general, shameful wickedness – so extreme a departure from ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the community. It has also been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which one person owes to another, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people.

The common theme between all three of these is:  a standard of behavior deemed unacceptable by society.

Homosexual (and many other sexual minorities) have been deemed acceptable by Western society for some time.  In the USA this has been done via state laws, federal laws, and various case laws.  Moral turpitude is reserved for the worst of the worst:  murder, rape, child pornography, acts of terror, etc.    Being a relationship with someone of the same sex is not on that level not even close.  Yes it may offend an individuals personal morality and yes it may violate certain tenants of certain faith groups.  However, society has deemed it morally acceptable.

If we allow our personal/religious beliefs to add additional standards to the Craft do not be surprised when those standards not accepted by society cause society to reject us.  If we can have men gather who believe they worship a different god or the only true interpretation of god with men of different creeds it just seems silly to draw a line in the sand in the bedroom.  Do we really believe the sacred is negotiable and this we can set aside for the betterment of mankind?  But sexual difference we just can't see past?  We are better than that.


A few notes:
*admis/mods if this is better suited in another location feel free to move it
*if it is deemed to controversial feel free to delete it
*if a brother more legally educated finds an error in the above please point it out


----------



## Ross Thompson

Necroposting should be of moral turpitude... 

Not really... Some good stuff here to think about.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk


----------



## jermy Bell

goomba said:


> https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm...-1934-appendix-d-grounds-judicial-deportation
> https://www.aclualabama.org/en/crimes-moral-turpitude
> https://dpa.ky.gov/Public_Defender_Resources/Documents/CollateralConsequencesManualFINAL051513.pdf
> 
> I am a federal law enforcement officer.  With that in mind I'd like to address the term "moral turpitude" as I believe a good deal of grand lodges have this catch all phrase in their laws/rules/code/or whatever else governs the Craft.  I have posted three links above dealing with three sovereign jurisdictions stance on moral turpitude.
> 
> The justice.gov link speaks of administrative hearings (which I believe is the best context as our Masonic Trials are administrative in nature).  It defines Moral Turpitude as:  a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience.
> 
> The State of Alabama has a list of crimes which it determines to be crimes of moral turpitude.
> 
> The Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy (2013) defines moral turpitude as:  Moral turpitude means, in general, shameful wickedness – so extreme a departure from ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the community. It has also been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which one person owes to another, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people.
> 
> The common theme between all three of these is:  a standard of behavior deemed unacceptable by society.
> 
> Homosexual (and many other sexual minorities) have been deemed acceptable by Western society for some time.  In the USA this has been done via state laws, federal laws, and various case laws.  Moral turpitude is reserved for the worst of the worst:  murder, rape, child pornography, acts of terror, etc.    Being a relationship with someone of the same sex is not on that level not even close.  Yes it may offend an individuals personal morality and yes it may violate certain tenants of certain faith groups.  However, society has deemed it morally acceptable.
> 
> If we allow our personal/religious beliefs to add additional standards to the Craft do not be surprised when those standards not accepted by society cause society to reject us.  If we can have men gather who believe they worship a different god or the only true interpretation of god with men of different creeds it just seems silly to draw a line in the sand in the bedroom.  Do we really believe the sacred is negotiable and this we can set aside for the betterment of mankind?  But sexual difference we just can't see past?  We are better than that.
> 
> 
> A few notes:
> *admis/mods if this is better suited in another location feel free to move it
> *if it is deemed to controversial feel free to delete it
> *if a brother more legally educated finds an error in the above please point it out


Trace your way back 40 + years ago, these are things I've heard from Mason's that have been Mason's 40 -50 + years, plus from my father in law who has been a mason coming on 46 years. 
 Homosexuality was not acceptable, you had to be a upright citizen in your community, they asked you to become a mason, and what could you contribute to the lodge and craft, and personal things was dealt with by your peers , like if you was in trouble or caused trouble. So, yes I guess the definition has changed dramatically over the years so no one feels left out.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy

goomba said:


> Homosexual [...] have been deemed acceptable by Western society for some time.



Not that long in fact.

It was only in 1967 when the UK decriminalised sexual acts between two men and in 1988 Section 28 became law and it was repealed only in 2000.

The first countries to legalise marriage for same-sex couples were the Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003.

Most of these changes have occurred in our living memory.

In quite a few countries in Europe, including Germany, Ireland and Italy, marriage for same-sex couples is still not legal.






Reports show that some countries in Europe are 'moving backwards on equality for first time in a decade.' https://www.euronews.com/2019/05/14...ackwards-on-equality-for-first-time-in-a-deca

It is also possible that the changes in demographics in Western and Northern Europe will lead to a majority of people with religiously- and culturally-motivated strong opinions against especially gay men by as early as 2050. It is not outside the realm of possibilities for many of the recent legal achievements to be wiped off and homosexuality become illegal again in our life's span, as is often the case in the countries of origin of these populations.


----------



## jermy Bell

I like the military way then. Don't ask, don't tell.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy

jermy Bell said:


> Don't ask, don't tell



I served for 4 years as an Army officer under that paradigm.

Still if you were to be "discovered", you would be discharged with dishonour, which doesn't seem fair to me.


----------



## jermy Bell

TheThumbPuppy said:


> I served for 4 years as an Army officer under that paradigm.
> 
> Still if you were to be "discovered", you would be discharged with dishonour, which doesn't seem fair to me.


I m 48 and was always taught to not air your dirty laundry or otherwise. I worked with a kid for 8 years, never knew he was gay. I asked him why he never told me? Btw I do have gay friends , he said it wasn't anyone's business. But we live in a world now, that nothing is private, and you have to be liked and accepted for what you are. Not who you are.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy

jermy Bell said:


> was always taught to not air your dirty laundry or otherwise.



I can sympathise. I also like to keep my private life private. I've never felt the urge to waste my time on facebook, instagram, etc and I don't consider my life so noteworthy to chronicle it on social media.



jermy Bell said:


> we live in a world now, that nothing is private, and you have to be liked and accepted for what you are. Not who you are.



Very true. Welcome to identity politics. I wouldn't want to start a controversy, but I find it disappointing that identity politics – that is authoritarian in nature – has been embraced by political groups that used to be known for their libertarianism – that included (among others) the principles of voluntary association and individual judgement. In other words I also find that we get judged for what particular racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, social, cultural or other group we are perceived to belong to, and not for who we are as an individual, our own individual thoughts, principles and actions.

Even worse, I find that identity politics on one hands despotically demonises some groups (for example, white males) and automatically lables everybody belonging to that group with certain attributes (for example, all white males are racist), and on the other hand sanctifies some other groups (some of which in my view are made up or imaginary) and attributes virtuous qualities to everybody belonging to them.


----------



## goomba

jermy Bell said:


> I like the military way then. Don't ask, don't tell.



This would be an issue the moment a lodge had a family event.


----------



## goomba

jermy Bell said:


> I m 48 and was always taught to *not air your dirty laundry* or otherwise. I worked with a kid for 8 years, never knew he was gay. I asked him why he never told me? Btw I do have gay friends , he said it wasn't anyone's business. But we live in a world now, that nothing is private, and you have to be liked and accepted for what you are. Not who you are.



NOTE:  emphasis mine

I can completely understand a coworker not knowing much about my personal life.  No one I work with knows my wife's name or where my house is.  But we are not talking about a work.  We are talking a brotherhood.  If you can't tell your brother anything about your family or the person you love I question the validity of that brotherhood.  I would never consider my brother telling be about his family as dirty laundry.


----------



## jermy Bell

goomba said:


> NOTE:  emphasis mine
> 
> I can completely understand a coworker not knowing much about my personal life.  No one I work with knows my wife's name or where my house is.  But we are not talking about a work.  We are talking a brotherhood.  If you can't tell your brother anything about your family or the person you love I question the validity of that brotherhood.  I would never consider my brother telling be about his family as dirty laundry.


I'm assuming you have no idea what DIRTY laundry is.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy

goomba said:


> we are not talking about a work. We are talking a brotherhood



Very good point.


----------



## goomba

TheThumbPuppy said:


> Not that long in fact.
> 
> It was only in 1967 when the UK decriminalised sexual acts between two men and in 1988 Section 28 became law and it was repealed only in 2000.
> 
> The first countries to legalise marriage for same-sex couples were the Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003.
> 
> Most of these changes have occurred in our living memory.
> 
> In quite a few countries in Europe, including Germany, Ireland and Italy, marriage for same-sex couples is still not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reports show that some countries in Europe are 'moving backwards on equality for first time in a decade.' https://www.euronews.com/2019/05/14...ackwards-on-equality-for-first-time-in-a-deca
> 
> It is also possible that the changes in demographics in Western and Northern Europe will lead to a majority of people with religiously- and culturally-motivated strong opinions against especially gay men by as early as 2050. It is not outside the realm of possibilities for many of the recent legal achievements to be wiped off and homosexuality become illegal again in our life's span, as is often the case in the countries of origin of these populations.




That would be an interesting topic in 2050 and I applaud the effort in your post brother!  I hadn't thought about the swing in the opposite direction.  I think the best reply to that possibility is a poem of sorts.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


----------



## goomba

jermy Bell said:


> I'm assuming you have no idea what DIRTY laundry is.



I'm a human and a law enforcement officer trust me I know what dirty laundry is.  I still fail to see how the knowledge of someone being gay is equal to airing dirty laundry.


----------



## jermy Bell

Dirty laundry, your private life, what other people don't need to know on things you do behind closed doors, it's like masonry, do you announce what we do behind our closed doors ? Do you announce that you are a mason and what chair you hold to everyone you meet ? Has nothing to do with if you are gay or straight or whatever your preference is to anything. I think that some things are taken way out of content and read to deep into. Think back, did your parents tell you everything about themselves ? Did their own families know every detail of your parents life ? I'm sure they did not. So, once again, if you are gay, fine, but a lot of gays don't want other people to know, because they believe it's not everyone's business to know. Doesn't make you any less of a person. If you or anyone else remembers, it's not the outside of a man we look at, it's the inside of a man that is his true worth.


----------



## goomba

jermy Bell said:


> Dirty laundry, your private life, what other people don't need to know on things you do behind closed doors, it's like masonry, do you announce what we do behind our closed doors ? Do you announce that you are a mason and what chair you hold to everyone you meet ? Has nothing to do with if you are gay or straight or whatever your preference is to anything. I think that some things are taken way out of content and read to deep into. Think back, did your parents tell you everything about themselves ? Did their own families know every detail of your parents life ? I'm sure they did not. So, once again, if you are gay, fine, but a lot of gays don't want other people to know, because they believe it's not everyone's business to know. Doesn't make you any less of a person. If you or anyone else remembers, it's not the outside of a man we look at, it's the inside of a man that is his true worth.



Again if a brother cannot tell his brother about the existence of his partner there is a problem with the brotherhood.  I have mentioned nothing about sharing private acts that happen in a bedroom nor anything about external qualifications.  Everything I've mentioned is dealing with internal matters of the heart.  

I do not announce my membership to everyone I meet.  But that is not the issue at hand here at all.  I am talking once again in the narrow scope of a brotherhood and this specific setting only.


----------



## jermy Bell

goomba said:


> Again if a brother cannot tell his brother about the existence of his partner there is a problem with the brotherhood.  I have mentioned nothing about sharing private acts that happen in a bedroom nor anything about external qualifications.  Everything I've mentioned is dealing with internal matters of the heart.
> 
> I do not announce my membership to everyone I meet.  But that is not the issue at hand here at all.  I am talking once again in the narrow scope of a brotherhood and this specific setting only.


I understand, but there is A lot my brethren don't know about me that I don't go out of my way to make known. And vise versa. It's just not that big of a deal. But guessing you are or are exlaw enforcement, you would feel the need to know everything about whom you deal with.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy

jermy Bell said:


> Dirty laundry, your private life


That's the way I interpreted at first. I lived in London, UK most of my life. I'm tempted to say that that's what we generally mean over here.

After one other post, I did look up "dirty laundry" on the Oxford Dictionary, which confirmed that dirty laundry was _Personal or private affairs that one does not want to be made public_.

However when I looked it up on dictionary.com (which is prevalently US English) it said _personal or private matters that could cause embarrassment if made public_.

They are two rather different interpretations of _dirty laundry_.

While I value my privacy and don't feel the need to divulge my private life left, right and center, (I believe that's my British bit) I hope that we'll never get (or return) to a point where if one was outed that would be a source of any lengthy embarrassment (or worse).

Said that, if I wanted to talk about some of my private matters, wouldn't a Brother be the best man to confide in? I cannot answer that from experience yet, but I would hope so.


----------



## goomba

jermy Bell said:


> I understand, but there is A lot my brethren don't know about me that I don't go out of my way to make known. And vise versa. It's just not that big of a deal. But guessing you are or are exlaw enforcement, you would feel the need to know everything about whom you deal with.




Knowing that a brother has a wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/single is a far cry from knowing everything about someone.  If that is what you consider to much information for even your brothers to know, then you and I have a vastly different understanding of friendship and brotherhood.  I have never once hinted we should know everything about each other in any way.  Nor do I even believe it is possible to know everything about someone.


----------



## goomba

TheThumbPuppy said:


> That's the way I interpreted at first. I lived in London, UK most of my life. I'm tempted to say that that's what we generally mean over here.
> 
> After one other post, I did look up "dirty laundry" on the Oxford Dictionary, which confirmed that dirty laundry was _Personal or private affairs that one does not want to be made public_.
> 
> However when I looked it up on dictionary.com (which is prevalently US English) it said _personal or private matters that could cause embarrassment if made public_.
> 
> They are two rather different interpretations of _dirty laundry_.
> 
> While I value my privacy and don't feel the need to divulge my private life left, right and center, (I believe that's my British bit) I hope that we'll never get (or return) to a point where if one was outed that would be a source of any lengthy embarrassment (or worse).
> 
> Said that, if I wanted to talk about some of my private matters, wouldn't a Brother be the best man to confide in? I cannot answer that from experience yet, but I would hope so.



My understanding of dirty laundry is the second one.  But even if I had been using the first one none of my comments would have changed.  Because I am not talking about the public.  I am talking about the brotherhood.

I share your belief that brother should be able to confide in his brother.


----------



## Bill Lins

goomba said:


> I share your belief that brother should be able to confide in his brother.


Something along those lines is contained in our MM Obligation. Of course, other jurisdictions' mileage may vary...


----------

