# Homosexual and Bisexual Brother Masons



## Mason653

Thoughts/Opinions. Keep it clean. Honest, and Open. I'm just want to hear brothers experience with this or if there are brothers who are on here. Also how do you receive/treat a brother who would be one of the above sexualities? 


Your Brother 357


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## daviddenboer

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

I'd treat them as a human being, being a  vertical ally I support the glbt community.  I have met brothers who are in that category and as a fc I was taught freemasonry was open to all but atheists.  Some lodges may be more strict however but I don't know of any.


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Mason653

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

Let me just add. Also what do you say to the applicant who is gay or bi? How would that affect the ballot? Should they receive a free cold beer? or would personal bias get in the way? Please try not to be mean. I'm just wondering. Been on my mind. 


Your Brother 357


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Mason653

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



daviddenboer said:


> I'd treat them as a human being, being a  vertical ally I support the glbt community.  I have met brothers who are in that category and as a fc I was taught freemasonry was open to all but atheists.  Some lodges may be more strict however but I don't know of any.
> 
> 
> Freemason Connect Mobile



You're a good man. Thanks for being a great example of a  true mason. 

Some are old school. Also some brothers are....you know? I know we are trying to all be better men though. 


Your Brother 357


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## widows son

Being gay or bi sexual has nothing to do with Freemasonry.

Another persons sexual orientation is none of my business. I respect good people period.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



Mason653 said:


> Thoughts/Opinions. Keep it clean. Honest, and Open. I'm just want to hear brothers experience with this or if there are brothers who are on here. Also how do you receive/treat a brother who would be one of the above sexualities?
> 
> 
> Your Brother 357
> 
> 
> Freemason Connect Mobile



Personal view, it has NOTHING to do with the fraternity of Freemasonry. The question should never come up by application or interview, and has no physical relavance with any part of the fraternity. Period. Ask any Brother that has really known me for any length of time, they will tell you that I have had my share of experience with this subject.

*Now, let me say this ONCE. I will closely monitor this discussion. If I feel that any one person at anytime turns this into anything more than a properly formed discussion or debate, I will shut this topic down and will discipline accordingly the individuals responsible for letting it get out of hand. Period.*


----------



## El Dud3rino

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

Being an artist I have had a lot of GLBT friends and artist I have known and worked with. Never an issue. They know if someone is or is not. Found them to be more in touch with reality then others.

As a mason, I would not have an issue with them in a lodge setting, or any where. If masons are going to embrace the very nature of the fraternity I would think they too should have no problem with them either.

This being said there will always be people that try to disrupt harmony. In that case we should rely on what we have learned in masonry and over come the issue with light.


Brother Joel
FC Mason
Epes Randolph Lodge #32
Tucson AZ


----------



## otherstar

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

I don't see a problem. If they are good men, believe in a Supreme Being, then whose business is it who they choose to be intimate with?


----------



## widows son

*Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

Gay marriage is legal in California now is not?


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



widows son said:


> Gay marriage is legal in California now is not?



I am not sure what relevance that gay marriage has to the discussion at hand. How would that affect a Brother's personal view towards homosexual membership?

Maybe I am the confused.


----------



## Heart of Stone

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

I don't have a problem with gay men, but I don't want it in my lodge.

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## crono782

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

I would treat him no differently. If we are to truly meet on the level, and regard neither race, religion, nor creed, then why should we treat sexual preference any different?


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## dfreybur

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

Just to check - Folks are aware that you can't tell unless you're told, right?  There's no such thing as a "gaydar" that works.  Somewhere in the range of 1-10% of the population aren't straight and anyone not told doesn't know which 1-10% of the people who they know are.  Think about that a bit.  If you know several hundred brothers like you're active in many lodges and other events, there are brothers who are not "out of the closet" who you know the person but not the orientation.  Because bi was included in the topic you can't even eliminate married brothers with children from consideration.  You also can't eliminate gay married men with children because you don't know if they are out to their wives.

As to folks who are "out of the closet" I've never read any rule about it.  Up to you how you would ballot based on that and no one can ever ask you how you balloted or why.  We teach to have values but we don't teach what those values are to be.


----------



## widows son

*Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



> "I am not sure what relevance that gay marriage has to the discussion at hand. How would that affect a Brother's personal view towards homosexual membership?"



• It doesn't, I was just curious.


----------



## mike97

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

What difference should it make?  As long as a man is a just and upright man when they begin their journey, they will remain a just and upright man.  A persons sexual preference should not make any difference to any other person.

Of course, this is my opinion.
Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Heart of Stone

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

I don't have a problem with the gay community, I just think if that individual was openly out and flamboyant with it, it could be a problem with the straight brothers.

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## mike97

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

Is it masonry about tolerance?

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Plustax

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

I think what bothers me most of all this topic us using the word "gay". Persons who prefer same sex partners are either Homosexual or Lesbian.... That's all there is to it. The word "gay" was a perfectly good word in tge English language thst meant happy about 30yrs ago. Now because of our society not wanting to hurt peoples feelings or wanting to be "politically correct" we "bastardize" our American language. Be that as it may... Due to society still not 100% in favor of homosexuality, I don't believe that lodges will probably never fully accept it if it's made widely known as to who prefers a same sex partner.


----------



## MarkR

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

Devil's advocate question: what if a brother's religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin? Would you expect that brother to support a sinner for membership?


----------



## rmcgehee

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

I was the Chaplin at the funeral of a "gay" member of our Lodge.I did not know he was gay until the ffuneral and it made no difference.


----------



## Abdullah.Hadidi

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

I feel that it is unnatural , but you never know what a brother have been through. I believe that there love experience got themselves in to it.


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Mason653

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



MarkR said:


> Devil's advocate question: what if a brother's religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin? Would you expect that brother to support a sinner for membership?



Great question.


/G\
FHC
357
FLT


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## rpbrown

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

Although I do not condone their lifestyle, I have not foud anything in any of the obligations nor the petition that asks or condems any sexual orientation nor have I found anythin in GLoT laws. Therefore, if I knew of a gay petitioner, I would be obligated to vote for him as long as he meets all of the requirements set forth.


----------



## JJones

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



> _Devil's advocate question: what if a brother's religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin? Would you expect that brother to support a sinner for membership?_



I've never  supported a candidate who wasn't a sinner.

That being said, I think it depends on what the brethren are comfortable with.


----------



## Michael Hatley

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*

I know gay Masons.  Some it is an open secret.  Some I was the first, and for a while the only Brother they told.

Not only do I have no problem with it, I would go to bat for them and fight the good fight for them if it ever came down to that.  One in particular has been such a good friend to me, and such a pure example of what it is to be a good Brother to a lodge that I think pretty well everyone would circle the wagons anyway.  A good man is a good man.

I too was in the art community for a good long while, and before that worked for a Dutch corporation, and then a San Francisco based corporation.  Both had a very progressive corporate culture.  I've had peers, bosses, and subordinates who were gay, many gay friends and so forth.  Its just not an issue for me.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



Plustax said:


> I think what bothers me most of all this topic us using the word "gay". Persons who prefer same sex partners are either Homosexual or Lesbian.... That's all there is to it. The word "gay" was a perfectly good word in tge English language thst meant happy about 30yrs ago. Now because of our society not wanting to hurt peoples feelings or wanting to be "politically correct" we "bastardize" our American language. Be that as it may... Due to society still not 100% in favor of homosexuality, I don't believe that lodges will probably never fully accept it if it's made widely known as to who prefers a same sex partner.



I agree with your first point entirely. I have modified the original thread title to correct the term "gay" to "homosexual".


----------



## Michael Hatley

*shrug, the folks I know of same sex persuasion use the word "gay", but it doesn't hurt to go the extra mile to be sensitive about it I reckon.

By the way, the first real exposure I had to the issue was while working for Chevron as a web developer years ago.  I pulled a project redoing their internal website for their GLBT support group.  I figured GLBT back then was some business unit, after all every darned unit had some kind of alphabet soup name.

It was an eye opener.  And Chevron (and then ChevronTexaco, and then Chevron again) was so supportive and cool about the whole thing that I was impressed.  And this is an energy company we are talking about.

I think that most folks who have worked in fortune 500 corporate environments in the last couple of decades are likely to shrug at it.  Professionalism first and so forth.  Same goes in the lodge.


----------



## rhitland

This is such a divisive issue for Masonry (but a great topic for a forum and I believe it is an indvidual masons right to vote his heart but to keep that vote private and sacred.  If we are trully on the prusuit of peace and harmony we have to recognize this is a private issue that does not need to be worked out in the public to trample on others brothers beleives gay or straight.


----------



## ShadyGrove821

I don't have a problem with a Brother's sexual orientation, nor with the word "gay." Societal norms (as well as language) are always evolving.


----------



## j_gimpy

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



MarkR said:


> Devil's advocate question: what if a brother's religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin? Would you expect that brother to support a sinner for membership?



Of course I would. They are a sinner themselves, and whose to say their sins are any less of a transgression than a homosexual brother's. Additionally, most religions teach that those who are not members of their religion are in a state of sin, just as the homosexual is. So, would you expect a fundamentalist Christian brother to not vote for a Muslim brother just because his religion differs and he is in sin? I think not. I would hope that most brethren would be open to men of all sexual orientation just as much as we're expected to be open to all men who believe in a Supreme Being. 

As Masons (though I'm just a fledgling Entered Apprentice) we are supposed to review the internal moral character of a man, and his sexual orientation should have no bearing on his morality. The fact that this question is even being asked is a little disheartening. 



Entered Apprentice Mason
Phoenix Lodge #154
Sumner, Washington


----------



## Heart of Stone

I just don't see how you can become a better man, and live that lifestyle.To me your not a man anymore, once you commit a act like that.Now if your trying to move on from that lifestyle and be normal, to me that's trying to better yourself.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Starr

Heart of Stone said:


> I just don't see how you can become a better man, and live that lifestyle.To me your not a man anymore, once you commit a act like that.Now if your trying to move on from that lifestyle and be normal, to me that's trying to better yourself.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Freemasonry mobile app



I would like to here your definition of normal.  In most cases this changes from one country to the next, culture to culture and person to person.  It is similar to defining the Great Architect of the Universe.  Everyone as a different definition.  

If what you are referring to is social norms, those also change over time and between cultures. 

Just a thought. 


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Heart of Stone

I think I'll lay off this topic I'm not real Liberal when it comes to homosexuality,plus I'm in no way perfect.I consider a man and woman together as normal.Anything else is a abomination in my book.

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## rhitland

"Masonry unites men of every country, sect and opinion and consiliates true friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance"  This is part of the explanation of Brotherly Love in my monitor and I am finding it is much MUCH harder for us as masons to practice.  We are getting there though just a rough and rugged road!


----------



## LittleHunter

I think we have to accept a bit of a generational gap and a cultural gap on this issue. Masons who are younger and/or more progressive are going to be fine with gay brothers. Personally, I believe that a man who is faithful to his same sex partner is moral and that a man who is cheating on his wife is not. However, i understand that some religions consider homosexuality an evil act. Some religions consider lending money to be evil or mutilating the body with tattoos. I would never ask someone to go against their own religion and conscience.  In the long run, only the Man Upstairs can judge us.  Among
my Brothers and friends are men of many different faiths and walks of life.


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## widows son

> "I just don't see how you can become a better man, and live that lifestyle"



•  To me, becoming a better person means rendering yourself useful to your fellow creature, through knowledge and good deeds, and in turn finding inner peace while doing so.  Any man, homosexual or heterosexual can do this, and has been done. 



> "To me your not a man anymore, once you commit a act like that"



• Like some of the other brethren here, I have a few friends as well that are homosexual, and I assure you being homosexual is no act of choice. To say that one is a man because of his sexual orientation I believe is wrong. What defines a man? Merriam-Websters online Dictionary defines man as:



> "1 a) : an individual human; especially : an adult male human (2) : a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) - usually used in combination
> (b) the human race
> (c) a bipedal primate mammal (homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family; broadly : any living or extinct hominid.
> (d) : one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (2) obsolete : the quality or state of being manly : manliness"
> 
> The list goes on. IMO In the end, philosophically, being a man means taking responsibility and leading by example. Great men have always been leaders because of integrity and hard work. Not because of their orientation.
> 
> "Now if your trying to move on from that lifestyle and be normal, to me that's trying to better yourself."



• Homosexuals cannot simply "move on from that lifestyle and be normal". That is normal to them. It works the same for someone who is heterosexual. They cannot just work to change their orientation, and is certainly not simply a matter of choice. The consensus among scientists is that genetic factors play a major role during development in utero. One cannot simply change their genes, and hormone levels. 

• Brother I I'm in no way trying to change you beliefs or put them down. Be it for me to trifle with you.  I just simply wanted to share that some of the statements made aren't so easily said than done.


----------



## Michael Hatley

Heart of Stone said:


> I think I'll lay off this topic I'm not real Liberal when it comes to homosexuality,plus I'm in no way perfect.I consider a man and woman together as normal.Anything else is a abomination in my book.
> 
> Freemason Connect Mobile



I suppose for me I just don't think it is a choice.  Folks are just wired that way.  That is my read after observing the gay folks I know and whatnot, and it is bolstered by what they themselves say about it.  

Therefor I don't see it as a moral issue or sonething to "reform" from, if you will.

But thats my view, not trying to be over bearing about mine just sort of explaining.


----------



## dfreybur

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



mike97 said:


> Is it masonry about tolerance?



I ask myself how I act and react with regard to tolerance.  I ask myself what tolerance is and what tolerance is not.

For me - I try to always start out acting in tolerance.  I try to return tolerance with tolerance.  I try to return intolerance with slightly decreased intolerance in case escalation can be reduced or avoided.  I am clear that intolerance should not be tolerated.  I'm sorry Master Yoda but my path to being a Jedi is very long and I am very far from arrival.  So I do try and sure enough at times to try is to fail.  I work on getting better at it every day.

Tolerance is peace.  Tolerance is reacting to peace with peace.  Tolerance is live and let live, non-interference.

Tolerance is not agreement, not acceptance, not acquiescence, not submission, not changing one's mind.  Tolerance is not hate nor is it love either.

It is tempting to see tolerance in terms of turning the other cheek but I don't think that works.  That would be acquiescence not tolerance so tolerance is less than that.  Tolerance is also not winding up to strike the cheek even when I want to, but tolerance is more than that.

Is tolerance independent of morality?  I don't think so but it is different from morality.  Maybe it's a part of morality.  Maybe it's a challenge of some sort with regard to morality.  Then again maybe it leads to -

A mind is like a parachute.  It only works when open.  But please not so open that your brain falls out onto the sidewalk in front of you.


----------



## AAJ

My religion teaches that God's plan involves creating and rearing families, and specifically forbids acts of homosexual intimacy. But then again, my religion also teaches that we should love our neighbor and not judge others. 

It all depends on the man. I might be against admitting a flamboyantly gay man, just as I might be against admitting a flamboyant womanizer. Anyone who uses their own sexuality openly and without discretion deserves, at the very least, a second and maybe a third look. 

Beyond that, I think that it would be wrong to deny a man the chance to stand on a level with his fellow sinners just because he sins differently than (apparently) 90% of them.


----------



## Mason653

I like all of the honest answers. Good clean discussion. I appreciate the participation. 


/G\
FHC
357
FLT


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

AAJ said:


> My religion teaches that God's plan involves creating and rearing families, and specifically forbids acts of homosexual intimacy. But then again, my religion also teaches that we should love our neighbor and not judge others.
> 
> It all depends on the man. I might be against admitting a flamboyantly gay man, just as I might be against admitting a flamboyant womanizer. Anyone who uses their own sexuality openly and without discretion deserves, at the very least, a second and maybe a third look.
> 
> Beyond that, I think that it would be wrong to deny a man the chance to stand on a level with his fellow sinners just because he sins differently than (apparently) 90% of them.



Point(s) of Interest:
(I by no means are supporting or condoning your post here, simply a reference of subjects)

1) You have made a very valid point here, "your religion". Masonry is not a single religion, nor does it specify one religion being superior over another. Therefore, what is good for you may or may not be good for me. Until such religious definitions are made... well, you see where I am going with this. Also such a declaration would kill the fraternity as it sits today, it would not be  as successful or enduring.

2) The fraternity does not specifically inquire as to the sexual nature of its petitioners, nor odes it specifically ban them from petitioning via bylaws. Therefore, until such legislation is passed, it apparently has no "play" in the assessment of a man's "sound mind and body" nor does it affect his "good report" IF he was truly and properly vouched for by worthy Brothers who SHOULD know the petitioner.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

Look gentlemen, I have homosexual friends and each of them would make great Masons AND you would never know that they were gay...

I guarantee that there are homosexual Brethren active in Lodges all over this Nation right now. If you did not have an issue with them yesterday, there certainly won't be any changes tomorrow. They are not going to "come out" and make advances to you. They are going to keep quiet and pray that no one ever discovers their truth resulting in them being forcefully removed from the Fraternity that they love as much as you and I do.


----------



## sands67

As long as they meet the criteria for being a mason sexual orientation should not make a difference. That is the bottom line in my books. If a mason ballots against a person based on sexual orientation he is acting due to his own personal beliefs and not  necessarily his msaonic teachings.

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Mason653

I like how this discussion has grown. This is a learning experience. I'm  enjoying the feed back. 




/G\
FHC
357
FLT


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## cutter2001

I personally am sick and tired of a person's bedroom practices being made the end all and be all of how we classify people today. If your for homosexual marriage your tolerant. If your not your a bigot. So says 5 justices of the Supreme Court here in the US. Amazing that just a few years ago the same tolerant folks that support marriage "equality", where the very bigots that voted and signed DOMA into law. 
Now we are asked about homosexuals in the Lodge. The same lodges that still prohibit our dark skinned brothers to visit and fellowship with us in many lodges throughout the US. In my opinion, lets worry about the truly oppressed, and those oppressed because of absolutely no fault of their own, and correct the inequities in our lodges with our PH brethren before we concern ourselves about those that if they would just keep private matters PRIVATE would have no problems with the vast majority of society.


----------



## Michael Hatley

I have a very close Brother who I get the same gist from.  The part about if you oppose gay marriage you are a bigot and if you do you are tolerant stuff.  To me, he seems a little defensive.  I think most folks understand and respect the views of folks who simply define marriage as between a man and a woman and leave it at that.

But it brings to mind another bit I heard from a different man just a few short months ago.  About 15 seconds after uttering the word *igger, of which I was still reeling and trying to figure out how to address it, goes on a bit where he says that hell, if you say anything about race anymore you are considered a racist.  To which I had to say I didn't know about that, but that I didn't care for that word.

Anyway - the thing about the keeping private matters private, I agree. I don't think there is anyone who wants to turn Lodge into the Pride parade. There is a time and place for everything.  

But here is the rub - by forcing folks to keep their orientation quiet, we force them to live in fear.  To live a lie, to constantly fear exposure.  To stomach the jokes that are ignorantly, or worse, purposely told in their presence to make them feel uncomfortable, unwelcome and so forth.  

It is that fear that, personally, I'd take out of the equation.

PH visitation is another issue, one that I personally feel very strongly about and believe in action.

With this one, as far as Freemasonry is concerned -  no laws have to be proposed, no edicts proclaimed, etc.

I ask myself, which is the tougher problem to be faced with?  Knowing you have same sex oriented members of a lodge who are forced to live in fear, and trying to work with Brothers to tell less insensitive jokes, to change the subject over and over, to worry about black balls for an openly homosexual man who is extremely qualified and so forth?  Or, telling a flamboyantly gay man, in private, that they are making some of the Brethren uncomfortable and asking them to tone down their behavior?

From a lodge management perspective, I'd prefer dealing with the second issue any day of the week and twice on Sundays.  Not just because the approach isn't something to wrangle about hows, whys, and whatfors, but because you can bet with very strong odds that you'd get results in one single conversation.


----------



## raymondhex

Is it true that knight templars rituals tolerate homosexuals brothers??????


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## sands67

No one should or will discuss any of "rituals" as you call them. 

Sent from my GT-N8010 using Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## BryanMaloney

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



Heart of Stone said:


> I don't have a problem with gay men, but I don't want it in my lodge.
> 
> Freemason Connect Mobile



Can you be very certain that "it" is not already in your lodge?


----------



## BryanMaloney

Heart of Stone said:


> I just don't see how you can become a better man, and live that lifestyle.To me your not a man anymore, once you commit a act like that.




And, to me, a "man" who has ever condemned anyone to not being "a man" for the rest of his life is no longer a man until he abandons such a usurpation of God's privilege. As far as I have been taught, only One is qualified to judge anyone on an eternal basis. We humans are not to do so, and to do so is to try to steal God's holy Throne. It has nothing at all to do with "liberal" vs. "conservative", it has to do with humility vs. pride.

"You are not a man, anymore"--prideful, sinful, usurping God's authority.
"From what I have been taught you are sinning, and may imperil your soul." --less pride, does not usurp God's authority.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

raymondhex said:


> Is it true that knight templars rituals tolerate homosexuals brothers??????
> 
> Freemason Connect Mobile



As a Sir Knight I can tell you that the "mainstream" Order of the Temple makes NO reference to a candidates sexual orientation. At no point in York Rite Masonry (including degrees 1, 2, & 3) is sexual orientation made reference to or inquired about. It has quite frankly never been an issue through the ages, or the Ancient Charges would clearly make a stance one way or the other.



sands67 said:


> No one should or will discuss any of "rituals" as you call them.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N8010 using Freemasonry mobile app



It's okay the Brother has a valid question, there is no harm in asking. Surely you know what esoteric lines can and can not be crossed based upon the Obligations that you swore to abide by in your jurisdition.



cutter2001 said:


> I personally am sick and tired of a person's bedroom practices being made the end all and be all of how we classify people today. If your for homosexual marriage your tolerant. If your not your a bigot. So says 5 justices of the Supreme Court here in the US. Amazing that just a few years ago the same tolerant folks that support marriage "equality", where the very bigots that voted and signed DOMA into law.
> Now we are asked about homosexuals in the Lodge. The same lodges that still prohibit our dark skinned brothers to visit and fellowship with us in many lodges throughout the US. In my opinion, lets worry about the truly oppressed, and those oppressed because of absolutely no fault of their own, and correct the inequities in our lodges with our PH brethren before we concern ourselves about those that if they would just keep private matters PRIVATE would have no problems with the vast majority of society.



You certainly make a valid point. However, this thread is not about racism within the Fraternity it is about the acceptance or non-acceptance of homosexual Brethren.


*I will take this opportunity to remind all of the participants to Stay On Topic!*


----------



## crono782

I don't want to diverge the topic, but food for thought: man can you imagine if we had to someday address transgender as well? :/ What a mind frag that would be, hah. 


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Heart of Stone

Listen, I just gave my honest opinion on how I feel about homosexuals in the lodge, and I dont know for certain if their are any in my lodge.As far as G*d
I wasn't condemning them, I was stating my feelings.And if their are any in my lodge its not publicize or shared with everyone.Im just not comfortable with the kind that wants everybody to know their gay.I have a old school friend that's gay, and we still talk and hang out, and he's flaming with his lifestyle, but when we talk he doesn't act that like that.I have the upmost respect for G*ds creations.
Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## seanbenjamin

I respect people's rights to have their views on this outside of lodge. But it doesn't seem like an appropriate topic for lodge or masonry. Personally I don't think that sexual orientation should have any factor on if someone should become a mason. How could one say this makes them less worthy or well qualified? 


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## sands67

Bro. Stewart said:


> It's okay the Brother has a valid question, there is no harm in asking. Surely you know what esoteric lines can and can not be crossed based upon the Obligations that you swore to abide by in your jurisdition.



According to the profile he is not a Mason. I do understand what you mean and thank you for the reminder.


----------



## dfreybur

crono782 said:


> I don't want to diverge the topic, but food for thought: man can you imagine if we had to someday address transgender as well?



That actually happened somewhere in California the year I was SW.  After the surgeries she was prevailed upon to demit from lodge, much to the relief of everyone around as they did not want to put the issue on trial.  But then she joined the Amaranth getting signers to state they'd known her all her life.  They'd known him all his life up to the point she completed her surgeries.  I have no idea if I'm getting the pronouns right.

The Amaranth was in a huge stink about it long after the expulsion trial.  They asked for legislation to be put forward on the GL floor that year to include the words "natural born male" on the petition form.  After a very brief discussion on the floor that it should be a private matter at the local level there was a vote.  With around 1400 brothers in attendance it got a couple dozen yes votes.  Down in flames.

Weird doesn't even begin to describe it.  As a California Mason I look at myself in the mirror, laugh ironically and tell myself "Only in California could such a soap opera come to vote at GL".  I'm pretty weird on some issues but that's on such a different scale it was mind boggling.


----------



## relapse98

Mason653 said:


> I'm just want to hear brothers experience with this or if there are brothers who are on here.



I heard someone in our lodge make some pretty horrible comments about another brother that he presumed to be one of the above but I just chalked it up to an old man talking.



> Also how do you receive/treat a brother who would be one of the above sexualities?



Same as any other brother.


----------



## relapse98

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



Heart of Stone said:


> I don't have a problem with gay men, but I don't want it in my lodge.



Why? Are they any less a Mason?


----------



## relapse98

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



Heart of Stone said:


> I don't have a problem with the gay community, I just think if that individual was openly out and flamboyant with it, it could be a problem with the straight brothers.



I think if a straight man is openly out and flamboyant with it, it could be a problem.


----------



## cutter2001

I have no idea if I'm getting the pronouns right.

It does get confusing? Doesn't it?


----------



## MarkR

relapse98 said:


> Why? Are they any less a Mason?


I don't think this should start to devolve into arguing with each other.  He gave his honest feelings; don't demand that he defend them.

Yes, we are all sinners.  We are, however, expected to repent our sins and genuinely try not to sin.  In my original example of a brother who believes that homosexuality is a sin, and sees a petitioner whom he believes to be unrepentantly living a life of sin, should he be expected to ignore that in his ballot?  Some have said we are not to judge.  Then we should stop repeating the Masonic phrase of "guarding the west gate" because we ALWAYS judge the moral soundness of the petitioners to our Lodges.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Heart of Stone said:


> Listen, I just gave my honest opinion on how I feel about homosexuals in the lodge, and I dont know for certain if their are any in my lodge.As far as G*d
> I wasn't condemning them



To say that someone is "no longer a man" is condemning them. Consider this, if one homosexual act means that a man is "no longer a man", therefore, one act of lust--or indeed, committing any sin, whatsoever, would mean that someone is not saved and can never be saved, no matter what. By the same measure you use, shall you be judged, after all.


----------



## LittleHunter

I think, as Masons, part of applying the working tools is learning to be tolerant of other religions. This is why we do not discuss religion in Lodge. In some faiths drinking alcohol is a sin, in others it is not. In some faiths divorce is a sin, in others it is not. In some faiths same-sex love is a sin, in others it is not. I may not agree with a Brother's religion but as a Mason I must still try to be a good Brother and accept him even if our religions do not exactly agree on everything.


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## relapse98

MarkR said:


> should he be expected to ignore that in his ballot?



Vote your conscience in your ballot. Its between you and God.

Edit: But to call someone "no longer a man", that's just bigoted nonsense.


----------



## Michael Hatley

See, I try and avoid language like that.  Not just with this issue, but in all forms of - shall we say, strong feelings about people of other races, religions, orientations and all of that.  I've found that the only thing calling someone a bigot, saying they are using bigoted language - much less that what they are saying is nonsensical or the like just digs their feet into the dirt and they will defend their position to the last breath.

It is insulting, is why.  

Now, I've been accused of being an appeaser by some, and a liberal tree hugger by others.  But really you have to straddle the fence a bit if you are genuinely trying to respect each other's views.

And respect is the only way through these sorts of issues.  Casting stones at one another, escalating the tone, its not how change happens.

My take, if a man believes homosexuality is a sin rather than a trait (like eye color or hair color), then of course they are going to take issue with it if they are a devout man.  And I cannot fault a man's motives for voting down a candidate on those grounds.

I simply disagree.  

What I wish there was less of was the feeling of "disgust" people seem to have.  And sometimes I wonder which bolsters which.  Do certain passages in the Bible create the disgust, in truth?  Or do certain passages in the Bible authenticate the disgust?  Thats for every man to search his heart about.

For me, it is hard to be disgusted about homosexuality.  I grew up on the border of Mexico and from 14-18 spent so much time in places you read about on the other side of the border that I have seen it all, and many things you don't read about and are still unsafe for television and movies.  I've seen things that can properly be called disgusting and thats a fact.

Plus I know precisely what I like and don't like.  I don't harbor any doubts about it, I've got no reason to feel defensive or threatened.  For me seeing two gay fellas flirting or whatever in a social setting is like seeing a man and a woman doing so, in practical terms.  It just doesn't make me uncomfortable.  I don't worry that they are hinting at me or the like, because they know and I know I'm not wired that way.

Further, I've been married for lets see...18 years now.  My wife and I don't have children and don't plan to.  We've got a pack of God children, and don't dislike kiddos - but shes an educator and I travel a lot, its just not been in the cards.  But we love each other deeply.  For us, marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

Anyhow, none of this stuff has much of any impact on the lodge.  I don't think anyone is advocating that homosexuality be worn on anyone's shirt sleeve, or that the lodge become a place where it is some kind of topic of conversation or the like.

I'd just like to see the day where good Brothers didn't have to feel afraid.  Where they could bring their partners to the Lodge's picnic or whatever without it being a big controversy.  

To be honest we really aren't far away from that - and in some parts of the world and country already are.  And things are doing just fine there.


----------



## therosadvocatus

La fracmasoneria busca hombres buebos para hacerlos mejores, cierto es q ser homosexual no t hace bueno o malo, como de la misma forma ser heterosexual, sin embargo, considero que la homosexualidad rompe completamente con varios land marks, como tambien los principios esotericos mas elementales, si en la masoneria se busca desvastar la piedra en bruta de los vicios, por que aceptar que un individuo el cual se ha volcado a sus pasiones y por ello ha dejado lo adecuado y lo natural, yo no diganos lo moral, debe ser.aveptado con el simple pretexto de q no se nos llame individuos cerrados a la modernidad, lo nuevo no siempre es bue o ni provechoso, saludos desde Mexico a todos mis QQ HH

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## BryanMaloney

What I object to is how sex is made the sole, single yardstick for morality.

Consider that Scripture states that defrauding workers of their wages is a sin that "cries out to Heaven for vengeance", why is there no outrage when such situations come up? Instead, people shrug, or even worse, many who consider themselves to be "conservative" actually SUPPORT the employer in such disputes or at very least are willing to let bygones be bygones for future business. If it is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance to deny a worker his wages ("You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy labourers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt." Deut 24:14-25; "Listen! The wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts." James 5:4), why give WalMart or other employers a free pass in the future? Why not insist upon boycotting them forever on moral grounds, as they would be "not really a business" from thereafter, having committed that most serious category of sins.

For the curious, the full list is murder, sodomy, oppression of the poor, and denial of wages--but only sodomy is given great importance on a visceral level, murder is able to be overlooked  for "the right cause" and we just shrug at it if it doesn't effect us. Oppression of the poor and denial of wages are not considered in the least bit serious even though Scripture ranks them on the same level as the first two. But that doesn't matter. Only sex matters to the modern-day moralist.


----------



## widows son

Also sodomy can occur between a man and a woman as well as a man and a man.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

If you want to fire up a Masonic forum...Jesus, Race, Homosexuality, Crowley....all guaranteed to devolve into name calling.  Its good to have strong feelings....you will never change a minds man, its hard enough to change our own.


----------



## MarkR

BryanMaloney said:


> Consider that Scripture states that defrauding workers of their wages is a sin that "cries out to Heaven for vengeance", why is there no outrage when such situations come up?...why give WalMart or other employers a free pass in the future? Why not insist upon boycotting them forever on moral grounds, as they would be "not really a business" from thereafter, having committed that most serious category of sins.


I'm confused here.  How has WalMart defrauded workers of their wages?  Do they not pay them the wages they were offered, and accepted, when they were hired?  If they do, there is no defrauding.  If they offer one wage and then pay a lesser one, or not pay it at all, that's defrauding.


----------



## BryanMaloney

MarkR said:


> I'm confused here.  How has WalMart defrauded workers of their wages?  Do they not pay them the wages they were offered, and accepted, when they were hired?  If they do, there is no defrauding.  If they offer one wage and then pay a lesser one, or not pay it at all, that's defrauding.



There are cases, including a current one involving warehouse workers. But more telling is how you are so eager, champing at the bit, to run to WalMart's defense--nicely illustrating my point. So many of the self-appointed "moral" people in this country only cherry-pick their "morality" and ultimately boil "morality" down to nothing more than sex.

In any case, by the measure you judge you shall be judged, and if one is willing to state that someone is "no longer a man" for having committed a single act, do not be surprised at being condemned as "never able to be saved" by a Divine Judge for having committed any sin at all.

More details:
In 2005, WalMart defrauded workers of their meal breaks (California)--feel free to quibble over whether "wages" can be split fine enough to include this or not--then go run to the Pharisees and see if they approve.
In 2006, WalMart defrauded workers of wages in Pennsylvania--on appeal, the judge more than DOUBLED the award to $188 million, and the doubling of the award was upheld in the higher courts. (Pennsylvania)
In 2007, WalMart defrauded workers of overtime in Minnnesota.

WalMart routinely commits a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. "Conservatives" (so many of whom like to pretend to be Christian) and other self-appointed "moral" people don't care.


----------



## Heart of Stone

I don't care about  being judged, and I'm pretty sure a homosexual person could careless what I think.I been reading all the comments on here for a while now.And I stand by what I said, BTW we have all judge somebody in our lives.Out of 38 years I have never been called a bigot, I couldn't quit thinking about that comment.

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

BryanMaloney said:


> There are cases, including a current one involving warehouse workers. *But more telling is how you are so eager, champing at the bit, to run to WalMart's defense--nicely illustrating my point.* So many of the self-appointed "moral" people in this country only cherry-pick their "morality" and ultimately boil "morality" down to nothing more than sex.
> 
> In any case, by the measure you judge you shall be judged, and if one is willing to state that someone is "no longer a man" for having committed a single act, do not be surprised at being condemned as "never able to be saved" by a Divine Judge for having committed any sin at all.
> 
> More details:
> In 2005, WalMart defrauded workers of their meal breaks (California)--feel free to quibble over whether "wages" can be split fine enough to include this or not--then go run to the Pharisees and see if they approve.
> In 2006, WalMart defrauded workers of wages in Pennsylvania--on appeal, the judge more than DOUBLED the award to $188 million, and the doubling of the award was upheld in the higher courts. (Pennsylvania)
> In 2007, WalMart defrauded workers of overtime in Minnnesota.
> 
> WalMart routinely commits a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. "Conservatives" (so many of whom like to pretend to be Christian) and other self-appointed "moral" people don't care.




*Let this serve as a Final Warning to ALL participants. DO NOT turn this discussion into a Personal Attack session. Keep to the facts, and refrain from more personalized (I's & you's). Thanks!*


----------



## widows son

"I don't care about being judged, and I'm pretty sure a homosexual person could careless what I think.I been reading all the comments on here for a while now.And I stand by what I said, BTW we have all judge somebody in our lives.Out of 38 years I have never been called a bigot, I couldn't quit thinking about that comment."

•  Brother, don't let opined comments like that get you. I even had my opinion about your opinion, but my goal wasn't to attack or make you feel bad for what you think. That would be ignorant on my part, as I don't know you personally, and don't know the life you have led and continue to lead, nor is it my business. My goal in my comment was to try and at least dispel the fact that homosexuals have a choice in their sexuality. 

My brother, your belief is your absolute right to have. If you have been called a bigot for your belief, then so be it. I agree that you don't care about being judges, as the GAOTU is the final judge. 

"Let this serve as a Final Warning to ALL participants. DO NOT turn this discussion into a Personal Attack session. Keep to the facts, and refrain from more personalized (I's & you's). Thanks!"

•  Thank you brother Stewart. I must say, trying to participating in debates with that in the air is very discouraging, and I can assure you all that new and younger people on here will also be discouraged as the tone is unwelcoming sometime. I know I can get opinionated but at the same time I can bite my tongue. If you don't have anything nice or relevant to say, it's probably best not to say it.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

*Re: Gay and Bi Brother Masons*



Heart of Stone said:


> I don't have a problem with gay men, but I don't want it in my lodge.  Freemason Connect Mobile


  Hmm..., let's see how this sounds...  

"I don't have a problem with Muslim men, but I don't want it in my lodge." 
Or how about, 
"I don't have a problem with African American men, but I don't want them in my Lodge."    

Neither adjective describing the "men" in question is anything that qualifies or disqualifies such a man for membership, and I believe that all (OK, most) would agree that it is highly inappropriate to judge a man by either term. One reflects a choice, the other something he was born with, so we can dispense with that discussion/dodge right now.  No, please do not cite your chosen VoSL as a yardstick of moral rectitude. You have been instructed to use at as your "rule and guide". You were not instructed to use it to measure your Brother's suitability. My VoSL doesn't address the issue of sexuality amongst consenting adults, but even if it did, it would be profoundly wrong of me to use it to judge a Brother who does not subscribe to it.

     So, absent some other "moral authority" by which we may rationally make such a judgement (there isn't one, BTW), our Brother's sexuality is simply one of many in a long list of things that just don't matter in a Lodge of Masons.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

MarkR said:


> I don't think this should start to devolve into arguing with each other.  He gave his honest feelings; don't demand that he defend them.


Agreed.


> Yes, we are all sinners.  We are, however, expected to repent our sins and genuinely try not to sin.


You may be a sinner, according to some arbitrary list of proscribed actions in your chosen VoSL. Feel free to judge _yourself _accordingly, and be secure in the knowledge that I will defend your right to do so. Moreover, know that as your Brother, I will, wherever I can, fervently encourage you to do so. But your spiritual path is yours to walk, not mine. Nor is it that of any of our other Brethren. They and I are are not obligated to live by rules you have chosen. It is, I submit, entirely inappropriate to judge a man's "morality" by anything other than a gauge upon which all reasonable men might agree. Recognizing that such a gauge exists, and that it is at the same time, devilishly difficult to pin down, is one of the most important chores we, as Masons, are sworn to perform, IMHO, for it is in all the dogmatic minutia, the myriad things _non_-universal, where disharmony arises. Those are things we chip away from our ashlar.


----------



## MarkR

BryanMaloney said:


> There are cases, including a current one involving warehouse workers. But more telling is how you are so eager, champing at the bit, to run to WalMart's defense--nicely illustrating my point.


All I did was ask a question.  I did not champ at the bit to run to anyone's defense.  You answered my question.


----------



## Mason653

http://beaconofmasoniclight.blogspot.com/2007/10/homosexuality-in-masonic-lodges.html?m=1

Good read on this topic. I was at lodge EARLY this morning helping with something's needed to be done. Talking with two PM's ones younger and ones older. They pretty much talked bad about this lodge because its mostly gay men. I told one brother. It's just like a Muslim thats a brother. He said I don't have a problem with it but its clear they do not like this lodge. The other brother said he didn't want to admit a two MM's into a meeting because they are gay. Very sad to hear talk like this. 

I don't mind people's beliefs, feelings or religion....but if you are going to walk upright....be a example to other brothers as far as brotherly love, truth, friendship. Start with yourself. 

Have any so called "Christian" or "KT" read the bible? If not....let me quote. Cause I have. From my masonic bible. Kjv or the one written by bro king James. Who some say was homosexual. I'm not going into that...lol


Mathew Chapter 7:1-5

JUDGE NOT, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgement, ye judge ye shall be judged; and with what measure (24in Ga) ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy BROTHERS eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy BROTHER, let me pull out the mote out of thine eye?

THOU HYPOCRITE! First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye. 

Now Mathew 7:9-10

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread(light), will you give him a stone(BB)?

Or if he ask a Fish, will he hive him a serpent? 

So not only does the VSL...SACRED LAW....Say don't judge. Possibly written by a homosexual....lol I think highly holier than thou religious people like to think the bible is against homosexuality...that's not what was going on in sodom and gomira(can't spell it...lol) maybe they need to study that story more. I think that ammunition is a blank and is used TOO much without serious study. I think it's the ONLY ammo people can think off. When serious study of the bible and that story says other wise. 

However I don't expect half of the people of this topic to understand the esoteric....most of you think this is a "good ol boys hang out club"...a step up from college frats.,.its much more. 

However back to topic...

The bible also says "come as you are" 

Why deny a person because they are a "sinner"? To YOUR religion. To the G-D of YOUR understanding...which is not g-ds understanding so don't play g-d. 

If g-d excepts sinners, cleaned them. Made them whole. Turn them into perfect Ashlars. You were a sinner and now "saved" according to your book version. Why would you deny someone in sin the same chance as you to perfect their rough stone? A little bigoted? A little hypocritish(new word) don't you think? A little high minded? Prideful? 

Watch out satan you are falling! Lol another bible story some of you guys should read.

please don't false flag the light when you ain't shining light(being an example for future gens). 

It's like having a 33rd degree screaming the n word on stage...50x's..I wonder how long he had to hold that in and play along. Lol "oh I'm nice, I don't have a problem with black people or black brothers (don't want them in my lodge thinking in his head)...wolf in sheep clothing types. Tisk tisk...playing like the progressive....pro freedom...but I hate in private...be careful don't blow up in lodge screaming the f word too many times your real colors come out if you bottle it up. 

Satan disguised himself as a angel of light...remember. 

Be yourself if you don't like it just say so. If you do or you are homosexual please be open with it. You don't have to tone down or hide who you are it's America. A "free" country. If you hide it we will never grow. Tolerance comes from understanding. Not hiding. 

Just remember that if you are strongly against it. As a brother you have my strongest love and friendship but please read the passage above. GAOTU is judging you based on how you think, walk, and act here in the physical plane. Walk upright. We all have our rough edges. Lets clean up. No I'm not a super liberal...Iol or anything(don't dig politics to much). I'm a freedom lover. 


Another controversial topic...lol for fun... 


Like Crowley said: 

Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law, love is the law, love under will. 

On that note....93! Lol  








/G\
FHC
357
FLT


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Heart of Stone

I'm the only Muslim in my lodge and l'm treated the same as everyone else.But I think a homosexuals kind of taints the fraternity as a brotherhood, I don't like being judgemental.But I can't bite my tongue on this matter.

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Gabriel Sifius

Mason653 said:


> http://beaconofmasoniclight.blogspot.com/2007/10/homosexuality-in-masonic-lodges.html?m=1
> 
> Good read on this topic. I was at lodge EARLY this morning helping with something's needed to be done. Talking with two PM's ones younger and ones older. They pretty much talked bad about this lodge because its mostly gay men. I told one brother. It's just like a Muslim thats a brother. He said I don't have a problem with it but its clear they do not like this lodge. The other brother said he didn't want to admit a two MM's into a meeting because they are gay. Very sad to hear talk like this.
> 
> I don't mind people's beliefs, feelings or religion....but if you are going to walk upright....be a example to other brothers as far as brotherly love, truth, friendship. Start with yourself.
> 
> Have any so called "Christian" or "KT" read the bible? If not....let me quote. Cause I have. From my masonic bible. Kjv or the one written by bro king James. Who some say was homosexual. I'm not going into that...lol
> 
> 
> Mathew Chapter 7:1-5
> 
> JUDGE NOT, that ye be not judged.
> 
> For with what judgement, ye judge ye shall be judged; and with what measure (24in Ga) ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> 
> And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy BROTHERS eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
> 
> Or how wilt thou say to thy BROTHER, let me pull out the mote out of thine eye?
> 
> THOU HYPOCRITE! First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye.
> 
> Now Mathew 7:9-10
> 
> Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread(light), will you give him a stone(BB)?
> 
> Or if he ask a Fish, will he hive him a serpent?
> 
> So not only does the VSL...SACRED LAW....Say don't judge. Possibly written by a homosexual....lol I think highly holier than thou religious people like to think the bible is against homosexuality...that's not what was going on in sodom and gomira(can't spell it...lol) maybe they need to study that story more. I think that ammunition is a blank and is used TOO much without serious study. I think it's the ONLY ammo people can think off. When serious study of the bible and that story says other wise.
> 
> However I don't expect half of the people of this topic to understand the esoteric....most of you think this is a "good ol boys hang out club"...a step up from college frats.,.its much more.
> 
> However back to topic...
> 
> The bible also says "come as you are"
> 
> Why deny a person because they are a "sinner"? To YOUR religion. To the G-D of YOUR understanding...which is not g-ds understanding so don't play g-d.
> 
> If g-d excepts sinners, cleaned them. Made them whole. Turn them into perfect Ashlars. You were a sinner and now "saved" according to your book version. Why would you deny someone in sin the same chance as you to perfect their rough stone? A little bigoted? A little hypocritish(new word) don't you think? A little high minded? Prideful?
> 
> Watch out satan you are falling! Lol another bible story some of you guys should read.
> 
> please don't false flag the light when you ain't shining light(being an example for future gens).
> 
> It's like having a 33rd degree screaming the n word on stage...50x's..I wonder how long he had to hold that in and play along. Lol "oh I'm nice, I don't have a problem with black people or black brothers (don't want them in my lodge thinking in his head)...wolf in sheep clothing types. Tisk tisk...playing like the progressive....pro freedom...but I hate in private...be careful don't blow up in lodge screaming the f word too many times your real colors come out if you bottle it up.
> 
> Satan disguised himself as a angel of light...remember.
> 
> Be yourself if you don't like it just say so. If you do or you are homosexual please be open with it. You don't have to tone down or hide who you are it's America. A "free" country. If you hide it we will never grow. Tolerance comes from understanding. Not hiding.
> 
> Just remember that if you are strongly against it. As a brother you have my strongest love and friendship but please read the passage above. GAOTU is judging you based on how you think, walk, and act here in the physical plane. Walk upright. We all have our rough edges. Lets clean up. No I'm not a super liberal...Iol or anything(don't dig politics to much). I'm a freedom lover.
> 
> 
> Another controversial topic...lol for fun...
> 
> 
> Like Crowley said:
> 
> Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law, love is the law, love under will.
> 
> On that note....93! Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /G\
> FHC
> 357
> FLT
> 
> 
> Freemason Connect Mobile



I don't think so


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## MarkR

If we apply "judge not" in entirety, then let's get rid of investigating committees and balloting. Because we surely judge during both of those.  

What that says is that you will be judged by the same standards you use to judge others, so you should be very careful in your judgment.  Essentially the same thing that is the lesson in the Scottish Rite "Provost and Judge" degree.


----------



## rpbrown

Think about how we meet, part and act.

Enough said


----------



## BryanMaloney

MarkR said:


> If we apply "judge not" in entirety, then let's get rid of investigating committees and balloting. Because we surely judge during both of those.
> 
> What that says is that you will be judged by the same standards you use to judge others, so you should be very careful in your judgment.  Essentially the same thing that is the lesson in the Scottish Rite "Provost and Judge" degree.



Thus, if it is ones standard to make a lifetime judgment over a single act, no possibility of revision or redemption, that is the standard by which God shall judge, as well.


----------



## MarkR

BryanMaloney said:


> Thus, if it is ones standard to make a lifetime judgment over a single act, no possibility of revision or redemption, that is the standard by which God shall judge, as well.


You didn't read my hypothetical.  I didn't propose a single act; I proposed a brother whose religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and the petitioner who is in a homosexual relationship.  Thus, he is a sinner who is neither repentant nor trying not to sin in the eyes of the brother. I don't think you can think poorly of a brother who blackballs someone he sees as an active, unrepentant sinner.

Then, it was stated that the bible teaches not to judge others.  I was merely pointing out that if that's the case, then we should cease having investigating committees and balloting, because both of those are judging.


----------



## LittleHunter

Before I joined Masonry, My grandmother (a member of OES) told me "You're going to meet all kinds Of wonderful people." But she wanrned me, "They're going to come from all different walks of life."

During my investigation one of the committee members said, "Are you comfortable working side by side with Brothers who might believe differently from you be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Pagan?"

Over and again it was made clear to me that Masonry is a place to overcome my prejudiced; not to practice then.

If someone feels uncomfortable with gay Brothers, Muslim Brothers, pagan Brothers or whatever, it would be wise to overcome that and realize that these Brothers can be your best friends.

No Grand Lodge is going to expel all their gay members or Mormon members   or their African American members just because some MM's (many of whom are newly raised) don't want diversity in the Fraternity.

If you don't approve of all the gay Brothers who have been and are contributing to the Craft then go and start an exclusive fraternity that's only for "your" kind of people. 

All types of people have been persecuted at one time or another. Masonry is supposed to be above all that. I'm blessed to have been able to make great friendships with People I once (unfairly) judged. I enjoy a richer, happier and more fulfilled life... And one that is more deeply spiritual... Since I opened my heart and mind


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Michael Hatley

MarkR said:


> If we apply "judge not" in entirety, then let's get rid of investigating committees and balloting. Because we surely judge during both of those.



For me (and I use me, and I here to stress that it these are my opinions and that I don't intend to force my opinions on others), I tend to focus on what I am looking for as a member of an investigative committee.

I'm looking for *stability*.  Stability of employment is a real plus.  Their social life only is interesting to me in terms of that "stability".

In other words, would this gentleman be a burden to our lodge?  Financial or otherwise.  Are they either gainfully employed or in some way financially independent?  If not, are they taking steps (such as school) to make that a priority?  Would this man be able to pull his own weight in society?  That is a priority.

And, are they a moral man?  For me, their sexuality doesn't come into play.  I'm more concerned about things like felonious conduct.  Would this man consider stealing from a lodge Brother or from the lodge?  Would they lie to me or another Brother with impunity?  That sort of thing.  I want to know if they are _*honest*_.

And, are they a man who takes commitment seriously?  Very important to our line of work.

Also - I want men who are open minded.  Because we have men of all races, political persuasions and so forth who are Masons. 

Stable, honest, committed and open minded - those or the sort of men, that personally speaking, I want.  

How they worship, who they sleep with, who they vote for - I really just don't care.  It is small stuff, to me.  I want a candidate I can trust, who will take his obligation seriously forever, who believes in work, and who I don't have to worry about being a racist or some such.  Match those?  Welcome aboard, in my opinion.


----------



## Aeelorty

> You didn't read my hypothetical. I didn't propose a single act; I proposed a brother whose religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and the petitioner who is in a homosexual relationship. Thus, he is a sinner who is neither repentant nor trying not to sin in the eyes of the brother. I don't think you can think poorly of a brother who blackballs someone he sees as an active, unrepentant sinner.



AS mason's we are to judge not by our own plumb line in the investigation committee. If a candidate says they believe homosexuality is a sin then admits they participate in a sinful activity that is an issue. If that person says they do not believe G-d has made homosexuality a sin then it is a whole other matter. If a person believes that all other religions are going to hell then they must also believe those brothers who believe differently must be sinners also. Then our believe in religion tolerance is just a myth we tell ourselves to feel good. 

We are to judge a candidate on if they adhere to their own beliefs (and are thus bound by their obligation (it is a measure of their moral rectitude)) and what they will do for the craft (harm or help it). 


I have known enough gay and lesbian people to say that without a doubt they are absolutely the same as heterosexuals in faults and virtues. And by that I mean they are all individuals just like anyone else, each is their own person with their own attributes, faults, virtues and peculiarities.


----------



## MarkR

Aeelorty said:


> ...If that person says they do not believe G-d has made homosexuality a sin then it is a whole other matter. If a person believes that all other religions are going to hell then they must also believe those brothers who believe differently must be sinners also. Then our believe in religion tolerance is just a myth we tell ourselves to feel good.


So then, there are no behaviors that are condoned by any religion, or condoned by the petitioner's own belief of what God accepts, that you would consider to be incompatible with a man becoming a Mason? Interesting.


----------



## Heart of Stone

Well I had my warning, I will no longer voice my opinion on this matter.But I must say whenever a topic comes up like this, things can get crazy.If my words offended anybody, it wasn't meant like that, I'm just real with it.Gone!!!

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

Heart of Stone said:


> Well I had my warning, I will no longer voice my opinion on this matter.But I must say whenever a topic comes up like this, things can get crazy.If my words offended anybody, it wasn't meant like that, I'm just real with it.Gone!!!
> 
> Freemason Connect Mobile



Everyone was indeed Warned on more than one occasion to govern themselves and not turn this discussion from a truer Debate form. Everyone was advised to keep personal attacks out of the discussion as well as restrict the usage of "slang" terminology that may be deemed offensive in the confines of a public forum.

Post #6 (06/29/13)
*



			Now, let me say this ONCE. I will closely monitor this discussion. If I feel that any one person at anytime turns this into anything more than a properly formed discussion or debate, I will shut this topic down and will discipline accordingly the individuals responsible for letting it get out of hand. Period.
		
Click to expand...

*
Post #73 (07/07/13)
*



			Let this serve as a Final Warning to ALL participants. DO NOT turn this discussion into a Personal Attack session. Keep to the facts, and refrain from more personalized (I's & you's). Thanks!
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Blake Bowden

I don't care what your preference is if you're active and willing to help grow the Lodge.


----------



## Roy Vance

My opinion, which normally doesn't count for much, shut this one down. It has played about as much as it can without getting really ugly. Just my opinion, though.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

MarkR said:


> You didn't read my hypothetical.  I didn't propose a single act; I proposed a brother whose religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and the petitioner who is in a homosexual relationship.  Thus, he is a sinner...


...by _your _arbitrary standard. Again, it is entirely inappropriate for a Mason to use is own VSL as the "moral yardstick" by which he would measure his Brother. I mean we really don't want to go there, because if we did, I dare say that most of us would be fairly judged to be "unrepentant sinners" according to a lot of rather obscure Old Testament thou shalt nots. 
Now, that's most certainly not to say that, as Masons, we should not judge. WRT the West Gate, we are given strict instructions to do so. Those instructions, however, do not include anything like, "...and make sure that the candidate isn't guilty of any 'sins' according to <insert VSL here>". 
I will say it again; another man's "morality" is not something that we, as Masons, may judge, using our own, personally adopted set of religious beliefs. Such judgements, which are based on nothing more than an arbitrarily chosen collection of beliefs, are the root of much disharmony. "On the level" means just that, the common plane where good men may pursue "that noble contention..."


----------



## Roy Vance

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> "On the level" means just that, the common plane where good men may pursue "that noble contention..."



If we cannot keep it there, we should just keep away from the subject altogether. "Peace and Harmony....."


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

Roy Vance said:


> If we cannot keep it there, we should just keep away from the subject altogether. "Peace and Harmony....."



Some times it is better not to hide from things, but allow calm and mediated discussion. This kind of issue like that of racism is never going to just go away with out thought and discussion.

Some just need to learn how to conduct a proper discussion without the usage of slang, derogatory terms and terminology, profanity, slander, or name calling. Such conversation MUST be handled above a 6th Grade level.


I will allow this topic to remain open for the time.


----------



## brent

You will not make libertine a Mason.



Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

brent said:


> You will not make libertine a Mason.



In part.

Libertine is "modernly" defined also as:



> 1. a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.
> 2. a freethinker in religious matters.
> 3. a person freed from slavery in ancient Rome



Although you have "keyed in" on the sexuality definition, IS that what the Ancients meant?? I am not so certain. Considering the age of our fraternity, my gut instinct is more favorable towards #3 referring to slavery.

To "loop" homosexuality into any of the other definitions would defer back to general morality. What may be considered morally wrong today may not be tomorrow and likely was not in the past. I give you Ancient Rome for example. Rome in its prime was full of things we often consider immoral (slavery, orgies, and yes homosexuality), all of which during the time period were considered moral and acceptable.


----------



## brent

Freemason Connect Mobile

I was instructed by past masters and PGMs upon my initiation to the EA. Dexter that the definition would be category #1. And as a past master myself this is what I believe and why I instruct.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

brent said:


> Freemason Connect Mobile
> 
> I was instructed by past masters and PGMs upon my initiation to the EA. Dexter that the definition would be category #1. And as a past master myself this is what I believe and why I instruct.



Interesting. Well I suppose one could make anything they want to from the broad definition...


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Bro. Stewart said:


> Although you have "keyed in" on the sexuality definition, IS that what the Ancients meant?? I am not so certain. Considering the age of our fraternity, my gut instinct is more favorable towards #3 referring to slavery.


There is a certain logic to that, and to be sure, our Ancient Brethren made it clear that no slave could be made a mason, but still...

The Old Charges read, "_A Mason is obliged, by his tenure, to obey  the moral law, and if he rightly understands the art, he will never be a  stupid atheist nor an irreligious libertine." _That rather steers us back towards matters of belief and the exclusion of atheists. I must note, in passing, that the Charge is _not _specific about _which _beliefs, only that a Mason must have them. Yes, I tend to belabor this point, but it is clear that this is something that a good many of our Brethren, even some Grand Masters, apparently, still struggle with.

Moving back towards the topic at hand...
Definition number one speaks specifically of "unrestrained" behavior, and offers the terms "profligate" and "rake" as further clarification. None of those terms speaks to sexual persuasion. They _do_ speak to one's behavior, irrespective of that persuasion. In other words, the Charge is an admonition to not tolerate (in modern terms) _promiscuity_. 

In summary, I think we can say that an attempt to equate "libertine" with "homosexual" is, in a Masonic context at least, misguided.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

This brings me back to one of my original points.

IF homosexuality is such a MAJOR concern for the Fraternity of Freemasonry... Why not add the prohibition to Legislation, and prohibit expressly on the petition for the potential candidate?? Or better yet, deliberately ASK the petitioner of his sexual orientation during the interview???

This is where the problem resides. The fraternity does not specifically prohibit homosexuality, therefore in my opinion can not remove or deny a Brother or petitioner based on his sexual orientation. AND... we should not "create" reasons to prohibit members because we suspect or know someone is a homosexual.


----------



## brent

My brother please consider Gen:19 vs 1-21

Sent from my KFTT using Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

brent said:


> My brother please consider Gen:19 vs 1-21
> 
> Sent from my KFTT using Freemasonry mobile app



Again.. [Insert Beating Dead Horse Emoticon Here] The Bible is NOT the sole Volume of Sacred Law to which the Fraternity obeys and observes. Therefore can NOT be the sole response to the debate at hand. Not all religions forbid homosexuality. ALL religious preferences are acceptable to the Fraternity. All that is required is that one believe in a deity...

Here comes the horse again... Where is the specific Laws, Bylaws, or Edicts that say "thou shalt not be a homosexual"??


----------



## Roy Vance

God did not destroy Sodom and Gamorah(sp?) just because of homosexuality, he destroyed them because of the overall depravity of the populace within the two cities and surrounding area. There is nothing specifically pointing out homosexuals in the scripture, that I can see. He destroyed "EVERYONE."


----------



## Roy Vance

Bro. Stewart said:


> Again.. [Insert Beating Dead Horse Emoticon Here] The Bible is NOT the sole Volume of Sacred Law to which the Fraternity obeys and observes. Therefore can NOT be the sole response to the debate at hand. Not all religions forbid homosexuality. ALL religious preferences are acceptable to the Fraternity. All that is required is that one believe in a deity...
> 
> Here comes the horse again... Where is the specific Laws, Bylaws, or Edicts that say "thou shalt not be a homosexual"??



So Mote It Be!  Where is that emoticon anyway?


----------



## alflemming

I've been reading this topic. I really don't understand the debate being that it is now 2003. I'm a gay brother. I'm fully accepted. I'm a man, free born and sound in all of my limbs and members. I also believe in one supreme being. Oh, and I'm a practicing Buddhist with Christian leanings. Hmmmm, I still accepted. Sorry for my ignorance brothers, but I still don't get what the debate is about. 


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

Roy Vance said:


> So Mote It Be!  Where is that emoticon anyway?



Found it!!!


----------



## Tx4ever

A man who might get voted in at one lodge, may not get voted in at the lodge down the street, Each lodge is very different and unique and should be IMO, To think that all lodges will agree especially on whether a candidate is good for there lodge, or masonry will never fly. I believe this is how some new lodges are formed, Men of like mind got together to form a lodge. It used to happen all the time.


----------



## brent

Did not the men of the city demand of Lot that he turn over the two male guests for them to know them?

Yet the Holy Scriptures are the ones I took my oath upon .And I can not recant that to which I sworn to. And further I do not believe that The creator is a dead horse or that because the world changes its views to allow for its popular agendas of the day, The Creator dose not

Sent from my KFTT using Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## alflemming

Different views are allowed. Welcomed even. Still freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a religious organization. It only asks that you be a man, be free, and believe in a supreme being/deity. 


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## LittleHunter

1. The passages that seem to condemn homosexuality (Leviticus, Sodom etc.) can be interpreted very differently when studied in the original HEBREW. The obsession with persecuting "homosexuals" is a carry-over from the medieval witch hysteria that also fostered the persecution of the Templars.

2. Those people who cleave to a literal understanding of outdated ENGLISH translation of those scriptures cannot be convinced that their opinion might be mistaken. People who are convinced that homosexuality is a sin cannot be reasoned with. They are stubborn and fanatical in their obsession with keeping homosexuals in the closet.

3. Freemasonry is NOT a fundamentalist Christian organization. It is a fraternity of men from all faiths... Even those who have been taught that same-sex relationships are blessed by God (liberal Christianity, Buddhism, Reform Jewish, Neopagan, Lakota spirituality etc.)

4. Our duty, as Masons, is to try to find common ground with Brothers we might disagree with on matters of politics and religion. We are all children of the same Architect.


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## brent

I am not dogmatic in my belief if you can convince Devine architect of the universe to change his mind then I'll change mind I easy



Sent from my KFTT using Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## widows son

Everything and everyone in this universe is the child of the GAOTU. 

Brent, If God feels the way you do about homosexuals then why did he create them?

Brent, can you explain without referring to the bible why you hate homosexuals?

Brent, can you also point me in the direction as to where in Freemasonry it's says that homosexuals aren't welcome?


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

brent said:


> I am not dogmatic in my belief if you can convince Devine architect of the universe to change his mind then I'll change mind I easy
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my KFTT using Freemasonry mobile app



This is exactly what I have been trying to say... Why should everyone conform to the "rules and guides" of our God? The reason that our Fraternity has endured as long as it has is because of diversity, diversity in religions, cultures, and country's.

To expect that everyone going to conform to the KJV Bible would literally kill this Fraternity.


----------



## brent

I m sorry you get the impression I hate homosexuals I do not some in my own family are homosexuals.I hate the act  not the actor.You cannot say I am homophobe because that refers to a
Fear of homosexuals,I do not fear. As for God created them are you sure it was God? As for pointingoutwhere otis stated in Freeasonry, other then in the EA obligation I can not.

Sent from my KFTT using Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## alflemming

Where in the EA obligation? Because if I saw that, and in my studies of the EA Catechism I did not, I would have run and kindly asked for a refund. Me thinks I need so light shed on this matter.


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## j_gimpy

In kind with Mr. Flemming, I certainly didn't see anything pertaining to the sexual orientation of a Mason or candidate for Masonry in my obligation. 



Entered Apprentice Mason
Phoenix Lodge #154
Sumner, Washington


----------



## brent

Sent from my KFTT using Freemasonry mobile app

I will not be present at the making of Ali regime  etc.


----------



## alflemming

If, Brent, you are referring to "irreligious libertine" that is definitely not meaning a gay or bi-sexual man. You must look at context of when things were written and the meaning for that time. 

See: http://palmettomason.blogspot.com/2009/02/stupid-atheists-and-irreligious.html



> *…an irreligious libertine*.
> 
> This may be  the most confusing of the phases due to the fact that the use and intent  of the word “libertine” has changed very much over the years. Using the  intent of the words in the 1720s; an irreligious libertine is a person  who does not believe that he is responsible for his own moral – or  immoral – behavior. He is morally irresponsible.


----------



## alflemming

Where does it say that?


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

brent said:


> My brother please consider Gen:19 vs 1-21


No, thank you. That collection of scripture is one that you have chosen to use as _your_ "rule and guide". It is entirely appropriate for you to use it as such, to govern _your_ thoughts, words, and deeds. Nowhere in any Masonic teaching are we given license, much less, instruction, to compel others to adhere to what, to them, may be nothing more than an arbitrary collection Bronze Age mythology. Please do not mistake me. I am not suggesting in the least that you should consider it thus, but you must recognize that many of your Brethren have different beliefs. Masons are charged, explicitly, to find those things upon which we can all agree. That lets out any argument based solely on any sectarian dogma. 

So, setting aside sectarian dogma, what cause have we to label homosexuality as something not befitting a Mason?


----------



## cutter2001

The problem that I have with the opinions and beliefs of those that support homosexuals in the lodge (and in this very, very, very long thread) is that you are all very eager to substitute your own opinions and beliefs for the laws that are written in the VSL. Laws are written absolutes. They are very limited in scope, definition, and translation. Murder is murder. Adultery is adultery. Lying is .....you get my point. You can't argue those points. (Well, you can argue them, but just because you argue does not change the standard that the law sets and creates.) Now if you choose not to believe that the sacred laws are not absolute, then I suggest that you substitute your own written version of them at the next rite that you are the candidate for. I'm sure the brothers of the lodge, valley, (insert name of appendant body here) will have no problem with Bro. Blake's version of the Bible, Quran, etc. being used on the alter of freemasonry. Imagine Bubba saying, "Just what the hell does that boy think he's doing?"

 Unfortunately, every time that homosexuality is mentioned in the KJV of SL, it isn't in a very positive light. If you want to argue that point I'm not your man. I truly could care less who you, or what, you seek to know biblically. Just don't try to make your night time business my lodge business. Otherwise, the VSL that you became a mason upon should come into play. After all, you swore a solemn vow upon that sacred Law, and you did that of your own free will.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

cutter2001 said:


> Just don't try to make your night time business my lodge business.


Fair enough. Now...


> Otherwise, the VSL that you became a mason upon should come into play. After all, you swore a solemn vow upon that sacred Law, and you did that of your own free will.


Your mistake is in thinking that all Masons are bound by _your _VoSL. They are not. Please grant your Brother Masons the same respect you demand and don't try to make your particular religious beliefs their "lodge business".


----------



## cutter2001

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> brent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My brother please consider Gen:19 vs 1-21
> 
> 
> 
> No, thank you. That collection of scripture is one that you have chosen to use as _your_ "rule and guide". It is entirely appropriate for you to use it as such, to govern _your_ thoughts, words, and deeds. Nowhere in any Masonic teaching are we given license, much less, instruction, to compel others to adhere to what, to them, may be nothing more than an arbitrary collection Bronze Age mythology. Please do not mistake me. I am not suggesting in the least that you should consider it thus, but you must recognize that many of your Brethren have different beliefs. Masons are charged, explicitly, to find those things upon which we can all agree. That lets out any argument based solely on any sectarian dogma.
> 
> So, setting aside sectarian dogma, what cause have we to label homosexuality as something not befitting a Mason?
Click to expand...


So Bro. JF, 

What sectarian dogma did you swear your oaths?

I wonder if you have ever read Genesis 19. The better chapter is the one right before, but I'm sure someone as intelligent as you would never waste your time reading some arbitrary collection of Bronze Age mythology.

Btw, love the Media Matters box for your signature.


----------



## MarkR

Bro. Stewart said:


> Here comes the horse again... Where is the specific Laws, Bylaws, or Edicts that say "thou shalt not be a homosexual"??


First, I've been discussing from the hypothetical.  People have been assuming they are my positions, when I clearly have said "what about the brother who believes..."  On your statement here, Bro. Stewart, I don't know about your jurisdiction, but there are very few things that are specifically spelled out in our bylaws as being disqualifying.  However, if you're a thief, a serial adulterer, etc. we'd be expected to disqualify them even though those things aren't "specifically" prohibited in the Masonic code.



widows son said:


> Everything and everyone in this universe is the child of the GAOTU.
> 
> Brent, If God feels the way you do about homosexuals then why did he create them?


This is an incredibly weak argument.  God created man with free will, and evil exists in the world.  There are all kinds of horrors that occur daily, and by your argument they must be what God wants, because he created them.  What I'm saying is that the existence of something in human behavior is not evidence of the approval of the GAOTU.

Now I'm certain that someone will prop up the straw man that I'm saying homosexuality is an evil in the world.  That's not what I'm saying. All I did was point out the logical inconsistency of your argument.  You say that everyone is a child of God (true) and that therefore all of their behavior must be because that's what God wants (logically fails in the face of free will and clearly repugnant behaviors.)


----------



## widows son

"Just don't try to make your night time business my lodge business."

• Not a single person on this thread has attempted to do that. Why does every homophobe think that all homosexuals have one thing on their mind?

There will never be peace in this world because of those who are intolerant. What do you care if someone is homosexual? Is it killing you? I think if its not physically effecting you, then ones business should be minded.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

widows son said:


> "Just don't try to make your night time business my lodge business."
> 
> • Not a single person on this thread has attempted to do that. Why does every homophobe think that all homosexuals have one thing on their mind?
> 
> There will never be peace in this world because of those who are intolerant. What do you care if someone is homosexual? Is it killing you? I think if its not physically effecting you, then ones business should be minded.



I think that there is certainly a fear of the unknown among the Brethren opposed to the subject of discussion here. I can envision each of them fearing that having a homosexual Brother in their Lodge would literally pervert the ritualistic works, and even make sexual advances towards the more "normal" Brethren. Sadly, no one here is going to be able to convince them that such will certainly never be the case.

Unfortunately I do know first hand of how our beloved Fraternity treats this very issue. Make no mistake, the Brethren will stop nothing short of using tar and feathers to remove the Brother. I will not go into detail here. I can tell you that unless this person had deliberately told you in confidence, you certainly would have never known his sexual orientation, and by far was a better Brother and member of this Fraternity than most of us here will ever be, myself included. Yet a Brother did tell another in confidence, and thus was indeed removed. Now, WHO broke who's obligation.... This apparently does not matter and a different subject all together.


Now all of the above being said, I need to clarify my stance a bit. I am a Christian and a Minister, and I did receive my degrees and obligate myself upon the Holy Bible as my VSL. I do not however obligate myself under someone else's VSL, nor as Worshipful Master will I force a non Christian to take their obligations upon a VSL that is not of their belief system as they are not bound to the same ideals or thinking. As an ordained minister, I personally prefer the New American Standard version of the Holy Bible because it's easier to understand. As a minister, I am open to the ideals of many varieties of religious schools of thinking and will not condemn a man or woman for being "different" in beliefs. I may not like what they do, but it is also none of my business unless they bring it directly to my personal attention.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

cutter2001 said:


> So Bro. JF,
> 
> What sectarian dogma did you swear your oaths?


The one that I have _chosen _as "the rule and guide" of my faith, just like you did. No. They are not the same texts, but each of us is no less bound to the obligations of the Degrees.


> I wonder if you have ever read Genesis 19. The better chapter is the one right before, but I'm sure someone as intelligent as you would never waste your time reading some arbitrary collection of Bronze Age mythology.


As a matter of fact, I have indeed read large portions of the Christian Bible, also (keeping the list to the topic of mainstream western religions) the Tanakh and a few volumes analyzing and explaining the Qur'an. Mind, I've never actually opened the Qur'an itself. I don't read Arabic and I am given to understand that it can not be fully understood in translation, so I'm content to allow scholars more learned than me to interpret it. Then again, the same might be said of English translations of the Christian Bible and the Tanakh. But, yeah. I've done my share of studying various religions. Have you?

BTW, your sarcasm is noted, and may I suggest that it adds nothing to the weight of your argument.


----------



## Michael Hatley

I too am an ordained minister.

I have met few men who have read the Bible cover to cover and do not see it as largely allegory.  If a man chooses to take some lines literally and hold fast to them, without applying the lessons of history and society, and ignoring the fact they are surely doing so with other lines (from stoning women to death who have sexual relations prior to marriage to putting people to death who do not observe the Sabbath) - well.  

And if you can get through Revelation and continue take the Bible en mass as literal, then also, well.  

I suppose in Homer's day many believed Achilles really was dipped into the river Styx and so forth.  To be blunt - mostly the illiterate who heard the stories orally. 

The literate saw the Iliad and the Odyssey as a a grand allegory with the purpose of relaying what a "heroic spirit" really meant. 

But anyway - I don't begrudge a man's right to take certain lines of the Bible literally, and apply them to their votes.  I don't judge their character by it.

Their wit now - if I am direct, yes, I will think they have less of that if they do so.  And where this issue is ambiguous, if you think to your obligations - there is most certainly a bit about that that is pertinent.  

Every Mason ought to have read Ecclesiastes, they are the words of our Master.

But look closely to his other words - the Song of Solomon.


----------



## cutter2001

widows son said:


> "Just don't try to make your night time business my lodge business."
> 
> • Not a single person on this thread has attempted to do that. Why does every homophobe think that all homosexuals have one thing on their mind?
> 
> There will never be peace in this world because of those who are intolerant. What do you care if someone is homosexual? Is it killing you? I think if its not physically effecting you, then ones business should be minded.



What is amazing to me is how quick you are to attack a fellow brother mason on a personal level . The very quote that you label me a "homophobe" with agrees with your later statements. I don't care what someone does in the privacy of their bed room. It's PRIVATE. My use of the phrase, "night time business" was to show that as we are taught that there is a time for work, a time for family, and a time for lodge; a candidate's sexual proclivities should not be brought into the lodge. I was unaware that "homosexuals only have one thing on their mind". I do know that most heterosexual men DO have one thing on their mind.

As to the truly intolerant. I think my Canadian brother has proved that word to its' very letter and spirit.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

cutter2001 said:


> What is amazing to me is how quick you are to attack a fellow brother mason on a personal level . The very quote that you label me a "homophobe" with agrees with your later statements. I don't care what someone does in the privacy of their bed room. It's PRIVATE. My use of the phrase, "night time business" was to show that as we are taught that there is a time for work, a time for family, and a time for lodge; a candidate's sexual proclivities should not be brought into the lodge. I was unaware that "homosexuals only have one thing on their mind". I do know that most heterosexual men DO have one thing on their mind.
> 
> As to the truly intolerant. I think my Canadian brother has proved that word to its' very letter and spirit.



I did not clearly see this post as a personal attack towards you cutter2001. widows son although using your words in quote, does not specifically label anyone as homophobic.

If you note, I also quoted a previous post earlier... It was simply to use as a reference to start, not a personal attack against the individual.


----------



## Mason653

MarkR said:


> First, I've been discussing from the hypothetical.  People have been assuming they are my positions, when I clearly have said "what about the brother who believes..."  On your statement here, Bro. Stewart, I don't know about your jurisdiction, but there are very few things that are specifically spelled out in our bylaws as being disqualifying.  However, if you're a thief, a serial adulterer, etc. we'd be expected to disqualify them even though those things aren't "specifically" prohibited in the Masonic code.
> 
> This is an incredibly weak argument.  God created man with free will, and evil exists in the world.  There are all kinds of horrors that occur daily, and by your argument they must be what God wants, because he created them.  What I'm saying is that the existence of something in human behavior is not evidence of the approval of the GAOTU.
> 
> Now I'm certain that someone will prop up the straw man that I'm saying homosexuality is an evil in the world.  That's not what I'm saying. All I did was point out the logical inconsistency of your argument.  You say that everyone is a child of God (true) and that therefore all of their behavior must be because that's what God wants (logically fails in the face of free will and clearly repugnant behaviors.)



Turn with me to Isaiah 45:7

7.) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


Just saying. Everything has purpose. Even the most heinous crime. We don't know why things happen the way they do. 



/G\
FHC
357
FLT


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Michael Hatley

I'm trying to stay out of the way of the "homophobic" comment, but truth is I winced when I read that too.  But then I went on to poke at men's wit - so I suppose I'm no better.

But if we can set aside that stuff for just a moment and assume that under all of this that we love and respect each other, let me get at the idea of keeping our orientations private.

I agree with that.  I don't think it is something to be a topic of lodge conversation.

What I favor is a man not feeling as if he has to live a lie, or be afraid of being outted.

And I reckon any environment where a gay man is expected to keep his mouth shut about his orientation leads to that.

I'd rather that they be able to be open about it, because otherwise it foments an environment that leads to lack of understanding and so forth.  

There is a difference between it being a non-issue and being a secret issue.


----------



## widows son

May I ask then, if we are to hold disdain for homosexuals, what is society to do then? Where do they fit in society? If we are to allow that sort of thinking to decide how to be civil then every group will eventually be persecuted and be killing each other, pretty much what is currently happening in every corner of the globe today, but if we further allow it then there is no hope.


----------



## widows son

I, myself am not homosexual, but I have two very good friends that are. I have known both since the 6th grade. They are friends as well. They, however are not attracted to each other, and their relationship is purely plutonic. Along with all my other friends, we all get along just fine. A good person deserves as much respect as the next, regardless.


----------



## Roy Vance

widows son said:


> Everything and everyone in this universe is the child of the GAOTU.
> 
> Brent, If God feels the way you do about homosexuals then why did he create them?
> 
> Brent, can you explain without referring to the bible why you hate homosexuals?
> 
> Brent, can you also point me in the direction as to where in Freemasonry it's says that homosexuals aren't welcome?



Good and fair questions, Brother Dave.


----------



## Roy Vance

Old phobias and old hatreds die hard, and the men who harbor them do also. These men tend to be bitter about many things in their lives, I've noticed from time to time. It all boils down to bigotry at it's finest, and I hate that. 'Nuff said!


----------



## relapse98

cutter2001 said:


> I don't care what someone does in the privacy of their bed room. It's PRIVATE.



What exactly have you seen homosexuals doing in lodge? In the lodges I've been in, I've never noticed anything but maybe I'm missing the cues. I'm kind of afraid to attend lodge now.


----------



## Heart of Stone

I'm going to try and keep it above a six Grade level.I was asked if I was a homosexual before I joined the lodge.And from my understanding its not acceptable in the craft, unless you keep it to yourself.No slang this time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

Heart of Stone said:


> I'm going to try and keep it above a six Grade level.I was asked if I was a homosexual before I joined the lodge.And from my understanding its not acceptable in the craft, unless you keep it to yourself.No slang this time.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Freemasonry mobile app



IT, being the question asked of you, is Not acceptable. You should have never been asked that question Because there is no CLEAR guideline to follow one direction or the other, and it is NOT one of the Investigation Committee questions.

You must remember however, just because you were "told something" does not make it fact, or correct. I know lots of Lodges conduct ritualistic work incorrectly but have no clue just how far off they are until they are corrected or apply for Certification... Just because they were "told" that they were doing it right previously.

You must seek Brighter Light...


----------



## Aeelorty

Frederick the Great was a homosexual and a Freemason. This should show that homosexuality is not banned in freemasonry.


----------



## Heart of Stone

I didn't think it was out of line, is their a rule or something you have to follow when asking questions?Me personally I wouldn't ask that question but I have no problem answering it.

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Aeelorty

Oscar Wilde was also a homosexual and freemason


----------



## Aeelorty

Lets change the topic just a bit to make the point. Is it ok for a Jewish brother to veto a petitioner who eats pork? Should he veto a Jewish petitioner who eats pork? I think we call all agree the answers is no. The second one might be controversial but the petitioner might approach his Judaism differently and it is clear that one brother may not push his religious views onto others, and that includes the beliefs of someone claiming the same religion but has different ideas about it.


----------



## widows son

I find ironic that most religious leaders who condemn homosexuality also condemn Freemasonry.


----------



## Roy Vance

relapse98 said:


> What exactly have you seen homosexuals doing in lodge? In the lodges I've been in, I've never noticed anything but maybe I'm missing the cues. I'm kind of afraid to attend lodge now.



Have no fear, my Brother. If there are homosexual or bi-sexual brothers in your lodge, they are there for the Masonry, not you. If they took their obligation as seriously as you did there is nothing to worry about. They are in search of the same light that you are. The only time I would get worried is if someone rubs your tush and winks. At that point I would have to break and run because I would not want to laugh in his face and embarass him in front of the entire lodge.


----------



## Roy Vance

widows son said:


> I find ironic that most religious leaders who condemn homosexuality also condemn Freemasonry.



I hate to say it, but, the Catholic Church is really big on the comdemnation of both.


----------



## Roy Vance

Heart of Stone said:


> I didn't think it was out of line, is their a rule or something you have to follow when asking questions?Me personally I wouldn't ask that question but I have no problem answering it.
> 
> Freemason Connect Mobile



Had you been in Texas, and I been on the IC, that question would *NEVER* have been asked. It is not on our petition, either. When we investigate a petitioner, we look at other things about them, not their bedroom habits.


----------



## Jericho2013

I am personally against it as I believe it would contradict every bible that could possibly sit on that altar.  But if you have a candidate with a petition that has signatures of fellow brothers vouching for him and the investigative committee is for him then you are obligated to vote white.  You have to base your vote on the findings of the IC and whether the candidate meets the requirements to become a mason.  You are not allowed at least where I'm from to base your vote on your personal feelings.  If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason.  So if it was even known that the candidate was a homosexual, which it most likely wouldn't be, and he met the requirements I would most definitely vote white.


----------



## dhouseholder

*Since I don't plan on sexually perusing any of my brothers, I care little for their preferences.*



Jericho2013 said:


> If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason.



Art. 505. Certain Other Masonic Disciplinary Violations.
It shall be a Masonic disciplinary violation for a Lodge, a committee
or any combination of Masons, or an individual Mason to:
16. Disclose to any person how he voted on any applicant for
affiliation or for the degrees, or on any question decided
by a secret ballot.


----------



## crono782

Interesting. I'm told that the IC's report is to be taken as a strong suggestion, but not a de facto vote. You don't have to go with their decision although you probably should as long as they have done their due diligence. 


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Roy Vance

In reference to how you vote, I am glad Bro. dhouseholder brought the appropriate article to light, because, in my lodge I vote my heart and concience on a candidate or a brother in a ballot, not how someone else says I should vote. And, Bro. Queen also stated that the Investigating Committee's recommendations are not law, but just that, recommendations.


----------



## Bill Lins

Jericho2013 said:


> if you have a candidate with a petition that has signatures of fellow brothers vouching for him and the investigative committee is for him then you are obligated to vote white.  You have to base your vote on the findings of the IC and whether the candidate meets the requirements to become a mason.  You are not allowed at least where I'm from to base your vote on your personal feelings.  If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason.



My Brother, I don't know from where you got these statements, but they are absolutely untrue, individually AND collectively.


----------



## MarkR

Jericho2013 said:


> ...if you have a candidate with a petition that has signatures of fellow brothers vouching for him and the investigative committee is for him then you are obligated to vote white.  You have to base your vote on the findings of the IC and whether the candidate meets the requirements to become a mason.  You are not allowed at least where I'm from to base your vote on your personal feelings.  If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason.


This is also EXTREMELY untrue in Minnesota.  Here it is considered unmasonic conduct to discuss your vote at all, including with the WM.  The ballot is personal and private.  The report of the investigating committee is advisory, not binding.  If there's a black ball in the box, NO ONE may ask by whom or why the ballot was cast.


----------



## rmcgehee

Jericho2013 said:


> I am personally against it as I believe it would contradict every bible that could possibly sit on that altar.  But if you have a candidate with a petition that has signatures of fellow brothers vouching for him and the investigative committee is for him then you are obligated to vote white.  You have to base your vote on the findings of the IC and whether the candidate meets the requirements to become a mason.  You are not allowed at least where I'm from to base your vote on your personal feelings.  If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason.  So if it was even known that the candidate was a homosexual, which it most likely wouldn't be, and he met the requirements I would most definitely vote white.


If this was the case then why vote at all.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Jericho2013 said:


> I am personally against it as I believe it would contradict every bible that could possibly sit on that altar.


May I suggest that you reconsider your terminology and then see if you still see things that way. The Volume of Sacred Law is not a "bible". While in most lodges that you or I are familiar with, it is a copy of the KJV Bible that rests upon the altar, it is a mistake to understand that particular book as binding every Mason in that room, just as it is a mistake to think that _any _particular book serving as that piece of "essential furniture" might universally bind them.
Again, the object that serves in that role is a symbol for that which each of us, individually, has chosen as our "rule and guide". I can assure you that many of them have nothing at all to say about homosexuality, or textiles of mixed fiber, or shellfish.



> But if you have a candidate with a petition that has signatures of fellow brothers vouching for him and the investigative committee is for him then you are obligated to vote white.  You have to base your vote on the findings of the IC and whether the candidate meets the requirements to become a mason.  You are not allowed at least where I'm from to base your vote on your personal feelings.  If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason.



As others have shared, when I have voted, I have been instructed to "vote for the good of Masonry". That pretty much excludes from consideration any traits that may be judged solely on _my _VSL's teachings. If Masonry is what we like to claim it is, a place where good men of many different spiritual beliefs may work to find common ground, nothing that is exclusive to this or that particular faith should enter into that work.


----------



## dfreybur

crono782 said:


> I'm told that the IC's report is to be taken as a strong suggestion, but not a de facto vote.



Has anyone seen a petition returned because the committee gave a negative report?

One time 3 of us were in the candidate's living room asking if his wife is okay.  This lead to a discussion that his minister objected.  He said he intended to switch to the next church down the road to handle that problem.  His wife made dagger eyes at him.  Suddenly the 3 of us wanted to admire the bushes in their front yard for a few minutes while they discussed the topic.  After discussion he apologized for petitioning.  We returned his petition and it never went to vote.  Reading the detailed rules of how we were supposed to handle the petition I don't know if that was actually allowed as an option but we were definitely going to deliver a negative recommendation and we didn't want him to get rejected.  Better to unwind the process then and worry about the details later.


----------



## Bill Lins

dfreybur said:


> Has anyone seen a petition returned because the committee gave a negative report?


If you're asking if a petition has been rejected because all or a majority of the investigators reported unfavorably, then yes, it's not uncommon. I have also seen where a recommender contacted the petitioner & advised him to withdraw his petition. The recommender had apparently smelled the coffee & didn't want to see the petition rejected. In that particular case, the petitioner resubmitted his petition a few months later and it was rejected at that time.


----------



## Jericho2013

Obviously I received some bad information along the way. I stand corrected and thank all of you that responded to my post.


When we vote most of us don't know the candidate personally.  If he is vouched for on his petition and recommended by the committee then the norm would be to go with that and vote white.  We never discussed how we voted with each other.  It's been a while but if I remember correctly they would announce the results of the vote afterwards and state if he was accepted.  I read in some Texas voting procedures a long time ago that if a brother wanted to vote black he would have to submit in writing to the WM beforehand as to why.  It was not from the by-laws.  And obviously that was bad information.  I am personally against the homosexual lifestyle but it would not keep me from voting white if he is vouched for and recommended.  I would treat him no differently if it was known.  I apologize and certainly did not mean to spread any bad information.


----------



## tldubb

We as Masons should stay out of bedrooms. What does sexual preference has to do with Faith, Hope, and Charity?


----------



## 2B1

tldubb said:


> We as Masons should stay out of bedrooms. What does sexual preference has to do with Faith, Hope, and Charity?



Well stated. 

2B1Ask1


----------



## FlBrother324

Mason653 said:


> Thoughts/Opinions. Keep it clean. Honest, and Open. I'm just want to hear brothers experience with this or if there are brothers who are on here. Also how do you receive/treat a brother who would be one of the above sexualities?
> 
> 
> Your Brother 357
> 
> 
> Freemason Connect Mobile



Brothers All,

We as Masons should never let politics enter into any of our Masonic decisions regarding the Fraternity, which is what it appears our society has turned this subject matter into.  As said previously by several of the participants here,  "gay marriage" or other legislative acts can not regulate morality.  I know of a few Brothers that are " homosexual", and they are treated the same as any other Brother in their respective Lodges. They are openly involved in all aspects of the Fraternity as it should be.

The question should be asked  to their "moral fiber", is (any person/Brother) he of sound morals, not going around acting like a ram goat or alley cat. If a person is known to be married or in a "committed relationship" and is secretively or openly going outside that relationship essentially violating that trust, the question you should ask is; is this the kind of person we want to have as our Brother representing our Fraternity. 

Sexual orientation should neither be used for, or against an individual as a reason for acceptance or rejection, and the person petitioning shouldn't expect different treatment because they are or aren't of a similar sexual orientation.

There should be no expectations made either way


----------



## Michael Neumann

That was a considerable read but I have looked through all the ideas presented on the subject. There were a few that stood out and I had to resist replying until completing the 17 pages this discussion has covered. My wife is a Minster and is about to complete her DD in Religious Studies.

Whether straight or otherwise it is my personal opinion that the passage stated earlier is referring to religious thinking and/or beliefs. Furthermore promiscuity, most especially among married men, is far worse an offense then a man in a stable relationship with another man. This leads into my alignment with an earlier point made, it is the stability, mentally, physically, financially of the candidate rather than the sexual orientation. Morality is individual, what you deem morally acceptable might very well fly in the face of what I deem acceptable. 

Many times over the course of this thread various scripture has been cited and it has been pointed out that if you are going to cite one section as literal you cannot view another as allegorical. Politicians do this, they select small portions of x in order to support their argument without regard to y - the actual idea behind the text they cited. The Bible and other such texts are documented ideas that, if followed, have supported a healthy society in the past. They are stories that at various times have been validated by irrefutable archeological evidence. Yet they only cover what built a successful society in that region of the world, what about the civilizations in Europe during that time period, what about the Americas, or Asia? Using the Christian Bible, much less a few sentences from it as the single rule and guide for all human sanctity would be reckless. 

As the gentleman stated before me, it should be the candidates _moral fiber according to their beliefs that we judge_, not their sexual orientation. Judging them by anything other than their personal beliefs would be hypocritical and not what our great fraternity is about. A Mormon and follower of Islam can have multiple wives and it is accepted, a Christian man has one wife and that is accepted, a gay man has a husband and that should be accepted... how about a Mormon gay man with many husbands ;-)


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Michael Neumann said:


> As the gentleman stated before me, it should be the candidates _moral fiber according to their beliefs that we judge_...



:thumbup:
Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Tony Uzzell

I have been a member of the Order of DeMolay since 1990, when I was thirteen years old (I say "have been a member" because once a DeMolay, always a DeMolay). While I was an active member and in the years since I became a senior member, I crossed paths with several fellow DeMolays whose sexual preference ranged from "curious" to homosexual. And what I learned from their friendship and fellowship is that such considerations had nothing to do with the quality of their character or their "suitability" as a DeMolay. In fact, some of the finest examples of service to DeMolay were members who were in the referenced category.

Several of those Senior DeMolays have, like me, become Master Masons. Some have become leaders in their Lodges. Not only are they quality men and Masons, but I continue to count them among my dearest friends and brethren. As we should not restrict our membership based on race, political affiliation, or sectarian religious belief (within the monotheistic community or the "faith that all good men practice"), neither should a man's sexual orientation be the defining characteristic of his gaining admission into our Craft. If we are to use such silliness as a mark of a man's suitability to be a Mason, we might as well make that decision on whether a man is a Longhorn, an Aggie, or a Baylor Bear (I'm not worrying about TT Raiders...we all know how they are...).

TU

P.S.: If you happen to not be in Texas, you might insert "Yankee or Red Sox fan" if you're in the Northeast, "Trojan or Bruin" in southern Cal, "Army or Navy man" in the military, or what-have-you.


----------



## Brother JC

There is nothing in any Petition I have ever seen asking (or even hinting) about a man's sexuality. It is no one's business but his own.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

I believe that we have climbed both sides of the mountain on this subject. It's time to close this thread.

Thanks Brethren for the input!


----------

