Touchy Subject

[JohnnyFlotsam]

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

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

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

Proven how? Has a homosexual gene been discovered?

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

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

 

[coachn]

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

1) The label does not denote "race."

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

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

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

 

[QPZIL]

Proven how? Has a homosexual gene been discovered?

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

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

 

[Blake Bowden]

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

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

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

 

[ShadyGrove821]

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

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

 

[Tcragsdale]

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

 

[Blake Bowden]

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

 

[AhimanBeard]

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

I recommend this video whole heartedly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bill Lins]

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

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

 

[coachn]

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

Brother Bill,

Please let me know if I'm getting your question correct.

You want to know if I would gleefully, willfully and without reservation, recommend a man who, from all outward appearances, would take any and all necessary steps to subjugate or annihilate every last Lodge member, if he could, who didn't believe as he did?
​

As tempting as I might be to allow such a man to enter through our Western gate, I would always be left wondering if such character might be slightly at odds with Lodge Harmony during his subjugation or annihilation phase.

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

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

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

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

F&S,

Bro. Coach N

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

 

[Bill Lins]

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

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

 

[coachn]

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

:wink:So True!

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

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

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

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

 

[coachn]

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

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

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

I agree! (yes... seriously!)

 

[Frater Cliff Porter]

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

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

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

 

[Bill Lins]

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

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

 

[Bill Lins]

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

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

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

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

 

[Hippie19950]

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