Grand Lodge of Georgia Bans Gay Men

[Squire Bentley]

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

Frederic L. Milliken

 

[Glen Cook]

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

 

[Pscyclepath]

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

 

[Bro. Stewart P.M.]

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

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

 

[Akiles]

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

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

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

 

[Squire Bentley]

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

 

[Warrior1256]

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

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

 

[Glen Cook]

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

 

[Warrior1256]

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

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

 

[Glen Cook]

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

 

[Warrior1256]

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

Such as?

 

[Glen Cook]

Such as?

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

 

[pointwithinacircle2]

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

 

[Brother JC]

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

 

[Companion Joe]

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

 

[Glen Cook]

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

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

 

[Glen Cook]

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

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

 

[Glen Cook]

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

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

 

[Warrior1256]

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

This is the way I see it.

 

[Glen Cook]

This is the way I see it.

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