Ok with moderator ! There is nothing to reply to insults ... even not assumed by the one who insult. Your metaphors express lot of contempt. but it does not matter for me ! It just express ... your mentality .. coherent with the opinions you posted before. So I agree it is a waste of time responding to your posts ! One point of agreement. So, ignore me ! I promise to ignore you.
My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Grand Lodge of Georgia Bans Gay Men
- Thread starter Squire Bentley
- Start date
R
Ressam
Guest
Proof-link, please!
P.S. Mr.Joaben,
then, can you, please, explain -- "Why in these Old Masonic Manuscripts, in Old
Landmarks there were strict Rule -- "No Women." Why did they do that? Why they
decided to do so? Why they did not decide to admit women at that times, from the beginnin'?"
They were stupid at that time? And, you want to "correct" their views now?
Last edited by a moderator:
One example
York manuscripts
"The one of the elders takeing the Booke / and that hee or shee that is to be made mason / shall lay their hands thereon / and the charge shall bee given".
At these times women wer banished of everything For the catholic church, they even have no soul.
FM did not admit black people, neither jews, neither slaves or vassals or homosexuals or disabled.
Ban of women have nothing to do with masonic reasons but with conformity with society of 18th century in Europe.
Initiating a woman or a black man AT THESE TIMES should have been an offense, not to masonery, but to the civilian society.
Anderson does not give any argument for banishing women. IF Desaguliers, Montaigu, wanted to strat masonery, they had no choice at these times : No-women or FM should be banished. It is a political reason, not a masonic reason. Historical masonic facts have proved the quality of female and mixed masonery.
OUR TIMES are different, no ?
Is there any reason nowadays to conform to the rules of 18th century society ? Masonic rules, yes, society rules, no !Ethical rules of 21st century, yes ! : No racism, sexism, homophobia .
For the same reason of conformity to civilian rules any discrimination shoud be banished nowadays.
Last edited:
Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
You can be as frank as you want and speak your mind as you please but my statement stands unchanged. We do not need to justify our men only rule. If someone is so greatly bothered by that particular landmark they are free to demit and join a co-masonry lodge. If they do not wish to do this but only want to whine and moan about it they can just be ignored.
Agreed. As I stated in my last post regarding this subject, just ignore him. No more replies from me.
GrandJojo
Registered User
I am also a European Mason from the Continent - but unlike Joaben, I am from mainstream Masonry (or Regular - which is a term I don't particularly like).
Freemasonry, to me is a school of morality. The requirement of believing in a Supreme Being has more to do with tradition - in that in the 18th century and before that, it was inconceivable that an atheist could be a moral person, morality being found mostly in the Word of God, or the Bible. To think that atheists are immoral people today, is naive at best. Today, the requirement in believing in God can still be defended by arguing that spirituality helps in understanding the lessons we teach, and understand the true essence of maintream Masonry. We can also argue that men of Faith will be more comfortable in a mainstream Lodge, than an "Adogmatic"/Grand Orient type one. Other than that, it's a requirement that I feel is more and more difficult to defend.
Speculative Freemasonry was created in 1717 by men, because women were thought to be immoral at that time and incapable of any intellectual thinking. They were just getting out of the middle ages. Had speculative Freemasonry been created today - I'm not sure we'd have the same rules at all. To some extend, I'm surprised we haven't been sued in courts around the world for discrimination just on the basis of gender. It may still happen and Feminine Grand Lodges might not be immune either. While we are still protected by private club / freedom of association laws, the line between that freedom, and discrimination is not 100% clear to me.
Now to the heart of the subject. Are gay men immoral, are their sexual activities immoral? Some Churches believe so, some don't - including Christian ones. However, I feel Grand Lodges are not extensions of the Church (whichever one). We keep saying that we are not a Church, we do not offer salvation.
Can gay men better themselves in Freemasonry, can they contribute to Freemasonry? Personally: absolutely. I know a number of gay members and are usually very discreet and even conservative. I belong to a Grand Lodge where we've actively punished members for being publicly homophobic. It's one thing to not like men sexually yourself, but it's an entirely other thing to detest them for being who they are, as if it was a choice on their part. There is no pill to take to get cured, no scientific shock treatment - and it's not contagious. Do gay men have choose abstinence to join Freemasonry, because some of us feel that what happens in their bedroom is unthinkable? Anger does not make you right, and no one is saying we should have sex with them - and even less so in the Lodge or outside. What happens between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes is their business, and none of mine.
Freemasonry, to me is a school of morality. The requirement of believing in a Supreme Being has more to do with tradition - in that in the 18th century and before that, it was inconceivable that an atheist could be a moral person, morality being found mostly in the Word of God, or the Bible. To think that atheists are immoral people today, is naive at best. Today, the requirement in believing in God can still be defended by arguing that spirituality helps in understanding the lessons we teach, and understand the true essence of maintream Masonry. We can also argue that men of Faith will be more comfortable in a mainstream Lodge, than an "Adogmatic"/Grand Orient type one. Other than that, it's a requirement that I feel is more and more difficult to defend.
Speculative Freemasonry was created in 1717 by men, because women were thought to be immoral at that time and incapable of any intellectual thinking. They were just getting out of the middle ages. Had speculative Freemasonry been created today - I'm not sure we'd have the same rules at all. To some extend, I'm surprised we haven't been sued in courts around the world for discrimination just on the basis of gender. It may still happen and Feminine Grand Lodges might not be immune either. While we are still protected by private club / freedom of association laws, the line between that freedom, and discrimination is not 100% clear to me.
Now to the heart of the subject. Are gay men immoral, are their sexual activities immoral? Some Churches believe so, some don't - including Christian ones. However, I feel Grand Lodges are not extensions of the Church (whichever one). We keep saying that we are not a Church, we do not offer salvation.
Can gay men better themselves in Freemasonry, can they contribute to Freemasonry? Personally: absolutely. I know a number of gay members and are usually very discreet and even conservative. I belong to a Grand Lodge where we've actively punished members for being publicly homophobic. It's one thing to not like men sexually yourself, but it's an entirely other thing to detest them for being who they are, as if it was a choice on their part. There is no pill to take to get cured, no scientific shock treatment - and it's not contagious. Do gay men have choose abstinence to join Freemasonry, because some of us feel that what happens in their bedroom is unthinkable? Anger does not make you right, and no one is saying we should have sex with them - and even less so in the Lodge or outside. What happens between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes is their business, and none of mine.
Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
Total agree.
Far as I am concerned, potential gender based lawsuits are not an issue just as they are not for other fraternities. Now this trans issue is another matter, I won't speculate on that. There are still viable reasons that women can't join. They are free to join OES or other clandestine bodies (such as co-masonry).
I could see issues if a gay male couple were to belong to the same lodge. I am not for or against gay men being freemasons. I am pretty sure gay men have secretly been members for quite awhile anyway.
I could see issues if a gay male couple were to belong to the same lodge. I am not for or against gay men being freemasons. I am pretty sure gay men have secretly been members for quite awhile anyway.
GrandJojo
Registered User
Hope you're right.
I agree, the trans-gender thing is a nightmare. I've seen a colleague go through this at work, was hugely embarrassing but not for the reasons you might think. This guy was not exactly good looking - being quite fat, many pimples very tall with think glasses. As a girl, she was much worse looking and also deeply unhappy. Worse, like many guys, she started loosing her hair. In fact she still liked girls, she liked girls when she was a guy. He didn't have any luck with them as a guy, and completely hopeless as a girl. If would be comical if it weren't true.
Imagine a Brother of your Lodge you've known for many years, and this happens to him.
Some Grand Lodges have already expelled Masons that had gone through the surgery and legally changed gender.
and indeed, there have been. I had to deal with a lodge from which a visiting brother was barred because of his attitude over his ex, a member of that lodge.
You have obviously never meet Bro. Coach. He is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. It is extremely obvious within a few seconds of talking to him.
In the first post when Bro. Coach said "barking up the wrong tree" that is NOT an insult. The phrase is a common saying the United States and means: you are looking in the wrong place.
Bloke
Premium Member
As others have said, what happens in a bedroom between two consenting adults is their business
I know members who are "out" and "in the closet". I see that as their decision but most gay freemasons I know are cautious about causing any problems for others because of their sexuality and because of others prejudices or insecurities.
I'm in regular craft lodges with gay men. I support these men and they make great contributions, one is a senior Grand Officer who has worked in Grand Teams. In one "progressive" lodge I am in, a bro brought his male partner to a weekend away after encouragement from the WM (me) and Sec. Probably only 10-20% of our members knew he was gay. Being full of generally tolerant men, and with even more members who were beyond tolerance and actually fully accepting, it was no issue. I was Master at the time and encouraged him to do as he see fit, and he decided to bring his partner along - it was simply no big deal for other members. His decision cause no problem, and he made it with the wisdom of a PM and experienced and good mason.
In an regular lodge, one would expect an absence of any tension between partners. It's one of the things I like about the fraternity. Some couples might be fine in lodges, but a couple at odds, or who favour each other above others might have a potential to cause problems and I sometimes wonder about that- but I also tell myself that's a fear rather than a reality and as a Freemason I should control my passions and prejudices (both emotions) and as fear is one of those emotions, I need to put that fear aside.
At the end of the day its about the character of the members and its a "cross that bridge if I ever find it" plan for me... also knowing that we've got a couple of heterosexual friends in our lodge who act like old married couples viz Howard and Raj in the TV show the big bang theory... whether a bro favours or conflicts with another normally stands outside sexuality and if sexuality falls into the mix, then like any other issue, one should act in congruence with the values of the Craft and good leadership and action regardless of which gender(s) you or others are attracted to.
You also need to ask yourself as an individual if your actions and words support or compromise the success of your lodge.
At the end of the day, co-freemasonry copes with this issue of couples in the one lodge and you need to have some faith that we would likewise cope with challenges other organizations meet and overcome.. it all comes back to fear about what *might* happen if "a couple" cause conflict in a lodge. Such differences need to be resolved using masonic values and means.
God knows, I often could not sit in lodge with my partner because we are at variance, if I was gay and hence my male partner could join, I'm not sure I would want my partner in the same lodge LOL......
I wonder if there are any gay bros reading this thread. If you are, then you are still my brother equal with all others... but I wonder, would you want your partner in your lodge ?
I know members who are "out" and "in the closet". I see that as their decision but most gay freemasons I know are cautious about causing any problems for others because of their sexuality and because of others prejudices or insecurities.
I'm in regular craft lodges with gay men. I support these men and they make great contributions, one is a senior Grand Officer who has worked in Grand Teams. In one "progressive" lodge I am in, a bro brought his male partner to a weekend away after encouragement from the WM (me) and Sec. Probably only 10-20% of our members knew he was gay. Being full of generally tolerant men, and with even more members who were beyond tolerance and actually fully accepting, it was no issue. I was Master at the time and encouraged him to do as he see fit, and he decided to bring his partner along - it was simply no big deal for other members. His decision cause no problem, and he made it with the wisdom of a PM and experienced and good mason.
In an regular lodge, one would expect an absence of any tension between partners. It's one of the things I like about the fraternity. Some couples might be fine in lodges, but a couple at odds, or who favour each other above others might have a potential to cause problems and I sometimes wonder about that- but I also tell myself that's a fear rather than a reality and as a Freemason I should control my passions and prejudices (both emotions) and as fear is one of those emotions, I need to put that fear aside.
At the end of the day its about the character of the members and its a "cross that bridge if I ever find it" plan for me... also knowing that we've got a couple of heterosexual friends in our lodge who act like old married couples viz Howard and Raj in the TV show the big bang theory... whether a bro favours or conflicts with another normally stands outside sexuality and if sexuality falls into the mix, then like any other issue, one should act in congruence with the values of the Craft and good leadership and action regardless of which gender(s) you or others are attracted to.
You also need to ask yourself as an individual if your actions and words support or compromise the success of your lodge.
At the end of the day, co-freemasonry copes with this issue of couples in the one lodge and you need to have some faith that we would likewise cope with challenges other organizations meet and overcome.. it all comes back to fear about what *might* happen if "a couple" cause conflict in a lodge. Such differences need to be resolved using masonic values and means.
God knows, I often could not sit in lodge with my partner because we are at variance, if I was gay and hence my male partner could join, I'm not sure I would want my partner in the same lodge LOL......
I wonder if there are any gay bros reading this thread. If you are, then you are still my brother equal with all others... but I wonder, would you want your partner in your lodge ?
MarkR
Premium Member
That has been shown to be a mis-translation of the original. The correct translation is "he or they." "She" was not in the original. It was originally in Latin, and was translated incorrectly.
Both of you are debating the issue using Stonecraft manuscripts as the bone of contention (no, it is not another dog metaphor). Doing so is arguing over a red herring. (are stinky fish metaphors okay?)
Other than their use as scripting materials for Freemasonic plays, such use of these manuscripts to support arguments is likened to justifying the validity of the movie comedy "1941" as being a legitimate documentary of what occurred in California during WWII; it is obviously not and the same can be said of Freemasonry not being a continuation of Stonecraft.
However, Freemasonry does use Stonecraft as its basic theme for its morality plays. It also uses it for its symbols and lexicon resources. That's all that it does though and you can see this if you rip the veil off everything that it does and supports. The evidence is startlingly clear if you only took the time to examine it.
If you want to justify females not being a part of the recognized society, your argument would be better supported by directing all attention to the fact that to authentically play the role of a theatrical society premised upon medieval morality plays, you would have to exclude females and others who are of questionable moral character because that was the law of the land at that time in areas that had mystery ("mystery" meaning "occupation guild") play support. Such individuals were not included and to include such characters in your morality plays would present anachronistic elements into what was being presented.
Of course, if you thoroughly examine all elements of what presently occurs in these plays, you'd soon realize we are doing a terrible job keeping out other anachronistic elements. And the reason we are doing a terrible job at this is because very few members actually know what and why we do what we do.
dfreybur
Premium Member
Click his user name in one of his posts. A pop up window appears. One of the radio buttons in the pop up window is Ignore.
I just did that with him. I don't ignore a lot of members but the few I do it improves the signal to noise ratio.
Just tried this feature... BRO.!!!! I'd give you a hug if you were in the same room and open to it, THANK YOU!
JustinCC93
Registered User
I would be happy to respond to this question, Brother. If my husband ever decided to petition any Lodge, i would be 100% supportive of his decision. I grew up in a Masonic family. My dad is a Past Master and current District Deputy Grand Master and I will be installed as Worshipful Master of my Lodge in December. We both would be happy to greet him as a Brother. As it is, he has never expressed interest, but he does attend Masonic functions to support me and his father-in-law.
Bloke
Premium Member
Congratulations WME!
Thanks for the response. Like many things in Freemasonry, i guess it's all all about individuals.
Our GL constitution is silent on sexuality, but our last GM and DGM (now GM) were asked about gay members on our TV show, GM said they were welcome.. our current WM just organised a gay couple into a lodge local to them.... but there is homophobia in our lodge but we also have gay members, there not very camp and are not very open - most are also single - i think they few homophobes we have haven't worked it out... in my other lodge its not an issue and guys bring male partners to socials.....
i keep hiring our hall out to the bear bar over the road, that started years ago when they approached us to use the hall for an aids fundraiser.... i'm sitting in the hall management meeting an an old PM said something like " the gays accross the road want to hire the hall for a charity fundraiser for aids" and there were raised eyebrows and 100% support with nods of approval on a benevolent cause. It was good to see as a MM knowing i'd joined a group that was not prejudiced.
And I assume you ain't in Georgia!!!