Homosexual and Bisexual Brother Masons

Discussion in 'General Freemasonry Discussion' started by Mason653, Jun 29, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2B1

    2B1 Registered User

    Well stated.

  2. FlBrother324

    FlBrother324 Registered User

    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
  3. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    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 ;-)
    amaya14 likes this.
  4. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    Couldn't have said it better myself.
  5. Tony Uzzell

    Tony Uzzell Registered User

    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...).


    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.
  6. Brother JC

    Brother JC Vigilant Staff Member

    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.
  7. Bro. Stewart P.M.

    Bro. Stewart P.M. Lead Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

    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!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share My Freemasonry