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!

Shots Fired!

Brother JC

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
One thing everyone seems to be forgetting; this whole debacle came about, not because an applicant was turned down, but because of the expulsion of two Brothers. Two Brothers who had been regularly Initiated, Passed, and Raised and had sat in Lodge for years with the men who suddenly turned their backs on them.
None of us knows what every Brother in our lodge does every minute of his day. Nor should we.
 
Last edited:

CLewey44

Registered User
But why, why should we let these people into our fraternity that we see as undesirable? I think if these people that don't meet our qualifications, we shouldn't have to bow down to meet others needs. Isn't masonry a private club so to speak ? I mean if you belong to the VFW doesn't that mean that you can't join unless your a vet ? Why should masonry be any different ? And social change is not a good enough answer.

I assume the undesirables are gay guys? I don't recall at any point during my Masonic journey, from the petition to being raised, being asked if I currently was or ever had been a gay man. I don't know the qualifications your talking about either. If it's a matter of "living in sin" then anyone that smokes, dips, drinks, over-eats, looks at porn, looks at other women sexually at all, divorced and any other endless sort of sins one can commit, would be considered "living in sin". Masonic law is not just Christian law or Islamic law or whatever, it's all religions in Masonry. All of them... It's subjective from person to person. Not every gay guy is walking around with flowers in their hair or cross dressing either. Some you may never know it. If you want to black ball someone, however, because you assume they are gay, you have that right. But just consider not judging someone because they are different than you.

As for social change, black men weren't always allowed in lodges. Allowing them has turned out completely fine. Eventually, gay men will be joining as well. Btw, I don't think 90% of lodges have a bunch of young, effeminate gay men beating down the doors to join and hang out with some middle to older age guys. Just saying, it's really not a big problem I don't imagine and like I said, you can always blackball someone if you want to do so if you don't feel they'd be a good addition to your lodge.

The only reason I'm saying this is because we are supposed to be open minded to others and not judging them in any way. If someone is hurting others? I say they don't get to join. If they own some business that rips people off or they are just joining to get business connections, then they don't deserve to get in. If they were gay and not in it for the right reasons, they don't get in I say. But if they are growing spiritually and philosophically, I don't see a problem. If someone is minding their own business and not bothering others, I don't have a problem with others lifestyles.

Respectfully
 
R

Ressam

Guest
I assume the undesirables are gay guys? I don't recall at any point during my Masonic journey, from the petition to being raised, being asked if I currently was or ever had been a gay man. I don't know the qualifications your talking about either. If it's a matter of "living in sin" then anyone that smokes, dips, drinks, over-eats, looks at porn, looks at other women sexually at all, divorced and any other endless sort of sins one can commit, would be considered "living in sin". Masonic law is not just Christian law or Islamic law or whatever, it's all religions in Masonry. All of them... It's subjective from person to person. Not every gay guy is walking around with flowers in their hair or cross dressing either. Some you may never know it. If you want to black ball someone, however, because you assume they are gay, you have that right. But just consider not judging someone because they are different than you.

As for social change, black men weren't always allowed in lodges. Allowing them has turned out completely fine. Eventually, gay men will be joining as well. Btw, I don't think 90% of lodges have a bunch of young, effeminate gay men beating down the doors to join and hang out with some middle to older age guys. Just saying, it's really not a big problem I don't imagine and like I said, you can always blackball someone if you want to do so if you don't feel they'd be a good addition to your lodge.

The only reason I'm saying this is because we are supposed to be open minded to others and not judging them in any way. If someone is hurting others? I say they don't get to join. If they own some business that rips people off or they are just joining to get business connections, then they don't deserve to get in. If they were gay and not in it for the right reasons, they don't get in I say. But if they are growing spiritually and philosophically, I don't see a problem. If someone is minding their own business and not bothering others, I don't have a problem with others lifestyles.

Respectfully

Sir!
IMHO -- nobody is judging gays!
The issue is just simple here!
LGBT-relationships are just -- NOT wihin The Harmony of The Universe. That's all & simple.
But everyone have to tolerate them! They are also Children of God! And our Brothers&Sisters.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
The only reason I'm saying this is because we are supposed to be open minded to others and not judging them in any way. If someone is hurting others? I say they don't get to join. If they own some business that rips people off or they are just joining to get business connections, then they don't deserve to get in. If they were gay and not in it for the right reasons, they don't get in I say. But if they are growing spiritually and philosophically, I don't see a problem. If someone is minding their own business and not bothering others, I don't have a problem with others lifestyles.
VERY well said brother.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
I'm confused, is this the way that it was in the beginning? Or do we as a whole, change and keep changing things to suit the needs of others in order to be politically correct?

The function of lodge as sanctuary from religious oppression has *absolutely* been from the beginning. Lodge is and always has been a place that a man may go to be free from religious judgment by oppressors.

Your asserting this is a matter of political correctness does not make it so. How do you defend your stance? The stance I've heard so far is a judgment that practicing homosexuals are morally bad. That's a matter for the ballot box not an excuse to abandon the religious sanctuary function of lodge. That's a judgment that comes from exactly one family of religions so it is inherently sectarian.

But why, why should we let these people into our fraternity that we see as undesirable?

That's what the ballot box is for. That's what Masonic trials are for.

IMHO -- nobody is judging gays!

The topic is absolutely about judging gays. If gays were not judged by some as immoral in action this would never have happened.
 

The Undertaker

Premium Member
Hi, Sir.
You've made some mistakes with quotation.
Please, expalain deeper, what you are not agree with(if you want).
Read your interpretation "types" of Love, number one: every heterosexual relationship falls within that "type," ergo akin to hour opinion about LGBT relationships. Pigeon-holing, it seems, and off-course for the discussion.
 

The Undertaker

Premium Member
The function of lodge as sanctuary from religious oppression has *absolutely* been from the beginning. Lodge is and always has been a place that a man may go to be free from religious judgment by oppressors.

Your asserting this is a matter of political correctness does not make it so. How do you defend your stance? The stance I've heard so far is a judgment that practicing homosexuals are morally bad. That's a matter for the ballot box not an excuse to abandon the religious sanctuary function of lodge. That's a judgment that comes from exactly one family of religions so it is inherently sectarian.



That's what the ballot box is for. That's what Masonic trials are for.



The topic is absolutely about judging gays. If gays were not judged by some as immoral in action this would never have happened.
Agreed.
 
R

Ressam

Guest
Read your interpretation "types" of Love, number one: every heterosexual relationship falls within that "type," ergo akin to hour opinion about LGBT relationships. Pigeon-holing, it seems, and off-course for the discussion.

[1. Natural Love: Sexual Love between man & a woman. It's more related with instincts. And posterity.]
How Sir?!
If a man will have sex with another man -- there will be no child!
 

CLewey44

Registered User
[1. Natural Love: Sexual Love between man & a woman. It's more related with instincts. And posterity.]
How Sir?!
If a man will have sex with another man -- there will be no child!

Every time you've had sex with a woman in your life (whether you loved them or not), you were doing it strictly to create a baby, Ressam-abi?
 

CLewey44

Registered User
The function of lodge as sanctuary from religious oppression has *absolutely* been from the beginning. Lodge is and always has been a place that a man may go to be free from religious judgment by oppressors.

Your asserting this is a matter of political correctness does not make it so. How do you defend your stance? The stance I've heard so far is a judgment that practicing homosexuals are morally bad. That's a matter for the ballot box not an excuse to abandon the religious sanctuary function of lodge. That's a judgment that comes from exactly one family of religions so it is inherently sectarian.



That's what the ballot box is for. That's what Masonic trials are for.



The topic is absolutely about judging gays. If gays were not judged by some as immoral in action this would never have happened.

So where's the double-like button? :)
 
R

Ressam

Guest
Every time you've had sex with a woman in your life (whether you loved them or not), you were doing it strictly to create a baby, Ressam-abi?
You may not believe me -- but, I expected that kind of question! :):D
You also could tell that -- of course, not every woman can become pregnant. :)
If you don't understand that "Type1" -- that's OK!
But, at least, consider this subject as a "Whole 3 types"(not taking any 1 from context).
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
The function of lodge as sanctuary from religious oppression has *absolutely* been from the beginning. Lodge is and always has been a place that a man may go to be free from religious judgment by oppressors.

Your asserting this is a matter of political correctness does not make it so. How do you defend your stance? The stance I've heard so far is a judgment that practicing homosexuals are morally bad. That's a matter for the ballot box not an excuse to abandon the religious sanctuary function of lodge. That's a judgment that comes from exactly one family of religions so it is inherently sectarian.
Great!
 
Top