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!

Touchy Subject

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
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?

Many believe that homosexuality is a choice consciously made, ie, willful behavior, and their religious beliefs hold that homosexuality is immoral. Until & unless scientific proof is discovered to the contrary, who are we to say that they are incorrect? They are just as entitled to their beliefs as is the jihadist discussed earlier.
 

AhimanBeard

Registered User
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."



Al Queda is explicitly anti-american. As an order which may not be political, but does require a sense of patriotism and love for country/law, this would disqualify him.
 

AhimanBeard

Registered User
Many believe that homosexuality is a choice consciously made, ie, willful behavior, and their religious beliefs hold that homosexuality is immoral. Until & unless scientific proof is discovered to the contrary, who are we to say that they are incorrect? They are just as entitled to their beliefs as is the jihadist discussed earlier.

Ugh, still not getting the point.

Look. Homosexuality is attraction. It is harmless. Pure and simple. There is no gay agenda. If it were a choice, don't you think all of those who have suffered oppression and degradation would go back to choosing being straight?


Remember also. We, Masons, Shared the \ chambers of the holocaust with these men and women. They, like us and the jews and roma, were persecuted and lost their lives.
Mind you, again, in such a scenario, were it a choice at all, don't you think they'd flip coins and go straight? Or in the radical islamic nations, like ones where al queda rules, wouldn't they rather switch the straight switch instead of running a risk of dying?

Their lives would be so easy, wouldn't it?

It'd be sad that any preacher of god would say that they have a choice in the matter. Furthermore, don't you think, as a christian, our lord and savior Jesus would've said something had he thought it to be of huge christian importance. Remember, verily, it's not Jesus that says anything, but Paul, a disciple who is a saint but not divine as christ is, therefore, human and eligible for mistakes.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Al Queda is explicitly anti-american. As an order which may not be political, but does require a sense of patriotism and love for country/law, this would disqualify him.

Where is that in our tenets & obligation?
 
Last edited:

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
There is no gay agenda.

That is pure & utter nonsense. Gay Pride parades? Insistence in being allowed to be in charge of Boy Scout troops? Demanding the same or greater rights as legally married couples? Repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell"?

If it were a choice, don't you think all of those who have suffered oppression and degradation would go back to choosing being straight?

Wouldn't criminals quit committing crimes? Wouldn't pedophiles quit molesting little kids? Wouldn't rapists quit raping? Apparently prison & the loss of one's rights are not large enough deterrents. Do you believe criminals are born that way? Do you entirely discount the effect of environment?

were it a choice at all, don't you think they'd flip coins and go straight? Or in the radical islamic nations, like ones where al queda rules, wouldn't they rather switch the straight switch instead of running a risk of dying?

Do you not understand that some, like some of the members of al Queda, choose to risk death in the furtherance of their ideals? Some because they are fanatical, some because they think they have no prospects for a better life, some because the sponsoring organization makes promises regarding support for their families.

There is no end to the list of reasons why people make the choices they make.

It'd be sad that any preacher of god would say that they have a choice in the matter.

If that truly is his belief, he is as entitled to it as are you to hold a differing belief- neither is any more valid than the other. Thus far, no scientific proof has been discovered to support either position.
 

JTM

"Just in case"
Premium Member
Where is that in our tenets & obligation?

well, the EA charge... peaceable citizen and all that. promising to believe in the constitution of the US on the petition, etc. wouldn't overly anti-american folks be DQ'd there?
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
well, the EA charge... peaceable citizen and all that.

For the sake of the argument, let's say he is a resident alien. As all that he has done is to tell you his beliefs, how has he violated any of the EA charge? He has been "peaceable" (up to this point, anyway). "True to your government & just to your country" ? See the problem here? "Conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live" ? Hasn't he, so far, done so? That's one I have a bit of a problem with, myself!

promising to believe in the constitution of the US on the petition

All the petition asks is "Do you believe in the Constitution of the US?" As a foreign citizen, he could truthfully answer "No". There is no requirement that he believe in it & I'd bet most committees would give him a pass on that one due to his citizenship.

There just ain't no easy answers, is there?
 

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
Many believe that homosexuality is a choice consciously made...
We could debate this. While the question is far from settled, my view is that it is nothing of the sort (a choice), for no rational person would ever make such a choice when faced with the rank abuse and discrimination that the members of the LGBT community face throughout their lives, but let's not bother with that issue. For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that it is a choice, freely made.

How then is such a choice, which has no affect whatsoever on you or me, immoral?

...religious beliefs hold that homosexuality is immoral.
There it is. You are injecting your religious beliefs into the argument. Your religious beliefs and any strictures that they impose on behavior are yours to grapple with as applied to your behavior. The VSL that each of us has chosen is given as the rule and guide of our respective faiths. It is entirely unfitting for us, as Masons, to apply them to another man. To be sure, there is a universal morality upon which we can all agree, but if all we've got is sectarian dogma to support our judgment of a man's particular choice, then such a judgment should probably not be made. The choice to do so is at the heart of every great inhumanity that this or that group has inflicted upon another.

So I ask again. Absent the misapplication of our individual religious beliefs, how is it that a gay man is "immoral"?
 
Last edited:

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
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?
But Brother Bill,

You are asking your brothers to use their Brains and Hearts and to "JUDGE." :eek:hmy:
Many believe that homosexuality is a choice consciously made, ie, willful behavior, and their religious beliefs hold that homosexuality is immoral. Until & unless scientific proof is discovered to the contrary, who are we to say that they are incorrect? They are just as entitled to their beliefs as is the jihadist discussed earlier.
So, now you're asking your Brothers to not use their Brains and Hearts and to not "JUDGE?!?!?" :eek:hmy:
... Do you believe criminals are born that way? Do you entirely discount the effect of environment?
1) Some are.
2) Nope
...If that truly is his belief, he is as entitled to it as are you to hold a differing belief- neither is any more valid than the other. Thus far, no scientific proof has been discovered to support either position.
...none that people universally accept...

This is a moot point. The issue is one of Lodge Harmony. Would such a Brother promote or demote Lodge Harmony? I believe this depends totally upon its members collective beliefs, attitudes and behaviors.
For the sake of the argument, let's say he is a resident alien. As all that he has done is to tell you his beliefs, how has he violated any of the EA charge? He has been "peaceable" (up to this point, anyway). "True to your government & just to your country" ? See the problem here? "Conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live" ? Hasn't he, so far, done so?
Not if his behavior at the interview shows that he didn't represent himself honestly.
There just ain't no easy answers, is there?
yup. i don't disagree! :wink:
 

Dave in Waco

Premium Member
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?

IMO the difference between the two isn't so much a matter of who's morality standards to apply, but it comes down to the prinicples of Masonry. In Masonry, we are taught to be tolerant of other's beliefs. In the example of the Muslam candidate who believes in the morality of subjugating or annihilating infidels, has shown not only a strong degree of intolerance for the beliefs of others, intolerance is at the core of his beliefs considering al Queda has set that is one of its goals. It's the same as the "ex-Masons" that now attack Masonry under the guise of their beliefs as a fundimental Christian, who have turned intolerant of others who do not share their belief system.
 

Frater Cliff Porter

Premium Member
I think the beauty of the vote as an exercise of freedom of conscience is that it is ultimately private. It is between you and God and your real obligation is to vote for the good of Masonry and for the good of your lodge.

Often things die in committee. For me the vote is not as tough as forum questions would make it sound. If I...that's right..."I" think he is a good man (I get to apply all kinds of values to this to include my version of morality, my version of peaceable citizen, etc.) and cast a vote.

I have thrown dark and I have thrown clear, but as I stand at our altar and cast my ballot, my conscience is clear. God gave me a head and I use it.

The charge of a Master of a lodge provides that you should turn away many good men in error before one unfit for the fraternity have a single foot fall through the door of a lodge.

My conscience is clear, my head held high, and I explain my votes to no one (its actually not allowed for discussion in Colorado once the vote it cast...you must leave it to the Brother).

I am glad and thankful it is like this, as it gives the vote a sense of being beyond cliques and desires to let others "see" how you voted.
 

Frater Cliff Porter

Premium Member
So what is the "right" way to vote then and who decides?

Masonic writings state that the Mason has been equipped with working tools and we should vote our conscience.

Why would we disregard the writings in Masonry concerning the vote when we vote?

Am I better off if I pick your version of Morality, my friends version? The Masonic version says I should love God, trust him, return to my sanctuary and have faith, that I should study my volume of sacred law....should I disregard these as well?
 

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
So what is the "right" way to vote then and who decides?

Each of us does, of course, but again, just because we are free to vote as we choose, does in no way automatically make that choice "right".
Consider, in other threads here it would appear (at least) that there are Masons who would cube a candidate without a second thought, merely because of his different religious beliefs. And no, I'm not talking about the "Al Queda" red herrring. Cube a man, simply because he's Jewish, Muslim, or Sikh. Surely you would agree that doing so is improper. Yes?

So, yet again, how then is an issue that is nothing more than a difference of religious dogma, one which has no impact on anyone, an acceptable reason to cube a gay man?
 

Frater Cliff Porter

Premium Member
Cube a man, simply because he's Jewish, Muslim, or Sikh. Surely you would agree that doing so is improper. Yes?

Brother I am a purist in this regard. I believe that there are ways in which I would vote. More importantly, because I can control only my vote...I take it seriously. I vote in men who I believe are good men and, quite frankly, of like enough mind to do what I believe to be right for the Fraternity.

Those that convince themselves that they are beyond personal perspective or subjective thought are being foolish. So I do not pretend that when I approach a ballot box that my personal perspective isn't present.

That being said, I can not control a brother who harbors racism. I fear the man who harbors it quietly more than the one who shouts it though, for I can at least engage in conversation with the man who shouts it.

I think the only "right" way to vote is applying the tools of Masonry to your life and voting your conscience. I might not always agree with a Brothers vote, but you can not legislate free thought, so the Brother is able to vote how he chooses.

I have never been present in a lodge where race was an issue. We have white, black and brown Brothers in my lodge, so I would be lying if I said I knew what that was like. I have been refused a visit in a PHA lodge for being white, and I hold the Brothers no ill will. I accept it as the way of things and figured that beating my chest or screaming racism wasn't going to change minds. I write, I vote, I read, I educate, and I try to educate myself. For me, that is what I feel called to do.
 

AhimanBeard

Registered User
EVERYTHINGYOUSAID

This is an excellent rebuttal. Thank you.
Here's mine

well, the EA charge... peaceable citizen and all that. promising to believe in the constitution of the US on the petition, etc. wouldn't overly anti-american folks be DQ'd there?


That's what I was about to say.

Furthermore, okay, maybe there's an agenda in 'wanting to be accepted as normal and receive the same benefits that we take for granted'.
Or an agenda may be that they don't want to be discriminated against in the workplace or whatever.

There is No Agenda for, hell I don't know what paranoid homophobes think, uh, for like turning people gay or to deny anyone religious freedom. That's as crazy as people thinking there's a Masonic Agenda to rule the world.
 

LRG

Premium Member
I can translate Timothy 1 /1-10 as being against gays. Its ok for me to know that others don't believe in this way of life. Just as long as I do. Our Almighty Father did not make adam and steve, but adam and eve.
Furthermore, I believe Men should act like Men and I would vote against a man who acts like a woman. It would be a bad representation of a lodge if one of their own was gay and participated in some gay movement, hugging and kissing on another guy, while wearing Our square and Compasses.
 

Blake Bowden

Administrator
Staff Member
Thread Closed.

deadhorse.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top