Had I been asked the question about homosexuality in the Lodge 20 years ago I would have probably jumped up and down and said, "Never!"
Thankfully, I have travelled in the world for a while now, mostly with my eyes open. And as I mentioned before, one of my Lodge Brothers and close personal friends is gay and I am proud to call him my Brother. Whether my religion calls it wrong or not, or his does, the fact that he is gay is between him and G-d, nobody else in my view.
I am proud to extend my hand in Brotherly love to him. The way I look at it, I'd rather have a man in my Lodge that is homosexual and a Mason to the core of his being, than a man who claims to be a devout (insert religion here) and yet causes nothing but disharmony in the Lodge or who is in repeated trouble with authorities.
Ashlar is right as well, as usual! If a Brother, or Lodge, or jurisdiction looks into themselves and comes to the conclusion that they cannot in all conscience accept homosexuality in their jurisdiction then that is their right. And if we bash them for this stance, all it means is that we are doing the same thing.
(And before anyone makes any connection between this issue and the PHA one, being black is not a moral issue!)
In the end, this is the reason the investigation process is supposed to be rather lengthy. So we can get a feel for the candidate and as many Brothers as possible have an opportunity to get to know him.
And just a side-note, the pork argument doesn't fly. I'm Jewish, in case I hadn't mentioned! The kashrut dietary laws are just the people of Israel, Jews. Gentiles are not required, according to our religion, to keep any of the laws outside of the Noachide, the 7 laws of Noah. So, eat all the porl you want, it won't offend me!