Pc brigade Gays vs the Salvation Army.

squod

Salvation Army spokesman Major Bruce Harmer said most of Australia's faith-based charities would be excluded from receiving donations if judged purely on Hayes' criteria.
TSA is one of the most compassionate and non-discriminatory in the way it works with people who are marginalised in our community, including many who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender."

He said gay people could be officers of the church if they vowed to be celibate as well as unmarried heterosexuals. Major Harmer said a statement on its website, which described homosexuality as "unacceptable" to God and that it should be "restrained" with willpower, was its current position.

Gay pop star Darren Hayes - the face of '90s hit machine Savage Garden
tweeted to his 60,748 followers: "Important for gay people to know the true position of the Salvation Army when considering who to donate to. Sad." He said asking people to control their sexuality was like asking someone to change their eye colour.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/virtual-spat-gay-pop-star-savages-homophobic-salvos/story-e6freuy9-1226398373050


So who wins here? A charitable organisation designed to save lives or someone from Australia. If yer man doesn't like the SA then couldn't he just stop donating to them?

So AH who should win?

*Darren Hayes 60,748 followers
*Christianity 2.3 billion followers

Fromthetrees

I think everyone should have beers and a nice sing song.

Biggins

I can sadly see this thread going down the same old route.
I'm outa here. Play nice!

EuropeanSon

*obligatory "religion is stupid" statement*






But seriously, religion is stupid.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

2.3 billion Christians =/= 2.3 Billion homophobes.

cartell_best

Good christ thats the first time I have ever thought about or seen "Gay" and "salvation" in the same sentence in AH....

I'm gay and seemingly for some reason, don't seek salvation....why does it some how always turn to being "gay" as an immediate reference to religion in some context!!! God damn it like!!

Kylo Ren

That's so gay.

TeddyTedson

I thought you said this at first:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ANOzmSKQg

im invisible

'Truly OP?' he said, madly, 'I'm deeply offended'

BornToKill

Can we all get along?

flutterflye

Interesting. I'm going to have to say I'll be your dream, I'll be your wish, I'll be your fantasy. I'll be your hope, I'll be your love, be everything that you need.

im invisible

flutterflye wrote: »

Interesting. I'm going to have to say I'll be your dream, I'll be your wish, I'll be your fantasy. I'll be your hope, I'll be your love, be everything that you need.

i'd fly you to the moon and back,

efb

He was probably just looking for affirmation

Oooh multichoice

TeddyTedson

BornToKill wrote: »

Can we all get along?

Zaaapp!

Giselle

squod wrote: »

If yer man doesn't like the SA then couldn't he just stop donating to them?

So AH who should win?

*Darren Hayes 60,748 followers
*Christianity 2.3 billion followers

Does that mean bigotry should never be challenged?

I'd stop donating to any organisation with gay blinkers.

Jester252

Why can we be friends

Gummy Panda

BornToKill wrote: »

Can we all get along?

Why does your username say BornToKill and you promote peace?

Corkfeen

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Why does your username say BornToKill and you promote peace?

Suspect that is a Full Metal Jacket reference....
http://readjack.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/private-joker.jpg
And his post is a Rodney King reference... Tons of references going on.

Gummy Panda

Corkfeen wrote: »

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Why does your username say BornToKill and you promote peace?

Suspect that is a Full Metal Jacket reference....
http://readjack.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/private-joker.jpg
And his post is a Rodney King reference... Tons of references going on.

He was suppose to say he was making a statement about the duality of war :mad:

BornToKill

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Why does your username say BornToKill and you promote peace?

I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man.

BornToKill

Corkfeen wrote: »

Suspect that is a Full Metal Jacket reference....
http://readjack.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/private-joker.jpg
And his post is a Rodney King reference... Tons of references going on.

Very well observed. Much of my best work is derivative. Almost everything original has already been done.

Victor

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I think everyone should have beers and a nice sing song.

I'm not sure the good Major would be a beer drinker. Not their kind of thing.

squod

Giselle wrote: »

Does that mean bigotry should never be challenged?

I'd stop donating to any organisation with gay blinkers.

Which is fair enough. Would you start a hate campaign against them on twitter though?

For the record I think The SA offer the same services to everyone, so they don't have gay blinkers.

Bad Panda

That's why I usually donate to animal charities - people don't care if you've a gay dog.

Pushtrak

squod wrote: »

Which is fair enough. Would you start a hate campaign against them on twitter though?

Er, imagine instead of gays it were blacks, or chinese... I think it is safe to say the hate campaign was initiated by the charity under discussion.

plein de force

i've known about the salvation army's position of active homophobia and campaigning against legislation which protects lgbt rights for years, and the lobbying must cost some money that people donate which is why i happily steer clear of their collection buckets.

plein de force

squod wrote: »

Which is fair enough. Would you start a hate campaign against them on twitter though?

For the record I think The SA offer the same services to everyone, so they don't have gay blinkers.

As far as i know they do refuse services to people they know to be gay or lesbian

Pantsface

havent read any of this thread, but i do think that starving gays should be given food too


if thats what this is about

strobe

Giselle wrote: »

I'd stop donating to any organisation with gay blinkers.

Wow... just, wow.

So not only are you a homophobe, you're also prejudiced against the visually impaired? ...aren't you a charmer...

hardCopy

Savage Garden still have 60,000 fans?! Wtf?

Giselle

strobe wrote: »

Wow... just, wow.

So not only are you a homophobe, you're also prejudiced against the visually impaired? ...aren't you a charmer...

Yes, thats right. I'm an equal opportunities bigot.


I hope you're joking.:)

Phill Ewinn

Giselle wrote: »

Does that mean bigotry should never be challenged?

I'd stop donating to any organisation with gay blinkers.

Right on! Fvck dem homeless fvckers. People should feckin' starve on the street for the benefit of a few peoples egos. Viva la revolution.

*(*
-

Giselle

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Right on! Fvck dem homeless fvckers. People should feckin' starve on the street for the benefit of a few peoples egos. Viva la revolution.
-

There are other organisations who care for the homeless, its not Salvation Army or nothing. Not really revolutionary.

Phill Ewinn

Giselle wrote: »

There are other organisations who care for the homeless, its not Salvation Army or nothing. Not really revolutionary.

Googles list of Christian charities set up to help the vulnerable then gooogles list of charities set up by gay australian egomaniacs.


Which list do you think is longer?

Giselle

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Googles list of Christian charities set up to help the vulnerable then gooogles list of charities set up by gay australian egomaniacs.


Which list do you think is longer?

I couldn't care less.

Pushtrak

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Googles list of Christian charities set up to help the vulnerable then gooogles list of charities set up by gay australian egomaniacs.


Which list do you think is longer?

If the Ku Klux Klan set up a charity, would you invest in it? This doesn't just apply to you, but to everyone who would suggest that the SA still deserve our money.

*Christianity 2.3 billion followers....
There are that many deluded people on the planet? This planet is psycho!

squod

Pushtrak wrote: »

If the Ku Klux Klan set up a charity, would you invest in it? This doesn't just apply to you, but to everyone who would suggest that the SA still deserve our money.

Yep they salvation Army now equal to the KKK. Well, I've heard it all. Is there a prize for the most crazy post on boards ever? 'Cause you could win.

Giselle

squod wrote: »

Yep they salvation Army now equal to the KKK. Well, I've heard it all. Is there a prize for the most crazy post on boards ever? 'Cause you could win.

Way to miss the point completely.

Pushtrak

squod wrote: »

Yep they salvation Army now equal to the KKK. Well, I've heard it all. Is there a prize for the most crazy post on boards ever? 'Cause you could win.

How are they different?

squod

Pushtrak wrote: »

How are they different?

Because you touch yourself.



*Serious note. Troll added to ignore list*

Cookie_Monster

He said asking people to control their sexuality was like asking someone to change their eye colour

dunno bout that, people should control it, who wants sexuality all over the floor, who's gonna sweep it all up, huh? didn't think about that did he?

Pushtrak

squod wrote: »

Because you touch yourself.

On the off-chance you decide to remove me from the ignore list to see what I say... While that might answer a "Why" question, it doesn't answer a "How" question. How would a charity set up by the KKK be different from a charity set up by the SA? If we were to take an assumption that all the money given by donors were to end up with people in need, what would the functional difference be?

They would both be inherently bigoted, so neither should get money. Why should one be tolerated? Because one is established as a charity? Or was I ignored because of a reluctance of bringing up "choice" or "non choice" knowing that a preconceived notion where that is concerned might not mesh with reality?

If I see any bigoted attitudes prevalent in a charity, I'll not be inclined to support them. I see no reason to when better charities would be happy to receive the money.

Doc

He said gay people could be officers of the church if they vowed to be celibate as well as unmarried heterosexuals.

This is the important part what he said. The salvation army will still help a person if they are gay. However they will not necessarily allow a gay person to be officers of the church because it conflicts with the religious beliefs required to be an officer of the church. Stopping a charity like the salvation army receiving funds because of this, particularly considering the outstanding work they do for the poor in the community is a bad idea.

I have no objection to a religious organisation stopping people from having roles within their church if they have ideological differences to that of the church and the idea that I should is quite frankly stupid.

If the salvation army were denying providing support or charity to a person because of there sexual orientation that would be bad but that is not the case.

If you want to donate to a different charity fine but to prevent one from getting funding because of this is wrong in my opinion.

Pushtrak

Doc wrote: »

This is the important part what he said. The salvation army will still help a person if they are gay. However they will not necessarily allow a gay person to be officers of the church because it conflicts with the religious beliefs required to be an officer of the church. Stopping a charity like the salvation army receiving funds because of this, particularly considering the outstanding work they do for the poor in the community is a bad idea.

Where is the coercive element of the campaign against the SA? People put the information out there, much like this thread. People respond in one of two ways. "I will/will not give my money to this charity". You'd swear that there is a gun to peoples heads telling people they can't give to the charity.

Doc

Pushtrak wrote: »

Where is the coercive element of the campaign against the SA? People put the information out there, much like this thread. People respond in one of two ways. "I will/will not give my money to this charity". You'd swear that there is a gun to peoples heads telling people they can't give to the charity.

Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head but if all Hayes tweeted to his 60,748 followers was

"Important for gay people to know the true position of the Salvation Army when considering who to donate to. Sad." He said asking people to control their sexuality was like asking someone to change their eye colour. it

Then it insinuates that The salvation army behaves in a discriminatory way in how it works with gay people which is not the case according to its spokesman.

"On that measure, TSA is one of the most compassionate and non-discriminatory in the way it works with people who are marginalised in our community, including many who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender."

Persuading one person that they behave in a way when really they don't and thus stopping them making a donation because of this is a bad thing in my opinion. There are a lot better targets for him to be looking at in Australia that are preventing equal rights for gay people in Australia other then a charity that dose so much for so many people gay or not.

Pushtrak

Doc wrote: »

Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head but if all Hayes tweeted to his 60,748 followers was

How about we do the leg work and see exactly what the tweets say, rather than taking it from the article...
https://twitter.com/darrenhayes/status/213311997348024320

Important for gay people to know the true position of the salvation army when considering who to donate to. Sad. http://bit.ly/uhdf9w

He linked to the salvation army. How terrible of him. Sending propoganda through his tweets. Surely SA shouldn't have to stand by content on its own site.

Swap 'eye colour' for 'sexuality' & 'blue eyes' for 'homosexuality' to see the absurdity of this statement http://bit.ly/uhdf9w ‪#equality‬

Again linking to the SA site. He made a point about the charity, linked to the charity for people to make their own mind on the issue...

Then it insinuates that The salvation army behaves in a discriminatory way in how it works with gay people which is not the case according to its spokesman.

According to its spokesman? You having a laugh? If I were to have a spokesman and he were to say I was Master of the Universe, would you believe it?

Persuading one person that they behave in a way when really they don't and thus stopping them making a donation because of this is a bad thing in my opinion. There are a lot better targets for him to be looking at in Australia that are preventing equal rights for gay people in Australia other then a charity that dose so much for so many people gay or not.

See my previous. Would you donate to a KKK charity? I would not think bigotry should be accepted in any form. There isn't a balance on the issue. Sorry.

Doc

I don't have a twiter account Which is why I said

but if all Hayes tweeted... was

Having read your reply I now see exactly what he said and my only issue remains that although their beliefs are in my opinion stupid it dose not prevent them working to help people regardless of their sexual orientation. He has every right to disagree with them but of all the stupidity currently underway in Australia regarding gay marriage pointing out an old statement on sexuality by the Salvo's really doesn't help anyone.

I tried reading the link that he had on that tweet but they have updated the salvation army site and it now reads as follows.

As are many Christian churches, The Salvation Army (TSA) continues to have a healthy and vigorous internal dialogue about the way it deals internally with issues of sexuality. There are a range of diverse views in an organisation as large and broad as TSA, and these views are being heard and considered.
Clarifications
A Salvation Army statement on homosexuality that dates back to the 1990s has been the subject of public debate this week (17 - 24 June 2012).
The Salvation Army today clarified that the statement was not posted as part of the current debate on gay marriage, and has been on The Salvation Army website for many years.
1. Provision of social services by TSA
The Salvation Army does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the delivery of its services. All Salvation Army social service programs embrace and work with people ONLY on the basis of need. Salvation Army social service centres around the nation have had multitudes of gay people stay and find acceptance, support and love in TSA’s care.
2. Employment and volunteering with TSA
TSA does not consider sexuality a factor in deciding who we employ, or in the engagement of volunteers. Some of our best employees and volunteers are people who are openly gay.
3. Church involvement with TSA
In terms of Salvation Army church life, homosexual people are welcome to worship with, and join in the fellowship of, Salvation Army churches.
TSA is founded on strong Christian principals which drive and underpin its compassion and desire to work with anyone, without giving up, for as long as it takes.

Response to the comments
TSA respectfully suggests that, under the standards some have suggested people follow in determining which organisations to support, most of Australia's faith-based organisations would effectively be excluded from eligibility, despite their enormous range of vital and effective programs to all members of the Australian community.
TSA would suggest a more appropriate measure for people to use is to look at how an organisation treats and deals with members of the community who are marginalised, vulnerable, experiencing disadvantage or oppression. On that measure, TSA is one of the most compassionate and non-discriminatory in the way it works with people who are marginalised in our community, including many people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.

This seams pretty reasonable to me.

The OP provided the original article as the point of discussion so that is what I went on as well as my knowledge of the work the salvation army do.

Pushtrak wrote: »

See my previous. Would you donate to a KKK charity? I would not think bigotry should be accepted in any form. There isn't a balance on the issue. Sorry.

What would the KKK charity do? Would it discriminate against black people in its work? Obviously, so no I wouldn't donate to them. Also you know very well that the things the KKK have done in the past would colour anyone's judgment on them and prevent them donating to a charity run by them. The Salvation Army don't discriminate on who they help and who they don't because of sexual orientation. Comparing them to the KKK is stupid.

Pedant

squod wrote: »

If yer man doesn't like the SA then couldn't he just stop donating to them?

Yes, that's what he did, isn't it? He also wanted to make others aware of the Salvation Army's stance on homosexuality before they donate. Is there anything wrong with that?

squod wrote: »

*Darren Hayes 60,748 followers
*Christianity 2.3 billion followers

Come now. Are you saying that all Christians are against fair and equal treatment of LGBT people? From what I gather, ~85% of the Irish population claim to be Catholic, yet ~70% of the population are supposed to be pro-gay marriage, which means that a majority of Irish Catholics support gay rights.

B.A._Baracus

Interesting views going on so far
But lets look at what we know based on the facts said:

Major Harmer said a statement on its website, which described homosexuality as "unacceptable" to God and that it should be "restrained" with willpower

An bigot who hasnt changed with the times. But yet the salvation army will help gay people in need as mentioned in OP's article. So one mans view. Not the enitre Salvation army.

Darren Hayes: "Important for gay people to know the true position of the Salvation Army when considering who to donate to. Sad."

Understandably as a gay man he was upset by that comment. Who wouldnt be. But rather than responding to Harmer direct he instead urges people not to donate to the salvation army instead.

So instead of asking people to help those in need. He is saying dont give to the salvation army.


classy. real classy.