Pc brigade Gays vs the Salvation Army.

1ZRed

The gays have an army now? I wasn't recruited when I came out!!

I mustn't actually be gay so...

Pedant

1ZRed wrote: »

The gays have an army now? I wasn't recruited when I came out!!

I mustn't actually be gay so...

Didn't you get the memo when you came out of the closet? You should have received basic training, the walkie-talkie and membership card by now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38x6mHfnwU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTa9DfOnltA

Father Damo

Pushtrak wrote: »

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? .

I think there is a slight difference between a group that has unfashionble views on sexual morality as opposed to a group whos main pastime used to be lynching people from tree branches.

squod

Pedant wrote: »

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.

What I'm saying is there's no live and let live in his attitude. If he wants an entire organisation to change their belief system to suit his. That's the very definition of bigotry.

Pedant wrote: »

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?

I'd say it was more like an internet hate campaign. That one mans ego and bullish behaviour is miring the good work of decent volunteers trying to help people out and make a difference in the world.

prinz

Savage Garden, there's a bit of a blast from the past. Don't worry Darren I'll still enjoy your tune.

smash

This is nowhere near as interesting as the Rhino Vs Hippo thread we had a while back.

1ZRed

Pedant wrote: »

Didn't you get the memo when you came out of the closet? You should have received basic training, the walkie-talkie and membership card by now.

Nope. I take it it's like voting so I'm going to have to register as gay.

So the government can can ban me from:
Donating blood,
Having kids,
Getting married. 


But it's alright. I can have a parade and roll around in a rainbow if I get down about the situation. Perfect compromise;)

Pushtrak

Doc wrote: »

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.

I just looked up more on the SA... If anyone is really willing to give money to them still, then wow. Link

When New Zealand considered passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986, the Salvation Army collected signatures in an attempt to get the legislation killed. The act decriminalized consensual sex between gay men. The measure passed over the charity’s objections.

In the United Kingdom, the Salvation Army actively pushed passage of an amendment to the Local Government Act. The amendment stated that local authorities “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” The law has since been repealed, but it led many schools and colleges to close LGBT student organizations out of fear they’d lose their government funding.

In 2001, the organization tried to extract a resolution from the White House that they could ignore local non-discrimination laws that protected LGBT people. While the commitment would have applied to all employees, the group claimed that it needed the resolution so it “did not have to ordain sexually active gay ministers and did not have to provide medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.” After lawmakers and civil rights activists revealed the Salvation Army’s active resistance to non-discrimination laws, the White House admitted the charity was seeking the exemptions.

Also in 2001, the evangelical charity actively lobbied to change how the Bush administration would distribute over $24 billion in grants and tax deductions by urging the White House deny funding to any cities or states that included LGBT non-discrimination laws. Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary, issued a statement saying the administration was denying a “regulation sought by the church to protect the right of taxpayer-funded religious organizations to discriminate against homosexuals.”

In 2004, the Salvation Army threatened to close all their soup kitchens in New York City to protest the city’s decision to require all vendors and charities doing business with the city to adhere to all civil rights laws. The organization balked at having to treat gay employees equal to straight employees.

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.

It helps people make an informed choice on whether to give to the SA or not. I'd say the people who otherwise would have given to the SA are happier at being informed on the issue.

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.

Do you believe everything you read on official sites? I'm sure I could get delightful information on the scientology site, the BP site about the oil spill, and so on. I'd hope you'd generally be a critical thinker. Don't suspend that on the basis that this is a charity and nothing more.

What would the KKK charity do?

Father Damo wrote: »

I think there is a slight difference between a group that has unfashionble views on sexual morality as opposed to a group whos main pastime used to be lynching people from tree branches.

Ok, then. Lets suppose some people with similar racial ideas set up a charity with similar bigoted attitudes. They'd have as a mission statement their bigotry in employment, but make claims to help all with the same level of accuracy as the SA. If necessary to complete the analogy throw in them having a religious reason for the bigotry.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

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

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

Emphasis mine, enough said.

squod wrote: »

What I'm saying is there's no live and let live in his attitude. If he wants an entire organisation to change their belief system to suit his. That's the very definition of bigotry.

He doesn't seem to be trying to make them change. I'm presuming he woudn't want to donate to the SA, and is letting others know why they might not want to either.

I'd say it was more like an internet hate campaign. That one mans ego and bullish behaviour is miring the good work of decent volunteers trying to help people out and make a difference in the world.

So, a bigot charity is fine, but say anything negative about them and its ego? And this guy put me on ignore as a troll?

prinz

Pushtrak wrote: »

Do you believe everything you read on official sites?

Says the poster taking quotes from lgbtqnation.com which no doubt would have no bias whatsoever on the matters alluded to.

Phill Ewinn

Pushtrak wrote: »

I just looked up more on the SA... If anyone is really willing to give money to them still, then wow. Link


It helps people make an informed choice on whether to give to the SA or not. I'd say the people who otherwise would have given to the SA are happier at being informed on the issue.

Do you believe everything you read on official sites? I'm sure I could get delightful information on the scientology site, the BP site about the oil spill, and so on. I'd hope you'd generally be a critical thinker. Don't suspend that on the basis that this is a charity and nothing more.


Ok, then. Lets suppose some people with similar racial ideas set up a charity with similar bigoted attitudes. They'd have as a mission statement their bigotry in employment, but make claims to help all with the same level of accuracy as the SA. If necessary to complete the analogy throw in them having a religious reason for the bigotry.

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

Emphasis mine, enough said.

He doesn't seem to be trying to make them change. I'm presuming he woudn't want to donate to the SA, and is letting others know why they might not want to either.

So, a bigot charity is fine, but say anything negative about them and its ego? And this guy put me on ignore as a troll?

Let poor people starve.That's your solution? Fvck dem. That it. Seems obvious to me who the bigot is.

Pushtrak

prinz wrote: »

Says the poster taking quotes from lgbtqnation.com which no doubt would have no bias whatsoever on the matters alluded to.

You'd rather I found SA posting such actions on their page like badges? Don't distract from the issue. This is stuff the SA did. Your attempt at skirting the issue is a fail.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Let poor people starve.That's your solution? Fvck dem. That it. Seems obvious to me who the bigot is.

Actually I'd say give the money to another charity instead. Just one of my weaknesses I guess. If there is an organisation that hates people based on gender, sexual identity, ethnicity or any other factor then I'm not going to want to give them money.

I am not going to want to know people who are of such a mindset. I'm not going to want to shop in openly bigoted shops. Is this a bizarre attitude to have? Pretty bad society we have.

Phill Ewinn

Pushtrak wrote: »

Actually I'd say give the money to another charity instead. Just one of my weaknesses I guess. If there is an organisation that hates people based on gender, sexual identity, ethnicity or any other factor then I'm not going to want to give them money.

I am not going to want to know people who are of such a mindset. I'm not going to want to shop in openly bigoted shops. Is this a bizarre attitude to have? Pretty bad society we have.

You're hating people based on ''any other factor''. Don't you see. If you can't accept people may have a different view from you and accept that it puts you into the bigot catagory. Comprendez?

Pushtrak

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You're hating people based on ''any other factor''. Don't you see. If you can't accept people may have a different view from you and accept that it puts you into the bigot catagory. Comprendez?

If I don't accept peoples bigotry, I'm a bigot? Seriously?


*Avoids temptation to use a Godwin*

Phill Ewinn

Pushtrak wrote: »

If I don't accept peoples bigotry, I'm a bigot? Seriously?


*Avoids temptation to use a Godwin*

Looks up definition of bigot; looks at Pushtracks posts.

Are you serious?

Pushtrak

Look up the definition again. I think you lost something in the meaning.

Phill Ewinn

Pushtrak wrote: »

Look up the definition again. I think you lost something in the meaning.

adjective; having or revealing an obstinate belief in the
superiority of one’s own opinions and a
prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:

That's the definition. How can you not see that it appplies to you?

Pushtrak

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

adjective; having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:

That's the definition. How can you not see that it appplies to you?

FYP.

Let us look at what other sources might say on the issue...

Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, personal habits, political alignment, age, economic status or disability. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.

I guess you could try and pin spiritual belief, personal habits and perhaps political alignment.

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Noun
bigot (plural bigots)
One who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Oh, and on prejudice:

The word prejudice (or foredeeming) is most often used to refer to preconceived judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, nationality or other personal characteristics. It can also refer to unfounded beliefs[1] and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."

Phill Ewinn

Pushtrak wrote: »

FYP.

Let us look at what other sources might say on the issue...



Oh, and on prejudice:

Having completely ignored the definition and gone off to find one that you imagine fits your argument you still can't see how the term bigot best discribes you?

I'm not shocked. Stormfromt for you

---

>

Pushtrak

Salvation Army, a great bunch of lads... :rolleyes:

Salvation Army Rep: Gays Should Die

A public-relations rep, of all people, should know better. A Salvation Army official told an Australian radio show host that according to their “belief system” gay people deserve death. Gay Australian journalists Serena Ryan and Pete Dillon, who host the show Salt and Pepper, asked a local branch’s media relations director, Major Andrew Craibe, “according to the Salvation Army, [gay people] deserve death. How do you respond to that?” Craibe said, “Well, that’s part of our belief system ... you know, we have an alignment with the Scriptures, but that’s our belief.” The Salvation Army tried to distance itself from Craibe’s statements, saying the charity “believes in the sanctity of all human life and believes it would be inconsistent with Christian teaching to call for anyone to be put to death.”