LGBT Community calls the Salvation Army Bigots

[Jegsimmons]

ah, ok, that clears a lot up.....on another note, you know who i think gets the shaft the most in the LGBT community? Hermaphrodites. They aren't even in the title, and they are the ones that don't have the actual choice in the matter. Poor guys...uh...girls....what evers.....

I believe the politically correct term is "The intersexed", and I'm pretty sure there's a longer version of the title that they are in, but a fair point.

sorry but i dont do politically correct, i find it more offensive.
but i hear yah.

 

[Jegsimmons]

ah, ok, that clears a lot up.....on another note, you know who i think gets the shaft the most in the LGBT community? Hermaphrodites. They aren't even in the title, and they are the ones that don't have the actual choice in the matter. Poor guys...uh...girls....what evers.....

Well even saying LGBT here will get you evil stares. It's LGBTQ most commonly (Queer being added) and LGBTQ2S isn't unusual (2 Spirited from First Nations thinking added), and then there is... nevermind, it can get silly long. One LGBTQ organization in my area recently renamed itself "Sexual Diversity" because it was becoming a string of letters and they thought the important part is recognizing that sexuality is diverse and comes in countless flavors.

yeah, i think ill stick to gay or homosexual. or clinger from MASH

 

[omicron1]

Sorry, I can't recall when my loving lesbian parents lost their rights to someone's opinion. Or my dad who beat the shit out of my mom every day got to have his because of someone's opinion.

There are no "opinions" when it comes to the rights that all humans are entitled to. And until someone can show me where homosexuals marrying will end the human race as we know it, or destroy the fabric of society, or whatever else Pat Robertson spews every day, I'll continue to refer to your attempts to prevent their happiness as "bigoted".

Ah, the classic appeal to emotion. My response is thus: "Someone's grandma always suffers." In other words, for every emotion-based argument there is an emotion-based counter argument.

I am afraid you are simply going to have to come to terms with the fact that approximately half (although estimates - and poll results - vary widely) of the nation disagrees with you. You cannot discount their collective position by calling them bigots, any more than I can get rid of you by calling you and yours "religiophobes." You have your opinion and it is quite unlikely to go away; I respect the existence thereof. And you are going to have to respect the existence of mine, because it - and I - am not going away. I am not a bigot, a homophobe, or any other slur because I disagree with you, even if you think your position is in support of a "fundamental human right." I am someone with an entirely different viewpoint to your own concerning what qualifies as a "right." And, like it or not, my opinion is just as valid as yours.

I believe the line "All men are born equal" is appropriate here.

Because apparently they are not. If a man is born gay he is not equal by your logic. He does not have the right to marriage unless it is someone he has no attraction to.

I think in a world where a man and a woman who fucking hate each other have more right to marry than two men who love eachother something is inherently wrong. All men are born equal. Its in the consitution so your opnion has no right to deny the foundations of the country. Unless of course you want to argue all men are not born equal in terms of basic rights?

My stance is everyone can marry or no one can, thus equallity.

EDIT: This was an accidental double post i turned into something usefull.

You cannot debate on The basis of assumptions that not all parties involved agree with. You are making at least two here: first, that marriage is a construct solely based on attraction and has nothing to do with (say) the raising of children; second, that homosexuality is an implicit characteristic present from birth. I cannot start an argument by saying "as everyone knows, God created the universe. Therefore..." - even if I believe it wholeheartedly. Nor can you assume a universal truth where only opinions exist.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Personally, I accept gays as human beings, but i'm against gay marriage, because i'm against any civil union being defined by the sate or nation. Marriage should be a religious thing, and civil union a between two consenting adults thing.

I'm sorry, but I was reading this and I have to say that I have never heard of another person who had the same views on marriage as me in my life so I felt I had to post this before my jaw hit the floor. I wasn't able to post it in time by the way. This is assuming that you also believe that the government should stop handing out marriage licenses and instead just start just handing out civil union licenses, which is what it sounds like you're supporting.

pretty much. yeah.

And is there a reason those civil unions couldn't be called "marriages" ? Religion doesn't have a monopoly on the word.

because marriage has religious roots. if there is a religion that allows a gay "marriage" then fine with me, doesn't mean MY religion has to allow or recognize it. just the civil union part. get what im saying?

 

[Grospoliner]

Just like the radical religious right perceives a homosexual agenda with the intent to subvert and to dominate the world, the radical homosexual left perceives a christian agenda with the intent to subvert and to dominate the world.

Less radical members of both sides end up caught in the middle and dragged into mudslinging.

Nothing to see here. Also, I don't think the LGBT community came together with a unified voice and called the salvation army bigots. Its probably just a few blokes.

This is as newsworthy as that one black lady who decided that the letter K printed on the label of a snapple bottle stood for corporate support of the ku klux klan.

Given the actions of historical devout Christians? I would be at the very least critical of their behavior, regardless of the good they do.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

ah, ok, that clears a lot up.....on another note, you know who i think gets the shaft the most in the LGBT community? Hermaphrodites. They aren't even in the title, and they are the ones that don't have the actual choice in the matter. Poor guys...uh...girls....what evers.....

Well even saying LGBT here will get you evil stares. It's LGBTQ most commonly (Queer being added) and LGBTQ2S isn't unusual (2 Spirited from First Nations thinking added), and then there is... nevermind, it can get silly long. One LGBTQ organization in my area recently renamed itself "Sexual Diversity" because it was becoming a string of letters and they thought the important part is recognizing that sexuality is diverse and comes in countless flavors.

can you explain the Queer part to me? I never really got why people would call themselves that because until college, I only heard of the word queer to be used to mean that something(not related to sexuality) was somehow unusual, odd, weird or puzzling. For example if you thought one of your friends was acting out of character, you might say that they were acting "queer". Or if you felt social awkward about having the "birds and the bees" conversation with your parents, you might say the situation was "queer". Again, I'm confused. Is it like the word ******, in that it is an attempt to "claim" a word and make it a positive thing? ....or am I totally wrong and talking out my ass?

Yes, its a reclaimed word. It always basically meant "at odds with the norm" (litterally, "at right angles" I believe). Some people within the community identified this way because they felt the more specific terms (gay, lesbian, etc) did not properly discribe how they felt. The term is fairly commonly used by androgonous people I've met. In some circles Queer is an inclusive term meaning just about anything other than 100% Straight. It's been used in popular culture for a fair number of years. It's even been seen on TV with show names like Queer as Folk or Queer Eye for the Straight guy.

interesting...confusing, but interesting.

 

[Dastardly]

So Escapist what do you think? Does this change your opinion on the Salvation Army? Will you still donate to the Salvation Army the next time you hear the bell with the red bucket?

TLR LGBT Community says that the Salvation Army discriminates against Gay and Lesbian people, which the Salvation Army says is not the case.

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/salvation-army-red-kettle-lgbt-community_n_1113358.html?ref=religion&ir=Religion

I think this is exactly what Freedom of Religion means.

They believe what they believe, but the also respect that others do not agree. They help people regardless of orientation, but they do not feel they have to change their own beliefs in the process. That's what this whole "tolerance" crap was supposed to be about.

Instead, we have the "tolerant" people insisting that everyone must believe the same thing. It doesn't matter that you're feeding that homeless gay man, because behind his back you think he's wrong for being gay. (Is it okay to help drug addicts get food and shelter, even though you "secretly" believe they're wrong for being drug addicts?)

Freedom of Religion didn't mean that every person would be free from ever having to hear about differing religious beliefs.

 

[Batou667]

Interesting thread and an interesting topic.

At its heart, tolerance must surely include tolerance of intolerance, right? It's so effortless to be tolerant of people who hold the exact same political and social views as you that it really shouldn't count as tolerance at all; there's no compromise, agreeing-to-disagree, or concessions being made on either side.

So to a certain extent, isn't it OK to be intolerant? Say somebody feels that it is morally wrong to be homosexual: are they entitled to their view, or should they be silened or have their views "corrected"?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Sorry, I can't recall when my loving lesbian parents lost their rights to someone's opinion. Or my dad who beat the shit out of my mom every day got to have his because of someone's opinion.

There are no "opinions" when it comes to the rights that all humans are entitled to. And until someone can show me where homosexuals marrying will end the human race as we know it, or destroy the fabric of society, or whatever else Pat Robertson spews every day, I'll continue to refer to your attempts to prevent their happiness as "bigoted".

Ah, the classic appeal to emotion. My response is thus: "Someone's grandma always suffers." In other words, for every emotion-based argument there is an emotion-based counter argument.

I am afraid you are simply going to have to come to terms with the fact that approximately half (although estimates - and poll results - vary widely) of the nation disagrees with you. You cannot discount their collective position by calling them bigots, any more than I can get rid of you by calling you and yours "religiophobes." You have your opinion and it is quite unlikely to go away; I respect the existence thereof. And you are going to have to respect the existence of mine, because it - and I - am not going away. I am not a bigot, a homophobe, or any other slur because I disagree with you, even if you think your position is in support of a "fundamental human right." I am someone with an entirely different viewpoint to your own concerning what qualifies as a "right." And, like it or not, my opinion is just as valid as yours.

I believe the line "All men are born equal" is appropriate here.

Because apparently they are not. If a man is born gay he is not equal by your logic. He does not have the right to marriage unless it is someone he has no attraction to.

I think in a world where a man and a woman who fucking hate each other have more right to marry than two men who love eachother something is inherently wrong. All men are born equal. Its in the consitution so your opnion has no right to deny the foundations of the country. Unless of course you want to argue all men are not born equal in terms of basic rights?

My stance is everyone can marry or no one can, thus equallity.

EDIT: This was an accidental double post i turned into something usefull.

You cannot debate on The basis of assumptions that not all parties involved agree with. You are making at least two here: first, that marriage is a construct solely based on attraction and has nothing to do with (say) the raising of children; second, that homosexuality is an implicit characteristic present from birth. I cannot start an argument by saying "as everyone knows, God created the universe. Therefore..." - even if I believe it wholeheartedly. Nor can you assume a universal truth where only opinions exist.

I know some gay people who wish they werent gay, have tried straight relationships and been VERY unhappy. If being gay was a choice they would choose not to be. I kinda wish they could, being descriminated against doesnt sound fun. Marriage and love should overlap 100% however marriage and children dont have to, infertile people can be straight too.

Also about your opinion being equally as valid? You conservative types who rally against a minority getting a right you dont want them to have always fail. You always do. Every single time in history your ideas have been washed away by new generations and ideas, embracing equality and deciding all men really are born equal. Regardless of the fact 51% of people dont think gays should marry soon it will not be. Remember when blacks had to drink from different fountains? Im sure people who agreed with that were sure itd last forever. It did not. History is awash with people who try and resist change, try and preserve the old outdated views. They all fail. They are all crushed under the inevitable march of progress and acceptance. Your views are the same, mine embrace the new and so i have the weight of change behind me, and change is absolute. Ironically the only constant in society is change. Conservatism is a fundamentally flawed ideal since new generations naturally embrace the new and liberal. Society changes. Nothing can stop it.

Also in terms of if the majority disagree? 51% of people hate marmite. Should it be illegal for you to eat it? Yes? Why? Because them eating marmite has nothing to do with you. Nothing. Just as two men getting maried is literally NONE of your business. And yet by arguing they should not and denying them the pursuit of happyness you are making it your business. I dont understand why, even if not FOR gay marriage, why you would even bother being against. It has fuck all to do with me. I literally should have no say in things that dont affect me in the slightest. I dont really get why people both to try and deny these people rights. So you can sleep at night knowing your opinion is a law?

Opinions become sociatal law when those opnions are against things that actively damage society. Eating marmite does not. Two people marrying does not. If you can prove that gay marriage harms society, and thus is societies business, ill accept your stance.

No one is forced to be in a religion, if people don't like the rules, don't be part of it. Like minded people can set whatever rules make sense to them.

If you dont like gay marriage dont get gay married.

Are children raised best in a house with two men who love eachother in a strong relationship or in a very poor very unhappy hetero relationship? One is llegal.

 

[Thaa'ir]

As a gay man: Let them do what they want, as long as they spend their funds on helping people and not on political campaigning.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I have a question which has probably already been asked, but it seems I got to this one kind of late and I'm not sure I can restrain my annoyance at the original article long enough to read through the other posts.

What the fuck do people think 'the LGBT Community' is?

We're not a fucking cult. We don't make regular reports to the arch-queer. We don't undergo mandatory conditioning to ensure we all believe the same thing.

So why do journalists keep using the words "LGBT community" because they can't be arsed to research who the Bilerico Project or the GLN or Stonewall actually are. It's lazy and slightly offensive.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

snip

snip[/u]

snip

snip

snip

No one is forced to be in a religion, if people don't like the rules, don't be part of it. Like minded people can set whatever rules make sense to them.

If you dont like gay marriage dont get gay married.

Are children raised best in a house with two men who love eachother in a strong relationship or in a very poor very unhappy hetero relationship? One is llegal.

In regrds to you response to people having a religious reason as to oppose gay marriage, I think you need to look at what Dastardly typed:

"I think this is exactly what Freedom of Religion means.

They believe what they believe, but the also respect that others do not agree. They help people regardless of orientation, but they do not feel they have to change their own beliefs in the process. That's what this whole "tolerance" crap was supposed to be about.

Instead, we have the "tolerant" people insisting that everyone must believe the same thing. It doesn't matter that you're feeding that homeless gay man, because behind his back you think he's wrong for being gay. (Is it okay to help drug addicts get food and shelter, even though you "secretly" believe they're wrong for being drug addicts?)

Freedom of Religion didn't mean that every person would be free from ever having to hear about differing religious beliefs".

 

[Caravelle]

Personally, I accept gays as human beings, but i'm against gay marriage, because i'm against any civil union being defined by the sate or nation. Marriage should be a religious thing, and civil union a between two consenting adults thing.

I'm sorry, but I was reading this and I have to say that I have never heard of another person who had the same views on marriage as me in my life so I felt I had to post this before my jaw hit the floor. I wasn't able to post it in time by the way. This is assuming that you also believe that the government should stop handing out marriage licenses and instead just start just handing out civil union licenses, which is what it sounds like you're supporting.

pretty much. yeah.

And is there a reason those civil unions couldn't be called "marriages" ? Religion doesn't have a monopoly on the word.

because marriage has religious roots. if there is a religion that allows a gay "marriage" then fine with me, doesn't mean MY religion has to allow or recognize it. just the civil union part. get what im saying?

I'm afraid I don't. Whatever its origin in the Western world, "marriage" isn't a religious term right now. Atheists get married all the time. It's a social institution.
If you want to completely separate the social institution from the religious meaning it has for some people I think that's a fine idea, but why use the word "marriage" for the religious version instead of the social institution, as it's used right now ?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

snip

snip[/u]

snip

snip

snip

No one is forced to be in a religion, if people don't like the rules, don't be part of it. Like minded people can set whatever rules make sense to them.

If you dont like gay marriage dont get gay married.

Are children raised best in a house with two men who love eachother in a strong relationship or in a very poor very unhappy hetero relationship? One is llegal.

In regrds to you response to people having a religious reason as to oppose gay marriage, I think you need to look at what Dastardly typed:

"I think this is exactly what Freedom of Religion means.

They believe what they believe, but the also respect that others do not agree. They help people regardless of orientation, but they do not feel they have to change their own beliefs in the process. That's what this whole "tolerance" crap was supposed to be about.

Instead, we have the "tolerant" people insisting that everyone must believe the same thing. It doesn't matter that you're feeding that homeless gay man, because behind his back you think he's wrong for being gay. (Is it okay to help drug addicts get food and shelter, even though you "secretly" believe they're wrong for being drug addicts?)

Freedom of Religion didn't mean that every person would be free from ever having to hear about differing religious beliefs".

I think its fine they have their views, im arguing with this guy about it being illegal. And about the fact gay marriage being illegal is a complete crock of shit. Which it is. Im tolerant of opinions but im not tolerant when those opinions become laws.

 

[zulu.fox]

Here is my viewpoint on this (Also note that this is coming from a Bisexual Atheist)

Okay, technically the bible does mention that same sex relationships are sinful. I had that forced through most of my teen years as I was educated at a Catholic School. I respect that , that's what they believe they are free to believe that. The Salvation Army does not actively discriminate against the LGBT "community" (I hate that term by the way) , they do a Hell of a lot of good in the UK and elsewhere, they were there when my town got flooded, they run hundreds of homeless shelters. So Basically I have no problem with donating money to them at Christmas, I know that it will be used well to help some truly vulnerable people in the UK. If people want something to moan at, there are MUCH MUCH MUCH worse organisations operating in the UK and the US that actively discriminate against LGBT people .

 

[Caravelle]

Interesting thread and an interesting topic.

At its heart, tolerance must surely include tolerance of intolerance, right?

Wrong. It's kind of like saying that freedom must include freedom to enslave people or be enslaved. You'd think so, but slavery is the antithesis of freedom so you end up with a paradox. The reality is that freedom and tolerance aren't simple concepts, they're complex states of affairs that involve various compromises between contradictory interests.

As far as tolerance goes, tolerance can't include tolerating intolerance because once intolerance is in the picture it isn't tolerance anymore. What we need to do is look at the whole set of often mutually-exclusive opinions and behaviors and choose which ones we value most. I'd say "tolerance" is when you value a high diversity of opinions and behaviors - and that means quelling those specific behaviors that work to decrease that diversity. It isn't a paradox, it's a tradeoff.

So to a certain extent, isn't it OK to be intolerant? Say somebody feels that it is morally wrong to be homosexual: are they entitled to their view, or should they be silened or have their views "corrected"?

But that doesn't fix things, because if it's OK to think it's morally wrong to be homosexual it should be just as OK to think those who think it's morally wrong to be homosexual should shut up. It's an infinite regress.