LGBT Community calls the Salvation Army Bigots

[Helmholtz Watson]

LGBT community, you are not who you are or who you fuck. Get over it. Yes it can be difficult, black people fought a long time to get equality, as did women before them. If you are gay/lesbian/bisexual - great. But dont label yourself as just that. Stop bitching about it an live your life

If you had ever been discriminated against, you wouldn't say things like that.

Especially not if you had been discriminated against in a way that is blatantly sponsored and promoted by groups like the salvation army and other religious groups, who then deny any responsibility when the inevitable consequences of their hatemongering happen.

I'm a Jew, people have told me again and again that I killed Jesus. Arab Americans have harassed me and refused to allow me to purchase items at their store. I've also been told by Arab-American girls that they won't date me because I'm a Jew. Now that I've established that I've discrimination, guess what? I agree with SonOfVoorhees because like a persons sexuality, my ethnicity isn't the only part of my life and the fact that I have been discriminated against doesn't change my stance on the subject. Human identity is made of many characteristics, not just one, whether it be sexuality or ethnicity.

 

[Caravelle]

People throw around this "you're using Godwin's law since you compared something to Nazism/Fascism/Far-Right" thing too easily.

The aversion to every comparing anything with Nazis and using the fact someone does as a rebuttal, is what's illogical/unintelligent.

The Nazis are not the exceptional things that cannot be compared to anything. In this case simply meaning that just because a group does good does not mean that they cannot do bad and that the bad should be accepted just because they do good.

While the bad certainly isn't anywhere near close to as bad as what the nazis did, nazis, the Klu Klux Klan, and even the Salvation Army which does help people, can show how religion can have a negative influence on things. In this case, religion corrupts an otherwise admirable charity.

This time I really think Godwin's law applies. Hitler/Nazis/the Holocaust are powerful images, and using them as analogies to things that aren't as powerful, or where they aren't necessary, cheapens those powerful images as simple analogy-fodder and detracts from the point being made, because those images have so much associated with them it takes extra effort to figure out which one in particular the analogy is using, and whether the person didn't use those images specifically to sneak in some additional parallels.

In this case I really don't think Nazis were necessary for that particular analogy. It was textbook Godwin.

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 ?

probably because of the strong association of religion with marriage.

That's a good reason to have a first impulse to use "marriage" for the religious version only, if you happen to be a person for whom marriage is strongly associated with religion. I don't see how it's a good reason to actually do it, and enshrine that word use in the law.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I'm a Jew, people have told me again and again that I killed Jesus. Arab Americans have harassed me and refused to allow me to purchase items at their store. I've also been told by Arab-American girls that they won't date me because I'm a Jew. Now that I've established that I've discrimination, guess what? I agree with SonOfVoorhees because like a persons sexuality, my ethnicity isn't the only part of my life and the fact that I have been discriminated against doesn't change my stance on the subject. Human identity is made of many characteristics, not just one, whether it be sexuality or ethnicity.

But let's stick with a valid comparison here; Do you think that criticism on the National Socialist Movement in America should be forbidden, because they perform charitable acts for a select group?

Because that's what we're talking about. According to some people here, you're not allowed to call the salvation army bigots, for being bigots, because they also do some things right.

And no offense, but you still have no clue just how deep the discrimination against people of a different sexual orientation truly runs. Anti-semitism isn't backed up by large groups, covertly promoted far and wide, and somewhat believed in by millions of people, and made law in most countries. Homophobia however is.

No, you made the claim that being discriminated against would change how a person feels about their identity, and I provided an counter example and I called you out on it. It's a bullshit claim that discrimination completely shapes your identity.

As for your comparison, unlike the Neo-Nazis who don't help Jews out, the Salvation Army does (and people have commented that they have worked with them and that they don't ask your sexuality) help out people regardless of their sexuality.

As for homophobia vs. antisemetism, I'd say that it depends where you go. Here in America and over in Europe I'd say that there is more homophobia. However, in places like the Middle East, I'd say its about the same. In regards to covertly promoting, just look at public sites like Youtube, I can't look at a single video about Israel without at least one comment stating "death to Zionist Pigs!". But now I'm getting off topic....

 

[Caravelle]

And no offense, but you still have no clue just how deep the discrimination against people of a different sexual orientation truly runs. Anti-semitism isn't backed up by large groups, covertly promoted far and wide, and somewhat believed in by millions of people, and made law in most countries. Homophobia however is.

Oh God, first Godwin and now the Oppression Olympics ? Antisemitism is backed up by large groups, covertly promoted far and wide, and somewhat believed in by millions of people. It's certainly nothing compared to how things were before WWII, and it isn't as virulent in the Western world as it is in other places, and the issues your average Jew in the US encounters are very different from the issues your average gay, lesbian or transsexual person encounters in the same place, but... don't try to argue about who's more oppressed than whom and which forms of oppression are worse. It's a game nobody wins.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

Gay homeless people can't receive help(while this is speculated, let's say this is true).

So fuck all the homeless people because they're discriminating.

That's counter productive LGBT community.

 

[DeltaEdge]

Absolutely. And I'm saying the ability to marry someone of the same gender is not a right. This is my opinion, and the opinion of a good half the nation. This appears to be where we disagree, and where one of the two parties simply begins calling the other "bigoted" in an effort to force the point - after all, if I'm denying the rights of others, how can I be considered a legitimate voice in discussion? It's much easier to get rid of opponents than answer them, after all - especially if a debate isn't going anywhere fast.

What you are saying is this:
If you are a heterosexual, you have the right to marry the person you love.
If you are homosexual, you do not have that right.
You are saying homosexuals do not have the same rights heterosexual people do, so you are by your own definition, a bigot.

Now if you have gender neutral marriage law, the situation would be equal.
A gay man could marry a woman, or a man.
A heterosexual man could marry a man, or a woman.

Equal rights.

As for Salvation army, I've heard of this stuff before. I don't know how widespread it is but I'm donating to secular charities anyway.

This isn't to day that I agree with this person, but I'd like to take a crack at clarifying what they are trying to say and voice my opinion on the SA issue as well. They are saying, if I read this correctly, that Homosexuals have the same marital rights as straight people. Sure, a homosexual person will have a much harder time marrying if it's even possible at all, than a straight person, but I'm trying to think of it this way. *Key sm = straight male sf = straight female hm = homosexual male hf = homosexual female an = means that they are okay to marry and x means that they are not.
sm = sf
sf = sm
hm x hm
hf x hf
But here's my point,
hm = hf
hm = sf
hf = hm
hf = sm
sm x sm
sm x hm
sf x sf
sf x hf

See what I mean? None of the parties have the right to a homosexual marriage, but all of the parties have the right to a straight marriage. Both possess the same rights, it's just that these rights do not help people of homosexual preference. They both have the same rights, but the rights favor a particular sexual orientation, that sexual orientation being heterosexuality. It's not a good thing at all, but I think that is what that person is getting at when they say that both parties have equal rights. BTW, I am a Christian, but I don't have anything particularly against homosexual marriage and I have plently of LGB friends who I care for deeply. And from a radical Christian standpoint, (which I am not) if you claim that marriage is purely religious, then shouldn't you be advocating against every religion except christianity? If your not going to go all the way and tackle all of them, then don't bother with anything, you are just lazy And marriage doesn't just mean the union between two people, it can mean: the marriage of two atoms, the marriage of two organizations, and this includes the marriage of two people. If you don't like being categorized under the same term as a homosexual couple is categorized, then make a new term, don't change the old one by morphing it into something that it is not. Onto the topic, I think that the SA probably has discriminated againsts QUILTBAGs as some have put it. But I don't think that was the SA as a whole, but as isolated incidents. I.E, someone who took it upon themselves to go against the wishes of the organization, and the bible for that matter, and refuse help to someone in need. I don't think that it is fair to blame the entirety of the organizations for a few rule-breakers acting of their own accord. If it is or becomes a serious problem with a huge frequency, and the SA knowingly refuse to acknowledge it and let it continue, then there is a problem and they should be boycotted until the issue is taken care of. I also don't particularly agree with the not hiring of QUILTBAGs. IF they want to help, then why not let them. It would be different if they were spewing horrible blasphemies left and right and outwardly expressing their discontent with the organization's Christian foundation, but if they are sensible people who aren't insane, then I think that there shouldn't be a problem. It's like refusing to allow someone to attend church just because they aren't Christian or if they are QUILTBAG. It shouldn't be a problem unless they are doing the aforementioned things inside of the church. In fact, if someone who was homosexual walked into the institution asking to join them, then you should be happy. They could have gone to a non-religious organization to volunteer, or they could have even gone to one that opposes your belief, but they chose to come here. They should be openly welcomed, not turned away. It would also be a good chance to show them the goodness of Christianity, not just the lecturing or the hypocritical radical racist media-emphasized bad parts and cult parts. They may even leave with a better understanding of the Christian people and possibly have slightly more respect for them than before if they see that we can be accepting, not just shunning. If I voiced multiple complaints, however, about bad volunteers refusing service on their own accord and reported it to the managers or where ever they complaints go, and the issues continued without them showing any effort to improve, then of course I would stop donating to them. Mainly because they are not helping people in need, but also because they are defaming their own religion by representing themselves as followers of Christianity, but then going against what the bible says and letting their own personal gripes hurt people and give the religion a bad name. By doing things like that, non-christian people who may talk of Christianity who should be saying things like "oh, they help people who are in need, so they are okay in my eyes I guess." are instead saying, "Oh, those Christian conservative bigoted racist homophobic bastards need to just stop. They claim to act for the good of the people and the will of God, but they won't even help certain groups people. They can't even follow their own religious code. They are just a bunch of hypocritical idiots."

 

[Caravelle]

See what I mean? None of the parties have the right to a homosexual marriage, but all of the parties have the right to a straight marriage.

I'm pretty sure everybody gets the whole "everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex !" thing. They get it, and dismiss it because it's disingenuous. Nobody cares about the right to marry a random person of the opposite sex; what people want is to marry the person they're romantically in love with and want to live with for the rest of their lives and want to have a family with. Heterosexuals have that right (unless they're unqualified to give consent of course). Homosexuals don't.

Saying that homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights because they both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying they have equal rights because they both have the right to eat spaghetti for lunch or to call a lawyer when arrested. It's true but completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

No, you made the claim that being discriminated against would change how a person feels about their identity, and I provided an counter example and I called you out on it.
It's a bullshit claim that discrimination completely shapes your identity.

Then how come there's homosexual meeting places next to motorways where total strangers from heavily Christian bible belt villages have sex with other men in secret?

If being discriminated against isn't all that bad, then how come they do such extreme things to avoid being recognized as homosexuals?

As for your comparison, unlike the Neo-Nazis who don't help Jews out, the Salvation Army does (and people have commented that they have worked with them and that they don't ask your sexuality) help out people regardless of their sexuality.

But the neonazis help out fellow good Aryans, but not people of a different race, just like the salvation army helps out people complying with Christian dogma, but not those offending against it by being homosexuals. The comparison is perfect.

So why would any and all criticism on the salvation army be forbidden, while comments on the national socialist movement are (quite sensibly) alright?

wow, where to begin?
First off I NEVER said discrimination wasn't "all that bad", what I said was that it doesn't have to shape your entire identity and my example was how even though I have been discriminated against because of my ethnicity, I don't let being a Jew have complete control over my identity. It is part of who I am, but only PART of who I am.

Second, as I mentioned before, there are people who commented that they have worked for the Salvation Army and that the S.A. doesn't ask you your sexuality and that they DO offer help to homosexuals. The neo-nazis do NOT offer help to Jews.

Also, the Salvation Army doesn't have a mission statement to inflict a genocide upon every homosexual. while the neo-nazi's do want to see the death of Jews.

 

[DeltaEdge]

See what I mean? None of the parties have the right to a homosexual marriage, but all of the parties have the right to a straight marriage.

I'm pretty sure everybody gets the whole "everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex !" thing. They get it, and dismiss it because it's disingenuous. Nobody cares about the right to marry a random person of the opposite sex; what people want is to marry the person they're romantically in love with and want to live with for the rest of their lives and want to have a family with. Heterosexuals have that right (unless they're unqualified to give consent of course). Homosexuals don't.

Saying that homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights because they both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying they have equal rights because they both have the right to eat spaghetti for lunch or to call a lawyer when arrested. It's true but completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

If that's already been established, then you have my apologies. It looks like I just misinterpreted the issue. But I do still think that marriage laws are purely based on male to female. It just so happens that this favors heterosexuals in romance. But they don't have the right to marry based on romance, it just so happens that this is a unspecified advantage to being on this side of the law. If the tables were reversed and Gay marriage was made legal and heterosexual marriage were to be shunned, then this would collide with the right to romantic marriage if that was the actual right. But it isn't, so it would be the same situation with heterosexual people being oppressed and homosexual people dominating. But they still wouldn't have the specified right to a romantic marriage, just as an unspecified perk. That's all I'm trying to get at I guess.

 

[Caravelle]

If that's already been established, then you have my apologies. It looks like I just misinterpreted the issue. But I do still think that marriage laws are purely based on male to female. It just so happens that this favors heterosexuals in romance. But they don't have the right to marry based on romance, it just so happens that this is a unspecified advantage to being on this side of the law. If the tables were reversed and Gay marriage was made legal and heterosexual marriage were to be shunned, then this would collide with the right to romantic marriage if that was the actual right. But it isn't, so it would be the same situation with heterosexual people being oppressed and homosexual people dominating. But they still wouldn't have the specified right to a romantic marriage, just as an unspecified perk. That's all I'm trying to get at I guess.

So romantic love is an "unspecified perk" of marriage ? That's one old-school version of "traditional marriage" they're going with...
(I'm just kidding with you, no worries )

 

[Liquid Paradox]

Nawp. I am an openly Bisexual man, and I have actually worked for the salvation army. Not once did anyone at all discriminate against me in any way, shape or form. In fact, I was well liked, despite my sexuality. Which, by the way, I told them about during my interview. In fact, the conversation went something like this:

Chaplain: Well that about sums it up, I think. Do you have any questions, or anything you want to add?
Me: Actually, I do. I understand, and in fact you have told me during this interview, that the Salvation Army is a Christian Church as well as a non-profit organization, and I was wondering if my personal lifestyle choices, which may not exactly "match up" with typical Christian standards, will in any way effect my employment.
C: Ah, I see. Believe it or not, a lot of people ask that. Many folks are afraid that, say, a difference in social or religious beliefs will somehow bar them from employment, or that they may be at some kind of disadvantage.
Me: Well... it is a fair question. Many churches have no problem openly discouraging things like homosexuality, for example. As a Bisexual myself... this is a real concern of mine.
C: Should we exclude you because of your sexuality? The Salvation Army considers itself to be an arm of God's good will and infinite mercy, and to turn help away simply because the helper has different beliefs then us would be immoral. All we care about is that you wish to aid out cause, and that you have the appropriate skills and experience to do so.

And he wasn't kidding. Nobody treated me differently there, whether they were members of the organization itself, or employees like me. It was strange that the most "accepting" Go I have ever had was with a Christian organization, and that Chaplain who interviewed me is one of the best men I know. For an open Bisexual and a spoken atheist, I would say that my opinion on christians themselves has been drastically altered by that experience.

 

[Crazy]

So apparently the LGBT community is asking people to avoid donating to the Salvation Army because of "their conservative views on homosexuality". Here is an clip from the article:

"Don't donate to them because I don't like what they think and believe." I feel like I have to stifle a chuckle from this.

 

[dyre]

well, the LGBT community (what the hell is that, anyway? Are you automatically drafted into a community if you're gay?) can believe w/e it wants, just like the Salvation Army can believe w/e it wants. Though it is annoying when a group, LGBT or otherwise, tries to act like the thought police

 

[A-D.]

First off i dont exactly know them, so they seem to be a US specific Charity. But from what i have read so far i dont even see the Issue.

Lets be honest here, i dont mind Gays, neither male nor female. They can be as gay as they want to be, its their choice. But i have to point out that i have a strong dislike for Gays that basicly push it in my Face. You know, those who go out of their Way to be as gay as they possibly can just to point out that fact.

Do you see heterosexuals doing the same thing? At least i havent so far.

Have you ever seen men hitting on women ? Women talking about their boyfriends ? Men and women salivating over how hot some opposite-sex celebrity is ? Straight couples holding hands, or hugging, or even kissing ? People dressing to be attractive to the opposite sex ? Married people going around with a ring on their finger to signal their heterosexual partnership ? Either in real life or the media.

What does pushing things in your face mean, exactly ?

Well i figure i should have be a bit more specific. I dont mind homosexuals doing that, you know, kissing, holding hands, the whole relationship stuff. Its all fine and dandy in that regard. What i take issue with is when Gays all talk with that weird Accent, you know the one, thats entirely unnecessary. Or they dress in such a specific Way that it basicly screams "I'm gay!" to anyone seeing it. Again its not necessary.

Im fine with personal Choices, same goes for sexuality. If you're gay, or straight, thats fine, its your life, so go with it as you want. Just dont go out rubbing it in People's faces, or at the very least, dont do so unless they specifically ask for it. Hell i slightly disapprove of the whole "Gay Pride Parade" thing on that count alone, its not necessary, i understand what it stands for, but really, i dont see "Straight Pride Parades", so yeah, its probably down to my own point of view. To each their own and all, i'd just prefer if that "stereotypical" stuff would stop.

Captcha: "1995; urpntit" I think its telling me something.

 

[Anarchemitis]

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

Correction:
TLR LGBT Community says that the Salvation Army discriminates against Gay and Lesbian people, which the Salvation Army says "We do not support LGBT. Problem?"

 

[A-D.]

First off i dont exactly know them, so they seem to be a US specific Charity. But from what i have read so far i dont even see the Issue.

Lets be honest here, i dont mind Gays, neither male nor female. They can be as gay as they want to be, its their choice. But i have to point out that i have a strong dislike for Gays that basicly push it in my Face. You know, those who go out of their Way to be as gay as they possibly can just to point out that fact.

Do you see heterosexuals doing the same thing? At least i havent so far.

Have you ever seen men hitting on women ? Women talking about their boyfriends ? Men and women salivating over how hot some opposite-sex celebrity is ? Straight couples holding hands, or hugging, or even kissing ? People dressing to be attractive to the opposite sex ? Married people going around with a ring on their finger to signal their heterosexual partnership ? Either in real life or the media.

What does pushing things in your face mean, exactly ?

Well i figure i should have be a bit more specific. I dont mind homosexuals doing that, you know, kissing, holding hands, the whole relationship stuff. Its all fine and dandy in that regard. What i take issue with is when Gays all talk with that weird Accent, you know the one, thats entirely unnecessary. Or they dress in such a specific Way that it basicly screams "I'm gay!" to anyone seeing it. Again its not necessary.

Im fine with personal Choices, same goes for sexuality. If you're gay, or straight, thats fine, its your life, so go with it as you want. Just dont go out rubbing it in People's faces, or at the very least, dont do so unless they specifically ask for it. Hell i slightly disapprove of the whole "Gay Pride Parade" thing on that count alone, its not necessary, i understand what it stands for, but really, i dont see "Straight Pride Parades", so yeah, its probably down to my own point of view. To each their own and all, i'd just prefer if that "stereotypical" stuff would stop.

Captcha: "1995; urpntit" I think its telling me something.

There are many things you do in your life that arent necessary and yet you do them because they are your personal choice.

How can you champion personal choice yet be so critical of other people's personal choice? You've never worn clothing or in any other way pulblically shown support or approval of something, necessary or otherwise? People that wear clothing in support of their favorite sports team come to mind. That isnt necessary...

Sigh. It sounds weird cause im actually sleep-deprived a little bit and somehow i keep talking in circles. Anyway, lets try to get to the bit i really meant.

I dont champion anything, i simply dont care about alot of things. I dont care about sexuality, religious or political views, or in fact what you ate for lunch yesterday. The Problem i have with the Gays is really the stereotype. I dont know every gay person on the planet of course, so i cant judge them all based on it, but i have seen some playing exactly on that single stereotype. Hell alot of other Groups get under my skin for the same reason, i dont go out and shout them down for it, it just irks me a little as to why they do it. I just cant grasp the reasoning behind being "blatantly gay" and by that i mean using that exact accent of speech. I just dont understand why some gay people go out and by intent dress and behave differently. Why does being gay mean you have to act differently from everyone else? Or dress a different way? As said, not all do obviously, and the ones that do it are probably the minority anyway, it still makes no sense to me personally as to why they do it.

I guess what i expect them to be, and most probably are exactly that, is to be normal, despite being of a different sexual orientation, or having a different opinion etc. I just take issue with the People that either play the stereotype up for laughs, especially those that arent even gay to begin with, and well those that are gay and do it anyway. As said, to me it makes no sense as to why it has to be done.

Guess i have a Problem with Society at large in regards as to why it even matters what political view you have, what sexual orientation you prefer and the whole crap. Just let people be people and be done with it. I just think you dont have to do something specific because of a lifestyle choice. You dont have to wear a Hockey shirt of your favourite Team, you can of course, but its not required. Same goes for gay people, you dont have to act, or dress like a "stereotypical Gay" just because you're gay yourself. But i suppose it all comes down again to the stereotype that i dislike rather than the People that act in such a way. I just figure that Gays of all People would try to move away from it, rather than enforce it in some form.

And if that still makes no real sense by now, then i'll prolly give up and run against a wall or something.