E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Tim Boyle / Getty Images
Salvation Army bell-ringer Debra Vazquez works near her red donation kettle Dec. 20, 2005. in Park Ridge, Ill.
The Salvation Army’s annual red kettle fundraising campaign is not getting a ringing endorsement from gays and lesbians.
Gay-rights groups are urging a boycott of donations to the iconic holiday bell-ringers, saying the Salvation Army has a history of discriminating against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people -- a charge the charity denies.
“As the holidays approach, the Salvation Army bell ringers are out in front of stores dunning shoppers for donations. If you care about gay rights, you'll skip their bucket in favor of a charity that doesn't actively discriminate against the LGBT community,” Bil Browning, editor-in-chief of The Bilerico Project, a national LGBT blog, wrote in a recent post titled "Why You Shouldn't Donate to the Salvation Army Bell Ringers."
"While you might think you're helping the hungry and homeless by dropping a few dollars in the bright red buckets, not everyone can share in the donations. Many LGBT people are rejected by the evangelical church charity because they're ‘sexually impure.'”
“We are urging a boycott of the Salvation Army because it uses its selective interpretation of the Bible to promote discrimination against LGBT people in employment benefits and leadership positions within the Army,” Andy Thayer, co-founder, Gay Liberation Network, told msnbc.com in an email.
"Of all the very many, often bizarre, prohibitions mentioned in Leviticus, the Army chooses to single out and promote the few prohibitions against gays, which suggests to us that it is bigotry, not literal Bible belief, that motivates their actions."
The Salvation Army, a charitable evangelical Christian organization that provides aid and services to the needy, denies that it discriminates against anyone.
"Nothing can be further from the truth," Lt. Col. Ralph Bukiewicz, divisional commander of the Salvation Army Metropolitan Division, told msnbc.com on Wednesday.
The charitable organization notes that its services are available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation.
“In our policies, in our practices, in our programs and in our eligibility for any service within the Salvation Army, there is not a request for any details concerning sexual orientation,” says Bukiewicz.
Gay-rights advocates contend the organization has a history of lobbying for “anti-gay” policies and legislation. As an example, Browing says that in 2004 the Salvation Army threatened to close all their soup kitchens for the homeless in New York to protest the city's decision to require vendors and charities doing business with the city to adhere to the state’s civil rights laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Gays and celibacy
On its national website, the Salvation Army says it holds "a positive view of human sexuality" and does not consider same-sex orientation "blameworthy in itself.”
The position statement on homosexuality goes on to say: “Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.
“Likewise, there is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for reason of his or her sexual orientation. The Salvation Army opposes any such abuse.”
Browning says the Salvation Army has denied services to LGBT people unless they renounce their sexuality or end their same-sex relationships -- a charge Bukiewicz denies.
"I've seen the discrimination the Salvation Army preaches first hand,” Browning wrote. “When a former boyfriend and I were homeless, the Salvation Army insisted we break up before they'd offer assistance. We slept on the street instead and declined to break up as they demanded.”
Browning, Thayer and other gay-rights activists are urging people to ignore the sidewalk and storefront red kettle bell-ringers and instead redirect their holiday donations to other charities.
Bukiewicz says the campaign by gay-rights groups is based on “erroneous understanding.” He notes their boycott actions in previous years haven’t put a crimp in holiday donations.
Last year, Salvation Army raised a record $142 million during its Christmas appeal campaign, the most noticeable component of which are the red kettles. That was a 5 percent increase over the previous year.
More news and feature stories from msnbc.com:
Leave a Comment:
In the mid 90's the Salvation Army pulled out of San Francisco because of the Domestic partnership law. Years later the law became statewide. They are a religious organization and promote their beliefs. They do not accept homosexuality.
While I do not care about anyone's sexual preference, to your comment "they do not accept homosexuality", my opinion is, they don't have to.
(giggle)....you said, 'pull out.'
So what? Who says that they...or anyone else....has to?
Comments # 1 thru # 7 deleted for trolling gays and steering the discussion poorly.
So I am not supposed to donate a few dollars to an organization that helps the homeless and under-privileged just because the gay community says not to?? Sorry...
Correct, but it's not their money, and of course it won't be mine.
I hate religious groups who use other people's money to make their own political/theological statements, or worse use those funds as leverage to push an agenda from a book that is what, 1800 years old, on people that have little choice. Because the ones that do, will say no fricken thanks Gerbels, I'll get my propaganda somewhere else.
I just thank god jesus didn't have a bible to bash all the lower forms of life over the head with. But then again had he acted like our current religious buffoons, the bible would have never been written and the world would be a much safer place with millions of more humans on it. The irony.
I miss the days when charity mean helping people w/o stings.
If the Salvation Army discriminated against blacks, would you still give money? How about Jews?
Why would you give to an organization that purposely discriminates against one specific sector of Americans?
when Salvation Army joins the 21st century, maybe I can contribute then.
Tell you what. When homosexuals become a race of people then sure, I'll support that. However, they are not. They merely choose to partake in an abhorrent lifestyle.
Double post
"If the Salvation Army discriminated against blacks, would you still give money? How about Jews?
Why would you give to an organization that purposely discriminates against one specific sector of Americans?
when Salvation Army joins the 21st century, maybe I can contribute then."
If they withheld food, clothing and other donations because of this persons sexual preference, religion or ethnic background then no. But they don't. Show me a homosexual man/woman that was turned away by the salvation army because of that and its a different story, but that does not happen.
Bart Conner
You are wrong to compare homosexuality with RACE. Stop doing that please.
Homosexulaity is a sexual act between two people of the same sex. This is an ACT
Race on the other hand is a classification of humans into large and distinct populations or groups by factors such as heritable phenotypic characteristics or geographic ancestry, but also often influenced by and correlated with traits such as appearance, culture, ethnicity, and socio-economic status.
Get that straight! You are demeaning these races (Balcks and Jews) by dragging them into this homosexulaity thing.
Did anybody read the Salvation Army policy? They do not withhold services based on sexual preference. They do believe in Biblical principles. When did Jesus expect behavioral compliance from the unconverted? This is understood. Do not expect the S.A. to allow conjugal relations in their facilities, however. That may be what the individual meant by "breaking up" he and his boyfriend. They couldn't live together in S.A. housing. I'm sure the S.A. would not dictate to them about their living arrangements elsewhere.
Also, through the years it has be Christian organizations that have established caring organizations to feed and care for the homeless and to provide medical care. Other than county hospitals, local hospitals are the Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, and Methodist hospitals. We don't have any Atheist or Agnostic or LGBT hospitals. What would we have done without the loving compassion, charity, and philanthropy of Christians?
Recently the gay softball league in San Francisco was sued by three members and lost. They refused to let the three play because they interrogated the players, and determined that the three are heterosexual, instead of bisexual. Here's a link: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2011/11/bisexual-softball-players-win-settlement-gay-san-francisco-team
Gays are making it all about their sexual preference and deviation. The majority of us need to wake up and limit what they are able to do in court and elsewhere. They have chosen a lifestyle and are seeking to make the rest of us follow along. This "Boycott the Salvation Army" is as hateful and bigotted as any loudmouthed ranter against homosexuality. I do not judge gays for their sin...heck, the whole world sins. That's God's arena to judge them. Not mine. But they lost a whole heap of what minimal respect they had AS PEOPLE from me on this one.
And if you are gay and don't agree with this wicked rant against the Salvation Army, as you are lumped together with those who do such things, think of how it is for Christians who don't buy into the hellfire and damnation version which has you lost without hope, and also when we are denigrated and disrespected as a whole when one of ours falls into sin.
"I hate religious groups who use other people's money to make their own political/theological statements"
It doesn't seem to me like they're trying to make a statement here. It's not like they're standing out there ringing the bell and saying "give to the needy, unless they're gay". They've indicated they don't discriminate, and that is only countered in the story by a single anecdote from an individual. The SA is entitled to its beliefs, as many have said here. Of course, folks are entitled to decline to donate as well. But one should make sure it's for the right reason. The SA isn't making a statement here, it's the LGBT community making the statement, criticizing the beliefs of this religious organization.
I don't agree with discimination against gays etc., but neither do I think that refusal to donate to the SA over this does anyone any good.
What a truly sad day in America. It's 2011... and yet we still have people/organizations in this country that cannot accept someone because of their sexuality. Why does it matter? What gives someone the right to judge or pass sentence on someone because of the person they love, are committed/married too, the way they live their life? to restrict them from things? Why does this kind of bigotry matter on all sides? Deny things this country calls Basic Human Rights?
You know what this article should have been about?? People understand this country is having economic hardships, and collectively, the SA army has raised X number of dollars to help those who need it the most.
Somewhere in this great country of ours.. is a 6 year old little girl who needs a winter coat to keep her warm... a mother/father trying to get back on their feet, an elderly woman who needs some soup because she can't afford anything else...
Grow Up America
The gays, the lesbians, the whatever, have every right to hate the Salvation Army and everything they stand for. After all, those groups have done and offered more for the down on their luck, homeless, jobless, hungry children and women more than anyone or any other group. They have done so through their acts of what was it again??? Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.
So, when these groups get off their high horse and realize that the Salvation Army really isn't into excluding anyone and really don't give a rat's ass what life style you promote. Then and only then will they see them for what they really are. A charity that does more good for the entire community then GLT group has ever done or ever will do.
The message is simple. The Salvation Army discriminates against people based on an inborn and immutable sexual orientation. Anyone with morals would refuse to donate to their charity, and instead should donate to a non-discriminatory charity. Plain and simple.
Actually, Big Bill, they do discriminate. A gay person cannot work at the Salvation Army, among other things.
I would rather donate to Goodwill or to other causes, which I do, than to an organization that will not only discriminate against me because I'm gay, but because I'm Jewish as well. Before you tell me that's a lie, it's the truth. I've found out - the hard way.
"The message is simple. The Salvation Army discriminates against people based on an inborn and immutable sexual orientation."
A claim they've outright claimed is untrue. The only 'proof' offered in the story is a single uncorroborated anecdote from an individual. This is an organization that has provided for the needy for ages. . . .good works which many here seem eager to ignore, simply because per the group's religious beliefs are that homosexuality is unacceptable. And even WITH those beliefs, they still claim to provide their help without discriminating against said group (contradicted again, by a single anecdote).
I dunno man, I support the right of homosexuals to marry and live their lives as they please. . .it hurts no one. But urging people to stop donating to a group that helps people in need, well, that seems stupid to me.
So just to make sure I understand.....If someone doesn't agree with the Gay lifestyle then the gays just go out to destroy them? Simply can't understand that someone in the world doesn't believe the same thing that you do?
The truth that Mr. Browning forgot to mention is : he and his partner ate the free meal, then complained when the SA would not allow them to share a bed. That is where their religious beliefs kicked in. So mr. Browning and his partner left. Now he wants [people to not donate, due to HIS choice.I'm not talking about his choice of partner, but his choice to not respect the beliefs of the religious charity he was willing to take a hand out from. Now he feels empowered to denigrate with half truths to even a score? The Salvation Army doesn't even remember who he is, or where he wanted to stay.
When the same sex marriage debate first started, I was against it. I am 63, and a bit old fashioned. Man, woman, married, children. Then I got to thinking: why should heterosexual couples be the only ones miserable?
I have been a Sally Army bell-ringer in the past. Our coordinator asked would I do so this year?
I've been dithering but this move made up my mind. I'll gladly face face the cold and give 5-10 hours of my time.
Message to the gay community : you cannot force everyone to agree with or accept you, none of us can. The SA has the 1st Amendment right to their beliefs. While you may be having a hissy because you have the mistaken notion that you are entitled to tell everyone else on the planet what to do or think, the SA is a wonderful organization which does immense good.
I live in a small town in a scarcely populated county in the upper Midwest. Two days ago, there was a terrible house fire in a nearby village. Before the fire departments had even left the scene the Salvation Army was there. I know the local response person well. She would never ask a needy person about their beliefs or sex life.
Get over yourselves.
I have nothing against the LGBT community or promoting their cause but this seems to be a little ridiculous and very personal from Browning.
So if an organization does not support every aspect of their position lock-step, they want a boycott?
And the boycott is based on a gay-rights advocate's single negative encounter? The reporter didn't turn up any other examples, which for an organization of over 1.5 million members, would be rather easy if it was prevalent, right?
The organization houses, feeds and clothes thousands of people regardless of their sexual preference, their economic status, their addictions or their belief in Christianity.
The organization explicitly denounces discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, how many other non-profits do that?
Everyone has a right to support or boycott whatever organization they want, but I find the standards that some in the LGBT community hold organizations to (particularly religious orgs) is hypocritical and unrealistic.
The Salvation Army isn't perfect, but it is widely regarded as one of the best-ran charities in the world and has been consistently ranked in the top 5 large charities for efficiency, low administration costs and for providing transparency and accountability for its fundraising efforts.
And like I said, there are plenty of other charities that you can donate to that don't discriminate against people because of how they were born.
Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group.
Please explain to me how discrimination applies here.
Toasty, give me at least one other example of the salvation Army refusing to help a gay person. Mr. Browning told a half story. Mr. Browning and his partner ate the free meal, then took a hissy fit because the salvation Army wanted them to sleep in separate beds.
I do hope you are never on the street hungry and broke. You would run to the nearest SA soup kitchen. When you go in, they ask for your name, and if you have a place to live, and if you are working. Then they feed you, give you a place to sleep if you need it. That's all. No who do you have sex with, what church do you go to, or what political party do you vote for. Toasty, sometimes you are spot on, sometimes close - on this one, you are waaaaay off base.
I never said they refuse to help gay people, Oldman. You just put words in my mouth, with is disingenuous to say the least. They actively discriminate against people born homosexual in their membership, belief system, and lobbying efforts. I myself prefer to give to charities that do not discriminate in these ways.
With a hot bell ringer like the one in the photo, who could resist sticking a couple of fingers (full of change) in the ol' kettle pot?
If I choose to donate to a charity that espouses more traditional values, that is just that MY CHOICE. If I donate to my alma mater (Marquette U) I expect it to go to them not any other school. The same as if I donate to a Christian charity, I expect the money to go toward something that mirrors my values. Yes I basically vote with my charitable dollars.
Reading Comprehension SUCKS in America.
They were not asking EVERYONE to boycott, rather...informing gay people, and suggesting they should boycott.
As a lesbian, I have long refused to donate to the Salvation Army for this very reason.
I still give my money to charities, who help feed/clothe/house the poor...they just dont have anything to say about gay people, one way or the other.
And frankly, I take offense to their slogan "doing the most good" - pretty F'ing arrogant if you ask me.
The Salvation Army was at Norton AFB in San Bernardino at 2:30 A.M., when I flew in after 33 months in Vietnam. they gave us FREE coffee and do-nuts. I will and DO donate to them whenever I can. If a group feels they don't want to give due to personal reasons that's their right. but don't try to get me to stop giving, they didn't ask if any of us were Gay, they served ALL of us. Get a life people. If there are people picketing the kettles I will politely step around them and donate anyway.
Yasmak - "But urging people to stop donating to a group that helps people in need, well, that seems stupid to me."
if they were the only organization working to help the needy, i'd agree. But they are not, and therefore donating ELSEWHERE is still doing good works...
christians can spread their bipolar message of love/hate all they want...im not buying it.
This is what I hate about gays......they don't want to be discriminated against but they have a real problem when someone has beliefs different from theirs. I'm ok with your lifestyle and beliefs.....don't infringe on mine. I will plan on directing all of my holiday giving to the Salvation Army this year to help offset the small loss from the gays.
@Double Entendre: You make it sound like the Salvation Army is the only organization out there that helps the homeless and underprivileged.
Are you incapable of finding another charity that doesn't discriminate against gay people to contribute to? After all, if you truly care about the homeless, then you need to pay attention to how gay people are treated. The most common reason a child is homeless, after all, is because he was kicked out of the house for being gay.
Why don't you try donating to Covenant House instead.
Toasty McGrath
"I never said they refuse to help gay people, Oldman. You just put words in my mouth, with is disingenuous to say the least. They actively discriminate against people born homosexual in their membership, belief system, and lobbying efforts. I myself prefer to give to charities that do not discriminate in these ways."
Toasty, you are trying to say people are born homosexual yet there is no scientific evidence to back your claim. Homosexuality is a choice.
I will be sure to double my donations to the SA this year! Too many hurting from the economy to not help the faithful, trustful and respectful charity that is the Salvation Army.
A Veteran, First allow me to say Welcome Home My Friend...2nd, my grandfather was in the navy during ww2, he said Red Cross as well as SA were around...he got coffee, donuts and lots of other things from SA FOR FREE..You know Red Cross was charging People for everything..He also said that it's SUPPOSED to be Red Cross's job to notify military ppl of emergencies back home..his dad died, rc did not notify him, he found out from letters from home..he never liked them, never will, but as far as SA my entire family donates TO THEM AND WE WILL NEVER STOP. We got caught up in the wonder that was Katrina...rc received BILLIONS in donations to assist ppl, after losing our cars, home, all contents inside our home, all we heard from rc is what they DONT do.they pocketed BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. RC is nothing but a money making company posing as a charity
yeah right.... people would choose to be persecuted for love. You folks that claim it is a choice never explain why you "choose" to be attracted to people of the opposite sex.
Did you read the story, there is quote that covers your concern to the T.
Websters. homosexuality: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
The act has nothing to do with it, if you are attracted to the same sex you are a homosexual even if you never act on it.
But if you prefer would you be down with the SA if they said no helping christians, or fat people, or Texans, or pseudo-cowboys, or how about a social/liberal donation group deciding not to help republicans; all choices, unlike homosexuality or race. I get that you want to believe someone would choose to live
Argue all you want, they are using other peoples money to enact their personal agendas, and that isn't right, even if you happen to not like the same folks. Charity is about helping people, not flashing you jesus credentials and using your personal interpretation to decide who is worthy of help based on nonsensical parameters that have absolutely nothing to do with the degree of help one might need.
They are phonies, if they truly cared about people the only thing that should matter is if they need for help, the rest is personal bugaboo BS.
Toasty; The message is simple. The Salvation Army discriminates against people based on an inborn and immutable sexual orientation. Anyone with morals would refuse to donate to their charity, and instead should donate to a non-discriminatory charity. Plain and simple.
Discrimination is a denial of common rights, or services. The SA did not deny them any thing. They only refused to let Mr. Browning and his partner sleep in the same bed. That Mr. browning felt it was more important to sleep in the park was his choice.
Scott,
"Argue all you want, they are using other peoples money to enact their personal agendas, and that isn't right, even if you happen to not like the same folks. Charity is about helping people, not flashing you jesus credentials and using your personal interpretation to decide who is worthy of help based on nonsensical parameters that have absolutely nothing to do with the degree of help one might need."
You obviously don't understand Christianity. According to the bible, homosexuality is a sin and it is the responsibility of all Christians to discourage sin. While we all sin in one way or another, but ignoring when we do is not really being Christian. We should always strive to avoid sinning. The ultimate goal goal of those who really believe in God is to follow His rules as much as possible. Doing otherwise won't go well in the next life, which lasts forever. Free will allows you to shrug it off, or to follow the right path. The choice is yours to make.
A Veteran and Darlene - My father had a similar experience. Coming back from Vietnam, the Red Cross charged him outrageously for clothes and toiletries, all of which were donated by others so they made pure profit off of the servicemen & women. The Salvation Army on the other hand offered him counseling, food, clothing and even provided a bus from his base back to Union Station in LA when he was discharged.
Oldman - To follow up on your point of discrimination, if Mr. Browning's partner was a woman and they were not married, the Salvation Army would have also asked them to sleep in separate beds. I guess perhaps Mr. Browning would be technicially correct if he asserted that the SA discriminates against non-married people. Then again, so does credit agencies, insurance companies, and even our government.
What many of you are missing is, some of the acts of the Salvation Army that are being called discriminatory practices, are often referred to by other groups as morally correct and ethically sound.
This is the only reason this is even a story. There is no denying that the Salvation Army has done good by all groups and has never turned down anyone in true need of mercy. Think about that before you rush off into quick judgement simply due to your very limited ideology of political correctness. Remember "politically correct" actions are only moral and ethical during the times/moments that they are deemed popular. Righteousness and mercy will always be in fashion.
Oh Big Bill, there you go being reasonable.
Yes, the Salvation Army is a Christian organization. People for the most part know this.
No wonder our nation is going to crap - every little thing gets parsed, picked at and ruined by lefties and their damn causes and lawyers. The blatant overreaction is so typical of the lunatic fringe.
The grown ups are getting sick and tired of these little children ramming their "lifestyle" down our throats.
I said ramming. And throat. Ok, sorry, but that was funny.
Scott, yes I did read the story. I read it again and there is no reference to your connection to the T theory sir. Unless you are referring to Mr Browning, the editor-in-chief of a national LGBT blog and his claim he and his companion were turned away. That claim is ridiculous. My lesbian Grandmother worked for the Salvation army for years and was never once mistreated. I in fact worked for the salvation army unloading donation trucks and I was never asked of my sexual preference nor was I ever preached to. Mr Brownings claim if true is very unfortunate but I have my doubts about that claim. Believe what you want, doesnt bother me. I will trust my Grandmother though :)
ScottW, you parse words like a lawyer. I almost feel compelled to ask what your definition of "is" is. You are technically correct in that the money the SA distributes is not theirs, however, it was given to them by people, most of whom support not only their mission of helping ALL who need help, without discrimination, but also the majority of which support their religious policies. You cannot deny the fact that most people in America are Christian, of one denomination or another. Nor can you deny the fact that, according to the most recent census data, less than 5% of Americans identify themselves with the LGBT community. Furthermore, I challenge your assertion in thread #8.7 that charity once came w/o strings attached. Since when? The very act of giving to charities was, and always has been, a religious institution. Spend a night at the Union Gospel Mission in Seattle. For the meal they serve and the bed they loan you for the night, all they ask is that you at least attend their sermon, and it seems a small price to pay for not having to root through a dumpster for food or sleep on a sidewalk.
Who is the Gay community to tell me who to donate to! Give us a list of charities that support the Gay communities so I will know who to not donate to, Scrooge must be Gay. You have no right to $hit on the people they help just for your own selfish reasons. Id tell you where to put it but you already know. Merry Christmas!
The issue is that the Salvation Army lobbies world-wide against LGBT rights. They also discriminate in the US against gays.
My donations will be more than normal this year to the Salvation Army. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The gay,lezbos, transvestites and bi homos should leave the salvation army alone. Just leave and stop starting crap.
They are acting like: Oh,Oh look at me I'm gay.
I will give as much as 20 gays would have given this year. Vote below if you will do the similar.
The problem with some of these other charities is I don't trust them, some have a habit of letting the money stick to the bank accounts of their CEO's, that's not charity to me, its more like rich mans welfare, and there is to much of it. I trust the SA. As for the LGBT is there nothing sacred to you people, attacking a charity at Christmas time is pretty low.
Just last year, Amazon.com was threatened with a boycott going into the Christmas season by offering for sale a "how to" book on child molestation. I was happy to forward the information to everyone on my email list and facebook account, and asked them to spread it, and within 72 hours the boycott had circled the globe. I was proud to be a part of that, as well as calling for an end to they boycott when they pulled the e-book. It does no good to conduct a boycott and then when the organization capitulates, still carry on the boycott. Next time they'll figure it won't make a difference and not make the change.
And now with this, I will be going through the same channels and encouraging everyone to throw some coins in the kettle when you see them. I suspect this will actually increase contributions from a public weary of gays shoving their issues in our faces. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Let's get this publicised.
I would never give money to a church based group. To many strings attached.
Scott:
Since when is giving soup to the homeless a "personal agenda" to be criticized? You have some pretty low priorities, man...
And I have to agree with D-Buck at comment 8.51. Attacking a charity during Christmas, especially one with a proven track record of real, honest to goodness charitable giving, is pretty f*cking low. I urge the LGBT community to IGNORE this sad boycott (which sounds more like a personal grudge to me) and give to the Salvation Army. This all about helping people who are less fortunate than yourself. If you have the money to spare (which might not be the case this year) then donate-- and help out the poor bastard(s) who are seeking help from the salvation army, people that, were you to ask, would probably tell you that the politics of the LGBT community are the last f*cking thing on their mind. You're not going to change the mind of the charity by boycotting it-- especially since they adamantly deny the discrimination they're being accused of-- so all you're really hurting are the destitute, downtrodden folks who are in need. I don't care what your political opinions are-- that is a crass act. And to Toasty and others who have stated that you can simply give to another charity-- name just one (one!) that has the reach, scope and brand recognition of the Salvation Army. It's all well and good to give to someone else-- but when people are down and out, they're looking for the Salvation Army, not "My mom's friend's part time sort of job to bring turkeys to our local soup kitchen once a year charity."
Bob, it's an accepted medical FACT that sexual orientation is inborn and immutable. It's up to YOU to prove science wrong.
Toasty,
No one is not saying gays are not gay. Defective maybe but, gay is gay.
I think I'll donate triple to the Salvation Army this Christmas.
I do not donate to the SA because they are a religious organization. I don't want my money to be used proselytizing.
Instead, I give new toys and clothes to a battered women's shelter. They and their children truly need the help, without the attached strings.
I think the world of the Salvation Army. They do a lot of good for a lot of people. Their stores help many poor people of little means much more than Goodwill. They offer temporary housing, clothing and food to millions of homeless men, women and children. I feel certain that their bell -ringers feel they are doing the work of Jesus as they collect much needed funds for those less fortunate and the truly needy.
It saddens me that many of the bell-ringers doing the work of true Christianity(Christ - like activity) and most of the donors fail to realize that the Salvation Army is a church first A huge church dictated by an Hierarchy that rules the policy of this mega church. My own experience tells me that this Hierarchy controls tremendous funds(both private and public) to suit their own religious beliefs far beyond those of a loving and compassionate Jesus Christ. Their primary goal is not in helping the poor, but indoctrinating them.
I speak from personal experience. My son was a heroin addict with nowhere to turn. Despite my best efforts, he was relegated to drug rehab in a leading drug rehab facility in Sarasota, Fl. It was operated by a heavily government subsidized Salvation Army led by a very powerful member of the church named Sutton under the Bush "faith based initiative".
I urge each of you to do an internet search of this operation. I believe that Sutton was a very effective drug counselor because of trials in his own life. The elders of this "church" forced him to do public faith healings that most of the addicts rejected as nonsense. The elders of this church punished the addicts that resisted the mind-bending efforts of conversion to their church with confinement to their quarters if they chose not to attend Sunday services. They carefully introduced previous addicts and converts to spy and report on addicts that resisted conversion.
This is not a crazy conspiracy theory. It can easily be documented by extensive internet research. The most vulnerable among us are being forced into religious conversion versus a life of drug addiction at tax-payer expense. Suit yourself. Would you rather have a child ruled by destructive drug addiction or a child ruled by wealthy members of a Mega Church with their own agenda? Both scare the hell out of me. My son rejected both in favor of controlling his own life. Some of us may have a more difficult choice. May God help all of us.
#8.31
I'm not sure what YOU mean by "reading comprehension," but MOST people mean "understanding what you read." So, when you read Browning say, "If you care about gay rights, you'll skip their bucket," you understand him to just be talking to... excuse me informing, gay people?
Yep! Reading comprehension does suck in America! You proved that in spades! And, I might add, you were pretty (ahem) arrogant in doing so!
L...O...L...
I appreciate Silvaria's attitude. She/he may not like SA because it is a religious institution, but if what Silvaria says is true, he/she is a giving person, and that is a whole lot better than money grubbing, tightfisted scrooges who make up all kinds of excuses and never give anything.
I suppose you think left-handed people are defective too, Earl. And people with black skin.
And for the record, Bob is saying that it is a choice. As did Ferdie Cassel, who decided to email me the following response instead of post it here to be publicly addressed:
For the record, if you feel the need to argue with me about a topic from Newsvine, please do so publicly.
And I will now reply to Ferdie's statement:
Morality involves not discriminating against or hating someone because of how they were born, Ferdie. Morality isn't about following a fairy tale book's rules, it's about not harming others. Consensual sex does not harm anybody.
As for why every person born came from heterosexual intercourse: no @!$%#. That has absolutely no bearing on morality. And yes, every same sex union has produced death, because EVERYONE DIES EVENTUALLY. On that note, heterosexual unions also produce death.
There's no such thing as a sodomite, as Sodom is a fictional city from a fairy tale. As such, their fictional lifespans have no bearing whatsoever on reality. The dead sea is a saline body of water, nothing more mysterious or magical than that. we have them here in America too, just not as big. The fact remains that Sodom and Gomorrah were just fictional cities written about in an old jewish myth. They didn't get destroyed because they didn't actually exist, Ferdie.
And just so you understand this, AIDS isn't a curse that Jesus sprinkles on gay people. It's a bloodborne virus; nothing more mysterious than that. Incidentally, the vast majority of AIDS sufferers are heterosexual.
And no, gay people have not killed more people than all our wars combined. But Christianity has.
Keep your stinkin' consensual sex in the bedroom behind closed doors where it belongs, or only available to those who pay to see it. I'm tired of gays shoving it in our faces.
Back to back the illegal discrimination and bigotry shown by the San Francisco Gay Softball league and the announced gay group boycott of the Salvation Army...the gays must LOVE the conflict, strife, hate and angst. They sure work hard at producing it.
"Shoving it in your face?" Just like those uppity blacks trying to shove civil rights in your face, I suppose...
Blacks, whites, purples, greys; you can't do anything about your genetics or your gender. You don't have to shove your sexual preferences on anyone. Shove that race card back up your sleeve and play a real card or pass. Stop the derailing.
Thanks Chefaz. If I were black, I would be really p o'd that gays want to equate their struggle with the struggle for civil rights in a system set up to deny civil rights based on skin color. I know Toasty McGrath believes that a person is born gay, and even that medical science proves it. It is an erroneous and false position, based entirely on agenda and not truth, but I know Toasty truly believes it, and so it's normal that he would label me a racist. I take no offense. How would we know a cat is a cat except it meows?
"that the thoughts of every heart might be revealed..."
Alright Levi. Prove it.
I would like to know who they actually help. I know of a man that needed some help. He is disabled, and needed some assistance with a car. They turned him down, so i and a few friends wanted to find out why they were not able to help him, but we just got the run around, and then our emails were returned undelivered.
I think they raise money to support their elite group of people, religions and to pay for the people at the top of the Salvation Army people's salaries. They did after all many years back in California get busted for using the funds to buy expensive homes with the donations, and the people running the Salvation Army (maybe it was the Goodwill) were actually living in the homes rent free. They later claimed they used the money as investments that would make more money for their organization.
I personally am sick and tired of seeing all these red buckets in front of every store nickel and dimming the people. You give a dollar at one bucket, go to another store, they are begging for another.
I no longer have any belief in this organization. For me it's too shady and I don't believe they do much for anyone but for the people that are running it.
Lazaryss Comment collapsed by the community
They are a race of people, they are the gay race just as we have races of bigoted and dumb people that use religions to condone their idiotic beliefs.
Race dose not, or is defined by the color of your skin. We have a race of handicap people, blind people, gay people, stupid people, greedy people, religious bigoted people... and so on.
I think all people should boycott any company, business or organizations that discriminates against gay people, black people white people, women, men, disabilities or whatever the case may be, but The salvation Army for me isn't a reputable business. Just a greedy group of people that the top that use people with disabilities to make profits off of them.
Arieus
They are a race of people, they are the gay race just as we have races of bigoted and dumb people that use religions to condone their idiotic beliefs.
Do you actually understand what a race is? Race breaks down humans into distinct groups typically by heritable phenotypic characteristics. In other words it is a group of people who share visible attributes based on passing on those features to their offspring. It may come as a surprise to you but gays are not well known for passing on their heritable characteristics to their offspring!!!!
Toasty McGrath
"Bob, it's an accepted medical FACT that sexual orientation is inborn and immutable. It's up to YOU to prove science wrong."
It is obviously accepted by you but you have presented no proof that it is anything but choice. You made the claim of a medical fact so it is up to you to provide the evidence. Of course you won't because there is none.
Isaiah 5:20
"20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter."
The problem with the left is that they have nothing to follow except the lost, themselves. They have no moral compass, and choose to follow the darkness. They would rather rule in hell than serve in Heaven, but don't want to acknowledge that the ruler of hell is already set.
Pick your torture. Fire 24/7, standing on head in feces until coffee break for 15 minutes a day, being torn limb from limb and put back together just to be done again? Might be fable, but if not hope you can give up leftist ways when it happens, because leftist ways took you there.
The left are all about patriotism and wanting God to save them, but they are not about working for anything. That is the job of someone else. Early Jews strayed from God many time but He always took them back when they saw their flaws.
The world today is all flaws areed.d little faith. What matters without God? Nothing, absolutely nothing. No reason for anything without God. Think about it atheists. No reason for anything you desire without God. Without God, everything is totally meaningless. No reason for any of it, except maybe greed.
What is your greed? That someone else takes care of you? Pays your way when you refuse to? Raises the children you had from men you don't know? The list goes on and on and the list supports the Obama because the list thinks free at the expense of others is good. Obama says it is good. Obama is the god of the left, those who have chosen to be weak, chosen to depend on someone else because they are too lazy to depend on selves. Pick a reason.
Speaking of meaningless.... Your little wet-dreams about liberals in poo is not something MY God would ever do.
1 John 4:20 (Whole Chapter)
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
You should probably repent for your hatefulness before you find yourself lobe-deep in poo.
look...... gays are not a "race" quit trying to act like it is... believe me... the very nature of queerness PREVENTS it to be a race... since same sex couples can't reproduce with each other... duh :)
and I don't accept homosexuality because it's illogical... it's against biology.. it fully makes sense as an emotional disorder and I don't accept that it's normal.. because if it was, we wouldn't be here discussing it. nobody would be anywhere.. we wouldn't have evolved.. and so on, obviously. Just because a very small group of people in our population decide they want to live a lifestyle which takes them out of the gene pool, effectively killing their family tree... doesn't mean that I am required to agree with it. And you idiots who think I'm closed minded for not accepting them, don't accept my choice to choose..... you're contradicting yourselves and should shut your idiot mouths.
I have the right to believe what I want..... the same as you have the right to screw trees.... but you know what... I'm not going to accept someone if I find out they screw trees either... even if it is in their bedroom.... and it doesn't affect anyone else... but this "doesn't hurt anyone else" mentality that's spouted off all the time about homos.... it does actually hurt others.. it kills you... AIDS is a big issue in the gay world... more than any other... and if it doesn't kill you like that.. it kills your ability to pass into the future... and it hurts family who would like to see their family name continue.... (family "name" isn't just the name... it's the genes.. and family tree)
it boils down to this..... sex is a biological function used by life to reproduce.. our brains have evolved in such a way as to make the act of sex very pleasurable... giving us a strong drive to procreate. If your emotions are telling you to have sex with ANYTHING or ANYONE that cannot reproduce from the action.... there's something wrong with your emotions.... period.... so.. don't tell me I have to accept this lifestyle you gays pick to live.
YOU don't have to... but the government does. Freedom demands it. There is no point in arguing science with you as it appears it would sail over your head. Believe what you want... no one is stopping you. No one is stopping the Westburo baptist church idiots from protesting servicemen's funerals.. no one is stopping the KKK from believing that only "white is right"... and no one is stopping Mormons from believing their secret underwear is the ticket to heaven. So, see? You're no one special... people are free to believe any ignorant thing they want.
However, a government BY the people, FOR the people is bound to protect the rights of ALL the people.
the government should not protect every dumb sexual deviation that people choose to form a lifestyle around though. There are people that have some pretty messed up fetishes... look fetishes up on google.... many of those people have to do some pretty messed up stuff to get the pleasure they're wanting out of sex... and I'm sure some of those people think there's nothing wrong with what they do.. it's just a lifestyle choice.. some guy decides they want to follow some dominant chick around while being bound up in some leather jumpsuit... and that's what he loves to do.... how many of those guys need to band together under some new group name before the government has to recognize that they're some new minority and start giving them more rights than the normal people in society, like what these homos want? and don't tell me they don't have more rights, dictated by the government, than normal people have... I know for a fact that if someone didn't like me because I have red hair.. and they beat me up because of it.. I can't prosecute them for a hate crime... I know that for sure....
you know that there's people who are actually, literally in love with their lamp? others are fully in love with a chair.... others are wholeheartedly in love with some stuffed animal.. and if you ask them if their love is real, they will say, while fully believing, that it is. how many of those people will it take to bring them a minority status? we could go on and on about different sexual deviations... how many people that love their dog a little too much, will it take to band together for the government to have to decide their status in society?
Just My 2 Coppers....... go ahead and try to go over my head with science... lol.. my statement is correct, what I said about sex and reproduction..... if you have some sort of "science" that can disprove that sexual gratification has been ingrained into our brains in order to help push population.... I'd like to see it. you know, since that's definitely true, I'd like to see what nonsense you want to say refutes it. Just because someone's reality circles around how flamboyant they can be, doesn't mean that I have to accept it.. and it doesn't mean that I should.. because the fact is, if their lifestyle was "right" then we wouldn't exist to talk on this forum... it's quite simple... gender confused people are not normal... and they're not correct in their lifestyle... because it takes both genders to populate... and don't get into any technological advances that can help gays have their own kids..... just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should... case in point... cloning... another, crack... you don't find crack in nature... it takes some science to make.. doesn't mean it should be, does it? Just because science can do something doesn't mean that we should do it.
Accepting homosexual's lifestyle does as much for those people as accepting a heroin addict's lifestyle.... they both are doing something that is physically detrimental for them.. they're both doing something that can cause the spread of diseases.. affecting others that don't even do those things... they both are doing something that can break their family apart, and rightfully so. And for someone standing outside of the situation, who sees either of their actions, to not tell them that it's wrong and they shouldn't do it..... is wrong because it's allowing them to go down a path that is inherently bad for them. No good friend.. or family member.... should support a unhealthy and future damning lifestyle.... this should have started long ago.. but now since the gay rights groups have forced this unhealthy lifestyle down our throats through the media exposure and almost every single tv show on anymore, people have been fooled to think that this lifestyle is some kind of norm... when in fact, it isn't. it's the opposite.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
If 1500 animal species engage in homosexuality, how is it not natural? How does one square that with your claim that sex is strictly for procreation? In fact, how do you even square that argument with hetero couples who choose not to procreate?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
This part will likely be over your head since you cannot seem to grasp the difference between consensual sex between two adults and nonconsensual sex between you and your lamp. You have not offered any evidence that homosexuality is "wrong"... nothing but your opinion. And while there is no shortage of bigots who share your opinion, that still does not make your claim any more credible. I have a neice who is gay... and it did not break my family apart. Perhaps it is because my family understands what unconditional love is. I am sorry if yours doesn't.
You may have the last, long winded word as that appears to be important to you. Your powers of debate are limited in such a way as to make the entire exercise pointless. You have already been told you don't HAVE to accept anyone's sexuality, even if there is nothing about it that affects you in the least. But the government and anything support by public funds is bound by law against discrimination.
woopty do, there's possible 'proof' that homosexuality is linked to genetics... this which comes from sources like those who say eggs are bad for you.. then they say they're good for you.. then they say they're bad.. now they're good again... there's an endless amount of "finds" in genetics that are found to be inaccurate later, or just forgotten because they couldn't really prove it for sure. These claims go into medicines being found to not be as good as they thought to fight certain things... the possibility of certain genes being associated with this and that... but they don't know enough to nail anything down... they just speculate and those with an agenda jump on the wagon..
homosexuality is a HUMAN concept.... animals don't process information and their environment the same as we do, they don't talk to each other about how they emotionally feel about things.. even if you want to believe all those Disney movies...... In the animal kingdom, a male 'mounting' another male is a show of dominance.... are you suggesting we, as humans, should resort to this "non violent" method of determining who's dominant in situations? should we start flinging our crap and dry humping each other to see who's right in an argument now?
Homosexuality in context refers to OUR UNDERSTANDING (not animals' domination displays) of our sexuality, personally..... animals don't go picketing places in 'buttless' chaps.. flying rainbow flags and flaunting their perverse male on male dry humping and mustache rubbing practices to get a point across to their peers..... they act on instinct.... and instinct isn't emotion.... emotion is a method our brains (as humans) has evolved in order to quickly and efficiently translate all huge amount of tiny things we pick up on from situations we're in... all the things that we aren't aware of picking up on... for an example, a girl being uncomfortable (scared and nervous) around some strange man she's meeting somewhere.... her brain has a conglomeration of information it's gathered from her external senses.. such as, his body language that could happen to be giving off clues about his ill intent, clues she's not consciously aware of, but her brain picks up on.... or the way his eyes are shifting around while talking... giving information about him making plans and looking for an opportunity to act on them... she may not be aware of these clues.... yet she's emotionally aware that she's not safe. There's a lot going on in our brains to for the realities that we all perceive... and the term homosexuality, in the normally thought of context, is a term that describes the choices people are making to be sexually active with others of the same sex based on their emotional needs. THIS is where we humans differ from other animals that show what WE like to humanize and interpret as the same thing as the culturally understood concept of human homosexuality.
And the biological process behind sex IS and ALWAYS will be, procreation...... that's just a fact. you clown that want to argue this by saying that consensual sex between two adults for fun is proof that it's not..... is.... really lame... that's like saying that school buses weren't make to carry kids to school because some people like to store their junk in them...... people storing junk in buses is proof that school buses' functionality was never meant to only transport kids to and from school and school related activities....... pretty dumb
to reiterate about the genetic thing.... I'm not saying that there aren't people born with some predisposition to possibly be gay... what I'm saying is that environment can guide those to not choose to live a lifestyle which is detrimental to them... but those who say they've found what they think is proof of homosexuality in genetics have said a lot of things in the past that has been total crap... and found to be, sometimes, the opposite. And even IF homosexuality was partially genetic, so is the predisposition to be a psycho murderer...... most people will argue that psychotic murderers have mostly been created by their upbringing and environment... but they shy away from the same logic when it comes to this push for social acceptance of a lifestyle that cancels people's ability to procreate.. because it's politically incorrect to say there's something wrong. Also, I argue, those who are born with a predisposition to be violent... because of their genes... should we just accept that they were genetically defective and accept their actions as being their fated path? or should we try to figure out a way to try to fix that which is detrimental to the defective? to help them have a full and PRODUCTIVE life, like those who bore them?
I just want to say that the claim that homosexuality is a choice is baseless and without evidenciary support. Anyone claiming such must have a very limited understanding of sexual orientation.
homosexuality is as much a choice as heterosexuality... that's what I believe..
saying that, though, I believe that sexuality is a mixture of instinct and environment. A developing baby's mind absorbs a lot of information and structures it to be it's base of understanding for it's life to come... just as studies have shown the differences between infants who have been held often and talked to and caressed by it's parents, while growing, and those that didn't get all that attention. Look it up, it's interesting.. but, Stevil666.. there's a lot of understanding that is not there about how a child's environment forms the child's mind.. and to what extent... and if nature or nurture is the dominant influencing power in how we grow as a person.
It's amazing to me to see how many people will agree that the family environment and situations in a child's life can help cause someone to grow into a violent, pet abusing child and into an abusive boyfriend and husband but will refute that the same influences can help cause someone to deviate from the norm, sexually, and become a homosexual.... it's pretty ridiculous to me to see people that influenced by the "popular" viewpoint that's being pushed onto everyone now... the politically correct view of homosexuality....
I'm with you on that. My charitable donations can go to a group of people who want to do the work without recruiting for a religion.
Exactly. I'd like to have anyone who says it's a choice explain when, exactly, they chose to be attracted to blondes, brunettes, redheads, a particular body shape, etc.
Actually, new research on animal cognition suggests that isn't necessarily true. We may not communicate in the same ways that animals do, but there is evidence indicating that they reason, emote, and moralize in ways we had long assumed were unique to humanity.
Not in all cases; read up on bonobos (who tend toward sexual fluidity). You also fail to account for female homosexuality with that example.
Of course, even human sexuality--regardless of the sex of thsoe involved--is colored with issues of dominance. Ask my wife. :)
Unless, of course, emotions are instinctual in nature.
Yes and no. My wife and I cannot have children, but that discovery didn't have any effect on my desire for her (or my love).
It indicates, however, that sex is not strictly procreative. There's nothing less procreatively significant, for example, than the female orgasm; fewer than 25% of women can even reach orgasm through intercourse alone, without direct oral or digital stimulation of the clitoris. Yet for a good many women--heck, a good many people--the "quality" of any sexual encounter is measured by whether or not she "comes." That is to say, if you aren't doing something that isn't procreative, you aren't really doing it right.
In what way is homosexuality inherently detrimental? Please be specific.
Well, the net harm is nigh impossible to demonstrate. If you look at statistics regarding the occurrence of homosexuality, it happens at nearly identical rates from culture to culture, with no significant variation between a culture that penalizes it (like, say, Saudi Arabia) and one that does not recognize it as transgressive, even treating those who engage in committed relationships as analogous to heterosexual marriage (like, say, the Netherlands). This indicates that our position on it does not affect its occurrence. So no matter how accepting we are, the number of individuals who "remove" themselves from the breeding pool will be more or less the same.
That, of course, is even assuming that some shrinkage of the population is not, in itself, desirable.
Statistically speaking, homosexuals are just as "productive" as heterosexuals--more so, in fact--unless you limit your definition of "productive" to cover only those who make litters.
I agree with you there; I just don't happen to believe that either is volitional. A bisexual, of course, has "options," in the sense that he/she might be functionally exclusive to either men or women.
Astutely reasoned, and I don't disagree. I happen to side with Freud with regards to the notion that one's sexual identity is probably cemented early in childhood, but that all may be beside the point. I don't think one chooses to believe or disbelieve in [G/g]od(s), but one certainly chooses how one lives or practices within the context of that belief, which is only to say that there are many areas in life where irresistible proclivity meets choice of action that don't seem to raise such anxiety in us, because we don't seem to place the same stigma on being, say, Lutheran that we do on being homosexual.
So the question still remains--in what way do romantic/erotic relations with members of the same sex represent an objectively demonstrable harm?
I fully buy that influences can help us deviate from the norm (including those who deviate by showing higher intelligence or artistic talent, or those who deviate by being left-handed). As deviations from the norm go, the one over which you're wringing your hands is highly consistent, and not particularly functionally harmful.
2 coppers,
"Speaking of meaningless.... Your little wet-dreams about liberals in poo is not something MY God would ever do.
1 John 4:20 (Whole Chapter)
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
You seem yo have read something into what I said that wasn't there. Atheists have no God, therefore their lives are meaningless. Where you got any idea that I hate anyone is something you made up from nothing. Without God, we are all nothing. Without following His rules, we are nothing but dust after this life.
If you are homosexual, I don't hate you, but that doesn't mean you are not a sinner and denying God's law. And denying His law and believing it is ok to do so is on you, not me. God will judge everyone based on His laws, and not the laws of man or governments. If you would rather follow the laws of man that you know are wrong, that is your choice, secular society or not.
You should probably repent for your hatefulness before you find yourself lobe-deep in poo.
Luke 6:44
For every tree is known by his own fruit
______________________________
You actually didn't have to say it... I saw the fruit. I am not an atheist... and I am not a homosexual. I am a follower of the true message of God... Love. And since I am not arrogant enough to think I can speak for God, as some are, I leave it to him to advise people what is "right" and what is "wrong" in their live.
"Atheists have no God, therefore their lives are meaningless."
Bull @!$%#. First of all, we don't just "no God", we have no gods, plural. We don't believe in anything of a supernatural, illogical, magical, mythical or otherwise scientifically unprovable nature. I wish you Christians would stop resorting to false dichotomies, such as the argument that everything is either "God" or "no God". There are thousands of deities across a wide variety of dead and current religions and mythologies, and each is just as likely to exist as the next. There are gods you don't believe in. We just go the whole nine yards.
Our lives have meaning when we give it meaning, not waiting around for someone's imaginary friend to make it so or to use as a crutch or for someone to shove their outdated Bronze Age text of atrocities in other people's faces.
There are thousands of deities across a wide variety of dead and current religions and mythologies, and each is just as likely to exist as the next.
"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one [hen] and love
the other, or he will be devoted to one [hen] and despise the other. You cannot
serve God and wealth." Matthew 6:24
15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:15-16
James 2:19
English Standard Version (ESV)
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!
Cross references:
If that is how you feel. I am not attempting to brainwash anyone. It is your own responsibility to decide for yourself what you feel is correct. Only you are responsible for your actions/beliefs and your destiny. If you truly feel that there is no life after death, that is your opinion. I agree that there are Christians that go to the extreme, just as any other religion; athiests included. No one else is accountable for you, you are accountable for yourself. I simply saw a statement that, in my eyes, lacked happiness and joy. There is nothing wrong with living a life believing in God. A Godly life is about love, peace, joy and harmony. God does not condone hatred, jealousy and evil things. I do not claim to be a Christian because I know I am not a good example. I have many things wrong in my life that God condems. MANY. I do, however, try my hardest to be the best possible person that I can be to everyonoe I meet. I do not hate anyone, and will do anything I can to help a stranger. I am not on here to fight with anyone...just to shed a little light on a much debatable topic. You don't have to believe God's scripture...like I said, that is YOUR decision. I simply posted what the Bilble has to say about the topic. Although he does consider homosexuality a sin, there are other sins he names along with it. Point is, IF you believe there is a God, his book condems SIN and he does also inform us that sinners can be forgiven. Take it however you want. It is posted for those that will see it and gain something positive from it. If you don't like it, ignore it.
The problem is... You... Dont.... Get.... To.... Speak.... For.... God. Don't you get that? You say yourself that you are not even good enough to speak for Christians, what the hell makes you think you can speak for God? lol God says NOTHING about committed homosexual relationships. If you goal truly was to "shed some light," perhaps you should at least replace the lightbulb you have there. If you truly want to be the best person YOU can be, stop worrying so much about what everyone else does and work on yourself.
You are absolutely wrong about what the original bible says... you don't have to believe God's scripture... it's YOUR decision. I have simply posted (much earlier if you would care to read ALL of the posts instead of just coming in to gay bash) what the Bible has to say about the topic. Point is, IF you believe there is a God, his book does NOT condemn committed homosexual relationships. And he also informs us that sinners like you that are so worried about "speck" in the eye of their brother while ignoring the "plank" in their own eye, CAN BE FORGIVEN. I wish you luck with this.
But I fear you have quite a road ahead of you. A good first step would be to stop making excuses for why you decided to call everyone in that particular group "selfish @!$%#s" and simply take responsibility for your own words and actions. "I" am a stranger... if you want to do something to help me, how about you take a long hard look at your prejudice and bigotry... and try to make the world a better place for everyone.
Thank you. :-) I really am not trying to be argumentative. lol It is simply that civil rights are a "thing" for me.. and should be for every American. And I get sick and tired of people perverting spirituallity to excuse being asshats. lol
@thelyamhound
I was going to let your discussion go, but there are few things I can stomach anymore. We're not animals, humans are considerably more advanced. Bonobo's will have sex for any reason you can think of,
including saying hello: that's definitely not going to fly for human beings. I guess we should start flinging our own faeces, and eating our young next too, right? If one behavior is natural, it follows other behaviors are as well. It would definitely solve the perceived problem of overpopulation – which by the way is a myth.
So, the process still applies. I don't buy the pleasure argument; even in the cases of rape a woman can still become pregnant. Oh wait,I know, according to your logic, they enjoyed it.
So? A good many people measure the quality of food by how it taste, not whether or not it will lead to diabetes, high blood pressure, or a heart attack.
Hmm?
Specific enough for you?
Speaking of gay marriage in the Netherlands, the dutch also found that, on average, their homosexual marriages lasted about two years. The average heterosexual one, by contrast last almost three times as long. Oh and by the way, gays have not been found to be exclusively monogamous.
It doesn't justify it either. People can play chicken on the highway, that still doesn't make it smart, normal, or natural. That just means there are a lot of stupid adrenaline junkies out there. And please stop trying to make it seem like gay men are better than straight ones; The hypothalamus, of postmortem brains don't prove much of anything.
@Article
Newsflash: I don't care about gay rights, and henceforth will try to leave a sizable donation to the salvation
Army. How many agencies are gays going to try to boycott? Something is wrong when an organization isn't entitled to their own beliefs. I remember the commotion they made over Chic-fil-a. What they're doing
amounts to little more than blatant censorship of an opposing view through intimidation. They're bullies in my opinion.
When the gays get out there and solicit donations in their probably pink or rainbow kettle, then maybe I'll donate to all three. But since the SA is the only one out there doing it, well there isn't much room for complaint.
There are plenty of gay organizations who accept donations and offer assistance to straight, gay and transgender individuals. You can start by making a donation to the Human Rights Campaign ( www.hrc.org ).
I did volunteer work at a SA in Virginia. They employed a flaming transvestite who spent a great deal of its time standing around speculating on how the various men would be in bed and putting down the women for not meeting its standards of attractiveness. Since it looked like a linebacker in a brassy blonde wig, I assumed it had never looked in a mirror.
Consequently, I know for a fact that not all SAs discriminate, even when they clearly should.
J.M.-3028874
"There are plenty of gay organizations who accept donations and offer assistance to straight, gay and transgender individuals. You can start by making a donation to the Human Rights Campaign ( www.hrc.org )."
Oh ya, everyone is in tune to that, except for almost everyone.
SA is not a capitalist org like some of the leftists above would like to spread lies about.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_charities_salaries.htm
Who is really impacted by a boycott like this? Boycotting the Salvation Army red buckets doesn't hurt their organization, it hurts the poor people they give food and shelter to. Sometimes we need to agree to disagree and move on.
Wrong, the boycotting group said "If you care about gay rights, you'll skip their bucket in favor of a charity that doesn't actively discriminate against the LGBT community." The implication of this statement for literate readers (i.e. not Christians) is that donations should be redirected to other organizations, not eliminated.
Thank you, Brian...way to be the intellectual of this bunch.
@brian: Fine. Name one.
@Miker: Any non-religious food and or shelter organization in your respective city.
Miker, you're kidding, right? You can't come up with even ONE other local (or national, or international for that matter) charity to give your money to? How about your local food bank, homeless shelter, independent or not-for-profit clinics & schools, United Way, Oxfam, Unicef, etc etc? Better yet, write to Browning's blog and ask him for suggestions!
@BestDestiny, et al: Excellent. As you've all pointed out, there are plenty of places to donate. I'm sure you've all mailed your checks by now. Right?
I'm not looking for a place to donate my money - I have that handled. Nor am I running around trying to convince others where to NOT donate money. My point was made by all of you. Nobody is forcing you to donate to the Salvation Army. If you don't want to, fine. But, don't try to tell everyone else that they shouldn't.
Oh, and Brian? I donate to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation every time I buy a computer. Whether I want to or not.
There are other organizations to whom one can donate who do exactly what the Salvation Army does.
Shelly, there are plenty of other charities to donate to that don't discriminate against people because of how they were born.
Including the Salvation Army which has plainly denied that they discriminate. You can argue that they do, but what's the point? If you don't like them, donate elsewhere. Meanwhile I'm reminded of the gay softball team that was accused of using "straight ringers" who were "vetted" as to their gayness in a hearing! Does that mean that all gay softball teams discriminate against straights?
I prefer the Salvation army because of my previous post 8.32. If you DON'T want to give to them give to something else. If everybody on this vine gives to all the organizations they are posting about all those organizations, I'm SURE, will appreciate all that you are going to give to them. Everybody open your giving heart and pour out the brotherly love, and that was NOT sarcastic.
Well, Miker:
I donate to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation every time I buy a computer. Whether I want to or not.
Not if you buy a Mac !!
Brian please, as requested, name one.
Toadsty born that way. Really. Best laugh I have had all day.
Charles - you're right. When you buy a MAC you support Chinese labor, and the largest company in the US with zero charity work or efforts - they choose instead to hoard cash. They are a disgrace when it comes to charity.
Just donate to Petco or PetSmart to help the homeless animals.
In general, they are more deserving anyway.
I'm going to donate to the Salvation Army and get as many other people to do the same mainly because the gays are calling for a boycott. I mean, yeah, I usually throw in some change. But this time I'll step it up, and encourage others to so as well. It wouldn't surprise me if the Salvation Army ends up having the best year for contributions ever! You see, God cares about this kind of thing, and He is able to compensate for the wicked who deny and mock Him.
Actually, Levi, I donated to the Salvation Army in Louisiana this past spring to help care for those who were displaced by the flooding and had not planned on giving them any more this year but...I think that you're right...no reason why I cannot toss in my change left from my purchase every time I go to the grocery store. My dad always said pennies make babies. As usual, he was correct.
I was thinking though, of how this could get so out of hand. So, gays boycott stores that have a bell ringer. So the stores tell the bellringer to pack it up. So we boycott the stores that do this. And on and on it goes. This is a fight, and the gays started it. They have no sense of what is peace and tranquility, and want the conflict. They would blame Christianity for their societal ills, but fail to look at their lives in headlong flight from God.
Anyway, I would rather be found on the side of upholding the right and true in God's eyes than capitulating to wickedness. As said by Edmund Burke, "The only thing neccesary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Well, I suppose one "do something" that I'm going to be doing is putting change in the red kettle to help feed the homeless and destitute.
And on a side note, why not buy a cup of hot chocolate for the bell ringer, out there on that cold wintry day? Bring a thermos of it and some paper cups and give some to any gays standing around protesting. Believe it not, we are indeed all in this together, and the time may come where it is more important to be neighbors, fellow citizens rather than divided along lines of sexual preference.
Commendable as well as generous, Danny. Was it necessary to advertise a dollar figure to make you more "believable"???
@Best Destiny That only begs the question, if you think Christianity is silly, then why is your cult any better? Christianity stands for everything in this world us as polluted humans are not. Though, people like you have at some point seen the ugly and sinful side of PEOPLE who call themselves Christians, who are just as sinful as you are, the way those people who call themselves Christians act should not be taken as a reflection of everyhting just and righteous the Bible stands for. If you want to truly know a Christian, suck up your arrogance and hatred and bigotry and find a non-denomination church, and visit there, talk to the pastor, get to know your "enemy" before you judge them please. I can guarantee you, the state of the world, the government, the perverted and twisted orientation of our schools and students, is not the Christian's fault. It is exactly what the Bible preaches against.
I cannot speak for Best... but for myself, I do not hate Christians... in fact, almost every member of my family practices devoutly. While I am a believer, myself, I do not subscribe to organized religion and I think that IT is what the bible preaches against.
As for your "guarantee"... I beg to differ. Early Christianity WAS government... which is one of the reasons for the establishment clause in our Constitution. Christianity has used arguments to defend slavery; to deny equal rights to women; to deny equal rights to people of color; to excuse the barbaric custom of execution; to defend bullying; to meddle in governmental affairs; ... and if, as Christians are prone to declaring.. we are a "Christian Nation" then Christianity should take responsibility for the nation it built.
http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint/Touchstone/KKK-Fisher.htm - bigotry
http://www.ralphmag.org/tise.html <--- Slavery
http://www1.assumption.edu/WHW/old/pamphlet_excerpts.html <--- Women's suffrage
http://biblebelievers.com/jmelton/punish.html <---- death penalty
http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/16/day-of-truth-anti-gay-bullying/ <--- bullying
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html <--- Dominionism
I will take a loving God who accepts his children the way they are over a judgmental Christian any day. You know, for people who claim they want to "Get government out of our lives" they damn sure have a lot of Christian rules they want to see imposed on the rest of us.
I encourage execution. If i had my way, everyone who killed would be killed, unless it was in self-defense or war. Also, everyone who sexually assaulted someone should be killed as well. It would definitely save taxpayers, which i thank God i'm not yet, thousands upon thousands a YEAR!!!! It would also discourage people from engaging in it, for fear that they die if they get caught, it is the only deterrent, you have to make an example of those who do wrong.
I am assuming this is because of your age. I am also assuming additional knowledge will come to you as you become a grown up. When it does, you will probably learn that it costs a great deal more money to put a prisoner to death than it does to house him for the rest of his life. You may also learn that if the death penalty were a deterrent, then there would be fewer murders in states that have the death penalty... and that is not the case. But those things will come in time. :-) I am encouraged to find teenagers that actually care enough about the world they live in to read and comment on news stories. This is one of those places you will gain that knowledge.
Not if you use a bullet or a rope. It wouldn't cost so much if you just dragged em by their cuffs outside the prison to a slab of concrete and just shot em or hung em. It would almost be free. Materials you need: Firearm, Single round of ammo, gasoline, a match and some wood, for disposing of the body after death. hehe. It would also make a point to the prisoners that this is what your actions warrant or deserve. @Best Detsiny THAT's HE to you. And no one needs your trash talk. Also, FYI, knowledge is useless unless you know how to apply it, at which point it is wisdom. This being said, I am apparently wiser than you.
My guess is that you live in Texas or some other southern state... I do hope you see more of the world once you are an adult. The things that you advocate are barbaric and speak to only the baser animal instinct. In fact, it makes you no better than the "animals" you want to kill. Americans are better than that... or at least they should be. (by the way, when someone says s/he, that means either she or he.)
I was going to says something and then I realized you bigots are to dumb to waste my time.
ha ha
"too" dumb - guess you didn't want to waste time spelling correctly, either.
Maybe you have 'too' much time to waste.
please, it's the literacy police.
Please, just get a life. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say anything, according to Brian1903576, I am illiterate.
John-2247662, don't grenade troll please. You are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Back in the old days we would consider someone a "Scrooge" who hates the Boy Scouts and the Salvation Army. Look how far the progressives have brought us.
I'm guessing back in your "old days" it was also acceptable to segregate races. In today's world, more evolved humans don't appreciate discriminatory organizations like the Boy-Raping Scouts and the Salvation Army.
No brian, didn't you know? The gays hate the Boy Scouts because they've been barred by the Boy Scouts from infiltrating the organization and raping their scouts.
FJR, yes, the Boy Scouts have barred gays (and atheists, by the way), but if you consider that there are more cases of child molestation coming out of the Boy Scouts which BSA has done all it can to hide the facts and the histories involved, and the perpetrators are either Catholic or Mormon and STRAIGHT, maybe the gays have the correct idea?
If they are molesting boys, they aren't straight.
Yeah look around FJR, this country is sinking into the toilet more and more.
There used to be a time in this country when Christians were not sneered at and being a Boy Scout was not a derogatory term. I was one myself, back in the 70s, and their organization did a great deal for me, as a fatherless boy in a single parent home, to instill a sense of duty, honesty and charity during my formative years, as well as teaching me skills that I still use to this day. Hunting. Fishing. Fire building. Land orienteering. Cooking by campfire. Building a shelter out of whatever is at hand. No one in my troop was molested in any way, even though we went on numerous camping trips and attended many jamborees. The Boy Scouts did a wonderful job of showing me how to be a man and take care of my obligations to my family and my community.
In my opinion, when different states started releasing masses of mentally disturbed people from their prisons in the 80s to save money (after all, it's not their fault they are sick, right? They just need someone to talk to them, not be locked up!) many of these sickos discovered they could act out their perverse pedophiliac fantasies by volunteering as a local Scoutmaster, which gave them unfettered access to lots of trusting young boys. The Boy Scouts may be a shadow of what it once was, but only because we, as a society, have allowed it to become so.
"The progressives" simply informed people so that they could make better choices, and donate to more ethical organizations rather than donating to bigots.
I have never heard of the scouts barring athiests, I'm not sure where you got that information from, because it is WRONG. Yes, they bar gays, but c'mon, do you really want a gay person preaching their lifestyle to a bunch of pre- and pubescent boys and confusing them about their own sexuality? Do you really want them insisting to their troop that statistically, some of them MUST be gay, and so they have to just accept it? I would never want someone pushing their lifestyle on my sons. If you don't like the scouts, don't enroll your kids, but don't diss them for protecting boys from gays who just might decide to take advantage of the situation. For propaganda purposes, if nothing else.
Are there any Gay&Lesbian charities that do what the Salvation Army does?
That's the policy of the BSA. Many local troops aren't bigoted in that way, but the national organization most definitely is. There are several court cases about it, where SCOTUS sided with the BSA since it's a private organization.
actually... homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they're both sexual deviations that do not follow the structure to which procreation dictates. They're both caused by a twisted and malformed emotional need that's abnormal and incorrect in the context of the biological function of sex. The human machine is created to recreate itself and continue it's species, much like any other living organism. But some people who's environment has malformed their emotional being develop emotional needs that are unnatural and get twisted into their genetically fortified drive to reproduce....
that is the truth behind the matter... ANY sexual act that deviates from the biological sexual function should be categorized together as improper and in need of redirection. It's not a "moral" issue, in this context, it's just what should be done to help those who deviate from the norm, in this matter.
I guess you have always opted out of a BJ, then.... or masturbation.... or birth control....
... or sex with a post-menopausal woman....
what would that have to do with anything? homos live a lifestyle which identifies themselves as such... people don't call themselves blowjobsexuals......or jackoffsexuals.. and they don't go trying to gather acceptance of their said lifestyles.... and try to get special rights to protect them... that was quite a dumb couple comments ;)
Well, I actually didn't think THAT would sail over your head... but it did. If sex was simply for procreation, those things would not be... well, those things. Your assertion that we are indoctrinated to believe sex is pleasureable... when it is actually only procreational would mean that blowjobs, masturbation and post-menopausal sex are all as wrong as you believe homosexuality are. I would not be throwing insults around had I made such a ridiculous statement. But then, I am sure you feel entitled... because you aren't gay. And I just have to tell you, I have a great deal more tolerance for homosexuals than I do for @!$%#s.
Best D, I am sure your entertainment will continue. It would seem that common sense and logic are not a deterrent when one is simply so filled with hate. I have thought many times while reading the vine, "Oh, do shut up." But I would never actually sggest it. lol
no, 2 coppers, it didn't go over my head.. it's just a stupid thing to say.. reverse logic doesn't always keep in context.. even if you wish it would... you must be pretty oblivious to the context here. a homosexual screw others who can't procreate.... as a lifestyle... and that's all. those who may get a bjob or jack it, aren't living a lifestyle of that which they're doing. putting your member into another's hole which is meant to pass waste isn't a very good thing to do, look it up. now living a lifestyle in which that is a major part of sex, it pretty dumb, in context to health. living a lifestyle which voids your ability to pass your genes is self destructive in nature. think about this now..... can you think of any other self destructive lifestyles people live where people are ok with? USUALLY, people will try to help their friends or family from a self destructive lifestyle.... one that could kill them (higher risk for homosexuals to contract AIDS and other STD's and is just plain unhealthy by nature with the whole anal thing) but with this "lifestyle", people are expected to ignore that they're living a lifestyle that ends their evolution... and has a higher risk of life threatening diseases.... and be happy for them because they found "love" LOL that's ridiculous.
And you know what? I'm a nice guy.. I treat everyone, even if I know that they're gay, with respect as a human.. and will help anyone that needs help, if I am able to. I've been around and worked with and have had past friends who are gay, I never hated any of them.... but, they know I will not accept their choice to live that lifestyle.. and they know why... and we've gotten along fine. they've never said I'm homophobic... because they know I'm not SCARED of becoming gay or scared of their gayness.. or scared of anything that involves homosexuality..... homophobic is a very ignorant fallback term for those who decided to accept this abnormality as being normal, and think that I shouldn't have the choice to disagree..... anyone who uses that term is just as closed minded as they THINK I am... but believe me, I'm far from closed minded. I have just questioned, read, talked to, and have worked hard to understand the term, 'homosexual' and have decided that it's abnormal and shouldn't be accepted as anything but abnormal... I've seen that it's self eliminating and self destructive.. and I don't think that society should embrace such a thing. There should be less accepting, and more education... and a strive to understand this self eliminating lifestyle in context to eliminating it. In the meantime... we should all be understanding of everyone around us, no matter their race or gender... and try to empower those who should be.. while trying to help those who need it.
callmejoejones Well said, but do you think that the Anal Deviant Bigots and their cult members will understand that?
" Seek Nature understand it, and follow it "
You, (as well as your parrot who seems to shudder with the need to discuss anal sex in a way that borders on obsession), are free to believe whatever you like. There are many who still believe the earth is flat. That belief does not make it so, however. Whether you are homophobic or not is immaterial to me... and your right to be so is protected by the constitution, in fact. Whether you are "accepting" of the homosexual lifestyle is also immaterial. Believe whatever bobble-headed thing you want about the "wrongness" of it. Again, that does not make it fact. What society should embrace is freedom... the freedom to determine what is "normal" for you without interference from guys who get the heebie jeebies over the thought of two dudes kisses but would actually pay to see two hot chicks do so.
But all of that is a moot and minor point to the topic at hand... because you do not take my tax dollars to support your particular form of bigotry. The Salvation Army does. And as I have little choice in the tax dollar portion until we can move the mountain that is our government, I choose not to add to the pot by donating. It is my right.
BTW, we could go round and round about the "procreation/recreation" argument so you go ahead and feel "right" if you need to. But the fact of the matter is that procreation is not a mandate of the legal contract of marriage... nor is marriage required to procreate. So, the two have little to do with one another as a basis for denying marriage rights.
you do realize what natural selection is.. and what other animals do with the weak, abnormal members of their groups right? it's the same thing in our society... the difference is, animals don't have a media power that pushes PC blind acceptance of every deviation to the norm of their kind. We have to now accept that people who tattoo themselves and modify themselves to look like a freaking cat are... special in some way... we have to accept that the uneducated hateful racist rednecks have their place in society the same as anyone else... we have to accept that it's ok for politicians to get hummers because they didn't actually have "sex" with someone other than their wife... and we have to accept that it's WONDERFUL that bobby found "love" with sammie, even though it ends their ability to pass on their genetics to another generation, as every living thing on earth is programmed to do. I mean.... maybe it's not something to make a big deal about, for me, because it IS taking their genes out of the evolution of mankind.... which obviously might not be a bad thing, since it's caused by their own doing.... maybe that's natures way of slowing down the population's growth, who knows... but if it were me, and my family... I know I'd be quite bothered by the fact that my son, if I had one, wasn't going to pass our family's make-up to the next generation.. I'd be pretty upset that I wasn't going to get to see grandkids.... which is something I would expect would really upset a lot of people.... and I mean.. maybe it shouldn't bother me that homosexuality could be a method of bumping some genes out of the pool... but I know if I were homosexual... I'd be thinking about that fact. I'd be thinking about how nature works with the whole evolution aspect.. and realize that I'm cutting myself out of mankind's future... and I'd think quite a lot about how my action (of not working to correct my obvious sexual flaw) would keep me from extending a part of myself into what's to come.
but..... I'm the type to look at my behavior and measure my actions against those around me and contemplate how my actions, if done by the majority of society, would fair in the long run.... and modify my actions and my understanding of myself and my environment..to better everyone, not just myself. And that's why I am so passionate about trying to make people understand the long term side of their decisions in life. I've always been the type to look at my actions... and think about how my actions affect society, as a whole... kinda like not littering... I mean.. I could throw a wrapper out my window... who cares?? there's prison work duty who don't get paid to go pick that up... right? it doesn't affect anyone.... but wait, it would if everyone started throwing crap out their windows... so, maybe I shouldn't.. just to add to the good of my local environment, I shouldn't.... so I don't. THAT is how people should guide their actions... those who do, and those who accept things that aren't good for society as a whole, should listen, think, and modify their actions to work towards the greater good....
you know... arguing this reminds me of an argument I've heard from girls.. that they should be able to wear what they want.... where they want... but, the fact is, realistically, they can't.. because if they wore the wrong thing.. in the wrong place.. at the wrong time, it could push bad things onto themselves..... and that's just immature of them to do, make a decision that in turn hurts themself..... for what?? just to prove to themseves, I guess, that they can wear what they want..... lol...
oh, and your ignorant statement, "nor is marriage required to procreate. So, the two have little to do with one another as a basis for denying marriage rights."
you are right, technically, but so very wrong, realistically. where do you think our society would be if we hadn't kept to this format of marriage? play that out in your head for a bit.... your tax dollars have even paid for studies that have shown that a mother and father are a huge benefit to a child, much better than a single parent... and if there was no psychological anchor of this idea of marriage, in society, there'd be a WHOLE lot more "cheating" and a whole lot more men leaving their pregnant women to get that thin chick down the road.... we might as well just fling crap at eachother, I guess, in your viewpoint.
As the planet has just surpassed 7 billion people, I am not sure why you have concerns for the inability to procreate between gays. We humans will not become extinct for lack of births. Personally, I think it is egotistical to be overly concerned with "passing" your genetic makeup forward when the earth can not sustain the population we have now. But hey, that's just me. I don't have a myopic view of my importance to mankind individually and believe that society exists for humanity rather than the other way around. I also do not have major control issues that compel me to dictate who others should date, marry or even what other people should wear. I believe in personal responsibility. Your ridiculous argument that women should not dress however they want because men cannot control themselves relieves men of this responsibility. Thank the powers that be not all men think like you or else there would be no laws against violent attacks on women. For the record, there are cultures all over the world where women wear little to nothing... in fact, there are subcultures right in your own backyard like this. And you know what? Rape is not rampant. I propose it is attitudes like yours that give men a "pass" if women are dressed provocatively that actually perpetuate the problem. In any case, the most common article of clothing worn by women when they are raped is jogging pants. But, you were probably as oblivious to that fact as you are to many others.
As for the ignorant assumption that marriage is the only thread holding together our society... LOL! First of all, every child has two parents. However, as men are once again given a pass to bow to their baser instincts, not every man sticks around to help with the rearing. What the studies have shown is that children with two involved parents do well. There is no dictate of marriage. Personally, I think when an institution has a 50% failure rate, you may want to look at scrapping it for a different mindset... but that's just me. Again, your myopic view of the world assumes that anyone who does not live like you is obviously a @!$%#-flinging monkey. Interesting, but not surprising. By the way, there is a big world out there. I did a thesis on a tribe in China called the Mosuo. Marriage does not exist there. It is a matriarchal society in which women are free to pursue whatever relationship they like. Any resulting children belong to the mother and are her responsibility. The results of such an arrangement might surprise you. The women, far from being promiscuous, have monogamous relationships that last a great deal longer than the average marriage in the US. Additionally, the family unit is tight-knit and children have many extended family members that see to their needs. For those members of the community that do not have large families to help carry the burden, the rest of the community works together to make sure all needs are met. They do not use money, except in their dealings with the outside world. Amongst themselves, everyone takes what they need and no more. This society has existed for a great deal longer than the "modern" society of legalized marriages and contractual couplings. The only threat to this people's way of life, is the encroachment of our way of life. There's a big wide world out there, jones. Learn something of it if you truly relish the privilege of calling others ignorant.
You may have the last word on this as I have strayed too long already. Additionally, I much prefer debating with those who have a solid enough argument that they do not have to resort to name-calling to make a point. You, sadly, are not one of those. Have a nice day. :-)
Among our weak and abnormal members, however, are folks like Stephen Hawking, Franz Kafka, etc. Because we are a social species, it is possible to contribute to the survival of the "tribe" without actually increasing its members. One can do so concretely (through medicine or economics) or abstractly (via art or religion/shamanism/etc.).
Likewise, the inheritance of cultural memes no longer depends solely on the indoctrination of one's own children, because whether or not we believe it takes a village to raise a child, a child inevitably grows up in the village, and will be influenced by parties beyond the family.
Not really. Sisters of gay men are statistically more fertile than average, and the larger any family is, the more likely it is to produce at least one homosexual child. If anything, homosexuality seems to provide an evolutionary check on highly fertile families.
What's also interesting, though, is that it occurs at nearly identical rates from culture to culture. That is, there are as many homosexuals (or as much homosexuality) in Saudi Arabia (where such acts can cost you your head or your hide) as in the Netherlands (where people who so engage can marry or join the military). So proscription/acceptance doesn't appear to affect the incidence. This is true whether you're measuring the percentage of all sexual activity that is homosexual, the percentage of the population that has engaged in one or more homosexual acts, or the percentage of the population that lacks apparent heterosexual drive (and thus engages primarily or exclusively in such acts).
I'm not sure why that should really matter, particularly given that your cultural memes might still be passed by that son via other paths.
What's more, my wife and I can't have children, either, despite being the "right" sexes for producing them. Is it your contention that our own marriage, then, should be considered of a lower order of importance than one that produces womb rats?
How is it an objective good, given current levels of world population, to make more of us? I can assure you, there will always be plenty of people to breed. And since there's literally NO chance that all, or even most, or (most likely) even a greater percentage of people are going to "turn" gay, regardless of our social stance on it, the matter of what would happen if everyone did it is a non-issue. I would also add that it would be problematic if everyone worked in the arts (I mean, who would tend the fields? fix the houses and cars? perform surgeries?), but that doesn't mean that artists don't have something to contribute to what makes us human. Specialization of function is endemic to our species.
Really?! In my area a gay men's group takes a monthly turn serving at the Salvation Army's soup kitchen.
So, in other words, the blog and organization mentioned in this article doesn't speak for all gays?
LOL
LOL at miker.
You girls crack me up! Most of the gay people I know can at least read/think. But, I've heard that skill is in short supply in southern CA. (You ladies really should have read my comment a little more closely before you made your snarky little barbs - you've only succeeded in making yourselves look a little stupid. Nothing new for Dave, but the rest of you should have known better.)
OMG a stalker..........lol
So turning a blind eye when it doesn't impact you directly is ok? Wow, people....great job being complacent fools.
The hell are you even talking about?
He's stating that by not challenging discrimination, you are part of the problem.
Thanks, Bart....but Toasty answered his own question with his own response, actually. LOL
I'm just saying he could have been a little more explicit about what exactly he feels doesn't impact people directly. Just typing that sentence should give you a clue as to how vague it was.
I don't have a problem with gays and support their right to live their lives. I also support the Salvation Army for the good work they do. I don't believe I have to choose to support one over the other.
The Salvation Army (a religious organization) has their rights too and has helped alot more people regardless of beliefs than the bigots from the LGBT ever could........I will double my donations this year....
......and the grand total will be?
...at least twice as much as you.......
Two times zero is zero. I was just curious if you are actually someone who donates and knows how much they donate, or if you were just running your mouth off.
Why do you call the LGBT community 'bigoted'? What or whom do you feel they are bigoted against?
U of C- yeah.....ok.....how about it is none of your business and what's it to you, pal?...........Indy in Co- the LGBT community is bigoted against heterosexuals, Christians and anyone else who doesn't bend over backwards praising their antics....
Nope...they're just intolerant of intolerance...you know like defending yourself killing someone who is trying to kill you doesn't make you a murderer, not in the eyes of the law and not morally.
...yeah....I guess that's why LGBT members refer to heterosexuals as "breeders"and that is supposed to be their little inside insult........it is just bigotry......
Name even one instance where a straight person has suffered because he wasn't gay. The reverse happens all the time.
That's you choice, NYCG, but my money will be going to charities that don't discriminate.
Bart......ask someone in prison, he'll tell you.......
Toasty....yeah, ok and that charity would be????
I'm not going to stop giving money to the Salvation Army, as I am familiar with their good works and am confident the donations will go to people in need. . . .even if I don't agree with their take on homosexuality.
If some other charitable organization were out there in front of the store with a bell and a bucket that didn't have a strict religious view on homosexuality, I'd be just as likely to donate to them.
Do you want the actual answer, NYCG, or was that just rhetorical?
Toasty.....I am truly curious as to what charitity you believe does not discriminate.....
I donate to a charity that assists Arizona military servicemembers and their families. Although I suppose they do discriminate against servicemembers and veterans who do not live in Arizona...
....I know.......there is always some one left out....even with good charities.....but that one sounds like they would do good things with the money they receive....good luck
For the record, the SA doesn't discriminate who their donations go to, but the cut that they keep still funds their organization. And the SA is still discriminatory in its membership and lobbying, so that money goes toward that in the end as well.
The only organization that is discriminating here is the LGBT against the Salvation Army for their religious beliefs and it walks a fine line of defamation of character towards the Salvation Army IMHO. Your military charity while I believe to be a very good charity discriminates against non-service members, does it not? Do they offer non-service members the benefits of their charity? No they do not but you wont here people crying over that will you? The fact is the Salvation Army benefits EVERYONE. Donate wherever you want because the Salvation Army will continue to provide shelter, food and clothing to whomever needs it.
The difference is that my charity discriminates based on career, while the Salvation Army discriminates against people over how they were born.
Yes, because it only matters if donations for the needy go to GAY needy people. Just shows how separatist and and selfish these people really are. Ironic isn't it?
BTW, I DID give to the SA this year as I do EVERY year!
Are you joking? All they're saying is that people should know that the Salvation Army won't give money to needy gay people, so if you want your donation to serve ALL people, not just straight people in need, then find another charity.
That's "separatist and selfish"?? Are you delusional or just stupid?
No Brian, it's the truth. Hard to swallow I know!
(giggle).....you said, 'hard', and 'swallow'.
Based on earlier postings, it appears he just might like hard things to swallow...
All homeless people suffer from hunger, regardless of their appearance, race, religion, and sexual preference, so why is it so wrong to provide EVERYONE who needs assistance with food, etc.? They all have the same needs and the same rights to the charitable funds collected by the Salvation Army. Why pick and choose who gets help and make it conditional? Next thing you know, they will deny assistance to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and anyone else who does not believe in the same god that they do.
What would you say of a charity for the poor decided it would only help gay people. All the straight people would start foaming at the mouth in anger.
I take it you didn't even read the article, OHH?
"All they're saying is that people should know that the Salvation Army won't give money to needy gay people"
And the evidence they provide is one anecdotal story? The Salvation Army has denied this, in the same article. I need a bit more than a single anecdote before I even agree that such discrimination is occurring.
FJR1300 and Best Destiny, you are both suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Brian... reread the article SLOWLY. The gay men were NOT discriminated against as they WERE provided food as they asked for. They just were NOT allowed to sleep in the same bed.
There's another way to look at this. You want to sleep here, follow my rules. That's what I told my son. It was HIS decision if he stayed or left.
I would hope that members from the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ community who have received donations of any kind from the salvation army would come out and defend that organization against these stupid allegations that quite frankly are far smaller than the impact this organization makes in the community.
I would have also liked to see this person take up his issues within the organization and then if that didn't work come to the media and try and stop funding.
Reflect on what the organization has done for the community...i personally would never be able to go stand out in the cold and rain and ring a bell for a few hours, or volunteer at one of the locations. These people do that, they have every right in this country to lobby for their beliefs and give charity to who they see fit, (that being said a good organization wouldn't discriminate especially in 2011).
As soon as I find a homosexual social aid organization that will provide aid to more than 32 million people in the USA, operates in 124 countries and has been providing help for addicts, alchoholics, unwed mothers, prostitutes, homeless, hungry, etc. for nearly 150 years, I will donate to them and boycott SA. My decision is based on the petty complaint of one couple that chose to sleep in the cold instead of warm beds. Some families won't get a Christmas dinner. Some kids won't get Christmas gifts. Some babies won't get enough formula. A soup kitchen will have to close and all of the people that got meals, clothing and shelter will have to look somewhere else. All because of this petty story.
Gay comunity, please get out there for 5 hours and start ringing you bells...I will now double my donation to salvation army....
Lets all turn gay...human race will disapear in one generation...
Oh, my bad!....guess we could just make "pick ups and deposits" in the local sperm banks..
Perhaps the Salvation Army should push for executions of NFL players, stadium workers, and pretty much everybody who works on Sunday? Bible sez so, in Exodus 35:2... "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."
And we know the Bible is true, because the Bible says it is.
Another person who wants to mix up OT and NT - THEY'RE NOT THE SAME!!!!
OT - living under "the law"
NT - living under "grace"
geez....either get it right or shut up.
...and we know it's OH SO GRACIOUS to exclude needy people based on their supposed "sin"... JESUS didn't do it, and I don't think He'd approve of the SA doing it, either.
@ JMO; So you're saying that the NT proves that the OT is not true? Interesting.
One doesn't negate the other...but nice try.
So are you saying that the NT trumps the OT? If so and since Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, wouldn't that make the Leviticus admonishes moot?
That goes without mentioning the fact Jesus did speak against marriage between man n woman tho....of course you'll never hear that verse come up or if you do they'll twist it n say it means this or that.....then try to tell you that you're twisting the blatant suggestions made in Samuel concerning David n Jonathans relationship....not to mention what Solomon said about 2 men going through life as companions smh
Brian, actually, the seventh day would be Saturday, the Sabbath, not Sunday.
Sunday is observed as the Sabbath by Christians because that was the day our Lord was resurrected. He died on the cross on Friday; rose on Sunday........
Brian... again it takes an ability to read.
Sunday is the first day of the week.. Sun rising... get it?
Saturday is the last or seventh day of the week... Saturday refers to the Sabath...
You people are assuming that the calendar back then was the same as it is now. What we use now is referred to as the Gregorian calendar. It was NOT in use back then, they had a different idea of the days of the week.
Could agree more. If the American public would treat all human beings the same then the "screaming" you complain about would go away. Obviously from your posts you agree with discrimation and at this time of year you all sound very sad and unhappy in your lifes. As one poster stated... agree to disagree and move on. That statement works for both sides of the fence.
Comment # 22 deleted, off-topic.
"selective interpretation"... that's rich. So now Browning is a biblical scholar. I believe the LGBT interpretation is far more selective and self-serving. And I am also upping my donations!
I am tired of religions claiming that they are "feeding the poor" then using these donations to feed their hate for others. Bait and switch.
as americans, they have as much of a right to protest as tea partiers and occupiers. i support that right, whether i agree with the cause or not.
This is getting ridiculous. The GLBT community/culture/society has gone from "please accept us for who we are to don't accept them for who they are." Talk about a self-centered agenda.
Really? You honestly think it's self-centered to suggest that people donate to non-discriminatory charities?
I think he was saying that it's quite ironic that a group which has struggled for acceptance of their beliefs and lifestyle for so long would turn around and suggest that another group, a group with a proven track record of good works, should not be accepted for their beliefs/lifestyle.
Comment # 27 deleted for promoting violence.
You people are idiots. No one is asking for special treatment, but equal treatment. Of course the Salvation Army doesn't discriminate most of the time, but they do have a history of doing so - and look at their name: "Salvation." The organization has a condescending attitude towards anyone non-Christian. You might not see evidence of their intolerance at the local level, but get up there in the ranks...
Now that is one twisted definition of salvation if I ever saw one. Guess salvation only applies to Christianity. I'll let Merriam Webster know.
Salvation Army feeds the hungry and clothes the poor. That homosexuals would force their agenda onto this is utterly shameless, just like their "lifestyle."
I couldn't agree with you more, sinse when in America do we have to except something we don't agree with especialy something as perverted and immoral as a homosexual relationship.
lol Careful, Best... I did chose to homeschool all three of my daughters. However, I did so because the public school educational quality is appalling... and we happen to live in an area with a large population of gun-toting, bible-thumping, gay-bashing, tobacco chewing, nascar-watching rednecks... and I wanted my girls to aim a little higher. lol
;-) I've never regretted the decision.
@Best Destiny No there's not. Around 95% of homeschoolers are brought up in the Lord. I'm proud to say that I and my four siblings are as well. It saved us from a lot of trash. A school in our city, called Sulphur High, had 8 girls pregnant before the beginning of this school year. LaGrange High School, a ghetto school: multiple violent fights a week, 40-50% of the students homosexual, several gangs. Barbe High School: The preppy whore and drughouse. So you see, all of these schools are atheistic, horribly corrupted places. Homeschoolers are on the rise. Their numbers increase exponentially each year. Christians established homeschooling in the U.S. in the first place. Judge us and reject us, that's your problem, you're the one going to hell, not me. And that is not a threat. IT IS A 100% GUARANTEED PROMISE.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf
<sigh> Someone is really falling down on the job with your education. The actually figure for people who homeschool for religious reasons is 72%. I homeschooled and I do not have a religious bone in my body... nor did the 80 families that were part of our homeschool association.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-294.html
Homeschooling as we know it today (as opposed to the 1800's when most poor kids were poorly taught at home and rich kids had tutors come to their home) started in the 1960's as a movement to prove that the institutionalized setting of the public school was not conducive to learning. Ironically, it was started by a former college professor. Many who became involved were activists in the "anti-establishment" movement of the 60's... you know, hippies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-childrens_health/t/teen-birth-rates-highest-most-religious-states/
The highest teen birthrates in the country are those states which are also the most religion. Now, it might be a stretch to say religious instruction causes pregnancy, but they certainly are not doing anything to help the cause. Just as a FYI, teen pregnancies are nothing new... in fact, a woman named Mary was famously pregnant outside of wedlock and as a teen in Ancient Judea. lol In any case, before GW allowed schools to institute abstinence only programs, the teen birth rates had declined. And once those abstinence only programs were put in place, the rates started to climb again. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the correlation.
As far as drugs and violence... again, the bible belt has pretty high scores. The lowest score for drugs and violence in schools are the New England states... where secular government holds sway.
It would appear that you are in Louisiana (your mom should have taught you not to give out identifying information on the internet.. and there is only one high school in the nation named Barbe.) Your state is more or less on the bottom of every social, economical, educational and environmental statistic in the entire USA. Homeschooling there is probably not a bad idea if it is done correctly. However, to say that a lack of religion caused all of these ills is laughable in the face of the fact that Louisiana is one of those uber-religious states. You all have shown that pumping massive doses of punitive religious matters does not cure societal ills.... repeatedly. So why not try something that has been PROVEN to work magic... education.
By the way, insisting that you know the mind of God is not only silly, it is blasphemous.
The Salvation Army is a unique organization. While demanding strict adherence to fundamentalist beliefs by its members, the organization has always stressed non-judgement of those they try to assist. As the grandchild of 4 SA officers, I have always found the dichotomy difficult to understand, but have never doubted its sincerity. I watched my 70+ paternal grandfather retire from the Army on a Friday and start Monday morning as the unpaid director of a home serving unwed mothers and recent parolees. He never smoked, drank or swore himself, but also never judged those who did.
What I think is difficult for the SA in America is that in drawing from other fundamentalist religions for its officers, it is having a hard time making those converts understand the subtle but critical line between personal values and the need for non-judgmentalism in dealing with their client constituencies. I know that in my SW Penna area I have seen lower level officers trying to impose their personal values on the communities in which they operate and it is a disaster. Usually, regional SA officers step in and either remove the officers in question or retrain, but as with the story above, sometimes it gets out of control.
I can say the same about my grandfather, who was not associated with the SA, but was a devout non-discriminating Christian. He even donated land to a church group he did not attend. (He attended another church).
jBentley and rightly so, see any Club, they all have membership rules, like wearing a tie or a particular colour jacket, who is to try to stop Clubs from having their personal rules, if one does not like the rules, they do not join the club, but then you have some Morons that join the club, just to try to " tear it down from the inside" , and IF they do that what have they left?
Anything that receives tax payer dollars is not a "club" that can deny membership to other Americans. If the Salvation Army doesn't want to extend membership to every American, they should stop taking every American's "dues."
the people who say they are upping their donations are really going to help salvation army - from one quarter to a quarter and a dime.
That is a 40% increase. I'm SURE the Salvation Army would be very pleased...
Comment # 32 deleted. Sex derail.
You're sure on the warpath today Sal! Easy now, take a deep breath...
I've been watching Sally for a while now and as a moderator she's pretty good, she even had the good sense to ban me for a day once when I let some troll sucker me into a personal attack. She can't be everywhere of course, but I'd say she is doing a great job.
culheath and you have not noticed the " " Personal attacks " from Best Destiny
some examples might help :
Fri Dec 2, 2011
eagle. the dry cleaners called. your sheet and hood (with the eyes holes cut out) are ready to be picked up.
I wonder is that " Personal"?
Here we go again !!!! Gays and Lesbians complaining and protesting !!!! They want special treatment, not equal rights. For some strange reason they think they should be rewarded for their deviant immoral behavior......they are the only ones who seem to have the time to be at every protest, boycott and event that takes them away from their jobs and responsibilities. I used to be supportive of their cause, because I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against, but over time, I've come to realize that they don't want the same rights that heterosexuals have, they want a lot more than that. They want special treatment.....Well, I say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. They need to understand the negative impact they've had on society. And by the way.....IT IS OK NOT TO LIKE HOMOSEXUALS, AND IT IS OK NOT TO AGREE WITH THEIR IDEAS. That is called FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION !!!!!!!!
Yeah, those damned uppity perverts are just out of control. Next thing you know they'll want to marry my son or daughter. What's next? animal rights!?
It's also protected under the freedom of expression to not like black people, Sergio.
The Salvation Army supported Prohibition.
They don't get my support anyway.
As a gay man, I find these "gay rights advocates" disgusting. They do MUCH more harm then good. Their antics simply drive more wedges between "us" and "them." STFU and go live your lives any damned way you want. Leave the rest of us alone.
Geesh! Their as bad as the jackasses who complain about CHristmas creches and Christmas trees(THAT'S RIGHT! I TYPED CHRISTMAS) . Go suck your lemons somewhere else.
FudgeFactor?
As a gay man...??? Really? Puhleeze.
@Best Destiny Actually, again displaying your lack of wisdom and knowledge, gays can be only democrat. The republican viewpoint does not tolerate or condone homosexuality.
<sigh> Wrong again... 31% of those who are homosexual are also republicans. The Log Cabin Republicans are a pretty well know group that lobby on behalf of MAINSTREAM republican values... not this social crap that has derailed republicans for the last 20 years or so. http://www.logcabin.org/site/c.nsKSL7PMLpF/b.5468093/k.BE4C/Home.htm
These weirdos are always complaining about something.
i feel the same way.... you are talking about the people here complaining about the gay groups, right?
I'll try to give a little more this year to the salvation army. And to the whiners..."Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
You seem to believe in free speech and freedom of religion unless it does not coincide with YOURS. Then you revert to shameful name calling and slander.
Disagreement over what is said is not the same thing as denying someone a right to speak. I am pretty sure Best is solidly behind both freedom of speech and freedom of religion... but that doesn't mean she has to like it. Namecalling is also allowed... ask Fred Phelps. And slander is a legal term that does not apply here. As you seem to be confused about the meaning:
oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about
another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.
As the existance of God cannot be proven true or false, there is no way to determine if the statement is true. To qualify as slander, the accusation would have to be false. And it would also have to harm God's reputation...