Salvation Army oppresses gay rights

[fitz1980]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

The Salvation Army OPPOSES "LGBT" legislation because such laws conflict with a person's conscience since "gay" not only refers to someone who experiences same-sex physical attraction but also engages in sexual acts with someone of the same sex. The Salvation Army views such behavior as immoral and contrary to what God intends. They are not bigots for this reason. Certainly not like racists! It's a matter of sexual morality. So please don't call them bigoted!

So your argument is that since they use the R word (religion) as an excuse for their bigotry it should be OK? People have used religion to justify bigotry against interracial couples and even against ending segregation.

[hijack]The Salvation Army's southern regional office is near a restaurant where I used to work. When they would have get togethers for their leadership we would often get inundated with their members, wearing the full faux-army garb. My experience with them is that they are picky, demanding, and lousy tippers. So for an organization that's supposed to be about helping the poor they don't seem to care about helping the working poor who are serving them food.[/hijack]

[gopher]

The people trying to deny gay people their rights would have in the past try to deny the poor their rights, deny women theirs, deny non-whites theirs. They are fould bigots who wish to keep people who are different to them in a subservient place. Jesus never spoke against gay people, but he did speak against intolerance. WWJD? He would be at the front, demanding equal rights for all his children.

Nsfbsk bigotry and nsfbsk bigots.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Mickey Blue

Stock Answer 2: If their nation makes it legal it's like them saying it's 'ok' (in fairness I've heard anti-Death Penalty people use this argument as well)

The difference being that when the death penalty is legal, the government is carrying it out, which means it's being done in the name of citizens and using their tax dollars. None of that -- AFAIK -- is true of laws protecting LGBT rights.

Yes, gay marriage at the federal level would grant some tax relief to gay couples who chose it, but it's not like tax dollars would be used to pay for their weddings or send them on their honeymoons or buy them wedding presents.

[barbrainey]

You people are all so intolerant yourselves! Calling same-sex erotic acts sinful even between consenting adults is not bigotry of any kinds. It does NOT make the "gay people" any less any heterosexuals. If by "any less" you mean inferior in the same sense that racists call members of other races than their own inferior and "not fully human"!

For once and for all, leave people like the Salvation Army alone! Stop calling them bigots and "homophobes"! I am sick and tired of that word!

One of you just wrote that a spokesperson for the Salvation Army stated that gays should all die. Where did you get that information?

Besides, where did the original OP come from?

Barb

[Chloe]

The link to the story on a spokesperson wanting gays to be put to death is in the post that first mentions it. Click on the highlighted text.

If people and/or organizations prefer not to be called bigoted and intolerant, stopping their bigoted and intolerant behavior is a good first step. The ball is in their court.

[Thing 1]

barbrainey, anyone who believes that I should lack the ability to have a legally protected family is attacking me personally, and I will call them whatever I want. And the Salvation Army has campaigned for exactly that; they've made is clear that as far as policy is concerned, I should not be treated as an equal person, by opposing such measures as mandated benefits for partners in New York, and bans on hiring discrimination for organizations recieving our tax money. And that's not even mentioning that in 1986 they campaigned against the decriminalization of homosexuality in New Zealand. How on earth is that not a bigoted action? Now, that was long enough ago that they deserved a chance to show they've changed, but so far I'm seeing evidence of quite the opposite.

I don't generally use the word homophobe either, because I dislike the suggestion that it's more fear than it is dislike/hatred. And I try not to call people bigots, because nobody deserves to be summed up with a word that just reflects one aspect of them. But the Salvation Army as an organization has certainly shown that they have bigoted views. I wouldn't care if they kept those views to themselves, but when they try to impose it on the laws of this or any other country, then it goes far, far beyond simply "calling same-sex erotic acts sinful even between consenting adults."

[diddy]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

For once and for all, leave people like the Salvation Army alone! Stop calling them bigots and "homophobes"! I am sick and tired of that word.

Why should we? They are trying to impose their viewpoint on the world via public policy. They made this public. That very much makes it fair game. They say things that are bigoted and try to deny people whom I call friend rights. THey make it public. Sorry, just because they claim religion doesn’t make them immune to criticism just as conservative muslims that attempt to impose religious laws and deny women rights and such through religion are not immune to criticism either.

[chillas]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

You people are all so intolerant yourselves!

That old saw? The old "not being tolerant of intolerance is just as bad" nonsense? No, sorry, but that is complete and utter bullNFBSK no matter how you look at it.

And it doesn't matter how you choose to defend it, what logical gymnastics you do or what magic words you apply to rationalize it, it is bigotry, plain and simple. As I said before, they want homosexuals to have fewer rights than other people for no other reason than they (the bigots) find something that is in-born and intrinsic to the target of their hatred to be icky. It is something that in no way effects them, but they choose to hate anyway. That is bigotry. Anyone who behaves in that way is a bigot, anyone who defends that position is a bigot. There is no other intellectually honest way to look at it.

ETA: And if you're sick and tired of hearing the words "bigot" and "homophobe," I suggest you stop supporting bigoted, homophobic organizations. You will find you hear them quite a bit less often.

[Pudding Crawl]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

For once and for all, leave people like the Salvation Army alone!

Yeah, and Britney too!

Look, I don't think you're arguing in good faith because you are not really engaging with any of the arguments presented here, but in case you are... stop focusing on the words 'bigoted', 'homophobic' and what you think they mean. Think about these people's actions- easy to do since you seem to want to reduce being gay to merely that:

Calling same-sex erotic acts sinful even between consenting adults is not bigotry of any kinds.

Why are you spending so much effort thinking about what other consenting adults are doing, when it doesn't involve you?

Being gay is not just 'erotic acts'. Do you honestly expect us all to be celibate? Or does it go further, are we to keep our lives hidden, secret, never talking about our relationships and preferences- in the way that straight people are free to- because that would be a gay act too?
That is one way you would have us be lesser.

It does NOT make the "gay people" any less any heterosexuals[

...in a very specific, exclusive way which you have defined just now.

I hope you're using jumpers for those goalpoats, because you need to move them so much.

This is one of the more singular types of homophobia I have encountered. (and YES I am using that word and NO it doesn't strictly mean 'fear of' before you start any semantic grumbling and YES you have to deal with it if you want to say the things you are saying, no it is not the worst thing in the world to be called and no it's not worse for me to call you that than for you to actually be it. I'm not using it as an insult, btw. I do not think it writes you off forever as a person, it just puts us at something of an impasse. It's a legitimate description.)

This approach is more like, "Well, it's sinful and wrong and I'm going to stamp my feet over how sinful and wrong it is because you can't prove that it's not, but don't you DARE complain and call it out as bigotry because I'm fed up of hearing that! LEAVE ME ALONE when I wander into a discussion and fling nonsense all over it! Hurt feelings!"

You want to play 'sick and tired' Olympics? I am sick and tired of being called a 'vector of disease'. That I'm lying or going through a phase or are just doing it for attention or don't really know what I want. That any PDAs are public property. That I'm beyond promiscuous and will cheat at the drop of a handbag, that I'm either too afraid to 'really' come out or am just doing it to please the boys. That you couldn't leave me alone in a room with your sister. That I'll either 'always leave you for a man' or I'll give up when I find the right man. If I want to form a household with my female partner it will never be the same, never be as right, as easy, as legally-recognised as with my male one.

As a cis, femme bi woman I have heaps of privilege. I could even marry one of my partners! I have privilege which allows me to escape much of the malign idiocy directed at LGBTQA people.

My list of sick-and-tireds is tiny and feeble and barely counts compared to what many others have to deal with.

But even my list is worse than yours.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

For once and for all, leave people like the Salvation Army alone! Stop calling them bigots and "homophobes"! I am sick and tired of that word!

In addition to all the other very good points made here, are you under the impression that you're our mother?

[justusfour]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

You people are all so intolerant yourselves! Calling same-sex erotic acts sinful even between consenting adults is not bigotry of any kinds. It does NOT make the "gay people" any less any heterosexuals. If by "any less" you mean inferior in the same sense that racists call members of other races than their own inferior and "not fully human"!

For once and for all, leave people like the Salvation Army alone! Stop calling them bigots and "homophobes"! I am sick and tired of that word!

One of you just wrote that a spokesperson for the Salvation Army stated that gays should all die. Where did you get that information?

Besides, where did the original OP come from?

Barb

I'll be more than happy to abolish those words from my vocabulary when self-righteous groups and people stop fighting to keep LGBT people from having equal rights. I'll stop using those words when HOMOPHOBES and BIGOTS keep their high and mighty noses out of the bedroom activity and lives of consenting adults. I'll stop using those words when those who think they are morally better than a LGBT person get a grip and get off their high horses.

Until then, I will call it as I see it. Intolerance of fighting to keep a group of people from obtaining civil rights is what has allowed women and minorities in this country to have a voice. Intolerance of refusing civil rights to a group of people SIMPLY BASED ON THE WAY THEY WERE BORN is the only reason women and minorities in this country have equal rights. I will fight against intolerance until the day women and men can marry someone of the same sex in every state in this country.

[diddy]

I think we can put it like this: You want us to leave the SA alone? Fine. We will do that as soon as they leave gays and other people alone. The minute they intrude into their lives is the minute we get to call them on it and attack the SA back.

They don't get to attack people's rights without impunity. Demanding that anyone do that is ridiculous.

[Esprise Me]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

Calling same-sex erotic acts sinful even between consenting adults is not bigotry of any kinds.

Actually, it is. So long as the standard for sin among erotic acts is anything other than "between consenting adults," it is bigoted against people who fall in love with, and want to make love to, certain consenting adults who don't meet that standard.

What's more, the Salvation Army has not stopped at mere name-calling. You agreed with and defended the OP charge that the organization lobbies against LGBT legislation, which, unless you're thinking of some very different proposals than the ones I've heard, is about ensuring equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians--allowing them to serve openly in the armed forces and in any other professions for which they are qualified, protecting them from violence and harassment, and, yes, allowing them to marry their life partners. The legality of "same-sex erotic acts" hasn't been at issue in the U.S. since 2003, when the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws. What's now at issue is not whether we approve of same-sex erotic acts, but whether we will allow people who are naturally inclined toward such acts to be full citizens. Opposing full citizenship for that class of humans is bigotry.

Besides, you haven't answered my question about how leaving the punishment to God is any skin off your back.

[snopes]

Comment: ON Facebook 11/27/12

The Salvation Army is NOT a charity.

They are an evangelical protestant church which uses donated money to
actively oppress gay rights.

They have threatened to close tens of thousands of New York soup kitchens
if they are forced to adhere to civil rights laws when dealing with gay
employees.

They spend your money lobbying governments to prevent LGBT rights
legislation

Please research a charity before giving. Consider Doctors Without Borders
or Amnesty International.

STRAIGHTMENFORGAYRIGHTS.COM

[Broken Sword]

Originally Posted by gopher

The people trying to deny gay people their rights would have in the past try to deny the poor their rights, deny women theirs, deny non-whites theirs. They are fould bigots who wish to keep people who are different to them in a subservient place. Jesus never spoke against gay people, but he did speak against intolerance. WWJD? He would be at the front, demanding equal rights for all his children.

Actually, the Salvation Army was formed in large part around a focus on reaching out to the poor, alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, and others that society tended to ignore or even despise. That makes the current issue all the sadder, for how it misses the focus of the founder.

[DotBat]

In 2004, The Salvation Army said they would close operations in New York City unless it was exempted from a municipal ordinance requiring them to offer benefits to gay employees’ partners. The City Council refused to make the exemption. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's administration chose not to enforce the ordinance. The administration right to decline to enforce was upheld by the New York State Court of Appeals in 2006

(Quote from NYTimes article)

What a wonderful organization. They are willing to close up shop in NYC right as winter sets in if they’re forced to hire gay people. Because God forbid you have to interact with a gay person while doing your job. I’m sure Jesus loves the idea of blackmailing a city because gay people want to be charitable to the less fortunate. And the usage of the poor and homeless as a pawn is a nice touch too.

Explain to me how this isn’t bigotry again?

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

You know, I thought I'd posted this here, but J is doing his internship with the SA.

And he's appalled.

Appalled at the lack of real psychological care, appalled at the lack of standards for care in general, appalled at the recidivism rates, and appalled at the outspoken bigotry.

he had one employee pray over his car because he has an equality now sticker on it.

[Electrotiger]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

You know, I thought I'd posted this here, but J is doing his internship with the SA.

And he's appalled.

Appalled at the lack of real psychological care, appalled at the lack of standards for care in general, appalled at the recidivism rates, and appalled at the outspoken bigotry.

he had one employee pray over his car because he has an equality now sticker on it.

Just as an anecdotal backup to the above: my wife did a couple years' stint in IT at a SA regional HQ, and it was much the same in her opinion. It personally makes me sick.

[Lainie]

Nearly 20 years ago a friend interned at the SA and had a similar experience.

[Sue]

Originally Posted by marrya

And, I'd add 'in USA'.
The mission statement (and practice) of the Salvation Army in New Zealand is provide assistance without discrimination
There are still religion based barriers to positions of leadership (which may be discriminatory, though they are currently based around 'married or celibate, no matter which genders) but in terms of Joe Average asking for assistance? you can sleep with whomever you wish, and it will make no difference whatsoever.

This is the same in Canada. "All social and community services are equally available without discrimination".