LGBT Community calls the Salvation Army Bigots

[Lieju]

I'm not reinterpreting any rights.
A bigot is someone who is intolerant towards other groups of people.
Saying a certain group of people shouldn't have the same rights as yours is being bigoted.

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

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

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

Equal rights.

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

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Salvation Army gives freely of their time and money to help those suffering.

LGBT community freely condemns people for not agreeing with them.

Guess who I support more.

 

[dagens24]

I simply wouldn't donate to any proselytizing religious organization/charity to begin with so this won't affect me.

 

[dagens24]

Salvation Army gives freely of their time and money to help those suffering.

LGBT community freely condemns people for not agreeing with them.

Guess who I support more.

Salvation Army gives freely their time and money in order to proselytize their hate filled religious dogma.

LGHT community freely tries to defend themselves against those who would make their way of life a criminal activity.

See, I can put a biased spin on things too.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

LGBT community, you are not who you are or who you fuck. Get over it. Yes it can be difficult, black people fought a long time to get equality, as did women before them. If you are gay/lesbian/bisexual - great. But dont label yourself as just that. Stop bitching about it an live your life, who ever you fuck isnt your whole identity. You can see yourself as other things as well like as a doctor, a teacher or whatever. T people will just have to fight abit longer for acceptance. Yes im happy you had an operation and now you live life as a woman. But you are still a man that had an operation to look like a woman. I accept your right to be happy and live the way you want, but wont date you as i dont consider you a woman(im a guy). An no amount of bullying or PC guilt can change that. Just be happy, live life and stop trying to force the whole world to accept you by force.

 

[Liquid Ocelot]

I never donated to them anyway. Anyone with a different agenda, conversion in their case, is just not a charity.

Also note how their spokesperson doesn't even bother to deny their bigoted views, but instead tries to hide by saying they a happy few that do comply by the standards of being Arya... -oh wait, different bigots - people that do comply with the standards of a 'good Christian'. (as if anyone knows what those are)

Even if they did discriminate, at least SOME people would still be receiving help.

So let's recognize the KKK as a charity eh?

And why not label the Taliban a charity while we're at it? After all if you're a devout Muslim extremist, they can give you a lot of aid.

I'm thinking the Salvation Army does a LOT more good than bad.

Yes, and the nazis helped Germany out of a deep economic crisis, so they were also good guys? Give me a break.

You'd best be trolling, son. Where is any evidence that the Salvation Army is not giving any gays/lesbians any support, any aid? They're a church, and generally speaking, most churches are against the whole gay/lesbian movement. Not saying that's a good excuse, but comparing them to Nazi Germany or the Taliban, or the KKK just makes you look like a fool. They give the needy support without questioning their sexuality. People get help regardless of their orientation.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Salvation Army gives freely of their time and money to help those suffering.

LGBT community freely condemns people for not agreeing with them.

Guess who I support more.

I can imagine a terrorist group called LGBT that will bomb you if you dont accept them 100%. The world dont work that way. Im a straight white guy and their are places im not accepted in.

Salvation army do an amazing job. I back them.

 

[Batou667]

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

Well, that's the thing: we live in a society where

1) Everything is relative, and

2) He who is most liberal holds the moral high ground.

So what happens when, say, we decide that we MUST enshrine the rights of two equally repressed and demonised groups - Muslims and homosexuals, for example - and it just so happens that the Quran commands the repression of homosexuals? Whose beliefs should we be rushing to protect, at the direct expense of the other groups'?

You're right, it's a trade-off: but a trade-off that is going to involve lingering resentment from social groups who don't feel they're getting a big enough slice of the pie. I don't think it's possible to avoid stepping on everybody's toes all of the time - that's why we need to be tolerant of intolerance, and not elevate "being offended" to a state of actual victimhood.

I can imagine a terrorist group called LGBT that will bomb you if you dont accept them 100%.

Let's Go Bomb Them!

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

But what if marriage is defined as "a union between a man and a woman"? In that case, it would be no more bigotted to say "two men can't get married" than it is to say "men can't give birth to children". Just pointing out a difference between the genders doesn't necessarily degigrate one. Equality shouldn't be the pretence that we're all the same, it should be an acceptance of the fact that we're all different.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

See, I can put a biased spin on things too.

Apart from the truth isn't spin.

Show me the LGBT community that helps homeless SLGBT people and I'll donate to them.

The Salvation Army raises money to help people regardless of their sexuality.

What they may think of them is irrelevant.

Stonewall et. al. is often as much of a embarassment to the LGBT community as PETA is to the Vegetarians.

 

[Nergy]

You can argue that The Salvation Army does a lot of good

But so could another organization that doesn't have a bronze age of sexuality.

 

[A-D.]

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

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

Do you see heterosexuals doing the same thing? At least i havent so far. So i can understand their view partially. Its all fine as long as you do your thing in your own Home, but dont go around expecting everyone to agree to your political view, morality OR sexuality outside of it. No reason to push it into People's faces. And as far as i saw so far, they dont actually bother going "You're gay so no help for you", in fact they dont even ask about it, and thats a mature stance on the Issue. They might dislike homosexuals due to their religious views, but they dont specifically ask for it. I mean, do they ask you if you believe in God before they give you any help? I rather doubt it. So as long as they dont openly discriminate and actually help based on who is in need, rather than who is a specific sexuality, i dont really see the Problem.

And if you do personally see a Issue with it, donate to another charity instead.

 

[Liquid Ocelot]

snip

Uh.. All there is is an article where the LGBT community claims to be denied service, or some shit like that. They are disrespecting a good charity, one that helps a shit load of people, without and proof to back it.

 

[Caravelle]

So what happens when, say, we decide that we MUST enshrine the rights of two equally repressed and demonised groups - Muslims and homosexuals, for example - and it just so happens that the Quran commands the repression of homosexuals? Whose beliefs should we be rushing to protect, at the direct expense of the other groups'?

That is an excellent question. You see it even more with feminism, with clashes between anti-racism and respecting other cultures vs respecting women's rights. There is lots of disagreement between well-meaning people (not to mention non-well-meaning people) on what the balance should be on any given issue.

You're right, it's a trade-off: but a trade-off that is going to involve lingering resentment from social groups who don't feel they're getting a big enough slice of the pie. I don't think it's possible to avoid stepping on everybody's toes all of the time - that's why we need to be tolerant of intolerance, and not elevate "being offended" to a state of actual victimhood.

But again, being tolerant of intolerance isn't a solution, because then you should also be tolerant of being intolerant towards intolerance and so on.
It's a complex issue, pretending it's simple doesn't make it so.

But what if marriage is defined as "a union between a man and a woman"? In that case, it would be no more bigotted to say "two men can't get married" than it is to say "men can't give birth to children". Just pointing out a difference between the genders doesn't necessarily degigrate one. Equality shouldn't be the pretence that we're all the same, it should be an acceptance of the fact that we're all different.

But marriage isn't defined as "a union between a man and a woman". I mean, some people define it that way. Others don't. And the most important memes that go along with marriage - love, joining families, sharing property, having children - don't require marriage to be between a man and a woman. In that light, defining marriage that way is hardly an innocuous, completely disinterested choice. You might as well say that defining marriage as "a union between two people of the same race" means that being against interracial marriage has no element of racism to it.

 

[Caravelle]

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

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

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

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

What does pushing things in your face mean, exactly ?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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

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

pretty much. yeah.

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

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

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

probably because of the strong association of religion with marriage.

 

[LilithSlave]

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

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

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

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