LGBT Community calls the Salvation Army Bigots

[tobi the good boy]

Uhm... So a Religious charity is opposed to the concept of homosexuality, but still helps indiscriminately. What's the issue here? The Salvo's have an opinion or stance on something but it doesn't inhibit their work and the good they do. Look I have no issues with Gays Lesbians and the grey area in-between, but this just seems like blatant attention whoring that the likes of PETA or the WBC would stoop to.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

Christians have never argued that anyone with homosexual inclinations do not have the same rights as anyone else. Its just that no one (even heterosexually-attracted people) has the inalienable right to pick and choose his/her marital partner from an unlimited pool. In some societies, marriages are still arranged by the parents of the partners so that every involved party is taken into consideration. In ours, you can't marry someone under legal age, who cannot give consent, or who is of the same gender.

The underlying point here is that legitimate marriages must be authorized by a higher authority who has final say in the matter, whether that authority is the state or God himself. That is all Christians have ever believed in when it comes to "gay" rights. "Equality of Law" means you get no extra-special exception just because you're different.

I am inclined to disagree. It is my feeling that those inclined to lobby for the retention of sodomy laws are christian. To do so is to say that some consenting relationships are never to be consummated and that their sexual desires lack legitimacy. Your perspective of "equality of Law," seems strange to me as asking for laws to be changed is not an exception. Asking for the right to marry, when it is a major social prerogative within American culture, is not asking for something "extra-special." It is asking for what many citizens already have.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

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

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

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

I am glad you had such a positive experience. It is difficult at times to get beyond the view of Christianity as generated by the more vocal of their kin.

 

[Lieju]

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.

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

See what I mean? None of the parties have the right to a homosexual marriage, but all of the parties have the right to a straight marriage. Both possess the same rights, it's just that these rights do not help people of homosexual preference. They both have the same rights, but the rights favor a particular sexual orientation, that sexual orientation being heterosexuality. It's not a good thing at all, but I think that is what that person is getting at when they say that both parties have equal rights.

I know what he means, and I stand by what I said; in that situation homosexuals do not have equal rights. If you are gay, you do not have the right to marry the person you love, a right that a heterosexual person would have.

A homosexual isn't going to want to marry a person of the opposite sex any more a heterosexual is going to want to marry someone of the same sex.

What he is saying is just presenting the issue like gays want some special rights when they want equality, something that's a common tactic when denying rights from people.

And you yourself said it, this situation favors heterosexuals.

BTW, I'm not going to reply to the rest of your post because it's so difficult to read.
Paragraphs would help.

 

[Batou667]

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

I'm an athiest, but I'm frankly baffled by how you can take such offense to a charitable organisation. You've clearly constructed a very strong mental image of what the Salvation Army is and does, but I'm afraid that by all accounts you're quite definitely off the mark. Look, from the Salvation Army website (which I suggest you visit and read, before making any more hasty statements);

In the Salvation Army we don't judge or condemn. We just help.

Yes, the Salvation Army is a Christian-based charity, and they make no excuses about the fact. But they also don't discriminate or withhold their help from non-Christians, or even (as far as I can tell) make a particular effort to evangelise through their work.

If your whole logic is "The Bible contains violence, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia" and "These people follow Biblical teachings" to conclude that "Therefore, these people are violent, misogynistic, homophobic and xenophobic" then I'm afraid you're just plain wrong.

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

It was more along the lines of "We do not promote LGBT". They offer support to everybody.

 

[Batou667]

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.

Until very recently "...between a man and a woman" was considered an unspoken but obvious part of marriage; and so central to the whole idea that a man marrying another man would be about as legitmate as a "marriage" between a man and a horse.

Since then, of course, there have been social reforms, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, equal rights movements, and so on. But not everybody's deeply-held opinions can be changed so easily, and there are still a geat many conservatively-minded people who think same-sex marriages are simply madness; and an exercise in political-correctness-gone-bezerk along the lines of the "It's my right as a man to have babies" scene from The Life of Brian.


(for what it's worth, I don't give two hoots about the "sacred institution of marriage", and whether homosexual couples want to have a civil partnership or a marriage is none of my business).

 

[The_Critic]

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.

It's funny the salvation army has certain guidlines that they live by or operate by, and they are bigots. But people attack them and their christian beliefs and their what freedom fighters.

just by reading your post it is obvious you despise their practices or even them as a ministry, doesn't that make you the bigot toward them. Or is it only hate when it's being directed at something you agree with?

Just a thought.

 

[sharks9]

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

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

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

Did you even read the OP? The SA clearly says that they'll help ANYONE, regardless of sexual orientation and say their views on sexual orientation are only for members or prospective members of their church.

Also, your attitude here seems to suggest that you are a bigot.

 

[Sylvine]

just by reading your post it is obvious you despise their practices or even them as a ministry, doesn't that make you the bigot toward them. Or is it only hate when it's being directed at something you agree with?

Just a thought.

Does despising bigotry make You a bigot?

Just a thought.

~Sylv

 

[The_Critic]

just by reading your post it is obvious you despise their practices or even them as a ministry, doesn't that make you the bigot toward them. Or is it only hate when it's being directed at something you agree with?

Just a thought.

Does despising bigotry make You a bigot?

Just a thought.

~Sylv

Edit: Yes, having hatred toward any idea or person is bigotry.

 

[Iron Mal]

I know that several people have already responded to and criticised you but to be fair you've made yourself quite a valid verbal punching bag so without further delay, here we go.

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

Because as we all know, anyone who thinks differently to me must be sick and wrong in every way conceievable.

By this logic this means that you are wrong and must be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

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)

Not all Christians are bad people, quite a few of them are good, honest people who do try to help others (and this is coming from an Athiest, the Christian's natural sworn blood-enemy).

Yes, there are bigoted Christians out there but if I was to give examples of them I certainly wouldn't start with the fucking Salvation Army of all people (the WBC would probably be much better seeing as they actually have caused people harm and distress).

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

You are aware of how a charity is supposed to work, right?

They use resources from the public to help the community in ways that the local or national government often can't or won't, how exactly does the KKK even remotely fit into this unless you (in some perverted way) consider 'lynching and killing black people' to be a service to the local community?

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.

Oh bloody hell, you weren't even paying attention to the word 'charity' in the original story, were you?

The Taliban is not a charity, it is closer to being a militia, the direct opposite of a charity.

I know you're trying to make a point of 'well if a "bigoted" group like the Salvation Army can be a charity then why can't these obviously evil groups?' but you fail to realise that the biggest difference here is that the Salvation Army has actually helped people and, despite their religious overtones, hasn't engaged in any morally reprehensable behaviour.

Simply not being in favour of LGBT isn't exactly a crime, it's an opinion and not even an opinion they seem to act upon since I'm fairly certain if you went to them for help they probably wouldn't ask you what your sexuality is before giving aid.

Even calling them bigotted in the first place is something that's hard to justify with anything other than 'they're Christian so they must hate and loathe gays' which in itself is a pretty bigotted view to hold (remember, this is coming from an Athiest, the proverbial mongoose to Christianity's cobra).

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

Are you trying to imply that Christian charity groups are somehow like the Facist Nazi regime?

To be fair, if you're going to make a comparison to the Nazis and invoke Godwin's Law then it should at least be something argueably vile and inhuman such as genocide or slavery (you know, the things which are gross violations of basic human rights in a cruel and unusual fashion), not just because you happen to disagree with someone's stance on something.

 

[Comando96]

Do they actually discriminate with their aid based on sexuality?
Yes?
Well then my opinion of them would be severely altered. If not... well... mostly no.

That slight part of my opinion of them is due to... why the fuck is a charity using/funding lobbyists? You do not need lobbyists.... thats a fucking waste. Help the poor more.

My position is slightly changed, about the senior managers who control policy, not about the rank and file of the SA though.

 

[sharks9]

]Yes, and as a matter of common sense, I dismiss the defense as being irrelevant. It may not be true, and it certainly doesn't make a difference for the homopbobia of the salvation army.

But judging by your post, you'd rather just insult everyone who dares criticise homophobics, rather than have a constructive discussion? Or was that a misunderstanding?

It's completely relevant. The LGBT community says the SA discriminates against them, the SA says they serve anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. It's entirely relevant.

A misunderstanding because most constructive discussions don't immediately turn into comparisons of a charity with the Nazis and the KKK, which is what you decided to turn this discussion into.

 

[tobi the good boy]

Uhm... So a Religious charity is opposed to the concept of homosexuality, but still helps indiscriminately. What's the issue here?

I'd think it to be rather self-evident what the problem is if a group is promoting hatred and discrimination on a large scale.

But it's not hatred or discrimination. The Salvo's came out and said they don't ask for sexual preference for those they help. Sure, they can be against homosexuality, it's stupid but as long as they're not actively hurting anyone it's not an issue. Bottom line is that they're a Christian church, they adhere to the beliefs, and at this point in time, homosexuality is sorta a no no for the church. But they're out helping everyone they can and I can't see a reason to think less of them for it.

 

[Gralian]

Just as people have the freedom to express themselves as being a part of the LGBT community and be allowed to share their values, so too are other groups allowed the same privilages. How fucking dare someone get on a podium and say "Well OUR ideals and values are the right ones... these people are just bigots because they're another interest group with seperate values!". No. That's not how it works. You give people freedom, it works BOTH ways. The same freedom that allows you to be openly homosexual without anyone giving a shit is the same one that allows religious groups the right to express themselves, also without anyone giving a shit. I'm not religious myself, but that doesn't mean people should have the fucking right to crap all over others' faith and theological ideas under the banner of 'equality'. Sounds like they want to be 'more than equal', because clearly THEIR values are the right ones.

That said, notice what the SA had to say in response; "we do have theological positions on a number of topics ... but we don't expect everyone to agree with them". That's all. Yes, they may have an opinion on something like gay marriage or abortion or whatever, but i highly doubt people would be denied aid because they declared they were gay or were going to the abortion clinic after they get their bowl of soup for the local mission. That's just people jumping the gun and simply inferring something that isn't there because of a knee-jerk reaction.

I would also like to stress that i recognise that the people calling the SA bigots are most likely in the significant minority and do NOT speak for the LGBT community as a whole, although it's amazing that's how people tend to construe it when a few people who happen to be a part of something get on their podium and make an announcement that may or may not apply to everyone in that group.