Posted on 12/14/2009 12:45:15 PM PST by SmithL
The halls aren't the only thing getting decked this holiday season.
The Salvation Army, the country's biggest charity, is taking it full on the chin from a social media network mobilized against the organization's position on homosexuality and other social sins. Twitter, Facebook and gay Web sites are lit up with protest and calls for donor boycotts.
The Army's official same-sex statement suggests it's unlikely those cheery volunteers ringing bells over red kettles will be donning gay apparel anytime soon.
While homosexuals are not "blameworthy," ... "Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex." The Army is an unabashedly evangelical, religious entity, after all, and has also resisted domestic partner benefits for its employees.
Last month, there was another stink about the Army's Houston division demanding to see Social Security cards of needy parents before providing toys for their kids. Angry protesters claimed this was discrimination against cardless illegal immigrants.
Before we take the predictable San Francisco, to-the-barricades view on all this, let's consider the Catholic concept of "proportionalism." This means (roughly, my interpretation) that bad conduct can be acceptable if a much greater good is being accomplished.
The Salvation Army served 33 million people in the United States last year. It raises about $2 billion a year and spends an impressive 89 percent of that on services - food, shelter, foster care and HIV programs.
It is a consistent and reliable disaster relief group.
"The first hand that reaches to pull you from the rubble of our next earthquake," Shea O'Neill wrote on the SFAppeal Web site last week, "will be the anti-gay hand of the Salvation Army."
There's no whitewashing their beliefs, if you oppose them, though the Army mission also is clear that its relief services are available to anyone "without regard to sexual orientation."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“Personally I think that people of consenting age can do what they want in their own bedchambers”
1. Same-sex attraction disorder is just what the name says: a mental, emotional, and spiritual disorder.
2. It has been known for all of recorded history that many, if not all, males afflicted with SSAD are irresistibly attracted to youths.
3. When a young woman is raped, no one thinks it strange that she should suffer emotional or mental effects from the trauma. This is similar (or identical) to post-traumatic stress disorder.
4. When a young man (say, 12 through 18) is seduced or raped by a sodomite, the trauma is at least as severe as in the case of a raped woman. In an effort to deal with this trauma, some victims adopt the defense mechanism known as “identification with the aggressor,” which sometimes results in the victim developing SSAD himself. (The frequency of this could not possibly be studied in today’s upside-down world.)
5. The facts described in “4” above show that SSAD is the only known transmissible mental disorder.
6. Therefore, the more access that men with SSAD have to youths, the more men will be afflicted with SSAD. It’s a positive feedback loop: molested boys growing up to molest many, some of whom grow up to molest many more. Sometimes hundreds more. How many cases of SSAD can one rape precipitate?
7. The issue is not, nor has it ever been, “What people of consenting age do in their own bedchambers.” The issue is that the acceptance of SSAD results in more access to youths, which results in a higher incidence of SSAD, which results in more molestation of youths, which results in a higher incidence of SSAD, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
8. When “what men of consenting age do in their own bedchambers” is sodomy, it is of concern to all of us, because at some point they will be doing it to an unwilling boy who has not yet reached the age of consent.
9. Suppose the sodomy occurs as a result of seduction rather than force. How do we react when a 30-year-old man seduces a 15-year-old girl? How do we react when a 30-year-old woman (for instance, a school teacher) seduces a 16-year-old boy, who then seduces a 14-year-old girl...having been shown the ropes, so to speak?
10. In those cases, we lose our minds. We howl for blood. Yet when all the participants in such events are biologically male, we are supposed to think that no harm is done. Nay, rather, we are required to believe that young men have been “helped” to “discover” their own “sexual orientation,” and this is a good thing.
11. If you think there’s anything harmful to youth in the sort of behavior described above, then you are “homophobic.”
12. And all of that starts with agreeing to accept “What people of consenting age do in their own bedchambers,” no matter how destructive and loathsome those practices might be.
“Homophobia” is a ridiculous word coined by the homosexuals in the 80’s to smear anyone who finds their behavior immoral, deviant and/or disgusting.
A “phobia” is an irrational “fear.” It is a low-level mental disorder. The word “homophobia” was coined at about the same time that homosexuality was removed — on a purely political vote — from the list of mental disorders.
So, with the stroke of a pen, homosexuality was “normal,” but truly normal people who object to homosexual behavior on any basis were suddenly mentally disordered.
Hogwash.
There is nothing “normal” about wanting to have — and imitating — intercourse with a person of the same sex. Sex and sexual attraction have an obvious biological purpose. Men and women have complementary parts for an obvious reason. Homosexual attraction and behavior are obvious dysfunctions. It is as if a person had an irresistible urge to eat by stuffing his food in his ear.
BEGONE, TROLL!
"Maybe", and "yes".
I've worked in places (and heard of others) where managers got a nice bonus (paid for by the company? Dunno.) for "making UW goals".
And as for a shakedown...."Company XYZ made the 100% contribution list last year, but not this year". How's that play in the local media?
I've worked in several places that claimed "100% participation" when I know for a fact that was untrue. For the simple reason that I didn't contribute.
How apropos for framing their movement, and since I wouldn't want to unduly excite 'em? Let's make it clear their movement's not the bowel kind. LOL
You certainly use the key words of a sodomite, “sweetie.”
Regardless, it doesn’t change the basic point: you fear this organization because it has moral teachings with which you disagree. You are intolerate of this religious belief, even though the belief is internal within the organization and has no effect on its charitable works.
The discriptor of you as a “Christianaphobe” (and certainly Judeophobe, as our teachings are even more clear) is apt.
It has all the hallmarks of someone whose inner being is being judged by you yourself (or perhaps by the G-d you deny).
Ask yourself “Why do you hate the Salvation Army?” If there is not G-d, their “judgment” should be of no consequence and you should merely judge them by their actions, which all agree are admirable.
“Please stop projecting your moral code on others.”
Oh now you’ve gone and done it.
You can put me on the list of folks that believe that your way of thinking is crazy... and very sick.
Engaging in perverted sexual acts that involve feces is hardly moral. Even if God didn’t exist, I wouldn’t think well of some dipstick that believes it’s acceptable to have sex with dogs or some other animal.
Frankly, gays wouldn’t bother me as much, if they weren’t trying to shove their gayness our face, down our throats (pun) and argue it’s all very normal.... it’s not. It’s also not normal to screw chickens or stuff gerbils, fists, popcorn, old hubcaps, tractor tires and tv remotes up ones rear. Maybe I’m just too picky, but sex through some hole carved into the wall of a mens room stall, just doesn’t seen normal to me.
If two people want to be together, then so be it. If two people want to queer each other, then so be it. BUT, do NOT try to argue that it is acceptable behavior and that the rest of us just have to learn to accept it... it isn’t and a good many of us will never yield to this nonsensical behavior.
I’m an atheist. I don’t particularly care what the SA’s motivations are for doing what they do, or what religious dogma they follow - they’re entitled to their beliefs, just as much as gays are entitled to pursue happiness in whatever way they please (within the law). What I do know is that the SA helps people in need with a lower overhead than most charitable organizations and, so, I’m happy to donate some of my income to them to help those in need. That’s not going to change. I’m reminded, however, that I need to get online and send them a decent donation beyond what I toss in their kettles at this time of year.
Right, not ‘chosen’. So you then, by virtue of orientation, give the green light to pedophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles, and any other sex-phile you may want to entertain.
Homosexuality is Wrong. Deal with it. People who know it is Wrong will probably stand up and say so. Deal with it.
The fact that you seem so concerned with who others have sex with does seem like a bit of a mental condition.
Where did I state i hated them?
Yes ridicule an organiztion because they make a moral stand. Another of their moral stands is that if help is needed, they’ll give it, regardless of orientation. Even you would receive their help, if needed.
How is an organization that provides care and services without regard to sexual orientation, homophobic?
LOL, no. I stated I have no issues when concerned with people who partner up with other consenting adults. So your little rant is a tad bit moot.
I’ll be giving more.
“Wow, somehow because I don’t believe in your God...I’m a liberal. ROFL...brilliant.”
All leftist thought, from the limousine liberalism of a George Clooney to the mass murders of Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot, is of and from Satan. It is a contaminant in the human cognosphere, not a natural component of it.
Atheism is of and from Satan.
Do the math.
The Salvation Army does not discriminate against homosexuals, helping all without pre-qualification, so so much for that part of homophobic. Yes, they disapprove of homosexuality, as is their right lest they yield to thought police, but that does not necessarily equate to fear. As for being irrational, is it irrational to disapprove of a life style that goes counter to human biology and the complementary nature of male/female relationships since the beginning of human history? As another poster noted, tolerance does not demand approval. The gay lobby needs to exercise tolerance of views other than their own.
I know of the Salvation Army’s work in disasters first hand. During the 1993 floods in Des Moines they were the first to help and were handing out hot meals and clean up kits while the Red Cross was having press conferences.
One of the problems is that homosexuals and their friends have dumbed down the language so much that they call any application of friction to genitals “having sex.”
Frankly, when homosexuals weren’t constantly in our faces — and the faces of our children — pushing their filthy agenda, I didn’t much care. But, I don’t want my children and granchildren propagandized to think that obviously deviant behavior is “normal.”
Well I know where my donations will be going this year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.