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 ...
My first day in the Army I got a free gift from the Salvation Army. That was 40 years ago and I’ll never forget it, and I never pass a kettle without donating.
If homophobic is a condition, then homophilic is too. The homophiles don’t like to hear this.
I’ll pray to the Great and Powerful Spagetti Monster for you...and I’ll send you some warm *hugs* too, on this cold afternoon. :)
To be opposed to homosexuality is not "phobic," however much you would apparently like it to be. That you would apply such a defective simile in defense of homosexuality, instead of supporting that apparent preference, strongly indicates exactly the disaster homosexuality presents to a self-governing society; i.e., contrary to the public claims of its adherents (and therewith their outrageous public behavior), "sexual preference" is not simply about what people do in private because those exercising such practices identify themselves publicly by that private behavior, one that infuses and complicates all civil deliberation, advocating a demonstrably promiscuous lifestyle disastrous to stable families and therefore to successful child-rearing.
Anything destructive to families necessitates public assurance that the children are cared for, lest the future disintegrate with them (and it is certainly a poor substitute for a functional family no matter how good it is). There are two ways to provide that service: private charity and government. Unfortunately, government serves solely the interests of the politically dominant, an oligarchy with demonstrable intent to preclude competition.
Hence the attack on private charity, and particularly those charities providing services treating the cause of the need. The net result of your apparent preference is to assure a progression of socialism and general poverty. Sexual license, whether homosexual or heterosexual (a distinction without a difference as far as the Salvation Army is concerned)), IS destructive to liberty, which is why it was outlawed in the Torah in the first place.
Thus, your attack on the Salvation Army as "homophobic" misses the fact that they are instead opposed to ALL sexual depravity. Your attack constitutes little more than deliberate and dishonest misdirection, characteristic of those who seek their pleasures no matter what the cost to others.
“It doesn’t change the fact that they are a homophobic organization.”
A phobia is a fear. I’m not afraid of queers. I just find them to be unnatural and disgusting. I don’t fear dog shit either.
The Salvation Army agrees with the clear biblical position against homosexuality. Why do you say that position means they are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality?
You likewise.
You say that as if there is a contradiction.
It a fancy way of saying that the ends justify the means. It is a lie out of the pit of Hell. If it did indeed come from the Catholic church they have yet another problem. I doubt it did.
“I’ve gotta call bs on your #2. I would request evidence of this. There may be a correlation between homosexuals and pedophilia but there is evidence suggesting “most if not all” homosexuals are attracted to children.”
I have to start my reply by noting that the propaganda of the SSAD activists has gotten you a little confused.
Attraction to people between puberty and maturity is *not* pedophilia. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty. These are two separate things.
The SSAD activists like to confuse these things, because pedophilia is in fact a different disorder.
If they can get people to accept that pedophilia is a different disorder, then mislead them into thinking that attraction to youths (ephebophilia) is pedophilia, then they can claim that men with SSAD are not attracted to youths because they are not pedophiles.
You see the logical disjunction there, right?
Ephebophilia is generally defined as the adult sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. However, reason requires that it be extended backward to puberty, because pedophilia only extends forward to puberty.
So you see that pedophilia is entirely irrelevant to what I am saying.
“Most gays are not pedophiles”
That is true. However, they are ephebophiles, and this has been known for all of recorded history.
BTW, it wouldn’t be odd if there were numerically more pedophiles among the 98% of the population that is heterosexual than among the 2% afflicted with SSAD. However, the *rate* of sex crimes against people who have not reached the age of consent is much higher among men with SSAD. In fact, that 2% commits roughly one-third of all such crimes.
At least, that was true before they stopped reporting those statistics. It’s probably much higher now.
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.””
Well, you should be concerned from a public health standpoint and here is why: Male homosexuals are the #1 vector for the spread of human infectious diseases across the country. Male homosexuals have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS, syphilis, drug-resistant gonorrhea, entamoeba histolytica, chlamydia, herpes simplex II, Chancroid, Drug Resistant TB, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis non A & B, just to name a few. The press of course never discusses the CDC facts, but if you want to look for yourself the information is in the scientific literature. More than any other segment of society, the homosexuals are costing us billions in medical care. Many of the acts they perform in filthy public restrooms and involve consumption of fecal material—sheesh, this ain’t the Will and Grace show and it sure as heck is far from normal. They are the petri dish for development of drug-resistant bacteria. Take a moment to fathom this even if it flys in the face of homophilic beliefs.
“Ummm, no I am not.”
Ummm, yes, you are. You admit that you do not believe in the only God there is. Q.E.D.
OK Moral brainiac. Tell me straigt up - yes or no: Is it acceptable for an individual or group to impose their moral code on another person or group?
If you want me to match your donation, PM me with the details (council name, amount); if you'd like to sign up to match others contributions, let me know - I'd love to be able to do more for the Scouts!
Apologies, most sincere. Bless you for having ‘manned’ a kettle. Sad to hear of the looks of contempt for one helping an organization that does good.
I do not pass a kettle w/out contributing, and I always thank the person for being there. It is a lot easier to drop a dollar or two than to stand there bell ringing for hours. God bless you all and thank you for working hard to make what we should have been doing all along easier to do.
You’re thoo thensitive.
I gottcha. Thanks. My ignorance of the matter tells me that if I were to look at my states sex offender/predator registry, I would find far more hetero than homosexual offenders.
No problemo.
I'll apologize for my horrific grammar too while we're exchanging apologies. LOL
"Bless you for having ‘manned’ a kettle."
Was an invaluable experience my friend, in many more ways than a smartass like moi could've ever imagined. Enlightening. ;^)
Also afforded me --perhaps for the first real time in my entire life-- an opportunity to actually do something that really mattered to others, beside myself.
"Sad to hear of the looks of contempt for one helping an organization that does good."
Indeed, most perplexing; and, if I may say the looks came from the faces of those I knew had to have benefited from the work of the SA, too.
Hoping you & yours a merry, peaceful and joyous Christmas my friend. ;^)
It’s one of two charities I donate to, the other being the Star of Hope mission downtown.
We’ve had lots of bell-ringers at local stores, and they score a twenty off me when I pass.
Great organization.
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.