I wonder if all the gay rights activists who would like to see the terribly insensitive Salvation Army boycotted, would be willing to hire people into their own charity organizations...people who don't condone homosexuality, but wanted to help them build shelters or feed people or what have you.....
Survey SAYS: XXXXXXXXX
And Taylor said: "You know what's more important than feeding homeless people? Not compromising ones own morals."
You sure about that Taylor? Following your own personal political convictions is more important than feeding someone who is starving...or giving them medicine, or covering them with a blanket and a cap so they don't die of exposure to the cold? WAKE UP!!
I will apologize for my earlier flame, but I don't back down for a second that you deserved it. Holiday season or not. You're more concerned about making political statements than you are about helping people in serious need.
Instead of saying "Boycott the Salvation Army", why not start an online petition (not here obviousl) or some other measure to let the SA know there are people in your demographic group who want to help but can't because of the SA's policies, RATHER than withholding money (and encouraging OTHERS to withhold money) from an organization that IMO is beyond reproach in the way they help people.
[quote]You sure about that Taylor? Following your own personal political convictions is more important than feeding someone who is starving...or giving them medicine, or covering them with a blanket and a cap so they don't die of exposure to the cold? WAKE UP!!<hr></blockquote>
I'll point out here that my moral beliefs have little if anything to do with my political convictions. While it makes for nice hyperbole, the assumption that I'm boycotting all needy people is pretty obviously just that - hyperbole. I doubt it would wash with anyone here.
[quote]I will apologize for my earlier flame, but I don't back down for a second that you deserved it. Holiday season or not. You're more concerned about making political statements than you are about helping people in serious need.<hr></blockquote>
Believe me, what I've given to other charities far outweighs any harm I've done to the Salvation Army, even on my measly college student income. No one is going to starve because I decided to give to a charity other than the Salvation Army.
[quote]...let the SA know there are people in your demographic group who want to help but can't because of the SA's policies, RATHER than withholding money...<hr></blockquote>
They know, they don't seem to care. I'm voting with my wallet this time. Think of it this way: I'm patronizing the "mom & pop" charities, rather than the Wal-Mart of charity. The money goes to help those in need either way. For that matter, smaller charities probably have a lot less overhead so more goes to those who need it, but that's a whole other debate.
BTW let me clarify: Moogs, Noah, Sine, if y'all want to donate to the Salvation Army, I'm not saying you're bad people because of it, or even that you shouldn't! My intention from the beginning was to bring awareness to the boycott and see what others had to say. I'm not trying to convince anyone who currently supports the Salvation Army to stop (for the same reason I don't debate my pro-life stance, or my concern for gay rights) ... an anonymous poster on a message board isn't going to change anyone's mind. I'm sorry if I came off as argumentative or contentious, the idea wasn't to spark a mean-spirited debate.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: poor taylor ]</p>
Whether you intend to or not, you're definitely making a political statement by encouraging people to boycott the SA (that's what the title says), simply because they have a policy of not hiring homosexuals. The whole issue itself is a political one (or a socio-political one...label it however you want). I guess what we think of the boycott, by and large, is pretty obvious. Sorry if I didn't take the delicate approach to my rebuttals, but this type of PC "lobbying" irks me to no end (no matter who does it).
The point is, in my mind, any boycott of the SA (for the reason you specified) is tantamount to saying "recognizing gay workers' rights is more important than ensuring the SA has enough money to feed, clothe and shelter all the homeless people they intend to help this holiday season." That's just wrong.
And whether you give to other charities or not, you cannot deny the SA likely has a much broader reach and ability to get to the seriously needy folks, than whatever "mom and pop" [self-restrained edit] shops you are giving to. Not saying your orgnization of choice does no one any good, but that your dollar could in theory reach someone in more desparate need if given to the SA. A lot of the volunteers who work for the SA are former homeless themselves, and know where all the alley-way hideouts and such are that some small-time outfit isn't likely to know about (for one thing).
I just think the whole concept of boycotting such an incredibly beneficial organization is pitiful...it really is. If homosexuals have a problem with the SA, then find a better way to take it up with them than denying them funds. You're not hurting the SA by doing this, but rather the desperate people they help. And by the way, I seriously doubt they deny help to homosexuals or others who have been ostracized...quite the contrary. They help anyone who needs it.
Hiring practices are a totally separate matter and should be dealt with separately IMO. Take it to the ultra-left-wing media...they'd love to talk about SA hiring practices. You could shed light on the issue, avoid a lawsuit, and maybe get homosexual quotas all at the same time. Yippee.
Damn good points. Of course, your wasting your breath since evidence (if you can call scripture evidence) is irrelevant here. But hey, maybe you have the patience to deal with people who admit that nothing will change their minds and then complain that no one bothers to try. I know I don't.
NoahJ-
I don't know where you got this thing about it being about extended health care coverage. AFAIK, it's about gay people being allowed to work at SA period. Sure, the SA is free to boycott gays as employees and I'm free to boycott the SA as a charity.
Moogs-
Unusually harsh language from you. I think poor taylor has you on the ropes with the simple (and quite obvious) observation that there are other charities that help the poor. You've put yourself in the position of arguing why it's better to help the poor AND deny gays employment than to just help the poor.
Nordy: See paragraphs 4 and 5 of my last post. I agree I may be a little harsh, but it's hard to keep myself in check with something like this. The SA does nothing but good in a predominantly selfish society IMO. We need people giving more (of their time or money) to organizations like the SA, not less. If you've got a political gripe, then solve it politically, not economically.
That logic works when you're talking about boycotting professional sports, but not the Salvation Army for God's sake....
I think when we begin arguing the semantics of which charity knows the best alleys to find the really needy, we've pretty much exhausted the topic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All I'm saying is, the SA is much more likely to have greater reach when it comes to getting food and clothing to those who are most desparately in need. Not saying other organizations don't also help those who are desparate....follow? I agree we don't want to get into semantics. That wasn't my intention.
When did society as a whole decide all of a sudden that NOT supporting homosexual movements was discrimination instead of just free choice?
I don't support pedophiles, drunks, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers, the homeless -- name your dysfunctional lifestyle -- either. Am I discriminating against all them too?
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but come on! Society is getting more and more screwed up all the time because we have gotten to the point of saying, "Ah, to hell with good healthy family values. Acceptance and inclusion of everyone's lifestyle is more important because we don't want to piss anyone off and lose money from them."
I'm more willing to support an organization that takes a stance on something I agree with, rather than open itself up to anything and everyone just because it's profitable or gains membership.
My stance is NOT discrimination. My stance supports the solid, rich, healthy structure of the God-fearing family. Not the watered-down bastardization of the world that everyone else seems to want.
Call me crazy, or call me conservative. Please forgive me for caring!
I don't know where you got this thing about it being about extended health care coverage. AFAIK, it's about gay people being allowed to work at SA period. Sure, the SA is free to boycott gays as employees and I'm free to boycott the SA as a charity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My Bad, I got my causes confused on that one. (But I was sounding so good too) You areright, the main issue is not helath care. That'll teach me to post so late at night with so little sleep. I still say that boycotting the SA only serves to hurt those that the SA helps. But you gotta do what you gotta do...
Ok, so you are of the belief that the SA is somehow substantially superior to all other charity organizations in helping the poor. I doubt this, but I won't bother arguing the point. How bout this- hypothetically, if the SA were to split into two organizations, each with equal resources and people, but one didn't hire gays and the other did, which one would you support?
Also, I think it bears noting that helping the poor isn't inarguably the prime moral imperative. What if I decided to avoid the whole SA controversy and just give my money to cure childhood cancer (one that didn't discriminate against gays)?
<strong>Anyone who suggests boycotting an organization like the Salvation Army is mentally fuked. Why don't you get over your politically correct personal agendas and recognize the SA for what it is and what it does to help people in need?! Are your personal sensibilities more important than feeding homeless people???? Wake up.
They have the right to run their organization however they damn well please. The term "Salvation" in Salvation Army pretty much implies there is some Christian heritage behind their values and their mission. And many Christian sects have legitimate reasons for not condoning homosexuality. They believe that practicing such lifestyles is not consistent with their particular teachings, or brand of Christianity.
That DOES NOT mean, they HATE gays, or want to see gays imprisoned, or anything else like that. It merely means they reserve the right to hire people they believe to have values consistent with their own. Companies do this all the time, and rightly so. DUH.
Get over yourself. How anyone can utter the phrase "boycott the Salvation Army" during the holiday season - when their services are needed most by the needy people in this country is beyond me. It's sickening. Sorry for the flame, but you deserve it. Please, Fuk off.
Hey I say let the Gays in the US boycott the SA.. that is what .. 1% of the US Population? I doubt the SA will even notice. Having homosexuals boycotting your cause isn't always a bad thing.
[quote]I'll just call you a bigot, thanks.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]And I'll just call you a knee jerk reactionist left winger. That was fun flinging names around, anyone else?<hr></blockquote>
Noah, your post suggests that the opposite of the "reactionary, ie left winger" is the "bigoted", ie righ winger. I know many people who are 'conservative', or lean right, and are not bigoted in any sense of the word, and I also know people on the left who are. Similarly I know people on the right who are bigoted and people on the left who are not. This simplistic black and white labelling bears little resemblence to reality, but I guess people can argue for ever and a day about the proportions of each.
Sorry, but the idea that we should support the SA, despite their disciminatory policies, because they're just so gosh-darn good at what they do doesn't hold water. If you really, deep down in your heart, think it's just and right (and not just legally permissible) for them to not hire gay folks, then good for you. Support the SA, and you can parse it out with your god when you die.
But for the rest of us who think such discrimination is reprehensible in this day and age, we're under no obligation to support SA, no matter how much good they do. Would you support an NBA champion team even if they refused to let blacks play, because they're good? Would you give you money to KKK for Kids with Kancer even though they only hire white, protestant male scientists, even if they're on the verge of a cure? Would you give money to the best damn battered women's shelter in the Bronx, even if they refuse to hire female counselors? For those fundamentalist Christians, would you support that women's shelter if, while a model of tolerance in its hiring practices, it offered help to women seeking abortions?
Of course not. And the reason is that you'd stand up for what you consider to be universal moral principles that transcend the acts of the organization. The "special" right of gay people to live a normal life like everyone else (imagine that, the "special" right to get a job, marry the person you love, and not to get your limbs ripped off as you're dragged behind a pickup) is one of those moral principles that's not worth compromising. I find it ironic that those who have the most trouble understanding that are those who usually speak the loudest about standing up for moral principles in a depraved society.
<strong>I find it ironic that those who have the most trouble understanding that are those who usually speak the loudest about standing up for moral principles in a depraved society.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We understand... that is the thing. The SA has ever right to do what it's doing. It isn't unconstitutional. It isn't illegal. It's their right to do so. So your going to .. what boycott them till they come around to your way of thinking? How tolerant is that?
[quote]So your going to .. what boycott them till they come around to your way of thinking?<hr></blockquote>
Worked in South Africa, right? I guess you'd have no problems with any of those examples I posed, then. Make the check payable to KKK4KK.
I can see where this is eventually heading. This must be how moral relativism arose. (consider "You" and "I" hypothetical people here) I think it's a universal moral principle that discriminating against people based on who they are is wrong. You think it's a universal moral principle that being gay is acceptable qualification for discrimination, like being a felon or being a Saudi these days. Of course, I think my universal moral principle is universally superior to yours. But how do I justify it? There's plenty of Biblical evidence on both sides ("love thy neighbor", "he without sin" vs. "lie with man like woman"), and religion isn't valid for defining universal moral principles anyway (too culturally-specific). I can say that gays aren't hurting anyone by being gay, so why discriminate? To which you'd reply that they're hurting all of us, since being gay is a sin and they're setting a bad example, so discrimination/punishment is justified. I have to rely on some wishy-washy argument that being discriminated against is hurtful to any human, in any culture and any time, and so is bad. But that's hardly a solid empirical argument. So I end up throwing up my hands and saying "noone's morality is superior to anyone else's".
But I don't buy that at all. My morality is superior. And tolerance does not extend to violating universal moral principles. So not giving money to the SA is not just acceptable, but a moral imperitive. And I'll take it up with my own god when I die, just as you'll take it up with yours.
[Any relationship to real people or opinions in the above post is purely coincidental. Pronouns have been changed to protect the innocent. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.]
Heh.. with all the BS aside.. it is still you claiming that unless one group starts following the thinking of another they should be boycotted. That is intolerance at it's finest. Go ahead boycott them! They wont know the difference.
I find it funny the the groups of people like claim to be the most tolerant.. aren't.
And I'll just call you a knee jerk reactionist left winger. That was fun flinging names around, anyone else?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can call me whatever you like, and most likely will. But if I am going to be classified as "deviant" or "dysfuncional" by someone quoting scriptures that they clearly have not fully read and that are twisted to support their own agenda, that I can call them a bigot. Because that is what they are. Because according to the same scriptures, if they have had a cheeseburger, sassed their parents, done any labor on Saturday, or eaten shrimp should also not be allowed spousal benefits, be fired from their jobs, and earn the contempt of society.
Of course if you mean that that contempt is earned because of a personal bias, then fine. Own your bigotry. Just don't try to dress it in false piety.
As for the topic, I have the right not to contribute money to the Salvation Army if I do not believe in their policies, or even if I simply do not wish to. It's called charity. And since I am part of only .1% ofthe population (according to an earlier post), I am sure that all of the right-thinking out there can make up the difference.
You can call me whatever you like, and most likely will. But if I am going to be classified as "deviant" or "dysfuncional" by someone quoting scriptures that they clearly have not fully read and that are twisted to support their own agenda, that I can call them a bigot. Because that is what they are. Because according to the same scriptures, if they have had a cheeseburger, sassed their parents, done any labor on Saturday, or eaten shrimp should also not be allowed spousal benefits, be fired from their jobs, and earn the contempt of society. Of course if you mean that that contempt is earned because of a personal bias, then fine. Own your bigotry. Just don't try to dress it in false piety.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Since when is calling what homosexuals practice deviant being a bigot? Homosexuals practice sex that deviates from a greater percentage of the world.. therefore they are practicing deviant sexual behavior. This is just stating facts.. not being a bigot. Like most Mac users are computer deviants. Your trying to make it into something it's not.
[quote]<strong>
As for the topic, I have the right not to contribute money to the Salvation Army if I do not believe in their policies, or even if I simply do not wish to. It's called charity. And since I am part of only .1% ofthe population (according to an earlier post), I am sure that all of the right-thinking out there can make up the difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
Survey SAYS: XXXXXXXXX
And Taylor said: "You know what's more important than feeding homeless people? Not compromising ones own morals."
You sure about that Taylor? Following your own personal political convictions is more important than feeding someone who is starving...or giving them medicine, or covering them with a blanket and a cap so they don't die of exposure to the cold? WAKE UP!!
I will apologize for my earlier flame, but I don't back down for a second that you deserved it. Holiday season or not. You're more concerned about making political statements than you are about helping people in serious need.
Instead of saying "Boycott the Salvation Army", why not start an online petition (not here obviousl) or some other measure to let the SA know there are people in your demographic group who want to help but can't because of the SA's policies, RATHER than withholding money (and encouraging OTHERS to withhold money) from an organization that IMO is beyond reproach in the way they help people.
Common. Use your head.
I'll point out here that my moral beliefs have little if anything to do with my political convictions. While it makes for nice hyperbole, the assumption that I'm boycotting all needy people is pretty obviously just that - hyperbole. I doubt it would wash with anyone here.
[quote]I will apologize for my earlier flame, but I don't back down for a second that you deserved it. Holiday season or not. You're more concerned about making political statements than you are about helping people in serious need.<hr></blockquote>
Believe me, what I've given to other charities far outweighs any harm I've done to the Salvation Army, even on my measly college student income. No one is going to starve because I decided to give to a charity other than the Salvation Army.
[quote]...let the SA know there are people in your demographic group who want to help but can't because of the SA's policies, RATHER than withholding money...<hr></blockquote>
They know, they don't seem to care. I'm voting with my wallet this time. Think of it this way: I'm patronizing the "mom & pop" charities, rather than the Wal-Mart of charity. The money goes to help those in need either way. For that matter, smaller charities probably have a lot less overhead so more goes to those who need it, but that's a whole other debate.
BTW let me clarify: Moogs, Noah, Sine, if y'all want to donate to the Salvation Army, I'm not saying you're bad people because of it, or even that you shouldn't! My intention from the beginning was to bring awareness to the boycott and see what others had to say. I'm not trying to convince anyone who currently supports the Salvation Army to stop (for the same reason I don't debate my pro-life stance, or my concern for gay rights) ... an anonymous poster on a message board isn't going to change anyone's mind. I'm sorry if I came off as argumentative or contentious, the idea wasn't to spark a mean-spirited debate.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: poor taylor ]</p>
The point is, in my mind, any boycott of the SA (for the reason you specified) is tantamount to saying "recognizing gay workers' rights is more important than ensuring the SA has enough money to feed, clothe and shelter all the homeless people they intend to help this holiday season." That's just wrong.
And whether you give to other charities or not, you cannot deny the SA likely has a much broader reach and ability to get to the seriously needy folks, than whatever "mom and pop" [self-restrained edit] shops you are giving to. Not saying your orgnization of choice does no one any good, but that your dollar could in theory reach someone in more desparate need if given to the SA. A lot of the volunteers who work for the SA are former homeless themselves, and know where all the alley-way hideouts and such are that some small-time outfit isn't likely to know about (for one thing).
I just think the whole concept of boycotting such an incredibly beneficial organization is pitiful...it really is. If homosexuals have a problem with the SA, then find a better way to take it up with them than denying them funds. You're not hurting the SA by doing this, but rather the desperate people they help. And by the way, I seriously doubt they deny help to homosexuals or others who have been ostracized...quite the contrary. They help anyone who needs it.
Hiring practices are a totally separate matter and should be dealt with separately IMO. Take it to the ultra-left-wing media...they'd love to talk about SA hiring practices. You could shed light on the issue, avoid a lawsuit, and maybe get homosexual quotas all at the same time. Yippee.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
Damn good points. Of course, your wasting your breath since evidence (if you can call scripture evidence) is irrelevant here. But hey, maybe you have the patience to deal with people who admit that nothing will change their minds and then complain that no one bothers to try. I know I don't.
NoahJ-
I don't know where you got this thing about it being about extended health care coverage. AFAIK, it's about gay people being allowed to work at SA period. Sure, the SA is free to boycott gays as employees and I'm free to boycott the SA as a charity.
Moogs-
Unusually harsh language from you. I think poor taylor has you on the ropes with the simple (and quite obvious) observation that there are other charities that help the poor. You've put yourself in the position of arguing why it's better to help the poor AND deny gays employment than to just help the poor.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: poor taylor ]</p>
That logic works when you're talking about boycotting professional sports, but not the Salvation Army for God's sake....
<strong>
I think when we begin arguing the semantics of which charity knows the best alleys to find the really needy, we've pretty much exhausted the topic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All I'm saying is, the SA is much more likely to have greater reach when it comes to getting food and clothing to those who are most desparately in need. Not saying other organizations don't also help those who are desparate....follow? I agree we don't want to get into semantics. That wasn't my intention.
<strong>
Okay, I'm puzzled:
When did society as a whole decide all of a sudden that NOT supporting homosexual movements was discrimination instead of just free choice?
I don't support pedophiles, drunks, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers, the homeless -- name your dysfunctional lifestyle -- either. Am I discriminating against all them too?
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but come on! Society is getting more and more screwed up all the time because we have gotten to the point of saying, "Ah, to hell with good healthy family values. Acceptance and inclusion of everyone's lifestyle is more important because we don't want to piss anyone off and lose money from them."
I'm more willing to support an organization that takes a stance on something I agree with, rather than open itself up to anything and everyone just because it's profitable or gains membership.
My stance is NOT discrimination. My stance supports the solid, rich, healthy structure of the God-fearing family. Not the watered-down bastardization of the world that everyone else seems to want.
Call me crazy, or call me conservative. Please forgive me for caring!
[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: CosmoNut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll just call you a bigot, thanks.
<strong>NoahJ-
I don't know where you got this thing about it being about extended health care coverage. AFAIK, it's about gay people being allowed to work at SA period. Sure, the SA is free to boycott gays as employees and I'm free to boycott the SA as a charity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My Bad, I got my causes confused on that one. (But I was sounding so good too) You areright, the main issue is not helath care. That'll teach me to post so late at night with so little sleep. I still say that boycotting the SA only serves to hurt those that the SA helps. But you gotta do what you gotta do...
<strong>
I'll just call you a bigot, thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I'll just call you a knee jerk reactionist left winger.
Ok, so you are of the belief that the SA is somehow substantially superior to all other charity organizations in helping the poor. I doubt this, but I won't bother arguing the point. How bout this- hypothetically, if the SA were to split into two organizations, each with equal resources and people, but one didn't hire gays and the other did, which one would you support?
Also, I think it bears noting that helping the poor isn't inarguably the prime moral imperative. What if I decided to avoid the whole SA controversy and just give my money to cure childhood cancer (one that didn't discriminate against gays)?
<strong>Anyone who suggests boycotting an organization like the Salvation Army is mentally fuked. Why don't you get over your politically correct personal agendas and recognize the SA for what it is and what it does to help people in need?! Are your personal sensibilities more important than feeding homeless people???? Wake up.
They have the right to run their organization however they damn well please. The term "Salvation" in Salvation Army pretty much implies there is some Christian heritage behind their values and their mission. And many Christian sects have legitimate reasons for not condoning homosexuality. They believe that practicing such lifestyles is not consistent with their particular teachings, or brand of Christianity.
That DOES NOT mean, they HATE gays, or want to see gays imprisoned, or anything else like that. It merely means they reserve the right to hire people they believe to have values consistent with their own. Companies do this all the time, and rightly so. DUH.
Get over yourself. How anyone can utter the phrase "boycott the Salvation Army" during the holiday season - when their services are needed most by the needy people in this country is beyond me. It's sickening. Sorry for the flame, but you deserve it. Please, Fuk off.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I second that motion.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
[quote]And I'll just call you a knee jerk reactionist left winger. That was fun flinging names around, anyone else?<hr></blockquote>
Noah, your post suggests that the opposite of the "reactionary, ie left winger" is the "bigoted", ie righ winger. I know many people who are 'conservative', or lean right, and are not bigoted in any sense of the word, and I also know people on the left who are. Similarly I know people on the right who are bigoted and people on the left who are not. This simplistic black and white labelling bears little resemblence to reality, but I guess people can argue for ever and a day about the proportions of each.
But for the rest of us who think such discrimination is reprehensible in this day and age, we're under no obligation to support SA, no matter how much good they do. Would you support an NBA champion team even if they refused to let blacks play, because they're good? Would you give you money to KKK for Kids with Kancer even though they only hire white, protestant male scientists, even if they're on the verge of a cure? Would you give money to the best damn battered women's shelter in the Bronx, even if they refuse to hire female counselors? For those fundamentalist Christians, would you support that women's shelter if, while a model of tolerance in its hiring practices, it offered help to women seeking abortions?
Of course not. And the reason is that you'd stand up for what you consider to be universal moral principles that transcend the acts of the organization. The "special" right of gay people to live a normal life like everyone else (imagine that, the "special" right to get a job, marry the person you love, and not to get your limbs ripped off as you're dragged behind a pickup) is one of those moral principles that's not worth compromising. I find it ironic that those who have the most trouble understanding that are those who usually speak the loudest about standing up for moral principles in a depraved society.
<strong>I find it ironic that those who have the most trouble understanding that are those who usually speak the loudest about standing up for moral principles in a depraved society.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We understand... that is the thing. The SA has ever right to do what it's doing. It isn't unconstitutional. It isn't illegal. It's their right to do so. So your going to .. what boycott them till they come around to your way of thinking? How tolerant is that?
Worked in South Africa, right? I guess you'd have no problems with any of those examples I posed, then. Make the check payable to KKK4KK.
I can see where this is eventually heading. This must be how moral relativism arose. (consider "You" and "I" hypothetical people here) I think it's a universal moral principle that discriminating against people based on who they are is wrong. You think it's a universal moral principle that being gay is acceptable qualification for discrimination, like being a felon or being a Saudi these days. Of course, I think my universal moral principle is universally superior to yours. But how do I justify it? There's plenty of Biblical evidence on both sides ("love thy neighbor", "he without sin" vs. "lie with man like woman"), and religion isn't valid for defining universal moral principles anyway (too culturally-specific). I can say that gays aren't hurting anyone by being gay, so why discriminate? To which you'd reply that they're hurting all of us, since being gay is a sin and they're setting a bad example, so discrimination/punishment is justified. I have to rely on some wishy-washy argument that being discriminated against is hurtful to any human, in any culture and any time, and so is bad. But that's hardly a solid empirical argument. So I end up throwing up my hands and saying "noone's morality is superior to anyone else's".
But I don't buy that at all. My morality is superior. And tolerance does not extend to violating universal moral principles. So not giving money to the SA is not just acceptable, but a moral imperitive. And I'll take it up with my own god when I die, just as you'll take it up with yours.
[Any relationship to real people or opinions in the above post is purely coincidental. Pronouns have been changed to protect the innocent. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.]
I find it funny the the groups of people like claim to be the most tolerant.. aren't.
<strong>
And I'll just call you a knee jerk reactionist left winger.
You can call me whatever you like, and most likely will. But if I am going to be classified as "deviant" or "dysfuncional" by someone quoting scriptures that they clearly have not fully read and that are twisted to support their own agenda, that I can call them a bigot. Because that is what they are. Because according to the same scriptures, if they have had a cheeseburger, sassed their parents, done any labor on Saturday, or eaten shrimp should also not be allowed spousal benefits, be fired from their jobs, and earn the contempt of society.
Of course if you mean that that contempt is earned because of a personal bias, then fine. Own your bigotry. Just don't try to dress it in false piety.
As for the topic, I have the right not to contribute money to the Salvation Army if I do not believe in their policies, or even if I simply do not wish to. It's called charity. And since I am part of only .1% ofthe population (according to an earlier post), I am sure that all of the right-thinking out there can make up the difference.
<strong>
You can call me whatever you like, and most likely will. But if I am going to be classified as "deviant" or "dysfuncional" by someone quoting scriptures that they clearly have not fully read and that are twisted to support their own agenda, that I can call them a bigot. Because that is what they are. Because according to the same scriptures, if they have had a cheeseburger, sassed their parents, done any labor on Saturday, or eaten shrimp should also not be allowed spousal benefits, be fired from their jobs, and earn the contempt of society. Of course if you mean that that contempt is earned because of a personal bias, then fine. Own your bigotry. Just don't try to dress it in false piety.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Since when is calling what homosexuals practice deviant being a bigot? Homosexuals practice sex that deviates from a greater percentage of the world.. therefore they are practicing deviant sexual behavior. This is just stating facts.. not being a bigot. Like most Mac users are computer deviants. Your trying to make it into something it's not.
[quote]<strong>
As for the topic, I have the right not to contribute money to the Salvation Army if I do not believe in their policies, or even if I simply do not wish to. It's called charity. And since I am part of only .1% ofthe population (according to an earlier post), I am sure that all of the right-thinking out there can make up the difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't say .1% I said 1% There is a difference