PDA

View Full Version : Salvation Army Director: Gays Should Be Put to Death


WhatTheDeuce
Jun 29th, 2012, 05:31 AM
I thought this was a joke at first, but I was wrong. Please think twice and reconsider donating to this hateful organization; there are plenty of more upstanding and deserving charities than this one. I'm all for volunteering and donating my time and belongings, but I wouldn't dream of ever doing so again for the Salvation Army.

http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2012/06/25/salvation-army-media-relations-director-gays-should-be-put-to-death/

We’ve written many times in the past that if you’re both gay and a donor to the Salvation Army, you must also be crazy.

It’s not just that the Salvation Army doesn’t support the full equality of LGBT people. It’s not even the fact that the organization has a documented history of refusing aid to gay people in need.

It’s the fact that the Salvation Army’s own*inter-company*literature calls for the death of gay people. And Media Relations Director Major Andrew Craibe, the man responsible for creating good press for SA, has no qualms about advocating this policy live on the radio.

RYAN: *. . . that says, according to the Salvation Army, that [they] deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine?

CRAIBE: *Well, that’s a part of our belief system.

RYAN (cutting in): *So we should die.

CRAIBE: You know, we have an alignment to the Scriptures, but that’s our belief.

RYAN: *Wow. So we should die.



RYAN: It’s going into Romans again . . . I accept that you’re out there wanting to help people . . . I don’t accept that this sexuality that is part of my DNA is a choice. I also don’t accept the*support*of any religion in a financial sense, and this is what the gay community is up in arms about: that you’re proposing in your religious doctrine and the way that you train — this is*partof your training of your soldiers — that because we’re gay, that — we must die. If you go to Romans, book 1, 18-32, it’s all there, mate. I mean, how can you stand by that? How is that Christian?

CRAIBE: Well, well, because that*is*part of our Christian doctrine –

RYAN (interrupting): *But how is that Christian? Shouldn’t it be about love?

CRAIBE: — that’s our understanding of that. Well, the love that we would show is about that: consideration for all human beings to come to know salvation –

RYAN: Or die. . .

CRAIBE: Well, yes.

Give the ugly exchange a listen if you can stomach it. And please take the Salvation Army off your Christmas gift list this year for good.

cowsonice
Jun 29th, 2012, 05:35 AM
:scared:

...wow.

Steven.
Jun 29th, 2012, 05:50 AM
I thought it was a pretty common knowledge that the Salvation Army stemmed from a Christian Church and has been known to refuse help for gay people? So I'm not really surprised by this at all. I've never supported them and probably never will

skanky~skanketta
Jun 29th, 2012, 08:28 AM
Salvation my arse.

ranfurly
Jun 30th, 2012, 04:00 AM
Pretty harsh words from this fella.

Oh well, I'll still donate too them like I always do, they do so much for the community as a whole, especially where I am after the Earthquakes.

Lord Choc Ice
Jun 30th, 2012, 04:59 AM
Pretty harsh words from this fella.

Oh well, I'll still donate too them like I always do, they do so much for the community as a whole, especially where I am after the Earthquakes.
Wise decision :yeah:. This is only one man's view after all.

dybbuk
Jun 30th, 2012, 05:13 AM
Wise decision :yeah:. This is only one man's view after all.

It's actually not, discrimination is part of their policy. You can easily find horror stories of them refusing service to LGBT people. I can remember one especially terrible story where a trans woman died because they wouldn't let her into the building and out of the cold.

And here it is: http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2010/12/rest-in-peace-jennifer-gale.html The Salvation Army consistently refuses service to LGBT people. This is not just his opinion, and Jennifer Gale is not just one incident of this happening. The Salvation Army is a truly terrible organization and there are far better organizations that provide the same services without the discrimination and bigotry.

Lord Choc Ice
Jun 30th, 2012, 05:19 AM
It's actually not, discrimination is part of their policy. You can easily find horror stories of them refusing service to LGBT people. I can remember one especially terrible story where a trans woman died because they wouldn't let her into the building and out of the cold.

And here it is: http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2010/12/rest-in-peace-jennifer-gale.html The Salvation Army consistently refuses service to LGBT people. This is not just his opinion, and Jennifer Gale is not just one incident of this happening. The Salvation Army is a truly terrible organization and there are far better organizations that provide the same services without the discrimination and bigotry.
Ouch. Sad to read :(. Still, in some countries it might not be as bad.

WhatTheDeuce
Jun 30th, 2012, 06:16 AM
Oh well, I'll still donate too them like I always do
I really don't think you would feel this way if you yourself were gay, or if you had loved ones who were. Correct me if I'm wrong there, I just can't fathom it. Basically, if God forbid you or your loved one(s) ever needed help from them, they wouldn't give a shit, they would let you suffer and be proud of it. How can you look past that as a gay or even a straight person? I'm not black, but I personally would never donate to or support a charity that discriminated against people for their race or ethnicity.

Granted they may do a lot in your (and many other) communities, but so do countless other charities. You should do a little research and find another deserving, humane organization to support - they most definitely exist.

InsideOut.
Jun 30th, 2012, 06:25 AM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry about this. Cry, maybe, because it's just so pathetic for any charity to discriminate against anyone in need. Laugh also because his justifications for the systematic discrimination is equally pathetic... referencing the Bible is one of the stupidest explanations you can give for anything, considering it was written by humans (don't tell me God dictated Paul's letters to the Romans, that's simply not true).

Certinfy
Jun 30th, 2012, 01:42 PM
Good thing he's not a member on TF.

Sammo
Jun 30th, 2012, 02:21 PM
Oh my God who the hell cares, there are fucking weirdos all over the world. May Lord have mercy of them or in lack of that may a fucking thunder blow them up.

pov
Jun 30th, 2012, 03:17 PM
Oh my God who the hell cares, there are fucking weirdos all over the world. May Lord have mercy of them or in lack of that may a fucking thunder blow them up.

You're saying much the same thing that they do:

They say "gays are sinful weirdos, we're against them"
You (and many others) say: "conservative Christians are hateful weirdos, we're against them"

No real difference - although those in each group convince themselves that there is.

And advocating violence isn't weird - it's one of the most common things in our societies. Be it the death penalty, threatening/assaulting someone we disagree with, justifying war, etc, most people, in some way or the other, support and justify violence.

BTW Sammo, you calling anyone a weirdo is :haha: :yeah:on giving me a good laugh.

WhatTheDeuce
Jun 30th, 2012, 03:24 PM
They say "gays are sinful weirdos, we're against them"
You (and many others) say: "conservative Christians are hateful weirdos, we're against them"

No real difference - although those in each group convince themselves that there is.
Of course there's a difference, cause of the chronology. Irresponsible and bad Christians hate gay people, THEREFORE gays retaliate by hating back. Not the other way around. Gays would have no problem with these people if they weren't constantly told to drop dead by them.

Sammo
Jun 30th, 2012, 03:24 PM
You're saying much the same thing that they do:

They say "gays are sinful weirdos, we're against them"
You (and many others) say: "conservative Christians are hateful weirdos, we're against them"

No real difference - although those in each group convince themselves that there is.

And advocating violence isn't weird - it's one of the most common things in our societies. Be it the death penalty, threatening/assaulting someone we disagree with, justifying war, etc, most people, in some way or the other, support and justify violence.

BTW Sammo, you calling anyone a weirdo is :haha: :yeah:on giving me a good laugh.

Aren't you too busy approving people beating 5 year-old girls with shoes until they bleed because they lost a tennis match, weirdo?

Novichok
Jun 30th, 2012, 03:27 PM
You're saying much the same thing that they do:

They say "gays are sinful weirdos, we're against them"
You (and many others) say: "conservative Christians are hateful weirdos, we're against them"

No real difference - although those in each group convince themselves that there is.

And advocating violence isn't weird - it's one of the most common things in our societies. Be it the death penalty, threatening/assaulting someone we disagree with, justifying war, etc, most people, in some way or the other, support and justify violence.

BTW Sammo, you calling anyone a weirdo is :haha: :yeah:on giving me a good laugh.

Sammo didn't say that conservative Christians should be put to death. Also, all forms of violence are not equivalent to each other.

Also again, conservative Christians are against us (gay people) because of who we are. Gay people are against them because of their hateful attitudes towards us. Please tell me you can see these difference and understand that not all groups are in the same moral position.

pov
Jun 30th, 2012, 03:48 PM
Sammo didn't say that conservative Christians should be put to death. Also, all forms of violence are not equivalent to each other.

Also again, conservative Christians are against us (gay people) because of who we are. Gay people are against them because of their hateful attitudes towards us. Please tell me you can see these difference and understand that not all groups are in the same moral position.

Sammo said "may a fucking thunder blow them up." Your post here provides a classic example of just what I mean. You justify your own points by setting up a group of "those bad people." The idea that someone being against you means you must respond in kind is not rare. It's a similar mentality to that of the child whose justification is "he started it." My point is that many people do that - be they gay, straight, black, white, whatever - they find some reason to justify advocating/tolerating violence. It's consider normal.

And let's be clear - I'm not immune to it or above it. I have those same responses of anger when I feel I've been wronged or attacked. I also feel that tendency to get all morally superior about my reactions in those cases. But that isn't so.

Novichok
Jun 30th, 2012, 03:53 PM
Sammo said "may a fucking thunder blow them up." Your post here provides a classic example of just what I mean. You justify your own points by setting up a group of "those bad people." The idea that someone being against you means you must respond in kind is not rare. It's a similar mentality to that of the child whose justification is "he started it." My point is that many people do that - be they gay, straight, black, white, whatever - they find some reason to justify advocating/tolerating violence. It's consider normal.

And let's be clear - I'm not immune to it or above it. I have those same responses of anger when I feel I've been wronged or attacked. I also feel that tendency to get all morally superior about my reactions in those cases. But that isn't so.

1. Conservative Christians are not equal to Christians in the Salvation Army. Do you disagree with this?

2. Some people are morally bad. And some people are morally less bad. Do you disagree with this? Some people want to unjustly limit the rights of others. Do you disagree with this? It is morally acceptable for those affected groups (those whose rights are about to be limited) to fight against this. Do you disagree with this? Those people whose rights are about to be limited are not obliged to love, like, or respect those who doesn't love, like, or respect them. Do you disagree?

***Also, I have never advocated violence towards any anti-gay groups. But I do believe people have to right to defend themselves.

Sammo
Jun 30th, 2012, 03:54 PM
Sammo said "may a fucking thunder blow them up." Your post here provides a classic example of just what I mean. You justify your own points by setting up a group of "those bad people." The idea that someone being against you means you must respond in kind is not rare. It's a similar mentality to that of the child whose justification is "he started it." My point is that many people do that - be they gay, straight, black, white, whatever - they find some reason to justify advocating/tolerating violence. It's consider normal.

And let's be clear - I'm not immune to it or above it. I have those same responses of anger when I feel I've been wronged or attacked. I also feel that tendency to get all morally superior about my reactions in those cases. But that isn't so.

I'm not even gay, I'm Christian and those people make me feel embarrassed.

WhatTheDeuce
Jun 30th, 2012, 04:00 PM
Sammo said "may a fucking thunder blow them up." Your post here provides a classic example of just what I mean. You justify your own points by setting up a group of "those bad people." The idea that someone being against you means you must respond in kind is not rare. It's a similar mentality to that of the child whose justification is "he started it." My point is that many people do that - be they gay, straight, black, white, whatever - they find some reason to justify advocating/tolerating violence. It's consider normal.

And let's be clear - I'm not immune to it or above it. I have those same responses of anger when I feel I've been wronged or attacked. I also feel that tendency to get all morally superior about my reactions in those cases. But that isn't so.
You're missing the point. Whether one responds to the hate with hate of their own or respond with undue kindness is irrelevant. Bottom line: they hate us, so we hate them back. Not the other way around. Example; someone bullies you in the schoolyard, and as a result of his emotional and/or physical abuse, you develop a hatred back - the bully is still the root cause of the hate from both points of view, regardless of the fact that the victim didn't take the moral high ground. It's not one group's responsibility to do that over the other.

And like Novichok said, not all hateful sentiments (and actions, for that matter) are created equal.

Dominic
Jun 30th, 2012, 08:45 PM
OMG pov you are horrible do you realize that?

Nicolás89
Jun 30th, 2012, 11:26 PM
pov :facepalm:

Expat
Jul 1st, 2012, 12:37 AM
So? He is staying true to his scriptures and convictions. People always have the right to help people solely based on their religion , race or orientation. United College N**** Fund, Catholic Hospitals refusing abortions or even the Gay Sports League refusing to admit straight members.


As long he is not killing I don't see anything wrong in him expressing his views and soliciting donations based on his views.

Novichok
Jul 1st, 2012, 12:42 AM
So? He is staying true to his scriptures and convictions. People always have the right to help people solely based on their religion , race or orientation. United College N**** Fund, Catholic Hospitals or even the Gay Sports League refusing to admit straight members.


As long he is not killing I don't see anything wrong in him expressing his views and soliciting donations based on his views. It's his First Amendment Right.

He is advocating for something that is morally wrong (i.e., killing people because they are gay).

Expat
Jul 1st, 2012, 12:45 AM
He is advocating for something that is morally wrong (i.e., killing people because they are gay).

In whose moral opinion? Yours. Morals are all relative. In Saudi Arabia it would be morally right to kill gays as per their religion.

He has a right to his beliefs. People have a right to be stupid, weird or idiotic in their speech. Though Salvation Army is British based and Britain does not have free speech ( not in the way we have in America) so i am not sure if its illegal there.

Novichok
Jul 1st, 2012, 12:54 AM
In whose moral opinion? Yours. Morals are all relative. In Saudi Arabia it would be morally right to kill gays as per their religion.

Moral relativism is hard to defend and is a pretty unpopular view in contemporary philosophy. Just because it is socially acceptable to kill gays in Saudi Arabia, it does not follow that it is morally acceptable.


He has a right to his beliefs. People have a right to be stupid, weird or idiotic in their speech. Though Salvation Army is British based and Britain does not have free speech ( not in the way we have in America) so i am not sure if its illegal there.

Yeah, he has the right to say some things. But just because something is legal does not mean that it is morally okay.

Expat
Jul 1st, 2012, 01:01 AM
Moral relativism is hard to defend and is a pretty unpopular view in contemporary philosophy. Just because it is socially acceptable to kill gays in Saudi Arabia, it does not follow that it is morally acceptable.

:help: It's the other way around. It's more likely that because something is morally acceptable to a majority of people does it become socially acceptable. Stoning a woman for adultery may be morally acceptable to a Muslim but it would be socially acceptable only in Saudi Arabia and not America even if the Muslim person in question had the same morals in both places.




Yeah, he has the right to say some things. But just because something is legal does not mean that it is morally okay.
Again based on your morals not his.

dybbuk
Jul 1st, 2012, 01:03 AM
So? He is staying true to his scriptures and convictions. People always have the right to help people solely based on their religion , race or orientation. United College N**** Fund, Catholic Hospitals refusing abortions or even the Gay Sports League refusing to admit straight members.


As long he is not killing I don't see anything wrong in him expressing his views and soliciting donations based on his views.

What you say may be true, but as this is a charity organization; letting people know about this is important so they can make the decision as to whether or not they want to continue donating to that organization or to find another. Vetting the organizations you donate to is important to a lot of people, and finding out the Salvation Army has killed LGBT people might be a deal breaker for some people.

Novichok
Jul 1st, 2012, 01:10 AM
:help: It's the other way around. It's more likely that because something it is morally acceptable to a majority of people does it become socially acceptable. Stoning a woman for adultery may be morally acceptable to a Muslim but it would be socially acceptable only in Saudi Arabia and not America even if the Muslim person in question had the same morals in both places.




Again based on your morals not his.

No. :help: Something can be socially acceptable but not morally acceptable. And something can be morally acceptable and not socially acceptable.

Stoning a woman for adultery may be considered morally acceptable in Saudi Arabia but that doesn't actually make it morally acceptable. Just like the Earth was considered to be flat many centuries ago.

Also all "morals" aren't equal. Some are better than others.

Expat
Jul 1st, 2012, 01:19 AM
No. :help: Something can be socially acceptable but not morally acceptable. And something can be morally acceptable and not socially acceptable.

Stoning a woman for adultery may be considered morally acceptable in Saudi Arabia but that doesn't actually make it morally acceptable. Just like the Earth was considered to be flat many centuries ago.

I can't even make sense of what you are trying to argue here.

Also all "morals" aren't equal. Some are better than others.
Disagree vehemently. This is what led Abrahamic religions to impose their "better morals" upon others by fighting wars and converting them. You think you have better morals than the Salvation Army and vice versa.

Novichok
Jul 1st, 2012, 01:25 AM
I can't even make sense of what you are trying to argue here.

Disagree vehemently. This is what led Abrahamic religions to impose their "better morals" upon others by fighting wars and converting them.

You don't seem to understand the distinction between appearance and reality. Just because a culture considers something to be morally right doesn't mean that it actually is.

If I appear to look like a woman and most of the world considers me to be a woman, it does not actually mean that I'm a woman. If a culture considered 2+2=5, that doesn't mean that they're right. Objective facts of the world don't change because of people's beliefs. Moral facts don't change because of people's beliefs. Moral relativism is not a particularly strong philosophical position.

If there were a culture where babies were killed just for the fun of it, would that culture have better morals (with respect to infants) than those that respected infant life and loved and nurtured them? You'd have to be VERY morally inept to say that it does.

Expat
Jul 1st, 2012, 01:53 AM
You don't seem to understand the distinction between appearance and reality. Just because a culture considers something to be morally right doesn't mean that it actually is.

If I appear to look like a woman and most of the world considers me to be a woman, it does not actually mean that I'm a woman. If a culture considered 2+2=5, that doesn't mean that they're right. Objective facts of the world don't change because of people's beliefs. Moral facts don't change because of people's beliefs. Moral relativism is not a particularly strong philosophical position.

If there were a culture where babies were killed just for the fun of it, would that culture have better morals (with respect to infants) than those that respected infant life and loved and nurtured them? You'd have to be VERY morally inept to say that it does.

If someone says 2+2=5 you have a right to ridicule him, you don't have a right to silence him.

If a culture kills its babies who knows if they are doing just because of fun as you think or it may be because of overpopulation, poor genes, weak children. You think it is wrong they don't. Basically if something is wrong it will be greatly diminished on its own just like the number of flat earthers currently.

Novichok
Jul 1st, 2012, 02:09 AM
If someone says 2+2=5 you have a right to ridicule him, you don't have a right to silence him.

If a culture kills its babies who knows if they are doing just because of fun as you think or it may be because of overpopulation, poor genes, weak children. You think it is wrong they don't. Basically if something is wrong it will be greatly diminished on its own just like the number of flat earthers currently.

If I were working as an engineer and someone were to say something that is obviously wrong and that might lead to a bad project (one where people might actually die), it seems like I am justified in telling him not to say those things. Just like if someone is spewing hatred that might lead to the deaths of (gay) people, I am justified in telling him not to say those things.

And my baby-killing example was just a hypothetical example to show that morally superior societies (relative to other societies) are conceivable.

Also, moral relativism can't explain moral progress. :shrug:

Expat
Jul 1st, 2012, 02:25 AM
If I were working as an engineer and someone were to say something that is obviously wrong and that might lead to a bad project (one where people might actually die), it seems like I am justified in telling him not to say those things. Just like if someone is spewing hatred that might lead to the deaths of (gay) people, I am justified in telling him not to say those things.

You have a right to tell him. And he has the right to ignore you.

And my baby-killing example was just a hypothetical example to show that morally superior societies (relative to other societies) are conceivable.
And I tried to showed why it isn't true.

Also, moral relativism can't explain moral progress. :shrug:
Well you are speaking from the comfort of a society that gives free welfare checks, food stamps and healthcare that basically allows to sit on your ass your whole lifetime if you so wish. If I put you in Darfur lets see what happens to your moral progress.

Novichok
Jul 1st, 2012, 02:46 AM
:facepalm:

ranfurly
Jul 1st, 2012, 06:05 AM
I really don't think you would feel this way if you yourself were gay, or if you had loved ones who were. Correct me if I'm wrong there, I just can't fathom it. Basically, if God forbid you or your loved one(s) ever needed help from them, they wouldn't give a shit, they would let you suffer and be proud of it. How can you look past that as a gay or even a straight person? I'm not black, but I personally would never donate to or support a charity that discriminated against people for their race or ethnicity.

Granted they may do a lot in your (and many other) communities, but so do countless other charities. You should do a little research and find another deserving, humane organization to support - they most definitely exist.

Apples and Oranges too me sorry, I see them do more good in the communities they are in than many others, they are extremely proactive, as well as reactive when people are in need, and don't ask for anything in return.

If I had to research every charity or organisation that there was out there, I'm certain that I could find a beef with every one of them in regards to what one dip shit thinks or does or one belief which has more of a negative consequence then the rest of their causes.

At the end of the day, too me, the Salvation Army have been nothing but gratuitous where I have been, they came through with food parcels, assistance, they spent time with my grand mother once a week during the quakes, they disseminated clothing, basic belongings to the worse suburbs and they were praised for their efforts. The people in the SA I know, are good people, and I expect many that go are also good people who probably don't share the same sentiments.

Glass half full for me sorry, I think they are brillant.

And I will continue donating too them.

As for the twit(s) who share that sentiment, well that's quite unfortunate, they've done well where I am, so I'll continue supporting their efforts where I am, because they have done only but good.

WhatTheDeuce
Jul 1st, 2012, 07:38 AM
...as well as reactive when people are in need...
Sure, so long as they aren't gay. :shrug: Cause then not only would they not help, but they'd let you die in favor of giving you shelter.

Thankfully your grandmother is heterosexual.

Mashabator
Jul 1st, 2012, 08:05 AM
Wow so ill never support this organisiation again. Christians are so annoying to me. They see that the bible makes references towards being gay is a sin so they hate gays and anything to do with it. but then they overlook anything else the bible says like love everyone and things like that or treat your neighbour as yourself. As an organisation to help people who the fuck cares if someone is gay or straight they should still help them! and a few sentences indirectly saying being gay is a sin in the bible shouldnt override like 10 times more saying to love and help one another or to help those in need.

Kirt12255
Jul 1st, 2012, 12:10 PM
Hmmm interesting thread. After reading through the last few pages of posts, thought I'd go and investigate the stance here in Australia. Now the following is either a major attempt to kiss backside from TSA to keep getting donations/funding or actually genuine? Last year the Australian Govt. contributed 47% of their funds here in Australia for 2011 (over 158 million) so that could also come into play??. Anyhow the following is cut and pasted from their site ;-)

The Salvation Army and conversations about human sexuality
As are many Christian churches, The Salvation Army (TSA) continues to have a healthy and vigorous internal dialogue about the way it deals internally with issues of sexuality. There are a range of diverse views in an organisation as large and broad as TSA, and these views are being heard and considered.
Clarifications
A Salvation Army statement on homosexuality that dates back to the 1990s has been the subject of public debate this week (17 - 24 June 2012).
The Salvation Army today clarified that the statement was not posted as part of the current debate on gay marriage, and has been on The Salvation Army website for many years.
1. Provision of social services by TSA
The Salvation Army does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the delivery of its services. All Salvation Army social service programs embrace and work with people ONLY on the basis of need. Salvation Army social service centres around the nation have had multitudes of gay people stay and find acceptance, support and love in TSA’s care.
2. Employment and volunteering with TSA
TSA does not consider sexuality a factor in deciding who we employ, or in the engagement of volunteers. Some of our best employees and volunteers are people who are openly gay.
3. Church involvement with TSA
In terms of Salvation Army church life, homosexual people are welcome to worship with, and join in the fellowship of, Salvation Army churches.
TSA is founded on strong Christian principals which drive and underpin its compassion and desire to work with anyone, without giving up, for as long as it takes.
Response to the comments
TSA respectfully suggests that, under the standards some have suggested people follow in determining which organisations to support, most of Australia's faith-based organisations would effectively be excluded from eligibility, despite their enormous range of vital and effective programs to all members of the Australian community.
TSA would suggest a more appropriate measure for people to use is to look at how an organisation treats and deals with members of the community who are marginalised, vulnerable, experiencing disadvantage or oppression. On that measure, TSA is one of the most compassionate and non-discriminatory in the way it works with people who are marginalised in our community, including many people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.
:shrug:

WhatTheDeuce
Jul 1st, 2012, 05:14 PM
^That was nice to read, I suppose. I guess not all Salvation Army's are created equal.

Still, personally, I couldn't bring myself to support them anymore like I have in the past. As a gay person, those sentiments from higher ups in the organization just hit too close to home.

ranfurly
Jul 1st, 2012, 08:17 PM
Sure, so long as they aren't gay. :shrug: Cause then not only would they not help, but they'd let you die in favor of giving you shelter.

Thankfully your grandmother is heterosexual.


She was a person in need, They don't knock on doors assessing 97 year old woman if they stuck their tongue in some snatch during the days of the great depression.

she's in a fucking urn now. :lol:

goat
Jul 1st, 2012, 08:28 PM
Too many homos on this site... But really this is discriminative...

WhatTheDeuce
Jul 1st, 2012, 09:13 PM
They don't knock on doors assessing 97 year old woman if they stuck their tongue in some snatch during the days of the great depression
So long as the 97 year old woman doesn't openly admit that she does or has, obviously it wouldn't be a problem. :lol: Knowing that they'd refuse help to a person if they did admit that though, is unforgivable and beyond irresponsible, regardless of whether they actually seek out the information or it's divulged voluntarily. It shouldn't be relevant either way.

Sorry about your grandmother.

goat
Jul 1st, 2012, 09:18 PM
*try To prove people wrong with emoticons... Feel better for twenty minutes.*


I know this is more applicable in the t.f memes forum but still. It is truly still useful.

Dominic
Jul 1st, 2012, 09:44 PM
wow some of Expat's post make me think he could be a sociopath

ranfurly
Jul 1st, 2012, 10:48 PM
So long as the 97 year old woman doesn't openly admit that she does or has, obviously it wouldn't be a problem. :lol: Knowing that they'd refuse help to a person if they did admit that though, is unforgivable and beyond irresponsible, regardless of whether they actually seek out the information or it's divulged voluntarily. It shouldn't be relevant either way.

Sorry about your grandmother.

I don't know, I have never heard of the Salvation army refusing anyone help, until this site, Maybe it's different orders, I know over here in NZ they are very willing, and many people devote themselves to volunteering.

The best thing about them is that they keep the homeless in our city in one area, they swoop in on the food vans like vultures.

Don't be sorry about grandmother, she mellowed out in her old age, before that she was a nasty old slag. I think the Sallies saw the old bitch more than I saw her :tape:

Kirt12255
Jul 2nd, 2012, 04:33 AM
^That was nice to read, I suppose. I guess not all Salvation Army's are created equal.

Still, personally, I couldn't bring myself to support them anymore like I have in the past. As a gay person, those sentiments from higher ups in the organization just hit too close to home.

;) Hey Deuce, don't worry they won't be getting my donation either. Regardless of what I posted from their site yesterday on here, the fact remains these quotes have been on their forum since the 1990's. I guess I find it interesting how different factions of the Christian Church operate so differently in other countries. Although the salvo's here are apparently not as bad as in the states, we have religious affiliated human service organisations like Centacare and Anglicare in Australia that still offer blatant homophobic bias in their policies and services. Both of these organisations recieve government funding, funds which include the 'pink dollar', so their exclusion of LGBTI individuals does not sit well with me for that reason. Religion should never be an excuse for exclusion, and remains in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Australia and many other countries are signatories to.