PDA

View Full Version : Salvation Army: Gay parents should be put to death



RobotChicken
06-11-2013, 02:21 AM
"Right up your 'Alley' there 'JOE B'; now go get 'em! See ya in a couple of months while your busy on their forum!" LOL!

Greg
06-11-2013, 02:37 AM
Unlike you, a pretender, I am doing field work at Salvation Army's Harbor Light Complex, where all are welcomed. ALL are welcomed!

I have, personally, brought in, through the screening, and intake process, homosexuals. Both male and females, and they all are given positive regard.

There is no discrimination, PERIOD.

Nice bogus webpage. Choke on your venom.

RobotChicken
06-11-2013, 02:54 AM
" 'OLE 'JOE B. runnin outta Armies to F**K with now isn't he?" LOL!

TJMAC77SP
06-11-2013, 12:05 PM
Just to give a more complete picture of the actual facts of the story.

"The official, Major Andrew Craibe, is the Salvation Army’s Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria" (Australia)”

This evidently is not the official position of The Salvation Army (that gay parents should be put to death). In fact it isn’t the position of the Salvation Army that anyone should be put to death.

They oppose the death penalty….
"The Salvation Army recognises that the opinions of Salvationists are divided on the moral acceptability of capital punishment and its effectiveness as a deterrent. However, to advocate in any way the continuance or restoration of capital punishment in any part of the world would be inconsistent with the Army’s purposes and contrary to the Army’s belief that all human life is sacred and that each human being, however wretched, can become a new person in Christ."

Here (http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/06/26448/) is the article that Joe’s article was probably based on. I will leave it up to the reader to figure out how objective the reporting is and what was actually said by the SA Major and what wasn’t (or what was actually said by the interviewer.).

Rusty Jones
06-11-2013, 12:10 PM
Unlike you, a pretender, I am doing field work at Salvation Army's Harbor Light Complex, where all are welcomed. ALL are welcomed!

I have, personally, brought in, through the screening, and intake process, homosexuals. Both male and females, and they all are given positive regard.

There is no discrimination, PERIOD.

Nice bogus webpage. Choke on your venom.

Bullshit. This isn't the first time that Salvation Army has come under fire for it's stance on homosexuals. I've known this for YEARS, and have never supported Salvation Army:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/10/politics/main300601.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/11/us/charity-is-told-it-must-abide-by-antidiscrimination-laws.html

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-salvation-army-volunteer-tells-gay-rights-supporters-not-to-donate-1.1081136

http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-lg/reports-00/lgr00-06-08.htm#3

Pullinteeth
06-11-2013, 04:29 PM
The author of this article doesn't have a lot of credibility IMO, anyone that would say "The Salvation Army has expressed their Christian beliefs in the past" about a christian church is a moron IMO.... Does he also rail against the Catholic Church for expressing christian beliefs?

Pullinteeth
06-11-2013, 04:41 PM
The author of this article doesn't have a lot of credibility IMO, anyone that would say "The Salvation Army has expressed their Christian beliefs in the past" about a christian church is a moron IMO.... Does he also rail against the Catholic Church for expressing christian beliefs?

Greg
06-13-2013, 01:40 AM
Whatever bro. The Salvation Army just went on my shit list. I did honestly think they were a well-meaning organization - but if they're just another bunch of Christian Taliban Wackos they can go fuck themselves.


Sorry to hear that, bro. I'm sure they'll struggle to move forward, without your stamp of approval.

TJMAC77SP
06-13-2013, 11:39 AM
So why do they tolerate that? Why was he not fired? Just wondering.

Was that a serious question? If so then I don't know. What do you wonder about?

Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 01:37 PM
Bullshit. This isn't the first time that Salvation Army has come under fire for it's stance on homosexuals. I've known this for YEARS, and have never supported Salvation Army:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/10/politics/main300601.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/11/us/charity-is-told-it-must-abide-by-antidiscrimination-laws.html

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-salvation-army-volunteer-tells-gay-rights-supporters-not-to-donate-1.1081136

http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-lg/reports-00/lgr00-06-08.htm#3

Apparently you didn't even read your own articles... They are about the Salvation Army not wanting to ordain homosexuals...not that they wanted them all dead or even that they wouldn't hire them...that and like Joe's article, instances of INDIVIDUALS acting like idiots...

Rusty Jones
08-23-2013, 02:18 PM
Apparently you didn't even read your own articles... They are about the Salvation Army not wanting to ordain homosexuals...not that they wanted them all dead or even that they wouldn't hire them...that and like Joe's article, instances of INDIVIDUALS acting like idiots...

Contrary to what you just said, the first link simply talked about discrimination during hiring. It said nothing about ordained ministers.

Second link did mention the Salvation Army not wanting to ordain gay ministers, but it ALSO mentioned not wanting to provide medical benefits to employees in same sex couples.

The third article is about the Salvation Army engaging in CYA after one of their bell ringers drew a little too much attention himself for taking the same stance on homosexuals that the Salvation Army has been known to take for awhile.

The fourth article was about a law in the UK, prohibiting the promotion of acceptance of homosexuals that was enacted in 1998. At the time the article was written, there was a battle to get this law repealed. What you're seeing is a letter from the Salvation Army expressing a desire for the UK to keep the law.

Looks like you've only read one article... and not the whole thing, at that.

Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 02:49 PM
Contrary to what you just said, the first link simply talked about discrimination during hiring. It said nothing about ordained ministers.

Second link did mention the Salvation Army not wanting to ordain gay ministers, but it ALSO mentioned not wanting to provide medical benefits to employees in same sex couples.

The third article is about the Salvation Army engaging in CYA after one of their bell ringers drew a little too much attention himself for taking the same stance on homosexuals that the Salvation Army has been known to take for awhile.

The fourth article was about a law in the UK, prohibiting the promotion of acceptance of homosexuals that was enacted in 1998. At the time the article was written, there was a battle to get this law repealed. What you're seeing is a letter from the Salvation Army expressing a desire for the UK to keep the law.

Looks like you've only read one article... and not the whole thing, at that.

The first article didn't even say that the Salvation Army discriminated in ANY hiring practices...it simply mentioned that they were one of the religious groups seeking an exemption.

Third article-one INDIVIDUAL said something...

So not PROMOTING homosexuality is now homophobic?

NICE!

Class5Kayaker
08-23-2013, 02:50 PM
Ahhh...the religion thread is back. Too bad JB isn't here to go on for pages and pages with Rusty.

Rusty Jones
08-23-2013, 02:58 PM
The first article didn't even say that the Salvation Army discriminated in ANY hiring practices...it simply mentioned that they were one of the religious groups seeking an exemption.

So then you agree that the desire to engage in discriminatory practices towards homosexuals is there then?


Third article-one INDIVIDUAL said something...

So not PROMOTING homosexuality is now homophobic?

NICE!

Straw man. I said promoting the acceptance of homosexuals.


Ahhh...the religion thread is back. Too bad JB isn't here to go on for pages and pages with Rusty.

Were you even there for that?

Class5Kayaker
08-23-2013, 03:16 PM
Were you even there for that?

Dude, I joined MTF a year before you according to our profiles. Then again, you might have had 100 different alts before I ever even joined...I dunno.

But yes, I was around then, and read most of the threads unless they turned into a Rusty (with one of your alts jumping in to support yourself) versus <insert another user name here> argument that was never going to end. I've found that arguing religion with folks who are firm in their beliefs is useless so I don't bother. Neither side will change their mind on the subject so why get everyone pissed off at each other.

Oh, and for the record I was just busting your balls a little. Go outside, have a smoke (a.k.a. chill pill) and come on back. Learn to laugh at yourself every once in a while. It's good therapy.

Rusty Jones
08-23-2013, 03:48 PM
Dude, I joined MTF a year before you according to our profiles. Then again, you might have had 100 different alts before I ever even joined...I dunno.

I was here since 2008 as Yggdrasil, but that's not really relevant. I pretty much used that account to troll this place anyway; and actually created the Rusty Jones account to engage in bone fide dialogue - something I couldn't do with the Yggdrasil account, since it's image was tainted.


But yes, I was around then, and read most of the threads unless they turned into a Rusty (with one of your alts jumping in to support yourself) versus <insert another user name here> argument that was never going to end.

Initially, this Rusty Jones account was created to be a "nice guy" - the one who was friendly with everyone, in strict contrast with Yggdrasil; so there were certain things I couldn't say, because it would be out of character for Rusty. That's when I brought the other accounts in: to say the things that Rusty couldn't. The Punisher account was meant to be my final account, showing my true personality... but after the Rep Wars were over, the mods got rid of my other accounts and now I have to use Rusty Jones for what I intended to use Punisher for.

Don't think that the other accounts were used to create a false sense of "strength in numbers," because it wasn't. At one point in time, it was Yggdrasil vs EVERYONE on MTF - and I kept it up for over a year. The two alt accounts created during that time were simply accounts that I used when the others were banned - but I announced who I was with those other two.

Look, I'd tell you to give it a rest... get the fuck over it (my alt accounts in the past)... but you're not going to; nor will anyone else. So, you will all get the pleasure of watching me speak of these accounts - since you want to keep bringing them up.


I've found that arguing religion with folks who are firm in their beliefs is useless so I don't bother. Neither side will change their mind on the subject so why get everyone pissed off at each other.

The point isn't to change the religious. The point is to fuck with them.


Oh, and for the record I was just busting your balls a little. Go outside, have a smoke (a.k.a. chill pill) and come on back. Learn to laugh at yourself every once in a while. It's good therapy.

All I did was question whether or not you were there; because I don't remember your name coming up. How you got that as an indicator of me being too tightly wound, I have no clue.

Class5Kayaker
08-23-2013, 03:57 PM
The point isn't to change the religious. The point is to fuck with them.

So you admit you're just here trolling.


In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. (yeah...I used wiki, to lazy too look up a legit source)




All I did was question whether or not you were there; because I don't remember your name coming up. How you got that as an indicator of me being too tightly wound, I have no clue.

Fair enough....I misinterpreted the intent of your post. I took it as challenging me for not even knowing what went down.

Look man, I'm not trying to get in an internets war with you, I was just poking a little fun. I don't get the whole alt accounts thing nor the rep wars either, but to each their own I guess.

And I know you'll probably post something in response other than "cool man" just to be sure you get in the last word.

Rusty Jones
08-23-2013, 04:06 PM
So you admit you're just here trolling.

(yeah...I used wiki, to lazy too look up a legit source)

Yeah, so? We all troll, we all GET trolled. It's part of what makes MTF great. At least it used to.


Fair enough....I misinterpreted the intent of your post. I took it as challenging me for not even knowing what went down.

Look man, I'm not trying to get in an internets war with you, I was just poking a little fun. I don't get the whole alt accounts thing nor the rep wars either, but to each their own I guess.

And I know you'll probably post something in response other than "cool man" just to be sure you get in the last word.

Internet war, poking a little fun... it's all the same.

sandsjames
08-23-2013, 04:54 PM
Contrary to what you just said, the first link simply talked about discrimination during hiring. It said nothing about ordained ministers.

Second link did mention the Salvation Army not wanting to ordain gay ministers, but it ALSO mentioned not wanting to provide medical benefits to employees in same sex couples.

The third article is about the Salvation Army engaging in CYA after one of their bell ringers drew a little too much attention himself for taking the same stance on homosexuals that the Salvation Army has been known to take for awhile.

The fourth article was about a law in the UK, prohibiting the promotion of acceptance of homosexuals that was enacted in 1998. At the time the article was written, there was a battle to get this law repealed. What you're seeing is a letter from the Salvation Army expressing a desire for the UK to keep the law.

Looks like you've only read one article... and not the whole thing, at that.

So let me get this straight...the Salvation Army, a Christian organization, is against gay marriage and ordaining gay ministers? No kidding???? These are kind of tenets of Christianity. Should they be expected to go against their religious beliefs just to be politically correct?

AJBIGJ
08-23-2013, 06:34 PM
Joe was a user that leaned HEAVILY left but occasionally had some good points-toward the end, those posts got fewer and farther between. Apparently, all traces of him have been sanitized for some asinine reason.

I never got that either, I grant I was hundreds of miles from the nearest land when most of all that was happening, I couldn't help but wonder if someone with a little greater "Permissions with this website" might have had a little more of a "vendetta" against that individual? I mean they shut down the whole stinkin topic for quite some time over this.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-23-2013, 07:40 PM
I actually thought Joe Bonham was two people posting under the same account because the overall tone of the posts appeared to modulate from a “rational” leftist to a militant leftist.

I imagined the rational leftist was former Marine going to college in California and the militant leftist was some little hippie chick he was shacking up with.

He was frustrating to talk to sometimes but there was something that I liked about him. He did make some thought provoking and witty comments.

Class5Kayaker
08-23-2013, 08:26 PM
He did have soe nice pics in his sig block at times though.....

RobotChicken
08-23-2013, 10:01 PM
:spy "Thank 'G**' this 'S***' is BACK!"

Rusty Jones
08-23-2013, 10:22 PM
So let me get this straight...the Salvation Army, a Christian organization, is against gay marriage and ordaining gay ministers? No kidding???? These are kind of tenets of Christianity.

You said it, not me.


Should they be expected to go against their religious beliefs just to be politically correct?

No, they should go against their religious beliefs if they want to maintain their tax-exempt status.

AJBIGJ
08-24-2013, 12:15 AM
I actually thought Joe Bonham was two people posting under the same account because the overall tone of the posts appeared to modulate from a “rational” leftist to a militant leftist.

I imagined the rational leftist was former Marine going to college in California and the militant leftist was some little hippie chick he was shacking up with.

He was frustrating to talk to sometimes but there was something that I liked about him. He did make some thought provoking and witty comments.

Unique take on JB certainly. To me JB (someone I had no problem having a MTF Friendship with) was mostly rational in most topic areas, the one deviation from that was this topic in particular in that he appeared to be a militant Atheist in a fashion that might even make Bill Maher say "Simmer Down a notch okay?" That was where most of any trolling occurred. I do think that individual genuinely believes that the greatest danger to our freedoms in this country stems from theocratic encroachment. To me it seems all evidence points to the contrary, as the consistent trend I can determine is a secular encroachment, which I tend to think of as mostly a good thing, if someone can make the distinction between establishment and free practice where religion is concerned.

I never really figured out, based on much of his other rhetoric, why he put as much faith as he appears to in a well-meaning, altruistic government, healing all of what ails us. Other than that, I think I understood him very well. If he chooses to revisit MTF even under a new, undisclosed identity, I hope I figure it out because I've always enjoyed the online conversations, even when they grew so wordy it bored everyone else into submission.

sandsjames
08-24-2013, 02:11 PM
You said it, not me. That's right, I did. And I don't think it's something they should be ashamed of. I think those who should be ashamed are those who give up their beliefs because "times change".




No, they should go against their religious beliefs if they want to maintain their tax-exempt status. I think that if anyone deserves tax exempt status it's an organization that give more money to charity than almost any other organization. Unless you'd rather see the money go to misspending by the government rather than to those who need it.

John Drake
08-24-2013, 11:03 PM
That's right, I did. And I don't think it's something they should be ashamed of. I think those who should be ashamed are those who give up their beliefs because "times change".

I agree with you, never should your own personal feelings be declared "thought crime". I think most people have certain prejudices - or if you wish simple distaste - for another group or sub-culture of people. I suppose the real question should be - to what extent should an organization be willing to express those negative feelings, and still receive government sanction (and by government sanction, in this case I specifically refer to the tax-exempt status)

sandsjames
08-24-2013, 11:08 PM
I agree with you, never should your own personal feelings be declared "thought crime". I think most people have certain prejudices - or if you wish simple distaste - for another group or sub-culture of people. I suppose the real question should be - to what extent should an organization be willing to express those negative feelings, and still receive government sanction (and by government sanction, in this case I specifically refer to the tax-exempt status)

If the government deems that religious organizations qualify as tax-exempt, they can not tell that organization what they must believe. And if they are going to draw a line with certain organizations for what they believe, where is that line? Do you stop the exemption for churches that preach against pre-marital sex. Do you stop it for churches that believe the man is in charge of the family and the woman shouldn't work? Where is the line drawn? I see only two options. One, you exempt them all. Two, you don't exempt any of them. I'm fine with either option, but I'm not fine with the government trying to tell religious organizations what to believe. The separation of Church and State must work both ways.

John Drake
08-24-2013, 11:15 PM
If the government deems that religious organizations qualify as tax-exempt, they can not tell that organization what they must believe. And if they are going to draw a line with certain organizations for what they believe, where is that line? Do you stop the exemption for churches that preach against pre-marital sex. Do you stop it for churches that believe the man is in charge of the family and the woman shouldn't work? Where is the line drawn? I see only two options. One, you exempt them all. Two, you don't exempt any of them. I'm fine with either option, but I'm not fine with the government trying to tell religious organizations what to believe. The separation of Church and State must work both ways.

Good honesty, and I find it admirable that you are not ideologically opposed to the idea of churches losing their tax-exempt status. However me personally, I would hate to see hundreds (thousands?) of legitimate religious organizations lose tax exempt status and be financially damaged as a result. Also, I don't think that is even politically feasible (How popular would a politician be if he/she announced the idea of stripping religious insitutions of tax-exempt?).

I think a more realistic solution is common sense - religions and other charitable organization can believe whatever they like, but still must adhere to the law, like Walmart and CostCo. So if Walmart cannot discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, etc etc... then a religious organization must also do the same.

You and others might find the idea offensive, but I see it as a compliment. The point is - if an organization, like the Salvation Army, is providing a useful service... then it should be a useful service available to everyone, so society as a whole can benefit. The service shouldn't be tarnished by prejudice. Also, I think most religious organizations are okay with this... they don't want bad publicity from being labeled discriminatory.

sandsjames
08-26-2013, 02:39 AM
Good honesty, and I find it admirable that you are not ideologically opposed to the idea of churches losing their tax-exempt status. However me personally, I would hate to see hundreds (thousands?) of legitimate religious organizations lose tax exempt status and be financially damaged as a result. Also, I don't think that is even politically feasible (How popular would a politician be if he/she announced the idea of stripping religious insitutions of tax-exempt?).

I think a more realistic solution is common sense - religions and other charitable organization can believe whatever they like, but still must adhere to the law, like Walmart and CostCo. So if Walmart cannot discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, etc etc... then a religious organization must also do the same.

You and others might find the idea offensive, but I see it as a compliment. The point is - if an organization, like the Salvation Army, is providing a useful service... then it should be a useful service available to everyone, so society as a whole can benefit. The service shouldn't be tarnished by prejudice. Also, I think most religious organizations are okay with this... they don't want bad publicity from being labeled discriminatory.

The service IS available to everyone. They don't avoid helping homosexuals. They don't care about the person's sexual preference, race, sex, etc when they help someone. They do, however, have ideology on who can play leadership roles in their religious organization. It would be a different story if they stopped giving aid to certain people, but that's not what they are doing.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 02:42 AM
The service IS available to everyone. They don't avoid helping homosexuals. They don't care about the person's sexual preference, race, sex, etc when they help someone. They do, however, have ideology on who can play leadership roles in their religious organization. It would be a different story if they stopped giving aid to certain people, but that's not what they are doing.

So - hypothetically - let's say I create a charitable organization that helps millions of people every year. But I think Christians are evil. I will give Christians aid, but I won't let them have any leadership position within my organization. So would you consider that okay?

I wouldn't.

sandsjames
08-26-2013, 03:31 AM
So - hypothetically - let's say I create a charitable organization that helps millions of people every year. But I think Christians are evil. I will give Christians aid, but I won't let them have any leadership position within my organization. So would you consider that okay?

I wouldn't.

Absolutely fine. A business/organization should be able to hire and fire who they think is best. Hell, I can be denied employment at places because I smoke.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 03:55 AM
Absolutely fine. A business/organization should be able to hire and fire who they think is best. Hell, I can be denied employment at places because I smoke.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. Being a charitable organization isn't license to violate the law. The Salvation Army must employee fairly, just like any other employer. No exceptions.

I will also wager that, if an organization did indeed start discriminating against Christian employees, you would be angered by it - you say now you wouldn't object because it is a hypothetical, and could never happen in a country where over 75% of the population is Christian. This is, unfortunately, a common tactic these days. People defend discrimination against certain groups - like blacks and atheists - but insist that discriminating against whites and Christians would also be okay... despite the fact that probably would never happen in real life.

sandsjames
08-26-2013, 12:56 PM
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. Being a charitable organization isn't license to violate the law. The Salvation Army must employee fairly, just like any other employer. No exceptions. Sexual preference is not a protected group.


I will also wager that, if an organization did indeed start discriminating against Christian employees, you would be angered by it - you say now you wouldn't object because it is a hypothetical, and could never happen in a country where over 75% of the population is Christian. This is, unfortunately, a common tactic these days. People defend discrimination against certain groups - like blacks and atheists - but insist that discriminating against whites and Christians would also be okay... despite the fact that probably would never happen in real life.

Feel free to wager and disagree. Makes no difference to me. Don't ask me a question if you aren't going to believe the answer. And I'm glad you don't feel that whites or Christians are discriminated against. That shows how valid your point of view is.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 01:45 PM
That's right, I did. And I don't think it's something they should be ashamed of. I think those who should be ashamed are those who give up their beliefs because "times change".

That's not why I pointed out the fact that you said it. I pointed out the fact that you said it, because every time Joe and I pointed out the fact that homophobia is one of the basic tenets of Christianity - as you just put it - you and JD would be quick and loud to deny it. Now you're admitting it


I think that if anyone deserves tax exempt status it's an organization that give more money to charity than almost any other organization. Unless you'd rather see the money go to misspending by the government rather than to those who need it.

An organization that engages in discriminatory practices should not be tax exempt.


If the government deems that religious organizations qualify as tax-exempt, they can not tell that organization what they must believe. And if they are going to draw a line with certain organizations for what they believe, where is that line? Do you stop the exemption for churches that preach against pre-marital sex. Do you stop it for churches that believe the man is in charge of the family and the woman shouldn't work? Where is the line drawn? I see only two options. One, you exempt them all. Two, you don't exempt any of them. I'm fine with either option, but I'm not fine with the government trying to tell religious organizations what to believe. The separation of Church and State must work both ways.

You're oversimplifying this.

Put it this way: the Ku Klux Klan has their own denomination of Christianity. Should they be tax-exempt?

The problem is, when you make an organization tax-exempt; you're shifting the burden off of them and putting it on those who are not tax exempt - in this case, the rest of us have to pick up the Salvation Army's slack. As a straight male, it's not so bad in my case; because I know that if I need a job or some help; the Salvation Army would be a viable route for me. However, homosexuals - the very people that the Salvation Army discriminates against - ALSO pick up that burden.

That's where the problem lies. People paying taxes for organizations that discriminate against them.


The service IS available to everyone. They don't avoid helping homosexuals. They don't care about the person's sexual preference, race, sex, etc when they help someone. They do, however, have ideology on who can play leadership roles in their religious organization. It would be a different story if they stopped giving aid to certain people, but that's not what they are doing.

So this discriminatory practice is okay? That's so... Christian of you! And I'm not being sarcastic either, because it really IS Christian of you.


Sexual preference is not a protected group.

Oh, so you're just going with whatever the law says? So when it does become a protected class - and you know damned well it will - are you still just going to "go along with the law" in terms of your beliefs on whether or not it's ethical to discriminate against them?


Feel free to wager and disagree. Makes no difference to me. Don't ask me a question if you aren't going to believe the answer. And I'm glad you don't feel that whites or Christians are discriminated against. That shows how valid your point of view is.

Really? Name ONE thing in America - just ONE - that whites and Christians are being discriminated from, where they can't get something BETTER from an organization that discriminates in their favor. Name ONE.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 01:51 PM
Unique take on JB certainly. To me JB (someone I had no problem having a MTF Friendship with) was mostly rational in most topic areas, the one deviation from that was this topic in particular in that he appeared to be a militant Atheist in a fashion that might even make Bill Maher say "Simmer Down a notch okay?" That was where most of any trolling occurred. I do think that individual genuinely believes that the greatest danger to our freedoms in this country stems from theocratic encroachment. To me it seems all evidence points to the contrary, as the consistent trend I can determine is a secular encroachment, which I tend to think of as mostly a good thing, if someone can make the distinction between establishment and free practice where religion is concerned.

I never really figured out, based on much of his other rhetoric, why he put as much faith as he appears to in a well-meaning, altruistic government, healing all of what ails us. Other than that, I think I understood him very well. If he chooses to revisit MTF even under a new, undisclosed identity, I hope I figure it out because I've always enjoyed the online conversations, even when they grew so wordy it bored everyone else into submission.

He is here

Absinthe Anecdote
08-26-2013, 01:56 PM
He is here

I think so too... Just this morning I was browsing another thread and caught a whiff of his particular style of posting.

AJBIGJ
08-26-2013, 02:15 PM
He is here

I'm glad to hear it, he has been too very long absent. I hope he does continue to play it low key because the method of his absence (to me) seemed so very abrupt and thoroughly executed I don't want to see any more long bans coming from a Mod on a whim towards one of the people who has really kept this place entertaining at times!

AJBIGJ
08-26-2013, 02:22 PM
I will say this much, I recall the explanation of where the username "Joe Bonham" originated, so it wouldn't surprise if the newer alias was another example of something similar.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 02:35 PM
I will say this much, I recall the explanation of where the username "Joe Bonham" originated, so it wouldn't surprise if the newer alias was another example of something similar.

I don't recall the story but I always assumed it was from Johnny Got His Gun

AJBIGJ
08-26-2013, 02:56 PM
I don't recall the story but I always assumed it was from Johnny Got His Gun

I forget the thread, but once upon a time he did give us a lowdown of where the alias came from. I figure if indeed he is roaming these forums again, and to preserve it a bit longer I won't venture whom I might or might not suspect, I presume the next alias will closely reflect the former, in a manner reflective of his personality and how he came about it.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 03:09 PM
Hey guys, I've got an idea! How about we all just shut the fuck up, before we fuck it up? Seriously; if this is really happening, I'm thrilled. Unfortunately, not everyone feels the same way. So let's not sabotage this.

Greg
08-26-2013, 03:12 PM
Fuck what up? He's not who the three of you think he is.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 03:13 PM
Fuck what up? He's not who the three of you think he is.

Shoosh! Stop it! Please!

sandsjames
08-26-2013, 04:44 PM
That's not why I pointed out the fact that you said it. I pointed out the fact that you said it, because every time Joe and I pointed out the fact that homophobia is one of the basic tenets of Christianity - as you just put it - you and JD would be quick and loud to deny it. Now you're admitting it That's where you're wrong. I can believe that homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean I am homophobic. I don't treat gays any differently than I treat anyone. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Such a misconception in the U.S. is that everyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is homophobic. Two different things.




An organization that engages in discriminatory practices should not be tax exempt.



You're oversimplifying this.

Put it this way: the Ku Klux Klan has their own denomination of Christianity. Should they be tax-exempt?[/QUOTE] Personally I don't think anyone/thing should be tax exempt. If they are making a profit, they should be paying taxes on it. I thing non-profits should be tax exempt, whether religious or otherwise.


The problem is, when you make an organization tax-exempt; you're shifting the burden off of them and putting it on those who are not tax exempt - in this case, the rest of us have to pick up the Salvation Army's slack. As a straight male, it's not so bad in my case; because I know that if I need a job or some help; the Salvation Army would be a viable route for me. However, homosexuals - the very people that the Salvation Army discriminates against - ALSO pick up that burden. We don't have to pick up the slack. You have the choice whether or not you donate.


That's where the problem lies. People paying taxes for organizations that discriminate against them. The problem lies with people paying taxes for organization that don't help them. As I mentioned to Joe Bonham #2...I mean John Drake...the Salvation Army doesn't discriminate against who it helps. Any organization should be able to hire whoever they like. The problem is the government determining who MUST be hired.




So this discriminatory practice is okay? That's so... Christian of you! And I'm not being sarcastic either, because it really IS Christian of you. The following things are ok with me:

Religious organizations not hiring people who don't believe the way they do
A Black church not hiring a white minister
The WNBA not having male players
The NBA not having female players
A gym hiring fat people
I could go on and on with this list. There are plenty of times discrimination isn't a bad thing. For instance, the age limit for joining the military.




Oh, so you're just going with whatever the law says? So when it does become a protected class - and you know damned well it will - are you still just going to "go along with the law" in terms of your beliefs on whether or not it's ethical to discriminate against them? Nope...not just going with what the law says. The law is a joke.




Really? Name ONE thing in America - just ONE - that whites and Christians are being discriminated from, where they can't get something BETTER from an organization that discriminates in their favor. Name ONE. What you meant to say was "white Christians", not "whites and Christians", as the majority of blacks in the U.S. are also Christian. And your challenge is ridiculous. EVERYONE can get something better from an organization that discriminates in their favor.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 05:14 PM
That's where you're wrong. I can believe that homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean I am homophobic. I don't treat gays any differently than I treat anyone. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Such a misconception in the U.S. is that everyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is homophobic. Two different things.

And... this is the biggest lie among homophobes. It's a lie that they're telling themselves.

The problem is, you view their lifestyles as "wrong." Now there are plenty of things that others can be into that I'm not; and that's cool. But... it becomes a totally different thing when I deem them "right" and "wrong." Because now you're being judgemental.


We don't have to pick up the slack. You have the choice whether or not you donate.

You didn't grasp what I said. What I said was that taxpayers shoulder the burden of paying the taxes that tax exempt organizations don't pay. That includes the Salvation Army. And gays are forced to share that burden.


The problem lies with people paying taxes for organization that don't help them. As I mentioned to Joe Bonham #2...I mean John Drake...the Salvation Army doesn't discriminate against who it helps. Any organization should be able to hire whoever they like. The problem is the government determining who MUST be hired.

If you don't want to hire gays, that fine. But that check to the IRS had better be in the mail before April 15th.



The following things are ok with me:

Religious organizations not hiring people who don't believe the way they do
A Black church not hiring a white minister
The WNBA not having male players
The NBA not having female players
A gym hiring fat people
I could go on and on with this list. There are plenty of times discrimination isn't a bad thing. For instance, the age limit for joining the military.

Do you know what BFOQ is? With the exception of the black church not having a white minister, all your examples fall under that.


What you meant to say was "white Christians", not "whites and Christians", as the majority of blacks in the U.S. are also Christian. And your challenge is ridiculous. EVERYONE can get something better from an organization that discriminates in their favor.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about: getting a job. What "job" are whites going to have to worry about not getting because of their color? Some corner store in the 'hood? I really don't think that there are that many minority owned employers that the general population is just DYING to get into.

Pullinteeth
08-26-2013, 06:17 PM
That's not why I pointed out the fact that you said it. I pointed out the fact that you said it, because every time Joe and I pointed out the fact that homophobia is one of the basic tenets of Christianity - as you just put it - you and JD would be quick and loud to deny it. Now you're admitting it.

The Pope disagrees with you...

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 06:21 PM
The Pope disagrees with you...

When gay marriages are performed in the Catholic Church, his words might mean something.

giggawatt
08-26-2013, 07:45 PM
I will say this much, I recall the explanation of where the username "Joe Bonham" originated, so it wouldn't surprise if the newer alias was another example of something similar.

I, too, recall the explanation of where "Joe Bonham" originated which raised my curiosity about a new member. I think the story goes something along the lines of the character Joe Bonham was from the movie "Janie's Got a Tommy Gun" and it was also the basis of a music video by Megadeth.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-26-2013, 10:37 PM
I, too, recall the explanation of where "Joe Bonham" originated which raised my curiosity about a new member. I think the story goes something along the lines of the character Joe Bonham was from the movie "Janie's Got a Tommy Gun" and it was also the basis of a music video by Megadeth.


Huh HuH "member" Huh Hu ""raised" Huh Huh "curious" Huh Huh...
3293

kool-aid
08-26-2013, 11:56 PM
And... this is the biggest lie among homophobes. It's a lie that they're telling themselves.

The problem is, you view their lifestyles as "wrong." Now there are plenty of things that others can be into that I'm not; and that's cool. But... it becomes a totally different thing when I deem them "right" and "wrong." Because now you're being judgemental.

I think you may be confusing homophobe with just thinking it's gross. I like gay people and have had gay friends. I have a gay boss who is awesome, but I find gay sex gross. I also find fecalpheliac gross, but I'm not a fecalphobe. I was just raised thinking turds go in the toilet and your poop shoot wasn't made to stick things up.

sandsjames
08-27-2013, 01:05 AM
And... this is the biggest lie among homophobes. It's a lie that they're telling themselves.

The problem is, you view their lifestyles as "wrong." Now there are plenty of things that others can be into that I'm not; and that's cool. But... it becomes a totally different thing when I deem them "right" and "wrong." Because now you're being judgmental. If I was a business owner, I also wouldn't hire a guy who cheats on his wife. And if I ran a women's shelter, I wouldn't hire a guy who beats his wife.



[/QUOTE]You didn't grasp what I said. What I said was that taxpayers shoulder the burden of paying the taxes that tax exempt organizations don't pay. That includes the Salvation Army. And gays are forced to share that burden.[/QUOTE] I'll go for this when I'm not forced to pay taxes for lazy people.




If you don't want to hire gays, that fine. But that check to the IRS had better be in the mail before April 15th.





Do you know what BFOQ is? With the exception of the black church not having a white minister, all your examples fall under that. So as long as the Salvation Army states in their hiring advertisements that gays need not apply then they should be fine. Using your logic, that's what you are saying.




Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about: getting a job. What "job" are whites going to have to worry about not getting because of their color? This thread is about gays, not race. Start another thread and I'll answer the question.

John Drake
08-27-2013, 03:44 AM
If I was a business owner, I also wouldn't hire a guy who cheats on his wife. And if I ran a women's shelter, I wouldn't hire a guy who beats his wife.

How would you know either of these things? I convicted wife beater could be detected in a background check (then you would have valid legal reason to not hire), but a cheater? How would you know? Would he be dumb enough to tell you during the hiring process? I don't know about you, but I don't confess all of my ethical failures to potential employers.


I'll go for this when I'm not forced to pay taxes for lazy people.

Strawman.


I think you may be confusing homophobe with just thinking it's gross. I like gay people and have had gay friends. I have a gay boss who is awesome, but I find gay sex gross. I also find fecalpheliac gross, but I'm not a fecalphobe. I was just raised thinking turds go in the toilet and your poop shoot wasn't made to stick things up.

I too have heard (and seen) some very odd sexual practices in the military, which I have no desire to engage in myself. That's not the same thing as actively discriminating against those people.

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2013, 11:57 AM
I think you may be confusing homophobe with just thinking it's gross. I like gay people and have had gay friends. I have a gay boss who is awesome, but I find gay sex gross. I also find fecalpheliac gross, but I'm not a fecalphobe. I was just raised thinking turds go in the toilet and your poop shoot wasn't made to stick things up.

The term homophobe gets misused as much as the word hero.

AJBIGJ
08-27-2013, 12:11 PM
The term homophobe gets misused as much as the word hero.

And racist, and just about everything else that falls into PC'dom...

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2013, 12:13 PM
And racist, and just about everything else that falls into PC'dom...

You are right, there is a whole list of overused words..........just on the MTF

AJBIGJ
08-27-2013, 12:15 PM
You are right, there is a whole list of overused words..........just on the MTF

I would say we're the worst perpetrators, except that the MTF seems to be Fox News and MSNBC on repeat every time it comes up.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-27-2013, 01:29 PM
You are right, there is a whole list of overused words..........just on the MTF

I've been kicking around a few ideas for a synergistic new paradigm for the way we reach-back into our collective MTF lexicon; however, I'm unable to think outside the box.

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2013, 02:05 PM
I would say we're the worst perpetrators, except that the MTF seems to be Fox News and MSNBC on repeat every time it comes up.

It does seem that way from time to time. Sometimes an effort is made to inject some real, unemotional reality into the discussions.

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2013, 02:05 PM
I've been kicking around a few ideas for a synergistic new paradigm for the way we reach-back into our collective MTF lexicon; however, I'm unable to think outside the box.

Nice !!

Rainmaker
09-07-2013, 06:56 PM
And... this is the biggest lie among homophobes. It's a lie that they're telling themselves.

The problem is, you view their lifestyles as "wrong." Now there are plenty of things that others can be into that I'm not; and that's cool. But... it becomes a totally different thing when I deem them "right" and "wrong." Because now you're being judgemental.



You didn't grasp what I said. What I said was that taxpayers shoulder the burden of paying the taxes that tax exempt organizations don't pay. That includes the Salvation Army. And gays are forced to share that burden.



If you don't want to hire gays, that fine. But that check to the IRS had better be in the mail before April 15th.




Do you know what BFOQ is? With the exception of the black church not having a white minister, all your examples fall under that.



Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about: getting a job. What "job" are whites going to have to worry about not getting because of their color? Some corner store in the 'hood? I really don't think that there are that many minority owned employers that the general population is just DYING to get into.

Because of their color, Whites would have a very difficult time getting pretty much any public sector job in any major US city.

Corner stores in the hood are privately owned. which means white people could technically work in them, provided they didn't mind being regularly assaulted by the "inner city youth" (for no other reason than just being white). However, for reasons which are not quite clear to Rainmaker, such corner stores are usually run by the Asian peoples who don't seem to mind being assaulted by the "less fortunate".

Greg
09-07-2013, 09:08 PM
Because of their color, Whites would have a very difficult time getting pretty much any public sector job in any major US city.

Corner stores in the hood are privately owned. which means white people could technically work in them, provided they didn't mind being regularly assaulted by the "inner city youth" (for no other reason than just being white). However, for reasons which are not quite clear to Rainmaker, such corner stores are usually run by the Asian peoples who don't seem to mind being assaulted by the "less fortunate".

Arab owned corner stores usually have a black guy working there, to provide street cred, and loss prevention.