Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
QUOTE="AvgGuyIA, post: 10393992, member: 22468"]So are you saying that the homeless should have to put up with two guys fucking while sharing the common shelter the Salvation Army provides them? You can't control yourselves in the presence of others?[/QUOTE]Actually, the SA will turn away gay partners from their shelters, unless one of them is willing to sleep somewhere else. I found out about this about three weeks ago. consequently, I cut out some Chic-fill-a coupons and the next time I passed a bell ringer, deposited them in to the kettle.
.
If you can't afford to donate a dime, don't blame it on Obama; go get a job, moocher.I can't afford to give them any money because of the homofascist obama's energy policy. So I'm going to give them a Christmas card from Howie.How about we all put a few dollars in a kettle tomorrow, along with a little note stating the donation is in the name of "Howey" from the usmessageboard.com.
He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".
Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?
Let people decide who they give their donations to, but don't expect people to always give money to groups they don't agree with.Overwhelmingly false: America s Top 50 charities How well do they rate - CSMonitor.comwhen school is about to open, you can see tons of kids getting supplies at the SA. Other churches? no, not unless you are a member
Christmas is the same
during hurricanes or other disasters, your local SA will be nearly empty, your local church....
so yea, keep your assumptions to yourself
Salvation Army is the 6th most effective charity in the US, my claim that other church groups (including the Catholic Church) do more than the Salvation Army is correct.1 YMCA of the USA - Christian - Income: $5986.1 million
Spends: 87.4%
2 Goodwill Industries International - Unaffiliated/Christian - Income: 4,437.0 million
Spends: 89.0‡‡%
3 Catholic Charities USA - Catholic - Income: 4,437.0 million
Spends: 79.6% or 3412 million
4 United Way - Income: 4,422.8 million
Spends: 90.6%
5 American Red Cross - Unaffiliated - Income: 4,139.9
Spends: 92.2%
6 The Salvation Army - Christian - Income: 3,203.8 million
Spends: 84.0% or 2691 million
7 Habitat for Humanity International - Unaffiliated - Income: 1,490.6 million
Spends: 83.7%
[...]11 Feeding America - Unaffiliated - Income: 1,185.0 million
Spends: 97.2%
Whether they are the most efficient charity or not isn't my point.
That the only complaint the gays have is that the Salvation Army will not abandon their beliefs (regulating internal matters only). The claim has always been that they are not against anyone's religious beliefs if those religious beliefs are not forced on them. In this case, the beliefs are not being forced on anyone. The charity is a ministry. To expect them to live a Christian life, while working as a Christian ministry is pretty basic stuff.
Would
I stop donating on the basis they believe something I don't? Depends on the context, and where they put their money. It is the same with every charity.
I am not saying giving money to the SA, is not helpful or welcome. Certainly they do a lot of things in the community.
Though helping the community doesn't make them more beneficial to the community than the Red Cross and other charities.
Some in this thread want to play politics, attack liberals, and not discuss whether or not a view of people within a charity should preclude a donation. I wouldn't donate to a charity on basis of their views, but their work in helping others.
However it's not the Salvation Army that's playing politics here. Rather, this private organization has been meeting needs well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena. Now that it has become a major issue, you are demanding that a private organization pass a form of litman's test to see if they can legitimately satisfy your ideological political view. It doesn't matter whether the Salvation Army's focus has, and continues to be, using those resources it obtains towards meeting the needs of the less fortunate. I would rather that an organization not get mixed up with the latest politics but simply gives out of necessity. Why is it, along with those nativity scenes and wishes of Merry Christmas that take place during this time of year, that liberals always take issue with views that happen to be contrary to their own? As if they feel the need to force others into conforming to the same ideological view.
Not at all. More power to them. I would just rather give my money to the Red Cross. They don't turn away people because they don't approve of their lifestyle.
Let people decide who they give their donations to, but don't expect people to always give money to groups they don't agree with.Overwhelmingly false: America s Top 50 charities How well do they rate - CSMonitor.com
Salvation Army is the 6th most effective charity in the US, my claim that other church groups (including the Catholic Church) do more than the Salvation Army is correct.
Whether they are the most efficient charity or not isn't my point.
That the only complaint the gays have is that the Salvation Army will not abandon their beliefs (regulating internal matters only). The claim has always been that they are not against anyone's religious beliefs if those religious beliefs are not forced on them. In this case, the beliefs are not being forced on anyone. The charity is a ministry. To expect them to live a Christian life, while working as a Christian ministry is pretty basic stuff.
Would
I stop donating on the basis they believe something I don't? Depends on the context, and where they put their money. It is the same with every charity.
I am not saying giving money to the SA, is not helpful or welcome. Certainly they do a lot of things in the community.
Though helping the community doesn't make them more beneficial to the community than the Red Cross and other charities.
Some in this thread want to play politics, attack liberals, and not discuss whether or not a view of people within a charity should preclude a donation. I wouldn't donate to a charity on basis of their views, but their work in helping others.
However it's not the Salvation Army that's playing politics here. Rather, this private organization has been meeting needs well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena. Now that it has become a major issue, you are demanding that a private organization pass a form of litman's test to see if they can legitimately satisfy your ideological political view. It doesn't matter whether the Salvation Army's focus has, and continues to be, using those resources it obtains towards meeting the needs of the less fortunate. I would rather that an organization not get mixed up with the latest politics but simply gives out of necessity. Why is it, along with those nativity scenes and wishes of Merry Christmas that take place during this time of year, that liberals always take issue with views that happen to be contrary to their own? As if they feel the need to force others into conforming to the same ideological view.
Not at all. More power to them. I would just rather give my money to the Red Cross. They don't turn away people because they don't approve of their lifestyle.
Is there any evidence of someone being turned away from an SA shelter or denied help from the SA due to their sexuality?
Homosexuality has always been a hot political issue since those times, of course in recent times widespread harassment and imprisonment of homosexuals within the western world has mostly ended.He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".
Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?
I made it a point to make a donation yesterday. I will be going back out tomorrow, and I'll make another donation then.
They help a lot of people and I support that.
No, of course notLet people decide who they give their donations to, but don't expect people to always give money to groups they don't agree with.Overwhelmingly false: America s Top 50 charities How well do they rate - CSMonitor.com
Salvation Army is the 6th most effective charity in the US, my claim that other church groups (including the Catholic Church) do more than the Salvation Army is correct.
Whether they are the most efficient charity or not isn't my point.
That the only complaint the gays have is that the Salvation Army will not abandon their beliefs (regulating internal matters only). The claim has always been that they are not against anyone's religious beliefs if those religious beliefs are not forced on them. In this case, the beliefs are not being forced on anyone. The charity is a ministry. To expect them to live a Christian life, while working as a Christian ministry is pretty basic stuff.
Would
I stop donating on the basis they believe something I don't? Depends on the context, and where they put their money. It is the same with every charity.
I am not saying giving money to the SA, is not helpful or welcome. Certainly they do a lot of things in the community.
Though helping the community doesn't make them more beneficial to the community than the Red Cross and other charities.
Some in this thread want to play politics, attack liberals, and not discuss whether or not a view of people within a charity should preclude a donation. I wouldn't donate to a charity on basis of their views, but their work in helping others.
However it's not the Salvation Army that's playing politics here. Rather, this private organization has been meeting needs well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena. Now that it has become a major issue, you are demanding that a private organization pass a form of litman's test to see if they can legitimately satisfy your ideological political view. It doesn't matter whether the Salvation Army's focus has, and continues to be, using those resources it obtains towards meeting the needs of the less fortunate. I would rather that an organization not get mixed up with the latest politics but simply gives out of necessity. Why is it, along with those nativity scenes and wishes of Merry Christmas that take place during this time of year, that liberals always take issue with views that happen to be contrary to their own? As if they feel the need to force others into conforming to the same ideological view.
Not at all. More power to them. I would just rather give my money to the Red Cross. They don't turn away people because they don't approve of their lifestyle.
Is there any evidence of someone being turned away from an SA shelter or denied help from the SA due to their sexuality?
I have a job and I don't mooch. Obama wants me to mooch and depend on government and vote for his party as a result of gov Christmas presents so that is part of why he wants a bad economy. I donate time and effort. What do you donate, obama apologist?If you can't afford to donate a dime, don't blame it on Obama; go get a job, moocher.I can't afford to give them any money because of the homofascist obama's energy policy. So I'm going to give them a Christmas card from Howie.How about we all put a few dollars in a kettle tomorrow, along with a little note stating the donation is in the name of "Howey" from the usmessageboard.com.
Homosexuality has always been a hot political issue since those times, of course in recent times widespread harassment and imprisonment of homosexuals within the western world has mostly ended.He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".
Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?
Oscar Wilde is a good example of someone that affronted society, and lost his career because of his relationship with men.
So it has been a hot political issue well before, and then during the founding of America. Of course back then they had to solutions: imprisonment or mental help, so it wasn't as if they had to debate it vigorously.
False. It was both a hot political issue, and a taboo at the time. Politicians did touch the issue, passing sodomy laws: Oscar Wilde SodomiteHomosexuality has always been a hot political issue since those times, of course in recent times widespread harassment and imprisonment of homosexuals within the western world has mostly ended.He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".
Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?
Oscar Wilde is a good example of someone that affronted society, and lost his career because of his relationship with men.
So it has been a hot political issue well before, and then during the founding of America. Of course back then they had to solutions: imprisonment or mental help, so it wasn't as if they had to debate it vigorously.
It was not a hot topic in the political arena. Almost no politician would touch it in Wilde's day. There is a difference between "hot topic in the political arena" and taboo.
False. It was both a hot political issue, and a taboo at the time. Politicians did touch the issue, passing sodomy laws: Oscar Wilde SodomiteHomosexuality has always been a hot political issue since those times, of course in recent times widespread harassment and imprisonment of homosexuals within the western world has mostly ended.He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".
Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?
Oscar Wilde is a good example of someone that affronted society, and lost his career because of his relationship with men.
So it has been a hot political issue well before, and then during the founding of America. Of course back then they had to solutions: imprisonment or mental help, so it wasn't as if they had to debate it vigorously.
It was not a hot topic in the political arena. Almost no politician would touch it in Wilde's day. There is a difference between "hot topic in the political arena" and taboo.
Before Christianity came to the fore, homosexuality while deriled in many circles, was tolerated and many engaged in 'sodomy'. There were plenty of political disputes, and with the rise of Christianity, laws began to be passed to make it illegal.And Oscar Wilde was hardly a citizen of Rome in 2 BC.
The size of an opposition or lack there of, doesn't make it less of a debate. Even if the debate came down to punishment of 'sodomy' vs 'treatment' or DADT like attitudes.False. It was both a hot political issue, and a taboo at the time. Politicians did touch the issue, passing sodomy laws: Oscar Wilde SodomiteHomosexuality has always been a hot political issue since those times, of course in recent times widespread harassment and imprisonment of homosexuals within the western world has mostly ended.He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".
Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?
Oscar Wilde is a good example of someone that affronted society, and lost his career because of his relationship with men.
So it has been a hot political issue well before, and then during the founding of America. Of course back then they had to solutions: imprisonment or mental help, so it wasn't as if they had to debate it vigorously.
It was not a hot topic in the political arena. Almost no politician would touch it in Wilde's day. There is a difference between "hot topic in the political arena" and taboo.
And how much opposition was there to those laws?
Before Christianity came to the fore, homosexuality while deriled in many circles, was tolerated and many engaged in 'sodomy'. There were plenty of political disputes, and with the rise of Christianity, laws began to be passed to make it illegal.And Oscar Wilde was hardly a citizen of Rome in 2 BC.
