Rambling Imp

Obey me, it's fun!

66,184 notes

autumnyte:


(Rebloggable version of this reply, per request.)
Well, here’s the deal, anon. The Salvation Army is an evangelical Christian group, and they impose those beliefs on the people that they employ and the communities they serve. Here are a few examples:
They are so opposed to LGBT rights that they have lobbied multiple times for exemptions from Federal and Local anti-discrimination laws, and threatened to withdraw their services. 
They refused to provide shelter to a homeless gay couple, unless they broke up and renounced their homosexuality. 
They refused to provide a transgender woman with shelter that was congruent with her gender presentation, instead insisting she house with men. She chose instead to sleep on the sidewalk and died from the cold.  
Speaking of gender, there was also this charming incident where one of their hostels refused to open the door for a 17-year-old victim who had just been brutally raped (or even call the police for her) because that particular hostel had a strict “men only” policy.
Children who can’t prove their immigration status are turned away.
The organization also disposes of any Harry Potter or Twilight related donations (rather than giving them to other charities), because they claim the toys are “incompatible with the charity’s Christian beliefs”. 
During the Bush Administration (thanks to ‘faith-based initiatives’) they fired about 20 long-time employees (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Gay), simply for refusing to sign the organization’s statement of Christian belief.  
So, that—in a nutshell—is what’s wrong with it.
ETA:  Addendum 1, Addendum 2, Addendum 3.


There’s a real simple way to explain the problem here. Charity shouldn’t have an agenda other than charity. If charity is conditional, then it’s not worth having. Do good for the right reasons, or bite the hands that feed you by injecting alternative agendas into the good you’re trying to do.

Be good for goodness sake, or not at all.

autumnyte:

(Rebloggable version of this reply, per request.)

Well, here’s the deal, anon. The Salvation Army is an evangelical Christian group, and they impose those beliefs on the people that they employ and the communities they serve. Here are a few examples:

They are so opposed to LGBT rights that they have lobbied multiple times for exemptions from Federal and Local anti-discrimination laws, and threatened to withdraw their services. 

They refused to provide shelter to a homeless gay couple, unless they broke up and renounced their homosexuality. 

They refused to provide a transgender woman with shelter that was congruent with her gender presentation, instead insisting she house with men. She chose instead to sleep on the sidewalk and died from the cold.  

Speaking of gender, there was also this charming incident where one of their hostels refused to open the door for a 17-year-old victim who had just been brutally raped (or even call the police for her) because that particular hostel had a strict “men only” policy.

Children who can’t prove their immigration status are turned away.

The organization also disposes of any Harry Potter or Twilight related donations (rather than giving them to other charities), because they claim the toys are “incompatible with the charity’s Christian beliefs”. 

During the Bush Administration (thanks to ‘faith-based initiatives’) they fired about 20 long-time employees (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Gay), simply for refusing to sign the organization’s statement of Christian belief.  

So, that—in a nutshell—is what’s wrong with it.

ETA:  Addendum 1, Addendum 2, Addendum 3.

There’s a real simple way to explain the problem here. Charity shouldn’t have an agenda other than charity. If charity is conditional, then it’s not worth having. Do good for the right reasons, or bite the hands that feed you by injecting alternative agendas into the good you’re trying to do.

Be good for goodness sake, or not at all.

1 note

Support “Traditional Marriage”? Come out of the closet…

Perhaps I’m reading too much into things lately, but when I hear the phrase “Traditional Marriage” I can’t help but think someone has latent homosexual fantasies. I know, there is the “he doth protest too much” argument to be had… but that’s not what I’d like to talk about here. In reality, protesting gay marriage as a large and significant threat to “traditional marriage” seems to be acknowledgement that homosexuality is… too good to pass up?

The fact is, nobody is actually suggesting traditional marriage be changed in any way shape or form… the ability of a heterosexual couple to engage in this marriage thing is not going to be restricted. You can support traditional marriage by showing up, buying gifts, or paying for your heterosexual friends to provide extra shrimp cocktail at their own fabulous wedding any time you choose to do so.

What you’re REALLY saying, when you support traditional marriage, is that you think the alternative option will lure people into the scary dark world of voodoo and black magic. The question you should be asking yourself… is why you think so many people will prefer to go gay instead of the “traditional” route. Basically, you think a persons “gayness” is only the result of weather or not other people approve of it.

Here’s why you’re an idiot.

Your assumption that traditional marriage will be effected is based on the idea that the only reason people don’t engage in more homosexual activity and relationships, is because of the mass-disapproval of society. Gay people already come out, and face mass-disapproval despite the level of discrimination and negativity they face. It’s not a political argument, it’s fact. Homosexuals do this REGARDLESS of how much you disapprove. This is the population of gay people that we can see and hear (as well as taste/touch if we like) and the volume of them, is what “traditional marriage” supporters are pissed about. They figure more people will abstain or change if enough of them make it seem unacceptable.

If the only thing holding people back from having homosexual marriages is mass-disapproval, you’re basically suggesting that many more people would be gay, if they weren’t afraid of being judged. Your kids, for example, might see it as “Okay” and then decide that they want to be gay, simply because it’s alright to do so. Using the same logic, you yourself, may in fact, be gay if someone wasn’t telling you not to be, right? If your answer is “no, I wouldn’t be gay even if everyone else was gay” then you’re an idiot and you’ve already made my point that supporting “traditional marriage” is a dumb idea.

If you actually Believe in “traditional marriage” as the desirable form of marraige then you have no reason to care about gay marriages, because people will more often prefer your point of view. If however, you think social approval of homosexuality is something that will lead to MORE homosexuality, you’re merely suggesting that there is a significant population of people who abstain not because they aren’t homosexuals, but only because they don’t want to be shamed for being homosexuals. 

When you suggest that people approving of homosexuality will turn into more homosexuals, you’re basically saying that the only thing holding people back is public approval… which is honestly, pretty gay of you. If you aren’t straight for public approval, why would people ever be gay for public approval? Why would your children be gay because it’s “okay” instead of being straight, or the way you feel that you are? If public opinion doesn’t effect your own sexuality, stop assuming it affects someone else’s sexuality.

I’ll end the ramble with a qoute from a devoted, yet drunk, closet case of a christian I partied with a few times.

"But if gay marriage was legal, then everyone would do it and we wouldn’t have any more families"