Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Charter sounds about right.
Even if it's in the organisation charter, that doesn't necessarily equate to such rules actually being enforced by Salvos members all over the world.
Not unless the shelters are all highly micromanaged or something, which I very much doubt.
Uh, when did I say it was something actually enforced? (not like they can just go around killing gay people anyway)
You didn't, I was just pointing something out because I felt like it needed to be said.
Well, it's not like "kill teh gayz" is something that's actually possible to enforce, unless maybe they're in Uganda.
Anyway, the impression I get on another forum is that they're somehow disliked in Australia more than they are in the U.S. for some reason (a poster said that even homeless people don't like them). Wikipedia says there was a sex abuse scandal there, which I guess explains that. I also heard they refused to open a branch at Wilton Manors, FL,which is apparently a known "gay village". It just strikes me as terrible strategy to say you refuse to help some people when you represent a charity. That's just gonna harm your cause more than anything.
Sorta useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport's_Scale
I'm sure by the time any of y'all read this, you'd have heard about the Defense of Marriage Act getting struck down. If you hadn't... well now you have.
And California's Proposition 8 has been overturned as well.
Yay.
Pope Francis goes "who am I to judge?" in regards to gay people.
No sign if he intends to undo the church's official position on homosexuality or anything, though. The article also notes that he avoided talking about gay marriage.
Brighter news: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/26/desmond-tutu-id-pick-hell-over-anti-gay-heaven/
@Naas_H_Sapiens: "Gay people are okay as long as they don't do gay things" is a pretty common position from "progressive" Christians, and is the official Catholic position. This isn't really new.
@InsanityAddict: That one's better.
^ Yeah, you probably have a point.
Anyway, Russia apparently will enforce their anti-gay laws for the Winter Olympics.
You guys already know I'm hardly the most progressive guy around, so I guess I won't be worse off by much for saying that...
If for all the crazy things the extended Russian establishment's been doing, they needed to get to gay bashing for somebody to finally stick it to them, I'm gonna have some mixed feelings over that. I mean, shit's bad, but shit being bad is hardly news for Russia, so if the outrage breaks out, I'm gonna ask, why couldn't folks have complained over any other issue before the gay one.
Of course it's all relevant only if the public outrage breaks out, so for now I'm just rambling.
Cynical mode: nobody cares about them genociding the Chechens because they're muslim terrorists, the blackmailing with natural resources mostly hits Eastern Europe and those are corrupt yo-yos too, and FEMEN isn't highly publicized because we're prudish abou tits on the telly.
If you'd like I can dump a strongly worded letter with any complaints you may have in the mailbox of his daughter, since I have to be in that neighbourhood anyway next week.
It also appears that the IOC will not be doing anything about this.
^ Wait, you mean Putin's daughter? Now I just want you to try, if only to see whether or not anything whatsoever will happen.
I'd have said, seducing her would be a cooler option, but I'd rather not have you gulp radionuclides.
She's married and too old for me anyway. But newspapers have been buzzing around the area and nothing happened, so I assume minor trolling will not lead to FSB goons going in dry.
Same-sex married couples in the U.S. can file taxes as married, even if they live in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage.
the Olympics, probably.
New Hawaiian governor calls for a special session to legalize gay marriage.
So this is kind of bizarre. Or maybe totally expected?
Are there "gay-manufacturing" organizations he can supposedly sue? Seriously, how do you sue a sexuality? Is this what "gay agenda" belief looks like? That someone actually thinks that there are actual organizations responsible for same-sex attraction in general?
Note that the article has a link to CDC report stating that
Oh and he also compares modern usage of gay to "calling pedophiles 'happy people'". It's like a homophobia bingo card or something.
it's obviously the oreos (or those multicolored fruit roll ups)
Comparing smoking-cancer to gayness-HIV/AIDS makes me think of a PSA where somebody says "Everytime you even think about or look at another person of the same sex in a sexual manner you increase your chance of getting HIV by 9000%"
Hahaha a class action against gay people
As a queer person, I say bring it on
There's always time to watch the Tea Party proudly make fools of themselves!
The Senate of Hawaii has passed the state's same-sex marriage bill. The Hawaii House of Representatives still has to vote on it, but I think we can safely say that it's a shoe-in.
So Democracy
Actually, this both is and isn't true. The Referendum Law doesn't, but the Constitution does.
The Croatian Constitution explicitely says that a referendum needs 50% turnout in order to be valid. So did the Referendum Law, but after a 2011 referendum on whether or not Croatia should join the EU, which failed due to low turnout, the clause requiring majority turnout was removed from the Referendum Law and the referendum was repeated, again without majority turnout. Despite that, the results of the referendum were officially declared positive, and the Constitutional Court turned a blind eye to its unconstitutionality.
However, there were several more low-profile referendums after that one, all of them failing to meet the majority treshold - all of them were declared invalid. It's almost certain that this one will be too, given the current government's opposition to the goal of the referendum.
So the current legal contradiction pretty much makes the answer to the question of whether a referendum requires a majority turnout based pretty much on the whims of the people currently in power. And this time, I think that it won't pass.
So Democracy, again
Apparently any other vote might have to wait until the next parliamentary election, which is just great.
Is everybody just trying to get in their anti-gay things before the end of the year?
Hey, at least it's one of the few things the United States got right. Kinda. Halfway.