ChristiansUnite Forums

A month ago Philanthropy magazine was reporting a $1.5 billion(that's "b" as in big) donation by the McDonald's heiress,  Mrs. Ray Kroc, to the Salvation Army.

I've since  heard it announced the SA, in America, plans to construct 30 family recreation centers--that may not be the exact term--which I assume, would be in the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S.

I'm assuming that these will continue the SA's tradition of providing overnight lodging/meals for the homeless, etc.  Dormatories, etc.  1.5 billion I think would be enough to provide for a fairly adequate layout.


THE BIG QUESTION:  With the ongoing suspension of any legal prohibiton of homosexual activities, now, thanks to our courts, increasingly, I suppose, our legislatures, etc., and being that we increasingly are going to have such "centers" as these, tho in the spirit of generosity, am I thinking in the wrong way here?

With a wholesale suspension of any morality whatsoever, are we not in effect just building and financing, now, in all of our best benevolent and well-intentioned behaviour, wholesale immorality on an ever and ever grander scale??

What now is there keep these Salvation Army lodges from just becoming human sex dens.

Typically, I imagine, they've always kept the women homeless separate from the men homeless.   And I'm sure that would still be the policy.

But if now the men are all sleeping with each other.  And I guess the women too?

And won't a lodge director be held discriminatory, liable to suit, if he raises objections??

What law is there now, to keep such benevolent operations as these from becoming just wholesale brothels?

There is an old expression that I believe sums this entire affair up:  'It's gotta get worse before it gets better'.

The Salvation Army is not the organization it once was.  Much of that is directly due to the liberal agenda of 'life appointed' judges across this wonderful nation.  These men and women on the bench do not realize what they are doing, but they are working hand in hand with Satan himself.

But, we have to realize, too, that this is  just another step closer to the return of our Lord!  We cannot just sit here and do nothing though.  We must do whatever the Lord has given us to combat this trend.  

Some have abilities to go to court and fight.  Others have been given the abilities to get the behind the scenes informaiton and report it to the public.  But ALL OF US [/flash] have been given the abilities to witness and to pray!

Keep your chin up .... that way your eyes will always be looking at Heaven, my friend.  

Boy, I like that blue font.  Easier on the eyes.


Thank you, Pastor Bruce.  Yes, an indication that things are farther along...

Maybe I'm missing something, but there are communities where homelessness is a serious problem and facilities to assist these people would be a huge blessing.  It seems as though you are concerned than men lodging with men and women lodging with women would cause these dormatories to become havens for homosexual activity.  But what alternative to this arrangement can there be, not men and women lodging together.  

I really think I am misunderstanding your post, possibly you could clarify what your concern is.

George

Wait a sec, Georgy boy! I think you need to get with the program! It is better for homeless people to stay on the street, purely on speculation by a few upper-class conservatives that the homeless shelters might be used for sex! What do you think we are? Christians? It is better these homeless people have sex, starve, and die on the street then for them to have sex, eat, and live in a home shelter! While we are at it, let’s take restrooms away from Public schools. I know for a FACT kids have sex in them. They don’t need to go to that bathroom, they can hold it! For 7 hours!

You are missing the point George, the main issue is not these peoples welfare. Let’s push our moral codes on them, that way, when they die, at least they will die virgins, right?


For those who don’t know: That was sarcasm, I thing George makes a good point.

It took me a while to get to the sarcasm explanation (whew!) Ya had me goin there for a minite ;)

George O said:   But what alternative to this arrangement can there be

 ???  Huh?? --Are you serious, George O?

How about re-criminalizing homosexual behavior, like it always was.

We no longer even know our right hand from our left(yet we have much cattle--economic prosperity--last verse of Jonah).


Tibby said:  Let’s push our moral codes on them,

So what would your moral "codes" be, Tibby(if indeed conducting one's life in such a way that we tend to survive, can be fairly categorized as just a "code")?

Tibby said:  While we are at it, let’s take restrooms away from Public schools. I know for a FACT kids have sex in them.

Perhaps this illustrates my point exactly.   ::)


    >:(

Lets just shut down all the homeless shelter, because there arn't enough homeless people on the street, is that it? Good plan. ::)

My "code"? My code's in itself is run by a set of rules. I feel it is not my place to force others to believe as I do. I can talk to them about it, but I'm not going to force them to be Christian. That NEVER turns out well, because they ttruth is, you can't FORCE CHristianity on anyone.

How about self restraint from all involed in finding shelter in these palaces?

America had twelve million men and women in the world war 2 military. How did we ever put a roof over all these same sex people under one roof?

This is getting sublime!

Symphony, do you have an abnormal sex drive or do you just assume homeless people do?

That anyone catching sight of another human being will instantly sleep with them, if not policed by the Christian Sex Police (and Thought Police too, we assume).

*Would not care to live near Symphony*

LOL! (http://www.jimlynch.com/images/tapedshut_125.gif)

Has anyone considered that if McDonalds would pay their employees a little more instead of hording all the extra money, that there wouldn't be a BILLION to donate to the homeless--AND many homeless wouuld get some hope if they could work at a place like McDonalds and still be able to earn a living!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They oppress the poor through their pay, by giving the fruits of their labor away.  People get so depressed about a wage that wont even pay their rent, let alone buy food and don't even talk about health care because it aint in the budget!!  Those folks fall into depression and they fall out of society--homeless folks!  

I get so sick of some organization being the big hero by donating a billion here and a billion there.  How about just NOT reaping the laborer that works with his hands so hard--how about just paying the person, who did the work that produced all that money that they're giving away, pay that person a little more.  Then maybe that person could afford to get his own home!   :'(

Has anyone considered that if McDonalds would pay their employees a little more instead of hording all the extra money, that there wouldn't be a BILLION to donate to the homeless--AND many homeless would get some hope if they could work at a place like McDonalds and still be able to earn a living!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They oppress the poor through their pay, by giving the fruits of their labor away.  Then they get all these accolades for donating.  How about giving the laborer his rightful pay in the first place?  People get so depressed about a wage that wont even pay their rent, let alone buy food and don't even talk about health care because it aint in the budget!!  Those folks fall into depression and they fall out of society--homeless folks!  And yet there's billions of extra to donate.  Does anyone on earth see something wrong with this picture besides me?

I get so sick of some organization being the big hero by donating a billion here and a billion there.  How about just NOT reaping the laborer that works with his hands so hard--how about just paying the person, who did the work that produced all that money that they're giving away, pay that person a little more.  Then maybe that person could afford to get his own home!   :'(

That would sound sensible to me, candice.  Good point.  Roll those profits back into the company in terms of increased wages.

Actually, I think there's a term for that--"profit sharing"?  I think it's done in some companies.

And profits above a certain amount are returned to employees.  This provides added incentive.  So it's a win-win for the company, seems to me.

Back on this thread's topic, if we've given public endorsement and protection to gay sex, then how legally or logically can we then prohibit "co-ed" lodging for the homeless--that is, male and female.

If it's okay for man on man sex, which is what everyone's saying, and they can all live under one roof, then what right do we have to prevent man and woman sex, all under one roof?

So we've come full circle, and we're right back where we started--"every man did what was right in his own eyes"--and it's amazing how easily it all was accomplished--when just years ago recently co-ed public housing of any sort was prohibited(for good reason, since it produces children).

It's rather contradictory, if we're endorsing male sex, or female sex, but we don't allow opposites--which interestingly, was the original intent in the first place!


Excuse me?  We're trying to have a civilization here.   ::)

Who's saying that gay sex is ok in these places.  Have you any evidence that any sort of sex is allowed?


Who?   Where?

Then why don't we allow co-ed housing?

It's because we don't need the anectodotl evidense you are asking for, ebia.  We already know what will happen.

Like connecting the dots.  Or filling in the blanks.  We already know what the answer is.

We're adults.  We know this stuff.  It's not rocket science.

A minority will abuse it, yes.  Leaving the majority without shelter isn't acceptable, so what's the alternative?  The people running these places will take reasonable steps to minimize the abuse and that's all you can do.

Because that would make matters worse.