End Homelessness

Well, once again the Catholic Church has showed its true colors.   Innocent people are being held hostage and caught in the middle.  Whats next in line on their agenda, that's what people should be scared of.  These are the people that call themselves "Gods people", I would ask them to go back and read their passages maybe start with love they neighbor as your self, or what about John 13:34 - 35 Jesus said a new command I give you, love one another, as I have loved you, so you must love one another by this all men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another. Yes, no matter your beliefs or agreements or disagreements we should love one another and treat all humans with respect. Its time the people take a stance to help one another out, not put people down because they are gay, straight, black or white, old or young and the list goes on.   If the govt accepts this type of behavior may God help us all, whats next giving into terrorist as well? 

We never know what secrets the Vatican hides. But that's not the point. Seriously, I would rather not call myself a "person of God" and act like one than proclaim myself one and act all shitty and stuff. The Church is against gay marriage, but for what reason? It wasn't the fault of homosexuals out there---they can't help it. They were created that way if God really did create them.

My first reaction to the news was exactly like yours, but I found the rest of the story... . It appears that the Catholic Church's actual concern is that by continuing to accept DC funds it will be forced to provide services which go against its teachings and principles.  BUT, if it withodraws from City funding, it intends tol continue providing the same social services with its own funds and would seek to replace DC's funding from other sources. So, true, it's not a model of social tolerance, but neither is it the iron-fisted blackmail it first seemed.

Noah - do you really believe the church hierarchy gives any thought at all to what its parishoners want? All the instituional church wants is "Believe! Obey! Do not question!" and all the cash you can spare.

I left the Catholic church several years ago due, in part, to some of its narrow minded policies but I have to admit that the Church also does help alot of people. Getting the whole story is always best.  Thanks, Mo, for getting that information.

I am wondering where the Social Work ethics stand for social workers working in a social work agency such as Catholic Charities? I am referring to the social work code of ethics; 4.02 Discrimination "Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability." Dennis Hayden, retired social worker

Good point Dennis.  For my dealings with Catholic social workers, I never knew them to discriminate in their work as social workers.  but then, social workers don't arrange or perform weddings.

Wow. So the gay marriage act would basically hamstring the Chuch against staying within their own believe system. If this goes through the Catholic Chuchhas to either openly support gay marriage, which is against their belief system, or they have to pull their funding, which is voluntary on their part in the first place. Sounds like it is the gay activists who are holding the church hostage, not the other way around. The church does more charity than any other group and it is entirely voluntary. This is sad that the gay rights groups are so selfish that they are willing to force out charities in order to get their way.

yes Jen - you are correct - and the same issue will hit nationwide when the government says medical persons do not have the legal right to act within their own belief systems.  So count on the closing of Roman Catholic hospitals - who can NOT by right of their beliefs, perform abortions.  Again - they will be blasted by the same folks who want them to keep doing the 'work of the church' as it suits them, without the rights that these people (who interestingly enough DON'T provide the very services  they are demanding the Church to provide) deem their 'right' at someone else's expense....   so the question becomes in all actuality  who IS it that is playing political parlay with those that have the most evident  need??

Oh puhleese! This is nothing more han typical twisted Jesuit logic. Think it through: just like the boy scouts are allowed to discriminate, so will religious organizations be allowed to continue their discrimination.

The only consequence for the catholic church will be the millions it costs them in legal fees to defend their right to discriminate. It has been willing to close its own chuches and schools to fund anti-gay legislation: I'm sure they'll be willing to close more to protect themselves.

Thanks for the link to the position statement.

The proposed change to the law is about /civil/ marriage, not religious marriage.  Neither current nor proposed law forces any Catholic organization to accept any limitations on what a Catholic marriage must or can't be, so this isn't about state interference in the church.  Catholic organizations currently respect the status of civil marriage for heterosexual couples who would not qualify for a Catholic marriage, so this isn't about having to comply with secular law that differs from church teachings.  The only motivation left is homophobia.

Disgusting.

Catholic Charities is the number One non- governmental social service provider in all 50 states. You are brow-beating an organization that helps millions of people. Get on the train of helping instead of yelping and welping.

Brian - read the posts again. No one is bashing Catholic Charities: they're a major player in social welfare and provide services that local governments cannot provide in this economic climate. Rather - we're bashing the church hierarchy. You must see the difference between the two: Catholic charities is living out the principles of charity that Christ taught - while the church hierarchy is actively refusing to adhere to those principles.

I have read all......If you are bashing anythings its the tenants and discipline of the Catholic Church that make it truly compassionate, and not really subjected to fads and fashion that will not last more than one or two generation. We are called to true intimacy with all people, and we are in this for the long haul...or at the next coming. This design was meant to last and provide compassion here and now.

The social services the Catholic Church provides are paid with tax dollars not church dollars.  Therefore we provide the services.  The church merely provides the venue.  I am a child abuse survivor.  Many of my tax dollars go to the Catholic Church which routinely abuses children.  I know this first hand.  I don't like my tax dollars going to the church.  The church is also against reforming statute of limitation laws and they make the same threat about any changes to these laws.  For all I know they are using my tax dollars to pay for their child sex abuse insurance premiums.

Brian, I'm sorry you can't understand what's right in front of you. I am NOT bashing the beliefs - just the assholes who run the institution.

I can't say it any plainer than that. Believe what you want to.

And those assholes also give millions if not billions of dollars to the poor and needy. Maybe they are not actually assholes, but just people who are different than you.

The child abuse cases are horrible, and no one feels more angry and horrible than the MAJORITY of Catholics, both employed and parishoners, who had NOTHING to do with it. It is an obvious red herring and a poor debate point.

Well, there is just no more talking to Brian - he thinks same sex relationships are "fads and fashion?" This just show's he has totally injested the KoolAID. And to Jen K: No matter how many billions of church money go to these causes, if the leadership thinks THAT gives them the authority to throw their weight around on civil rights matters they are definitely ASSHOLES. No better than schoolyard bullies who bash little heads while collecting money for Unesco at Halloween. Why can't people understand that we don't give a damn about what they do or preach or believe within their Churches? Being Catholic is a choice. If you choose that lifestyle and you wish to remain an American, then you have to figure out how to abide by the tenets of your faith while trying to take part in our modern, secular civilization. But don't ask ME to abide by the tenets of your faith. I TOTALLY REJECT THEM! Which is my right since I choose not to be a Catholic. I do choose to be an American Citizen, however and I abide by the laws ultimately based in the Constitution. If you want to be an American Citizen you too have to abide by these laws even if they go against the laws of your faith. If you want to get around them or violate them then you will have to live with the consequences of your actions. STOP TRYING TO TWIST IT ALL THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!!

Finally, someone who's back to the real issue.  The Catholic Church denying help to the homeless just because D.C is going to pass the law that makes the marriage of LGBT's legal.  I've never been a catholic but, I know what Jesus taught people.  We are to love one another as yourself.  He didn't mention that we should be bias or prejudice against LGBT.  BUT TO LOVE EVERYONE regardless of their sexual orientation.  I think somewhere along the line the Cathlic Church missed that one.  Even if the Church is providing the most for the homeless in regards to shelter and food, it's really an unjust reason to deny them care.

The irony is that Catholic Charities provide tremendously valuable social services - while the church hierarchy activel discriminates.

The conflict is detrimental to the church as a whole: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

If the situation were not so tragic it would be very funny.

I am a Catholic, and I use my head. I try to follow the teachings of the Church, but I also listed to my heart.  I was finished with my so called "lemming" phase a long time ago.

But anyway, not even this is going to take me away from the Church because I know that this is simply a human error.  Read my other post further down for an explanation.

Why are you following the teachings of the church.  Shouldn't you First follow the teachings of Christ first and then the teachings of church.

OMG! I'm gob smacked! Mike, your view is even more cynical than mine! My outrage has suddenly melted into something weak and helpless. Such is the power of Jesuit-controlled spin.

What can I say Fester? I work in the trenches and see what goes on daily.

There are some really good helpful Christian people that I work with who do NOT hold a bias against anyone. Then there are some groups who demonstrate their large ego's and even larger tyrannical visions of how the world should be according to THEIR beliefs and they make it bad for everyone else.    

You sure hit the nail on the head with that one!  Yeah, the Catholic church oughta get their priorities straight....

Right on Mo and Cee (Johnathan Saves!).

We need to stop all government funding of religious  organizations, and disallow tax relief for donations.   Why should your tax dollars be used to expand my church?  And won't you think my church is great because of all the good work it does for the community (even though you paid for it)? 

In San Francisco this issue was addressed about fifteen years ago, when voters demanded that agencies under contract with the city comply with our domestic partners law.  The Salvation Army, unable to comply without violating their own rules, refused to renew their contracts to provide homeless and substance abuse services.  They continue to provide limited services, funded only by donations.  In other words, they walk their talk.  Meanwhile, Catholic Charities determined that they are not an actual part of the Church, therefore they could comply with the law and continue to receive state funding.  They believe you're going to Hell, but they claim that they'll still hire you.

I have worked in church-run, state-funded homeless shelters and substance abuse treatment facilities.  The Church liked to think that I was doing G-d's work, and therefore I could be paid less.  (Like telling teachers, "Helping children is a reward in itself", and therefore salaries are lower.)

Religious organizations have a long and honorable history of providing for the less fortunate among us.  But when the need becomes so great that government funding is required, using these organizations as a means to save money often yields poor results. 

As the Homeless Industry has grown, expertise in addressing the problem remains stagnant.  Two new shelters, opened with government funding and  managed by faith-based organizations, decided to hire additional staff from among their client base.  So people who were homeless until hired by a shelter, were somehow supposed to help others rise from homelessness.  The trend remains; the neediest among us receive the least-professional help.   

As a county administrator for agencies under contract for substance abuse services, every year I received requests to increase client fees charged by the non-profit agencies.  The private 'for profit' agencies  remained adamantly opposed to raising client fees,  while they paid higher staff salaries, and maintained the same success rate as the non-profits. 

You know it is interesting that all these people are slamming the Catholic Church for spending money on anti-gay politics when they 'should' be spending it on charity. I have to ask, why then is the gay movement not held to the same metric? Why are they wasting all this money on gay issues when it could be feeding the poor?

Jen, I have to say that I agree with you.  Why spend all this money on homophobe issues, indeed!  We could pass the laws to end public discrimination based on sexual orientation tomorrow if it were not for opposition to equal rights organized by, amongst others, officials of the Catholic church.  Loads of money has been wasted — see California and Maine for examples — trying to preserve a system of legal discrimination.  That money could certainly be put to better use.

Jen - It is the business of the church - as Christ said - to minister to the poor. That's is one of its purposes. I do not know of any words of Christ that give the church a mandate to discriminate against anyone - and yet it has forcefully discriminated against one group or another for most of its existence.

The gay movement's business is to secure civil rights for LGBT folks: it is not our business to feed the poor. Although I will note, however, that the Chicago food pantry up the block is administered by a gay couple, and that most of its volunteers are also gay, and that most of those volunteers  are either agnostic or atheist.

Further, there are at least 16 LGBT volunteer organizations in the Chicago area that flourish through personal donations of time and goods and money. We do quite a lot of spending on feeding the poor and downtrodden while we fight for our civil rights, thank YOU very much!

Further, if you, Jen, happened to be a member of a minority that is systematically deprived of its civil rights, would you not also contribute to it, would you not also volunteer your time and energy and extra cash?

Your remark that we are wasting our money in the fight for our civil rights is highly insulting... as is the church's active discrimination. So please do pardon the hell out of us if we get a bit upset with the hypocritical and decidedly un-christian stance of the holy roman catholic church leadership that sytematically and stubbornly ignores the words and acts of Jesus Christ.

Again, the church did not say that it would stop ministering to the poor and homeless.  They only said that they could not do so under contract with the city.

Like I say - As far as ANY church goes, you can believe what you want and preach whatever you want. Or Don't believe or preach anything you don't want. Stop trying to suck everyone into irrelevant religious arguments. Just keep your faith-based noses out of civil government affairs! And don't try to tell us who is deserving of civil rights. If you want to keep on practicing the intolerance that your church preaches then find a way to do that without violating our secular laws. Don't try to bend our secular laws to fit your beliefs. There are those of us, natural born Americans, who totally reject your church teachings. It is our birthright as Americans to do so. You cannot force me to become a Catholic. But if you want to be an American you CAN be forced to abide by the laws of our land. We base our laws on the Constitution - not your bible. You are lucky that we give you a huge break on taxes. I, for one, do not believe you deserve to be tax-exempt but that's not a fight I want to take on. But if you cannot give up practicing discrimination in this country that is trying to fulfill its promise of equality for all citizens, then don't be expecting to receive any government funds no matter what you do.

Native Americans were promised equality in the 1800's. They are still waiting for what was promised. Every treaty the government made is still yet to be honoured by the government.

"Amen!", Kevin, don't sign any contracts with any government!! Never trust a politician.

Actually, a simple google search for gay homeless shelters would bring you pages of what is available.

However, the gay movement as whole has not been a charitable establishment as many Churches have declared themselves. It is to bring about the equality and rights of gay Americans, the same rights afforded everyone else. This isn't special or priveledge rights, it is merely asking for the SAME rights.  

http://claretrap.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/sylvias-place-2/ 

http://www.topix.com/forum/houston/T6P450JHEH6TS96JQ 

http://vodpod.com/watch/2076224-nyc-homeless-shelter-for-gay-youth-to-honor-bea-arthur-lez-get-real 

http://www.ifbprides.org/ifbp_news_may_shelter.php http://www.aliforneycenter.org/next.html

Interestingly, the Gay shelters you mention are Gay Only shelters.   That means you can only stay there if you are gay. 

Why can not the Gay community offer a shelter to anyone, of any persuation?  And you say the Catholic Church is being prejudical and discriminatory?  Pot calling the Kettle black, if you ask me.

I will also add that of all the shelters I have lived in, and they were all run by Christian organizations, Gays were NEVER denied shelter or other services.  And there were several openly Gay people taking shelter there.

You said it, the St. Vincent de Paul Society adheres to a program of attraction.  When you see good people doing good work, you may ask what motivates them.  Only then will Vincentians mention their faith.  This was the lesson taught by St. V.  Of all faith-based service organizations, SVDP is the least imposing.

I've heard it said that before the Red Cross arrives with coffee and donuts, SVDP will have already given out soup.  While I find no fault with them I still believe that they should not receive government funding for necessary community services.  We wouldn't hire the Catholic church to administer vaccines, even though priests can claim experience giving out 'dosages'.

If you really want to turn it into a pissing contest, most of the shelters are geared towards teens who were thrown out into the streets by their family for being gay.

I seriously doubt any teen would be denied service if they showed up on their door steps, however, these places are largely funded by private donations.

You don't see any of these shelters saying they are not going to provide service if the Catholic Organizations continue to accept tax money for their operations.

The LGBT population has a different set of needs that some of these shelters can't provide. Case in point, a transgender person would probably NOT be welcome in some of the church run places.

Either way and whatever anyone's belief or lack thereof, there is no excuse for lack of common courtesy. This whole thing is yet another politcal game to cause a divide and conquor headset while frivolous bills and taxes keep getting passed under our nose while we are looking away at this type of bullcrap. 

Mike, the needs of homeless lgbt are no different than the needs of any other homeless people.  Yet declaring an organization to be focused on one type of person will exclude others who don't identify themselves as such.  When you say your shelter is for Gay people, other people will think themselves unwelcome, or at the least unable to qualify for assistances for the fact they are not gay.

Christian run Rescue Missions have their faults, no doubt, but denying services to gays is not one of them.

First, doesn't every major religion exclude services by denying rights to gay people? Last I looked, they spent a LOT of money to deny me the right to get married, thereby putting my future in jeopardy because if anything happens to either me or my partner, one of us will have to BUY BACK half of the home we purchased together because we are NOT blood relatives and NOT legally married. Add to that the inheritance taxes on the home we live in because we are not "legally married" as well. 

Second, this dialogue began because the question was posed as to where the gay shelters were. The answer was clearly provided.

Third, while homelessness is a plight that needs to be erased, there is a big difference between a gay teen and a straight teen. Often, a gay teen is "discovered" by family through intrusive means, beat to within an inch of their lives and then thrown out like a dog. More often than not, straight teens are problem kids who hung out with a bad crowd, ended up drinking, doing drugs and otherwise CAUSING the reaction to their being disowned. Straight families usually don't disown their teens without a reason, plain and simple.

Fourth, there are a LOT of organizations that cater to the plight of homelessness but VERY FEW that are available for gay people. A transgendered person is not likely to feel as safe in a regular homeless shelter as opposed to one that is run by gay folks. A sheltered gay teen who was thrown out for being gay does not have the the "street smarts" as the teen who ran the streets and hung out with a bad crowd.  

It would be great if there wasn't a need for separate organizations, however, gay people didn't shoot the first round in keeping things divided but none of us will allow that to stop us from taking care of our own either. 

Lastly, nowhere was it mentioned that services were denied to someone who wasn't gay, just that they were gay run operations. There IS a difference. I am quite sure if a teen showed up on the doorsteps of one of those organizations, chances are they would not be tossed aside just because he or she was straight.

This whole argument has become as ludicrous as a man being annoyed that he can't get service from an OBGYN doctor simply because that person is a doctor and he needs service. Some common sense needs to prevail here.    

Two points.

One, the gay movement was started to make changes to benefit gay people. The Catholic Church was started to make changes to benefit Christian people. Both groups include charity in their mission. Why is it only one group is allowed to make their agenda part of their charity? The gay group openly discriminates in their shelters by only accepting gay people. The church accepts anyone who walks through the door, no matter how different their beliefs are. It is OK for the gay groups to do this. When the Catholic church says it will have to find another way to help the poor because it is being hamstrung by the government and forced to go against it's first mission, then they are "taking the homeless hostage". The hypocrisy is astounding.

Two, gays want the right to be lifelong partners and have civil unions which would impart all the legal benefits of marriage. If that was all, I think it would pass. I certainly do not care what you do in your bedroom, or your personal life for that matter. I agree that two people, be they siblings, cousins, parners, or just lifelong roommates, should have the right to set up their finances as they see fit. I just do not want to have my church, which believes homosexuality  is a sin, forced to participate in that sin. I do not want the schools to have the ability to preach gay issues yet specifically ban the other point of view. I want the freedom to disagree with your lifestyle if I choose and not be accused of homophobia. I am not afraid of gays or homosexuality, I disagree with it. That is a big difference. In return I will treat each individual as a human worthy of respect, regardless of who you choose to spend your time with, and I will teach my kids to do the same.

I am against gay 'marriage' because I see it as the tip of an iceburgh which is meant to force all of America to openly support the gay lifestyle. That is not tolerance, that is totalitarianism.

If a realistic plan which did not force the gay acceptance issue into schools and churches were put forth, I would agree with it. As I said, this is not a gay issue but a legal issue of property and insurance rights in my view which effects more than just gays. 

I just noticed that Kevin says that LGBT run shelters are "Gay only." That's bullshit. How do they determine if you are gay or not?

How deep does your homophobia have to be If you can't answer "yes" to the question in order to get into a shelter and avoid freezing to death?

If you really need shelter are you going to be so picky as to refuse to share a space with people who are gay? 

You missed Genesis Chapter 19!

Hi All,

     Judith, Jesus most certainly did say something about gay persons.

    "Some are born Eunuchs, some are made Eunuchs by man and some are Eunuchs in devotion to the Father.

                                                       -Jesus (Matthew)

     This appears, upfront, to refer to the Greek definition of the "Eunuch"; however, it is actually the colloquial.

     The Greek definition being, "a male who is castrated after birth".

     No person is born "castrated after birth"; only "made Eunuchs by man" relates to the original Greek definition; priests did not castrate themselves in devotion to God, they were celebate in devotion to God.

     Jesus is referring to those who do not reproduce.  We call some of these people "gay" in our sexally obsessed society.

     Hi Alvin,

     Apparently you missed a few things yourself.  "Even the women and children of Sodom were thieves and murderers"  One, however, must read more of this great book of wisdoms to "know that which is false".

     I.E. -not only the men but even the women and children of Sodom were thieves and murderers.

     All Biblical "sin" is based in "selfishness"; that which is not selfish cannot be sin.

     The epitome of this selfishness is often depicted as sexual lust in the Bible.  Remember the fig leaves which Eve and Adam adorn themselves?

     Their sin was not sex, it was the selfishness in wanting to be as Gods themselves.

Loveya,

Duane

Umm, Duane, there is a big difference between being celebate and being gay.

But more importantly, Christians were instructed to do without marriage so to be totally dedicated and prepared for the return of the Lord.  Only if the desire to marry was too strong were young men all to give in and marry women.

Still the Bible is clear on the rejection of homosexuality.  The bigger question is, is the bible really God's word?   If we are to follow the Constitution of the USA to the letter of the law, then Gays should be allowed to marry.   It is funny how poeple confuse the Bible with the Constitution.

As I've stated before, if a church decides to not recognize gay marriages, then they should be allowed to do so.   If you are gay, and get married, and work for the church, you should not expect the church to recognize your union.   Thing is, if you are gay, and you are married, why would you want to be associated with the church?  There are plenty of churches that do recognize gay marriages.

Catholic Charities will still be able to provide community services, but not with community funds.  They should refuse all government contracts, thereby truly seperating Church from State.

Michelle, I am asking myself that same question.   The original article that Shannon presents in this post was slanted to begin with, and instead of adding clarity to the subject, Shannon oenly adds to the confusion and misrepresentation of the facts.

I have been invited to be a weekly writer for change.org.  The contract sits on my desk waiting for my signature.  But, I have serious doubts about contributing to the work done here, as it seems here they are more interested in propoganda than truth.

As is mentioned in another comment here, "As the Homeless Industry has grown, expertise in addressing the problem remains stagnant."  That is so very true.  And we will never gain in knowledge of homelessness, which is critical in curing it, when such tactics are constantly being employed by supposed advocates for the homeless.

Well, perhaps, maybe, because it was official vatican policy for 45 years to cover up sexual abuse of kids?

Perhaps maybe because the leadership really ARE criminals for that?

I think it is always easier to vilify one point of view than to actually look at the whole issue, which is often complicated with no easy answers. The whole thing is much simpler if there is only one victim.

Of course that solves nothing and is inaccurate at best.

Michelle Fegeas provides a link to the newletter of the Archdiocese of Washington to tell us all what the "REAL story" is. Now there is an objective, nonbiased, fair and balanced source all right!

Didn't someone once say opinions are like assholes? Everybody's got one and we all think everyone else's stinks! But it is NOT opinions we're talking about here. I sincerely do not give a shit what opinions "the Catholic Church" accepts. It does not have to join in on something it clearly does not want to be a part of. Civil Rights are NOT matters of opinion. If members of the Catholic Church do not want to "join in on" the larger society in this country which is starting to recognize  disparities and striving to become a more fair and inclusive society, then fine. Don't "join in." Don't be a part of it. Get the f*ck out of our society. Don't you dare expect the rest of us to bow down to your heads-up-the-ass opinion about this. Some of us totally reject your religion. All of us who believe in equal rights totally reject your religious intolerance. Why should the church have to join in? If the church wants to continue enjoying its unearned privileged position in this society, with its tax exemptions and government handouts then it needs to get with the program or give it up. Can't have it both ways, dearies.

The church is actively spending it's resources to deny people the rights their peers enjoy.

Meanwhile it forces one small diocese into bankruptcy to limit funds availabe for reparations through lawsuits to the victims of sexual molestation of minors by it's staff. 

The Church is monolithic in it's desire to disenfranchise Gay people on the flimsiest premise, yet the whole of the Vatican's vast resources are not available when it comes time to pay damages for hiding criminal clergy or transfering them to a "new market" where they can find new unsuspecting children to victimize?

Get out of town!

-jojo

Aaron,

The catholic church will not be forced to accept something that goes against their beliefs? 

Then I guess the catholic church believes in protecting, aiding & abetting pedophiles? rape? Adultery? Two or more grown men having sex? Lying? Cheating? Stealing?

They do accept all of the above, as long as its a priest or a bishop or a pope doing it

Actually, Aaron, I think the word you were looking for is "Queers." Let's get it right. Also, as I keep telling everyone - we Queers do not advocate forcing anyone to accept something that goes against their beliefs. As a group, we do not CARE what the Catholic Church or anyone else believes or thinks, or preaches, or accepts. And we would not ask the government to do such a thing either. Some of us outright reject everything the Catholic Church stands for. This is our birthright as Americans, of course. As a group we do not bow down to your god or your church or to you. You are actually irrelevant in all this except that you and your church try to insinuate yourselves and your believes into our lives, inappropriately. Why does the Catholic Church issue policy statements as they have on issues like "same-sex marriage" which we all know they don't have anything to do with. They are the ones who linked it to possibly cutting off government funded services to the needy. I think it is pretty clear that the metaphorical imagery of holding homeless people hostage is very appropriate and effective. If you or anyone else could sue the shit out of Change.org just think how many more lawsuits we could bring against Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc etc - all those lying sacks of shit who have been getting away with slander and sedition for AGES now. But please, don't get me started.  

Sounds very reasonable. It SHOULD be the end of it. However it won't be. The gay lobby does not want separation of church and state, they want complete acceptance and promotion of their lifestyle from everyone. The church will not agree to that. Which side is right is a matter of opinion.

WHAT?!?!?! The gay lobby certainly ***DOES*** want separation of church and state!

Civil rights are granted and enforced by the STATE.

The church seeks to deny civil rights.

Separation is ESSENTIAL.

Jen, you really SHOULD examine your thinking before you make such wildly inaccurate statements!

i think what Jen is saying is that the Gay agenda wants for the church to be under control of the state, so that the state can force the church to accept and condone gay life.

Jen you have to stop now. You are not making any sense. You say "The gay lobby does not want separation of church and state, they want complete acceptance and promotion of their lifestyle from everyone. The church will not agree to that. Which side is right is a matter of opinion." Earlier you said, "I am against gay 'marriage' because I see it as the tip of an iceburgh which is meant to force all of America to openly support the gay lifestyle. That is not tolerance, that is totalitarianism." You don't know what the hell you are talking about. That is not a matter of opinion. It is self evident. If you think I want the Catholic Church to promote my "lifestyle" you sre out of your freakin mind! I don't want a damn thing from the Catholic Church execpt for them to stay the hell out of my business and stop meddling in my civil rights. The point of Freedom of Religion is that you don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe - and neither do I. But we both have to abide by the law of the land and so does the Catholic Church. If they want to discriminate within their organization, fine! But if they are going to continue to enjoy the tax breaks we give them and take the government funding we allow then they have to obey the law. As an American, It is my birthright to reject everything the Catholic Church stands for. And I do. Neither you nor I have the right to reject what the Constitution stands for, however, unless we want to give up our citizenship or overthrow the government - which I, for one, do not. I do believe - from what you say - that the Catholic Church, like so many other Christian sects and cults do want to supplant the Constitution, overthrow the government and establish a theocracy in America. Which you will not get away with. Believe me. And just stop spreading the lies you are spreading.

And Kevin, you have to stop now tool. Just stop because you are making things up. I have been a part of the gay movement for civil rights for over 35 years and I'm sick of hearing people like you and Jen tell me what the "gay agenda" is. Here is what the gay agenda has always been: We Work, We have Families, We Pay Taxes. That's the agenda. On the basis of that we expect what the Constitution entitles us to. But we have been struggling for more than my 56 years just to claim what you and everyone else takes for granted if they work, have families and pay taxes. And we are still fighting. Talk to me after you have spent your entire adult life being denied these basic rights and dealing with people who have all kinds of excuses for fighting to see that your government withhold them from you. Come back after you've spent 35 years being preached at by so-called "holy men" who mean nothing to you but obstruction of your pursuit of happiness in this life. Till then, it is really time for you to stop. Before I see you as a contract writer in this space I truly think monkeys will fly out of my butt. So stop lying about that too. It just makes you look all the more ridiculous.

Seriously Al, I'm not making anything up.  And being that my speech is protected by the constitution I will not stop, regardless of your objections.

You may think that people who are not gay are somehow living on easy street, that they don't face obstacles in pursuing life and liberty, but that's just not true.  They may be different obstacles, but we all have them.  Every one struggles.  It is inaccurate to say that because you are gay your life is more difficult than others.  I have faced abuse and discrimination all my life.  And I bet that you would not want to trade lives with me for anything.  And yes, I was invited by change.org to write for them.  Ask them if you don't believe me.

Stop twisting my god damn words! I did not say people who are not gay are somehow living on easy street. What a retarded thing to take away from what I say. I'm not engaging you in any kind of  pissing contest. I am just pissed by the retarded things you say. The Constitution does allow you freedom of speech. But just because you CAN say something it doesn't mean you SHOULD. And things are not true just because you say them. Just because you have the ability to lie, twist the truth, spew bullshit and stick your nose in where it does not belong under the protection of the Constitution, that does not mean it is the right thing to do. This goes even more so for people speaking under the presumed "higher" authority of the Church. Any church. Just because you can manipulate people's opinions by injecting them with fear and promises of eternal life IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD!!!  That is why you have to stop. You are doing bad things here. Stop it.

Wow, and I thought the church was bad about tell other people what to do and how to do it.  Al, I seriously do not consider you to be the voice of the Gay Community.

And to think, I actually have Gay friends.

I'm not telling you what to do or how. I'm telling you what to STOP DOING! Good for you for having gay friends. That is just SO white of you. I bet you have a black friend too. I, on the other hand, probably do not have any straight friends. I probably don't believe in mixing the sexual orientations. You have me all figured out, don't you? Congratulations. 

Miriam V says, "The argument is that the Catholic church is going to stop all charity to homeless people if the DC area changes its marriage laws. This isn't not an accurate statement. Catholic charities will simply stop accepting government money and continue to do what they can with _their own money_. DC can still give their money to SECULAR charities who can serve the homeless."

Pray tell, WHY then did the Catholic Church feel compelled to come out and make the grand statements they've made about it. What is the point? Do they just want to provoke gay people?

More separation between church and state is good, of course, but "less government meddling in the Catholic church?" That's a laugh! It is the other way around, sweetie. The Catholic Church needs to STOP MEDDLING in government affairs, politics and OUR CIVIL RIGHTS.  

Al, so now you have the right to tell me to stop talking? See, you have no problem telling me what to do when it suits you. You erally are no different than what you oppose.

Jen, As Barney Frank said to the insane teabagger who came to shout him down at a town meeting last summer,  "trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to talk to a dining room table." 

You're right - I do have the right to tell you to stop talking when it suits me. And it's come to be the ONLY thing that suits me when dealing with the likes of you.

Since your opinion of me matters not a stinking bit, I do not give a holy shit if you cannot see how I am different from what I oppose.

It' actually very easy to see how I am different from what I oppose so I think you are just lying when you say you do not. Unless you are really so closed-minded, stupid or possibly retarded that you can't see things right in front of your damn face. 

Yeah. That's why I say we just call their bluff. There is no reason at all to care about what they think about same-sex marriage. I don't know why they have to make any kind of issue about it at all, except for their continuing need to vilify homosexuals and homosexuality. They make me sick!

Well, you know, within every human being is the ability to do good, and to screw things up.  So, the church, or the hierarchy of it, or whatever, is just as fallible as everyone and everything else.  Big surprise.

Stop making excuses for the church, Kevin. Stop it! You are not winning any points in heaven. And you are just provoking people. Stop. Now. 

I am speaking my mind Al, as are you.  Isn't it nice to have this freedom?

Nice diversion, Kev - something right-wingers have become very good at: ducking behind the freedom of speech we all hold dear when spouting religious-based intolerance and supremacy. Just about as good as wrapping yourself in the flag like chicken hawk politicos do when pushing us into illegal wars and occupations of other countries. Yes it's great to have this freedom to tell you again to just STOP it! For the sake of decency and all that is good in the world, STOP being so goddamn smug, and acting like you and the Church just have an innocent difference of opinion from us who you are so casually smearing, condemning, telling us we are not deserving of equal rights. Screw you and the Church you rode in on, Kev. This is not a card game we're engage in here. Stop it.  

There you go again Al, telling us to stop. Funny how the person who claims they do not want to be told what to do (or not) is the one repeatedly doing it himself. You do not get to decide what comes out of our keyboards. Why don't you plug your ears and yell LALALA!

Kevin, this isn't about civil rights, it is about church bashing and victimology. You made the point that this really is not what the article claims, yet people continue to church bash. Obviously they are enjoying it.

Are you in a home now, you mentioned you were homeless at one time. Are you alright? It is getting awfully cold at night up here.

Jen, are you in a home right now as well? Sounds like maybe you should be. You miss all the salient points of discussion and you twist everything you hear into something absurd and offensive. There is no question that I'm not going to be told what to do (or not) so I have never felt the need to make such a claim. CHURCH BASHING?! HA! VICTIMOLOGY?????!! Ha Ha!! The church is a victime! Ha! Of course, that's what your Christian apologists always boil everything down to - such martyrs you are! But I have said over and over and over again - WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU AND YOUR CHURCH THINK, FEEL, BELIEVE, PREACH OR DO. EXCEPT when you step over the boundary and onto our Civil Rights. That is what I'm telling you to stop. Now, Jen, again, Stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about, take your medication, and go to bed. That's it. Good night now.  

Please see that I have continued this discussion below.

You say "the law presented by the city WILL force the church to act against its held beliefs, and for this the church will have to sever its contract with the city. If you really are against forcing the church to accept and condone the gay life, then i would think you would stand up for the church in this matter." ACCEPT AND CONDONE? THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE LYING, MISTER AND WHERE YOU NEED TO STOP. NO ONE IS ASKING THE CHURCH TO CONDONE ANYTHING. Just because you say so over and over and in capital letters does not make it so. It is a lie. It is a lie. It is a lie.

If the church is claiming that they MUST discriminate against people who are protected from discrimination by our laws as a matter of their faith then THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE CHURCH and not with the law. The Church can choose either to STOP discriminating or find some other way to exist within a system that operates by laws that are equally applicable to everyone - including THEM. No Religion is above the law. 

Where I come from there were religious sects that used poisonous snakes in their services. How weird is that? I don't care if they pass around vipers as long as they don't bring them out into the street and try to give them to kids (which happened and they were prosecuted). If the church is big enough to be employing people beyond their faith they cannot force their nonbelieving employees to handle snakes.

Using language like "condoning the gay life" betrays your bias. It is ignorant and inappropriate. Like talking about "colored people." Stop it.

And to your side note, the reason why the Catholic Church is the topic here and not protestants is, if you will recall, it is the Catholic Church who CAME OUT AND MADE THE THREATENING STATEMENT THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO STOP SERVING HOMELESS PEOPLE IF THE CITY OF DC ALLOWS SAME SEX MARRIAGE. How can you forget the whole subject we are talking about?

Oh - and civil unions with all benefits for gays? Gee thanks. Do you want to assign us separate but equal water fountains and swimming pools too? 

I actually agree with the corollary, though. I am for civil unions with all legal benefits for straight couples. But don't even think of calling such relationships "marriages." That just goes against everything I believe in and makes me ill to think of! Would you force me to accept and condone something that I cannot - on religious grounds. That's right. I have a religious bias that tells me that straight people are inferior. My god created Adam and Steve! 

Al, the church came out and declared that it would end its contractual agreements with the city, ONLY after the city declared it would pass this law without relgious exemptions.  Again, please read the other Post article on this subject.  It sheds a lot of light on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/12/DI2009111208573.html?sid=ST2009042801406

Because I believe that many will not click the link to the other post article, I am quoting a part of it here.  I hope it clarifies some things.

Washington, D.C.: How can the Church claim that they have "no choice" but to abandon their assistance to the homeless and needy of the city? Even if you accept their opposition to gay marriage, being forced to extend employee benefits to same-sex partners seems like a much lesser evil than ending social services to the poor and needy.

Would it be possible for the Church to continue to provide services without contracts with the city?

Patrick J. Deneen: My best understanding is that the Church will continue to provide social and charitable services (in this sense, the Post's article today was not strictly correct - the Church is not threatening to withdraw services as such); it is only in cases where there is a contracted or licensed service that the District would adjudge the Church to be ineligible to provide those services on a contractual basis. If DC does not grant the exemptions that would be in keeping with the Catholic's tenets, the assumption is that the Church would no longer be eligible to be licensed or contracted to provide those services.

You know Kevin, that would not be politically correct.

The reply "Politically correct" was for the remark about Protestant ministers.

Yesenia,

  Do you suggest that the church keep it's beliefs secret, and not make them public for all to know and understand where they are coming from?

  The church does have the right to declare its beliefs.  And I think we are all better off for knowing what they stand for, even if we do not agree with them.

  And, there is a difference between accepting people for who they are, and condoning their actions.   All people, straight, gay, Christian, athiest, or whatever, are fallable creatures, prone to make mistakes, to offend and to be offended.   But, does it do any good to focus so much attention on the negative aspects of humanity, regardless of the person or institution that perpetrates it?  Will we not be condemned to an endless cycle of hellish torment if all we ever see in each other are our faults?

I don't agree with every policy of the Catholic Church.  I don't agree with every aspect of the political agenda of many Gays.  But, I have been blessed by both.  My life is better, richer, wiser, for my relationships with the Catholic Church, and with the Gay community.

So, what should be done?  When children cannot get along, parents will often send their children off to their individual rooms until they decide to treat each other with respect. I think something could be learned from this.

Good point Kevin.

i like the analogy Kevin, but my reaction to that is, how can the gay community respect the church when it is the church getting into their private lives, condoning their lifestyle when there's nothing wrong with it? ((church and state really shouldn't mix.)) it's all too complicated I guess? for example, when it comes to abortion I'm totally ok with the church being pro-life and campaigning against it. But when it comes to gay marriage I just wish they would lay off and let us be.

Jen K, honey... YOU ARE SO HUNG UP ON YOUR Precious OPINIONS. it does not matter one little bit what YOUR OPINIONS ARE OR what you believe. You "agree that everyone should have the right to extend their benefits and finances to whoever they choose. You also feel everyone has the right to define what their own relationship is with another person." How white of you - and how utterly meaningless.

What matters is that in this land where laws are supposedly applied equally and where justice is supposedly blind, the LAW currently applies an unfair irrational test on which relationships qualify for rights and privileges accruing from the government that supposedly represents us all. I don't care what kind of god you cling to or what religion you choose to live by. 

You say you "do NOT believe that anyone should have to buckle under social pressure to accept a way of life they call a sin." So what? I truly don't give a flying fuck if you believe all gay people are devils - your opinion of me is not supposed to matter under the law. My opinion of YOU is not supposed to matter under the law either. I don't care if you are a sleeze bag whore. Not saying you are because I don't know - might be. Maybe you think I am a sinner or a criminal and maybe I think you are a worthless slut. These things do not matter. If either of us were tried and convicted of being a criminal then it may matter. But all things considered equally, the law does not discriminate unless there is a good reason or if the law is corrupted by someone pushing their own privilege to the benefits of the law as it is in this case by what I like to call heterofacist pigs. 

NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO ACCEPT INTO THEIR CHURCHES ANYONE or anything THEY DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT. THIS IS A VICIOUS LIE THAT WON'T DIE. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING this lie ALIVE. NOBODY IS TRYING TO MAKE ANY CHURCH PARTICIPATE IN SOMETHING THEY CONSIDER A "SIN." That is a lie. If any church thinks it is a sin to recognize equal consideration of all humans to basic rights under the law, then there is something wrong with the church - not with the law.

Equal consideration under the law is the foundation of our democracy. If your church cannot abide by this basic principle then what the hell are they doing in this country if not trying to subvert our laws and violate the very basis of our American way of life? 

Go, Al!

IIRC, lying is one of the TEN BIG NO-NOS of the Church. You know, right up there with coveting your neighbor's property, adultery, and the rest.

So why do they think that it's okay to lie, as long as they're lying for Jeebus?

Excuse me? I do not feel "shamed" by the church. And as I have said, I truly do not care what they do or believe or who believes in it. Once again, in the name of the Catholic Church you insult me and all gay people by saying that WE HAVE TO LOVE THE CHURCH. Fuck that shit! Maybe you are compelled to feel that way but don't fucking tell the rest of us what we have to do. All we need is for the Catholic Church and all other religious institutions to back the fuck off when it comes to interfering with our Civil Rights! Religions have NO PLACE in Civil Rights matters because none of them truly accept the basic American doctrine that says all of us are born equal.

If Churches want to become involved in civil rights matters then they should give up their claim to any special relationship with god or whatever it is that fuels their sense of superiority over others. Religion does not make you a more deserving citizen than I am and neither does sexual orientation. I need not accept your church and I sure as hell need not "love" your church. I need not feel that I must do anything Jesus supposedly taught either. This is not the United States of Jesus. This is fucking America. Really. If the Catholic Church would stop funding anti-gay referenda like Prop 8 and Maine's Question 1 and if they would stop discriminating against gay American citizens while taking millions of dollars in tax money from us then we would not give a shit what they do in the privacy of their churches.  

Enough of these whiney ass christians who just LOVE playing the martyr:"You're bashing me! You're bashing me!" Get down off that cross, Mary! We need the wood!

And you can stick all your "mortal sins" right up your ass! I, for one, reject every stinking thing about your creepy Catholic Church - which is my birthright as an American Citizen. Your stupid religious concepts have no place in a discussion of Civil Rights.

Your religion is not above the law and it has no relevance on civil rights legislation. You can disagree all you want with my opinion of marriage and abortion and anything else - I do not give a flying fuck what you think or what you believe.

But when you and all your big mouth, empty headed Catholic cohorts try to impose your religious ideas on me you better God Damn believe I'm going to bash you right back, mercilessly. You fucking deserve it.

This is not about the Catholic Church "daring to disagree" - it's about the fucking Catholic church, the Mormons, the Fundamentalists of every stripe including the fucking Muslims pushing onto the modern world your primitive assholish ideas and childish superstitions that come right out of the dark ages. This is the 21st Century, baby! Grow the fuck up already.   

Thomas Berg? I believe you were here before under the name of Alex Walters. BUSTED!!!!

Wow Jen, I guess Matthew Shepard wasn't pistol-whipped and left to die on a fence in Wyoming. I guess that 19 year-old gay kid in Puerto Rico wasn't beaten, burned and decapitated last week. I guess all of those people in all of those cities this year weren't beaten, kicked, all while being called 'faggot'. So NONE of that stuff is happening to us on a regular basis? OK, just wanted to make sure I heard you right - good to know those people were just all 'playing the victim' as you put it.

People of all backgrounds get beat up for being who they are, but it rarely is systemic nor condoned by society. Most of these occur as kids, and kids are cruel. Nothing done on a legislative level will touch that.

 It is socially unacceptable by the majority of people to beat up or kill someone for being gay, AND it is against the law and enforced. During the civil right's era it was not only socially acceptable to do so to blacks, it was for all intents legal, since there was never any consequences for doing so. That is a HUGE difference.  There was national outrage, both by liberals and conservatives alike, when the incedences you reference occured, as there should be.

People of all backgrounds get beat up for being who they are, but it rarely is systemic nor condoned by society. Most of these occur as kids, and kids are cruel. Nothing done on a legislative level will touch that.

 It is socially unacceptable by the majority of people to beat up or kill someone for being gay, AND it is against the law and enforced. During the civil right's era it was not only socially acceptable to do so to blacks, it was for all intents legal, since there was never any consequences for doing so. That is a HUGE difference.  There was national outrage, both by liberals and conservatives alike, when the incedences you reference occured, as there should be.

Go back not too long ago, say 40 years plus, and the difference wasn't so huge. It was only 1973 that the American Medical Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness.

Before that, it wasn't uncommon at all, especially in areas already inhospitable to people of other races, to not just marginalize gays, but to shun them from society. Also to institutionalize them, subject them to barbaric treatments like electroshock 'therapy', and yes, kill them. Except then, excuses like the 'gay panic' defense worked, and their killers were routinely absolved of their crimes since they were only defending themselves from some 'mental devient'.

So YES Jen, there are parallels to be drawn here whether you like it or not. And whether you're Matthew Shepard being hung to die on a fence in Wyoming for being gay or James Byrd being dragged to death behind a truck in Texas for being black, the effect and the victimization is the same, no matter if it was 10 years ago when those incidents happened, or 100 years ago. Certain elements of society have regarded others in this world as less worthy human beings since the dawn of time. When you start the argument that certain groups were the 'real' victims, you become as bad as those elements who thought they could rate who was 'worthy' in society, and who wasn't.

Oh Jen, you are really annoying the way you just keep pushing all my buttons. I don't need a fucking lecture from you on the black civil rights movement - I LIVED IT, baby! And I've already addressed the bullshit tactics you are employing in trying to pit the struggles of one group against the other. Of course the experiences of one group do not mirror those of another - but this does not negate the fact that institutionalized discrimination and disparities DO EXIST!

And where the fuck do you get this brilliant statement: "It is already against the law to discriminate against gays for being gay."

OOOKAY, Miss Carrie Prejean. I guess we're just supposed to take this as the truth coming from someone who has already shown herself to be totally clueless on everything else she tries to talk about.

IN 30 STATES IT IS STILL ILLEGAL FOR AN EMPLOYER TO FIRE AN EMPLOYEE ON THE BASIS OF BEING LGB or T. Now what the fuck do you call that? And there are too many other laws and policies on the books including the right to marry. The Governor of Rhode Island has just VETOED a bill that would allow same-sex couples to take responsibility for each other's funeral arrangements! 

And you really piss me off trying to turn this into a debate on "the gay lifestyle" calling it a "choice people make" (religion is much more of a choice than sexuality). My sexuality is not up for discussion. I do not have to justify or defend the choice I made to live an honest & authentic life. Your opinion of that is totally irrelevant. We are talking about the laws that obstruct equal access to legal rights and privileges for a group of people based on their identity, rather than their behavior. This is the definition of discrimination.

And when the laws are finally fixed I'm afraid that you ARE just going to "have to buckle under social pressure to accept a way of life [you] call a sin."

The only legal basis for limiting people's access to civil rights in this country is the basis of a criminal record. You may think of homosexuality as a sin but homosexual behavior is not against the law. Not since Lawrence v Texas in 2003 which struck down all the anti-sodomy laws (sodomy being the crude legal designation for homosexual behavior up to then).

Maybe that's what you're thinking of when you say it's illegal to discriminate against gay people. That's just another ignorant interpretation of yours. We are still discriminated against in many many ways. But at least we don't have to worry about getting dragged out of our bedrooms and arrested anymore by ignorant hillbilly cops when they walk in during our most intimate moments.   

Typo, of course: IN 30 STATES IT IS STILL LEGAL FOR AN EMPLOYER TO FIRE AN EMPLOYEE ON THE BASIS OF BEING LGB or T.

What a clever little ditty. You must be so proud of yourself thinking that one up, Alvin! Here is another one...

Bullshit burns my ears and sometimes I just have to yell "STOP!" 

Of course, ignorant people will mistake bullshit for truth and, with knee jerk reaction call the person yelling "stop" a Lucifer. Or Satan. How convenient. Or any other scary name they can think of to vilify them and shut them down, all at once.

So easy. Lots easier than thinking. Sometimes they call the person who yells "stop" a "Witch!" And do you know what happens then, Alvin? Of course you do. "Burn her! Burn her! She's a witch!"

Yeah, THAT'll happen. Forget about it! Just end the fucking "conversation" already. After all the bullshit that's been flying around this subject and absolutely no progress at getting through any of these tightly-shut tiny minds, I sure as hell don't feel like taking part in any touchy-feely circle jerk with this crowd.

And, by the way, JEN - I'm not buying for a second the post below from some imaginary 16 year old named Scott McCarthy. How convenient he writes to YOU setting you up with his story in a way that gives you a perfect jumping off point to bring in how you were supposedly abused for trying to be a virgin in high school. This is crass manipulative and ignorant bullshit, insulting all our intelligence.   

Welcome back to the conversation Al.  you are right in my comment about gay only shelters.  that was wrong of me.  feel free to burn me at the stake for it.   but then let me clarify my statement.  since I know you to not jump to conclusions and to not be so judgement of people and their foibles.

What I meant to say and should have said was that shelters that label themselves as Gay shelters can cause other non-gays think that such shelters are exclusive and that they are no welcome for the fact that they are not gay.

I think they would do a much greater service to their communities if they opened themselves up to everyone by dropping the "Gay" moniker.  You know, like what other shelters do, by advertising that they are open to all people.

Please don't patronize me. I am not the one who burns people at the stake for being wrong. That may be your thing, but I don't do that.

"Drop the "Gay" moniker," indeed! Hearing that makes me want to drop something, alright. Like an anvil on your fucking head.  

You obviously have no appreciation of the experience of homeless LGBT people. I recall you wrote earlier that their needs are no different than any homeless person's. How can you say that? I know a little something about this and I can tell you for sure that there are things that are very different in our experiences. Bottom line is: a safe and welcome environment for an LGBT person is usually very different from what one is for a non-LGBT person.

But you echo the line that every less-than thoughtful person holds: an assumption that we are all the same. We are not actually all the same. As LGBT people we have very different outlooks, inner experiences and needs that are not routinely addressed in many situations in this society at every level. These are called disparities.

Society in general is based on an assumption of heterosexuality. Everything is geared toward taking care of heterosexual needs and desires. Just think about it.

Heterosexuals have a hard time understanding this. Those who try to open their minds to understand our situation seem to think that we who are not heterosexual just woke up one morning and decided to be gay, lesbian, bi or transgendered. That we can flip back to a straight mentality when we are not amongst our kind.

It's not like that. For most of us, we have to go through a long period of allowing you and the whole world to think that's how it is - that we are no different from you. But the fact is that we were never the same as you, our experiences as LGBT people have not been at all the same as your experiences even if we grew up next to each other. And you are almost always oblivious to this.

When we finally come out of the closet it is never a spontaneous change. It is a time of reckoning. Often we go through feelings of great shame for having lived a lie, trying to fool so many people for so long. You don't get to see the kind of reckoning we go through so to you it may just seem to be a matter of flipping a switch.

That's why you think it's all the same for all of us no matter what our sexual orientation is. And now you see why that is wrong.

In shelters, as in prisons, mental hospitals, and schools there is never a high level of understanding of the disparities that LGBT people face. Everyone still assumes that we are all the same and that the most important experiences that shaped our lives are not important. A homeless LGBT person seeking shelter has to suck up a lot of shit that they may have previously struggled to resolve in themselves. They suck it up because they are vulnerable in ways you will never know. They suck it up so that they might evade the harassment and abuse by the ubiquitous rampant homophobia in society, especially in those places where they would be seen as weak and inferior, like shelters.

And as I think you said earlier, the gay shelters are usually for runaway LGBT kids, rejected by their families for being queer. Think of how much more welcome and safe they feel when they know they are going to a gay shelter where they don't have to worry about the same kind of rejection that put them there.

So now do you have any better appreciation for why we might want to make it clear that certain shelters are open and welcoming of LGBT, explicitly? It's not as though we're  using a "Gay" moniker to try and make some kind of exclusive playhouse or club, no straights allowed. After this explanation can you see how insulting it is for you to be so dismissive of our needs and experiences that way? 

Al Falafool, I love your fire and passion as well as your zeal. However, some of the folks on here are paid shils, so don't burst a liver over their bullcrap.

As far as Kevin and the dropping of the "gay" moniker, ok, but first get the NAACP to drop "colored people" out of their name, oh and while you are at it, have Ms. Black America drop that out of their description and further, make SURE BET changes their name too. I mean, why should there be a BLACK Entertainment Channel.

Since you are also about INCLUSION, then I guess you would want to drop the whole man/woman thing as a definition for marriage and make it EQUAL to all as well.

Mike, Thanks. And don't worry - these assholes don't really bother me to the point that I'm going to let them affect my health. Ha! on the contrary. 

Mike you seem to be missing the point of this part of the conversation.  I don't have a problem with a Gay Homeless Shelter.  What I have a problem with is saying that such a shelter is inclusive.  BET or the NAACP isn't trying to be inclusive.  Those organizations are purposely trying to advance one particular segment of the population.  I've got no problem with that because they are up front about it, and they don't make claims to the contrary.

And really I don't hate gays, and I am not afraid of gays, heck I even agree with most of the gay "agenda."   What I do take acception with is the tactic many gays take in bashing anyone who does't agree with them.

Hating a hater will never result in changing his mind.   it's like being prejudiced against someone because he is prejudiced.  Both parties involved only look like baffoons when they do that.

Besides.  The NAACP and BET were created because there were no outlets available to blacks to fulfill the needs of black people in those areas these orgs are focused on.

Thing is, homeless gays are already accepted into homeless shelters all over the country.   So, the claim of a need for a special shelter just for homeless gays is a bit suspect.

You say that there are differences in the needs of gays and straight homeless people...that's a crock.

And though you talked about there being differences in your long comment above, you never listed any.

Well, let me list for you what all homeless people need, regardless of any other aspect of their personal selves.

Food, Shelter, Clothing, the opportunity to rejoin society, get a job, and become independent.

Those are the things that homeless people need to leave homelessness.  and none of that has anything to do with color of skin, religion, politics, or sexuality.

I do find it funny when one group of people keeps saying that they want to be treated just like everyone else, and then they turn around and tell you just how different they are from every one else.   Well, what is it?  Do you want to treated as special and different?  Or are you want to be treated just like everyone else?

Every group of disenfranchised people have had to work and struggle for equality.  As "wrong" as that may be, that is the way it is, and will always be.  No one is just going to hand you everything you want.

In your struggle, you'll have to be smart, be patient, and not let your anger get the better of you.   I understand that the offical church policy angers you.  But if you return anger for anger, you'll never get anywhere.

btw, I'm voicing my own opinions here.  I don't get paid to write.

I believe your attitude, rooted in ignorance, still reflects the attitudes of most social service and health care providers who demand that the differences in the needs of LGBT people be spelled out to their satisfaction before they can begin to relate to something that is absolutely foreign to them.

The basic needs of the homeless are as you say, duh: food, shelter, clothing, employment and... the opportunity to rejoin society. Right there is a clue for you. Do you have any idea how complex the idea of society is? But it's much more than that and, no I'm not going to try to convey it to you any more than I already have. Because after I drew out a basic broad view of the LGBT experience in straight society, you have only become hostile and more closed minded. Suffice it to say, it's an LGBT thing - you will never understand.

Fortunately, we do not need YOU to understand. Your opinions are irrelevant and ineffectual. But there is a growing number of sensitive and intelligent people who are actively engaged in scientific studies of the experiences of LGBT people in order to address the disparities in health care and social services that you just don't even have the brain capacity to recognize.

All you are doing is politicizing the issue of social services by your suggesting that it is just a matter of "marketing." It's not about "one group of people saying that they want to be treated like everyone else and then turn around and tell you how different they are. It's not about being treated as "special," asshole. It is about being treated APPROPRIATELY. Everyone deserves to be treated appropriately according to their particular needs and situations. We are not a bunch of cookie-cutter clones that can all be treated the same.

You are trying to run the old bullshit argument that LGBT people are demanding special rights, when what we want is nothing more than equal rights. In terms of health care and social services equal rights does not mean that our needs can be addressed without consideration for who we are, our place in society, our experiences, all of which have commonalities for LGBT populations that do no exist in straight populations and to which straight populations are oblivious.

You will never understand. But some of our best and brightest researchers in social science and public health are on it. If you are really interested in finding out about LGBT experience you can start by checking out websites like http://www.lgbthealth.net/about1.shtml  and http://apha.confex.com/apha/137am/webprogram/LGBT.html andhttp://publichealth.drexel.edu/lgbthealth/

The research initiatives being undertaken are not being instigated by people who are looking for "special treatment." There are a number of generally LGBT-run programs that are doing this kind of research motivated by our experience during the AIDS epidemic when it was driven home to us en masse that the straight world did not care about our needs. We had to organize within our own communities to take care of ourselves and our own. The straight world didn't care until it seemed that the disease that was devastating our communities was starting to seep into theirs. We lost many many many vibrant young and older people to a very preventable disease and we took charge - educating ourselves and our communities while the straight world mostly sat on their hands and declared that god was punishing us for our wicked wicked ways.

You probably think that none of this has to do with homelessness. I would be surprised if you thought anything else. I know you don't get it. You have a completely different experience of the world, than I have which, I gather, was also not so rosey.

I'm sorry you've had a rough life. I believe that any social services that you need in terms of mental health, homelessness, addiction, etc. should be provided to you in appropriate and respectful ways. If you are a Vietnam vet you may be aware of the years of studies that have been conducted into meeting the particular needs of that group in terms of homelessness, PTSS, mental health etc.

A traumatized Vet has needs that are not the same as those of a runaway teenage gay boy. Both of these, as identifiable groups seeking help deserve to have their needs thoughtfully, respectfully considered.  

When you say things like "Fortunately, we do not need YOU to understand. Your opinions are irrelevant and ineffectual."  "I know you don't get it." "...asshole" etc.  then you really are no better than your enemies.

Thing is, if you really paid attention to what I have written, you'd know I'm not your enemy.  But your anger and hatred has blinded you.  Now, you are as big an obstacle to your achieving equality as the church is.

Kevin, don't flatter yourself. I do not consider you my enemy. And my eyes are wide open. I am not blinded by anger and hatred as you suggest. If you really tried to grasp what I have written you would have come up with something more to say at this point than resorting to telling me what an "obstacle" I am to "achieving" my own equality.

The course language I use rises from the frustration of hearing the same old shit over and over and over, and never being heard myself. Not just from you, of course. You just mindlessly parrot the same dumb, insulting lines that we've all heard many times over in many different forms for decades now.

It is so frustrating to try to talk sense, hoping to receive a response will make sense as well. But, like everyone else you just resort to diversions and baseless generalities, telling me about how I have to just suck it up and "love the church, forgive the church" and how I really am "no better than [my] enemies."

Kevin, I KNOW I am no better than my "enemies." I do not claim to be. I have no need to claim to be better than anyone.

What I DO claim is what I am due: EQUALITY - which is not something I need to achieve. It is inherent.

What is frustrating is the incredible gyrations you and your ilk put us through in consistently futile attempts to make a few basic points about what we are dealing with so you might get over your stubborn refusal to recognize the fact of our equality. 

It is so insulting to hear you say, "everyone has to struggle," "we're all the same," "stop asking for special treatment," "the gay agenda," etc. etc. etc. To me, hearing these patently offensive buzz phrases are totally equivalent to my using words like "asshole" and telling you straight up that I don't give fuck what you think.

I am just being honest -- more honest than you ever are because I do not even pretend to care about what you have to say or think

...where you do nothing BUT pretend that you care about anything but defending the indefensible.  

I will tell you something about homelessness that most people just don't get.

A person does not have to overcome all their problems in life to get out of homelessness.   A homeless alcoholic does not have to overcome his alcoholism in order to leave homelessness.

A mentally ill person does not have to become sane in order to leave homelessness.

A Vietnam Vet does not have to come to terms will all the crap that happened in the Vietnam War to leave homelessness.

A a gay teen does not have to wait until society achieves equality for gays, or for the gay community to rescue him/her in order to leave homelessness.

and let me clarify something I said earlier.  I said that a homeless person needs to reconnect with society.  It would have been more correct for me to say that a homeless person needs to have friends and people they can depend on to be his/her support during the transition back into a non-homeless status.   And that group can consist of anyone.  And that group need only focus on getting the person in a home.  A person's sexuality, or the recognition and acceptance of it, is a completely unrelated subject.

And Al, if you want people to respect you, it might serve you well to be more respectful of others.

Homelessness is obviously an issue for individuals who find themselves in the situation of being homeless, but you cannot ignore the fact that it is also a huge issue for society. Of course, the most simplistic way to think of it is on the personal level where your answers no doubt apply. So you have no argument from me about that. Need to take care of the individual first, naturally. Especially if the homeless person happens to be you. But looking at it as a problem just for the individual is kinda like looking at the AIDS epidemic as a problem just for individuals. The American Public Health Association issued a policy statement on it in 1997 and continues to work on addressing the issues involved. See: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=152

And, Kevin, I thought I made it clear before that I'm not too concerned with getting people to respect me by and large. Not in this kind of context. I'm not needy in that way. But don't worry. I'm not an idiot. I am pretty good about knowing whose respect I need to have in order to live my life and to be effective and to keep the peace in the world. Thanks for your concern tho.

Well, one thing I've learned from a life time of trying to make the world a better place, there is no such thing as righteous indignation.

I am old school Kevin.  If you are going to touch me like that, group or not, you will have to marry me. lol

just kidding of course.

Hi All,

    Ouch, the touch me there comment was a reply to the group hug request.  How did that happen? lol

You are absolutely right. Your post brings back memories of my own teen years, where I was hounded, beaten up, and likewise berrated because I liked to hang out with the guys and thus was called 'slut', 'whore' etc even when I was a virgin. People can be so cruel, and it is indeed just human nature at it's worst.

It is wrong to behave like that. It is wrong to treat people like that.

You are absolutely right. Your post brings back memories of my own teen years, where I was hounded, beaten up, and likewise berrated because I liked to hang out with the guys and thus was called 'slut', 'whore' etc even when I was a virgin. People can be so cruel, and it is indeed just human nature at it's worst.

It is wrong to behave like that. It is wrong to treat people like that.

I hope you are enjoying yourself, Jen. You are putting so much into self-entertainment at our expense... I hope you are having fun. 

Hi All,

     Interesting Brian and some very good points I think.

     Of course many persons in history of great fame and changes good for humanity are known to have been gay or bisexual.  The Catholic Saints Sergius and Bacchus not the least of these.

     Only in our modern society, with its obsession for sex and attempts to catagorize the vast spectrum of sexuality into little bundles of perversions ala climax; is recording of sexual goings on done.  Historically, sexual behavior took a back seat to such things as eating, finding water, etc.

     Probably the most well documented gay person of world change is Alexander the Great.  I often suspect that it is his gay sensibility that led him to conquer without destroying the cultures of the conquered.  So obsessed are we today that it is demanded that Alexander's being gay not be uttered to the world.  Sad it is how we love to fool ourselves sometimes.

     Of interest to me is the "bisexuality" of which you speak.  Though it is your reference to appetite as relative to sexual behavior that I find very astute.  I agree wholeheartedly, and one does not "choose" to dislike liver fried with onions; the appetite is just there or not there.

     Having myself fought tooth and nail most of my young life to not be homosexual; I one day realized what should have always been clear to me.

     When my friends looked at certain girls, they would have an inane physical reaction.  A desire which was automatic and unplanned.  Though, as you say, most would have sex with a girl they didn't even really like (I assume that is part of the 'acting like a man' thing? :)

     Me, I realized that when I looked at certain guys, I would get the same reaction that my straight friends would get when they looked at certain girls.  I never really had a "choice", it is my nature.  Though I draw a line at having sexual relations with someone that I do not like. lol

Loveya,

Duane

The only problem is the interviewer asked the wrong question. The church is NOT cutting off services to the homeless. They are not accepting gov. funding and now will have to cut all services due to lack of money.They will continue to provide all the services their income will allow.  The gov is welcome to give that money to another not for profit org. which can continue the work.

The whole argument here and on the youtube video is a red herring, since the premise of the argument isn't even accurate.

Why Al, it is the truth. Society is set up by it's people, and this society has homeless poeple. Of course all societies have homeless people.....

It is not the fault of the rich conservative evil male b*stards, but of all of us. The voting majority in the country are women, are the poor and middle class. Looking back at 2008 tax records, Bush and Cheney gave more of a percentage of their income to charity than Obama and Biden. Things are not always as nice, simple and black and white as we would like. You and I are just as responsible for the creation of this society as anyone. Certainly the rich white males have their share of culpability, but they are not alone.

So why is it stupid empty criticism when aimed out at all of us but acceptable criticism when aimed at an institution which helped the homeless for centuries and continues to do so, simply without state funding? The church gives more money to the poor than all the modern liberals put together, so why are they the bad guys?

If you were banned from doing gay marriages if you accepted state money, you would refuse the money too, even if that meant having to cut back your services. And the state would give that money to another agency, no services would be lost, and this misleading article would never have been written.

So why is it so horrible when the church does the same exact thing??

Thank you Jen.

     Very well put Jacqueline!  And a happy birthday upcoming to you also!

     You are not and have never been gay/lesbian and your going to be 70 years old.  You know, its never too late to...LOL I'm just kidding of course.  It is nice to see people who recognize that life us best lived without the hatred and unfair prejudice that only serve to make others unhappy.  Cheers to you Jacqueline (love that name to).

     When this whole gay marriage thing came to be, my first thought was, ""Who are these people who would demand to control which others may or may not vow unto the Lord God?"

     It is the differences in the world that are the true spice of living.  What a shame it would be if everyone were just like everyone else.

Loveya,

Duane