Ford Motor Company Supports Homosexual Marriage Movement

  • Thread starter Thread starter GloriaPatri4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Other Eric:
Hi guys!

Why pick on just Ford and not GM, DaimlerChrysler or even AAA?
Click to expand...
So in addition to the Ford cars and trucks we can add Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Hummer, Saab, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall, Mercedes-Benz, Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, Setra, Freightliner, Sterling, Western Star, and Fuso Trucks. Who else can we add?
 
John Joseph,

Yes, but we still have all of the Japanese auto makers…plus South Korena, etc…the Japanese are making much better cars anyway.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
John Joseph,

Yes, but we still have all of the Japanese auto makers…plus South Korena, etc…the Japanese are making much better cars anyway.
Click to expand...
I have a few Japanese friends and friends of various Asian nationalities. In general Asians view homosexual activity as very wrong. I believe in Japan they do not allow homosexuals to adopt children. Why is it that Westerners have so much of the “anything goes attitude” all in the name of tolerance, diversity and acceptance?
 
gloria,

I can’t answer your question about westerners, other than to say that just 30 years ago things very much different here. I guess I just went from considering a Jeep to now considering a Toyota 4-Runner.
 
Here is the thing, Ford is not taking a “benefits” approach to their policies regarding gays, it goes way beyond that, as the following excerpt from the site reflects:

*Ford believes the effort to legalize homosexual marriage by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is so important that the company is giving GLAAD up to $1,000 for every Jaguar or Land Rover (both Ford products) purchased this year. Click on the link and go to the bottom of the ad and you can read about Ford’s support for GLAAD. GLAAD is one of the nation’s largest homosexual groups promoting homosexual marriage. Ford’s donations will help GLAAD in their efforts. *Read More
 
Does anyone know of any religious denominations which gives their members a list a companies/corporations or orgainzations in which to boycott?

I believe the Catholic church still forbids their members to be free masons.
 
I was employed by a Ford dealership (the operative word here is was) I am no longer employed and am seeking employment at a great economic loss. I didn’t like a lot of the things that company did. One thing they told us how to vote. Some weeks before the elections we recieved a list of the approved candidates and if we wanted to work for them we could have time off to do so. This list was in our pay envelope. However make no mistake about this whatever donations are made to any organization by a cooperation are tax deductible advertisments. That being said. I have boycotted many products because I have found their advertising offensive. This of course does no good unless you tell the company why you are no longer a customer. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to stand up for what we believe. I believe there is no one who does this enough.
 
40.png
Brad:
You cannot commit a sin to punish a sinner. This is exactly the line of distinction that Jesus’ drew. He did not discriminate against sinners. He welcomed them. On the other hand, He did not say what they did was right but that they needed to repent.
If we turn our backs on sinners, we turn our back on ourselves. Love the sinner. Hate the sin.
Click to expand...
Hi Brad!

Of course you should love the sinner and hate the sin, but that formulation becomes a useless sound byte if by “loving” the sinner we mean to ignore the first two spiritual works of mercy by not taking steps to convert him or instruct his ignorance. Applying severe temporal consequences to the obstinate decision to remain an active homosexual would do just that. If you mean to draw a line somewhere else, could you please tell me where and why you would draw it there?
 
Other Eric:
Hi Brad!

Of course you should love the sinner and hate the sin, but that formulation becomes a useless sound byte if by “loving” the sinner we mean to ignore the first two spiritual works of mercy by not taking steps to convert him or instruct his ignorance. Applying severe temporal consequences to the obstinate decision to remain an active homosexual would do just that. If you mean to draw a line somewhere else, could you please tell me where and why you would draw it there?
Click to expand...
I would not prevent an active homosexual from finding shelter, income, food, clothing, moral entertainment etc. because he is an active homosexual. That is not right. I would attempt to prevent him from purchasing pornography, being in positions of influencing children, or trying to change the law of the land to normalize homosexuality. If I were a priest, perhaps I would assign temporal punishment unrelated to the homosexuality itself but I don’t think that’s my roles as a baptized Christian.
 
40.png
Brad:
I would not prevent an active homosexual from finding shelter, income, food, clothing, moral entertainment etc. because he is an active homosexual. That is not right. I would attempt to prevent him from purchasing pornography, being in positions of influencing children, or trying to change the law of the land to normalize homosexuality. If I were a priest, perhaps I would assign temporal punishment unrelated to the homosexuality itself but I don’t think that’s my roles as a baptized Christian.
Click to expand...
Hi Brad!

I’m sorry, now you have me really confused. If it’s not your role as a baptized Christian to apply temporal consequences to active homosexuality, than you would not be able to boycott Ford, prevent the homosexual from influencing children nor denying the homosexual access to the democratic process as a means of preventing him from changing the law. All of those are temporal consequences that you have defined as beyond the realm of your responsibility to impose.

This seems to be a recurring theme on these forums. Arguments against the practice of homosexuality are long on abstract philosophy but short on practical applications. It is no wonder that in the space of 40 short years we, as a nation, have gone from debating whether homosexuality is a mental health disorder to whether we should sanction it through marriage.
 
It seems Ford is the worst of all car makers regarding support of sinful actibites…does anyone know how the other autom makers stand?
 
Other Eric:
Hi Brad!

I’m sorry, now you have me really confused. If it’s not your role as a baptized Christian to apply temporal consequences to active homosexuality, than you would not be able to boycott Ford, prevent the homosexual from influencing children nor denying the homosexual access to the democratic process as a means of preventing him from changing the law. All of those are temporal consequences that you have defined as beyond the realm of your responsibility to impose.

This seems to be a recurring theme on these forums. Arguments against the practice of homosexuality are long on abstract philosophy but short on practical applications. It is no wonder that in the space of 40 short years we, as a nation, have gone from debating whether homosexuality is a mental health disorder to whether we should sanction it through marriage.
Click to expand...
Boycotting Ford is not temporal punishment of Ford. It is using my money wisely to affect the culture for good, not bad.

Same thing for preventing the homosexual from influencing children. I’m not trying to punish the homosexual. I’m trying to help the child.

This is exactly the point. Homosexual “rights” activists see all that Christians and other morally concious Americans do as “punishing” the homosexuals. They see it completely wrong. We don’t want to punish homosexuals. We want to effec the culture for good in a way that will help ALL people - even those that label themselves as homosexual.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder, which is why we want them to be helped, not punished. The homosexual agenda that insists that homosexuality is normal do harm to homosexuals by denying that they need help.
 
40.png
Brad:
Boycotting Ford is not temporal punishment of Ford. It is using my money wisely to affect the culture for good, not bad.

Same thing for preventing the homosexual from influencing children. I’m not trying to punish the homosexual. I’m trying to help the child.

This is exactly the point. Homosexual “rights” activists see all that Christians and other morally concious Americans do as “punishing” the homosexuals. They see it completely wrong. We don’t want to punish homosexuals. We want to effec the culture for good in a way that will help ALL people - even those that label themselves as homosexual.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder, which is why we want them to be helped, not punished. The homosexual agenda that insists that homosexuality is normal do harm to homosexuals by denying that they need help.
Click to expand...
Hi Brad!

I did not say “punishment.” I said “consequence.” There is a difference. For example, a splat is a consequence of jumping off of a fifteen-story high-rise, not a punishment imposed by God.

From Ford’s point of view, their decision to engage in political activism of the type mentioned here has resulted in the consequence of losing your business. Similarly the decision to stubbornly adhere to active homosexuality would result in the consequence of the loss of the right to certain social services and privileges such as the right to vote. This helps society both by implicitly demonstrating to the individual the grave nature of the decision to be an active homosexual and it removes those with a malignant mental disorder from the list of eligible voters. These aren’t punishments, they’re simply consequences of the decision to spurn the Natural Law.
 
Other Eric:
Hi Brad!

I did not say “punishment.” I said “consequence.” There is a difference. For example, a splat is a consequence of jumping off of a fifteen-story high-rise, not a punishment imposed by God.

From Ford’s point of view, their decision to engage in political activism of the type mentioned here has resulted in the consequence of losing your business. Similarly the decision to stubbornly adhere to active homosexuality would result in the consequence of the loss of the right to certain social services and privileges such as the right to vote. This helps society both by implicitly demonstrating to the individual the grave nature of the decision to be an active homosexual and it removes those with a malignant mental disorder from the list of eligible voters. These aren’t punishments, they’re simply consequences of the decision to spurn the Natural Law.
Click to expand...
I agree. There are consequences and there should be. Consequences are often indirect results of a negative behavior. Punishment should be much more direct and administered by a legal/moral guardian.
 
40.png
Brad:
I agree. There are consequences and there should be. Consequences are often indirect results of a negative behavior. Punishment should be much more direct and administered by a legal/moral guardian.
Click to expand...
Hi Brad!

Well, if we are agreed that there ought to be consequences for immoral behavior, then why does it become sinful to observe those consequences? Why is it beyond the pale for a soup kitchen to refuse food or drink to a homosexual? For a store to refuse him clothing? For a landlord to evict him from a room or for a mortgage company to deny him a loan for a house? To ignore the homosexual in the hospital who is wasting away from AIDS and still unrepentant? To ostracize a homosexual sex offender? To deny a funeral and refuse to bury such a man?

These examples aren’t punishments applied on a whim to individuals we happen to dislike, they are consequences of a decision to live life immorally. If not observed, they could lead to the assumption that immoral behavior is tolerated or even approved of by society. Why then does it become sinful to follow these directives?
 
**News from Onemillionmoms.
**

AFA suspends Ford boycott for six months

June 6, 2005
Following a meeting with a group of Ford dealers on June 5, AFA has suspended its boycott of Ford Motor Company until December 1, 2005. In the meeting, the dealers asked for time to see if the concerns raised by AFA in their boycott announcement could be addressed by them in cooperation with officials from Ford Motor Company.

AFA felt that the dealers were making a good faith effort and agreed to accept their request. Therefore, the suspension request was accepted by AFA. During the remaining period AFA will work with the dealers in attempting to resolve our differences.

We urge those supporting the boycott to disregard the boycott until December 1, 2005.

On or about December 1 we will notify our supporters as to status of the boycott.

Thanks to all who contacted their local dealers. Your involvement made a difference!

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman
OneMillionMoms.com

P.S. Please forward this to your family and friends!
Code: 
       [store.afa.net/productcart/pc/catalog/marriagebumper_919_thumb.jpg](https://store.afa.net/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=8&idproduct=37)
Marriage: One Man One Woman - Take a stand for marriage. Rear Window/Bumper Stickers. Printed on weather-proof, laminate, vinyl stock.
 
buffalo said:
**News from Onemillionmoms.
**

AFA suspends Ford boycott for six months

June 6, 2005
Following a meeting with a group of Ford dealers on June 5, AFA has suspended its boycott of Ford Motor Company until December 1, 2005. In the meeting, the dealers asked for time to see if the concerns raised by AFA in their boycott announcement could be addressed by them in cooperation with officials from Ford Motor Company.

AFA felt that the dealers were making a good faith effort and agreed to accept their request. Therefore, the suspension request was accepted by AFA. During the remaining period AFA will work with the dealers in attempting to resolve our differences.

We urge those supporting the boycott to disregard the boycott until December 1, 2005.

On or about December 1 we will notify our supporters as to status of the boycott.

Thanks to all who contacted their local dealers. Your involvement made a difference!

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman
OneMillionMoms.com

P.S. Please forward this to your family and friends!
Code: 
       [store.afa.net/productcart/pc/catalog/marriagebumper_919_thumb.jpg](https://store.afa.net/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=8&idproduct=37)
Marriage: One Man One Woman - Take a stand for marriage. Rear Window/Bumper Stickers. Printed on weather-proof, laminate, vinyl stock.
Click to expand...

Great news!
 
Brad,

A suspension of the boycott does not mean there are no problems. It troubles me that AFA asks for our boycott, but then won’t give us more information. There are some very serious matters regarding Ford…I am not willing to look the other way just because AFA says so.
 
Other Eric:
Hi Brad!

Well, if we are agreed that there ought to be consequences for immoral behavior, then why does it become sinful to observe those consequences? Why is it beyond the pale for a soup kitchen to refuse food or drink to a homosexual? For a store to refuse him clothing? For a landlord to evict him from a room or for a mortgage company to deny him a loan for a house? To ignore the homosexual in the hospital who is wasting away from AIDS and still unrepentant? To ostracize a homosexual sex offender? To deny a funeral and refuse to bury such a man?
Click to expand...
As I said above:

Punishment should be much more direct and administered by a legal/moral guardian

I did not say there should or should not be consequences. I simply said that consequences are a somewhat natural byproduct of bad behavior. This differs from punishment. A landlord is not legal or moral guardian and should therefore not apply punishment. However, a landlord MAY decide to apply “punishment” outside of his/her authority and that would be a consequence. A landlord should apply punishment if the homosexual damages the property or does not pay rent. Those violations fall under the landlord’s legal and moral authroity. Apply the same logic to the clothing store owner, the soup kitchen worker or the funeral director.
Other Eric:
These examples aren’t punishments applied on a whim to individuals we happen to dislike, they are consequences of a decision to live life immorally. If not observed, they could lead to the assumption that immoral behavior is tolerated or even approved of by society. Why then does it become sinful to follow these directives?
Click to expand...
They would indeed be attempted punishments, which, exercised outside of legitmate authority, would be wrong. For example, if my child was caught on my yard punching another child, the person that caught him (who is not related to either child) could call the police but he would be wrong in punishing my child by purposefully not providing aid if he subsequently became hurt.

The law is a great shaper of what behavior should be tolerated which is why Christians are working so diligently to see that the law holds up traditional marriage and outlaws baby killing - and why many more Christians need to do likewise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top