Kirk Cameron Finally Weighs in on How Gays Will Destroy Civilization

[sadhatter]

Kirk Cameron: gays will destroy civilization.

James Cameron: machines will destroy civilization.

Kalen: gay machines will destroy civilization.

Gay machines are already destroying civilization, they are called Mac's.

Of course i am using the colloquial definition of gay, but the point still stands.

 

[Ladewig]

By... saying it. Without malice.

I guess I'm not understanding what's malicious about characterizing certain behavior as immoral and destructive.

I believe that describing someone else's behavior as immoral and self-destructive is (under most circumstances) neither hateful nor malicious. I'll go even further and say that describing someone's behavior as immoral and destructive to family and loved ones is not malicious. But describing victimless voluntary behavior as destructive to the foundations of civilization is pretty over the top.

 

[sadhatter]

Ok.

Again it was a good post.

But I take issue with one aspect. And that is that Mr Cameron is a hateful person. I never got that impression at all and I don't think it is one bit true.

I think it would be more appropriate to say his words inspire hateful people. Kids that may want to come out to their parents would probably feel terrible if they were watching that live. It certainly doesn't help say an openly gay teenager trying to navigate through school. Someone disapproving of their lifestyle doesn't help them at all.

But I can't agree he is hateful himself. I have heard plenty of Evangelicals who come off as incredibly hateful. But not Kirk.

Also... maybe Kirk might have a better chance of coming around if he is shown love.... and reminded of the consequences of his speech.

The operative phrase in your post near the end, the words " Come off as.".

Its all marketing, they are all saying the same thing, but some choose to appeal to their more outspoken brethren, while kirk goes the " Just pointing it out." route.

The man is an actor, making you pick up on the emotions he wants to portray is what he does, and he is doing it well.

Someone saying "Gay's will destroy civilization." or any varient, is hateful, it doesn't matter if they are screaming it and threatening, or saying it in a Cain from Kung-Fu, hushed whisper accompanied by what they believe is wisdom, it is hateful.

Kirk may have convinced himself that because a magic man in the sky tells him to say it, it isn't hateful, but that doesn't mean you have to drink the kool aid as well.

To use an analogy, i don't care why someone just shot me, i only care that they just shot me. Whether they convinced themselves they were doing surgery to save my life or not doesn't matter.

 

[Jono]

I believe that describing someone else's behavior as immoral and self-destructive is (under most circumstances) neither hateful nor malicious. I'll go even further and say that describing someone's behavior as immoral and destructive to family and loved ones is not malicious. But describing victimless voluntary behavior as destructive to the foundations of civilization is pretty over the top.

Well, I consider the former two to be more loaded than the latter one. Independant of Cameron's intent behind that specific comment, a progressive cultivation of homosexual membership would, logically, be destructive to society if we consider it destructive to have a barely-to-non reproductive society.

 

[Carnivore]

I start by asking the person what rational basis they have for their beliefs. Old fashioned dialectic is a great way to get to the bottom of disagreements of all sorts.

I could have a relationship with a man, and its moral; but my relationships with women are immoral. What changed here? Obviously the gender of the partners, but is that what actually accounts for the immorality? That part needs to be spelled out. I'm not asking for a lot here, if someone wants to call me immoral for being gay, I think I deserve an explanation.

Explanations are where things get muddy. Usually, immoral things are classified as such because they cause some direct or indirect harm to others. Someone's a victim, someone's an assailant. Its easy to see the roles in cases like murder, theft, rape, assault -- homosexuality, however, is the odd duck out. Its not obvious why homosexuality harms anyone directly or indirectly, who's the victim, who's the assailant? Why does the harm disappear by swapping out one of the partners for someone of the other gender, why do those victim and assailant roles disappear?

Opponents of LGBT rights are quick to say that being gay is immoral, as if it were obvious to everyone why its immoral. But its not. They're fond of comparing homosexuality to rape and murder, but nothing accounts for it harmful in any way comparable at all. (Quite frankly, if they think homosexuality is immoral in the same way as murder, it tells me they have not the faintest inkling of an idea why murder is wrong even in principle.)

If opponents of LGBT rights feel that homosexuality is immoral, they need to spell it out. Most of the time, they don't. Because they can't. There's no secular moral distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

So, the only thing we have to fall back on are religious arguments. This is the trump card, perceived as the argument for which no counter argument is possible. "God disapproves of gays, don't blame me for agreeing with him."

My immediate response then is to ask why god disapproves of gays. And now we come full circle. If God doesn't state rational reasons for opposing homosexuality, he cannot in principle state any rational argument against behaving otherwise. Its an absolutely startling revelation that, in absence of some explanation, there's no rational basis for obeying God in the first place -- except that God is bigger and stronger than everyone, and he'll torture you if you don't.

There are so many numerous problems with religious morality, most severely that religious morality is culturally relative. Its not absolutely in any way, shape, or form, it follows the social mores of the time. Religious texts are not an exception: they reflect the social mores and customs of the period and culture they were written. That's why you had slavery abolitionists and anti-abolitionists claiming to preach the will of God from the very same bible. Every contemporary issue from women's rights, animal rights, gender norms follows the exact same script. Religious prescriptions with good underlying rational basis, like prohibition on murder, stand the test of time; prescriptions without rational basis, such as prohibition on men with long hair and women with short hair, are discarded.

If people don't oppose homosexuality for rational reasons, they must admit to themselves they oppose for irrational reasons. So then, on what rational basis can we draw a moral distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality? We can't. They are morally equal.


Only when someone says something incredibly hurtful, like accusing me of being morally bankrupt and a danger to children. I get worked up about the homosexuality issue because so much of the opposition is rooted in character assassination without a damn good reason.

I go to great lengths to justify things I believe, to make an effort to understand how others justify opposing beliefs. There are many times when I change my opinions on things. The debate on the homosexuality issue, however, is over. Its weighted lopsidedly on the side which states that its accepted, so much that there's no possible rational argument to the contrary.

I'd say the argument against homosexuality is comparable to the argument against evolution. Supporters have already won the intellectual and moral debate on the subject, the force of cultural inertia is the only thing pushing against it.

To a person honestly seeking an ethical position based on logic and reason in the real world this post is absolutely unanswerable. Your analogy regarding evolution seems spot on to me.

Unfortunately, as you say, some religious belief is immune to reason. Many people genuinely believe that a loving, all powerful creator of the universe commanded humans to behave in a certain way, that to be good is to obey those orders and that we are incapable of understanding the mind that issued them. Since this belief is unfalsifiable it can't be countered by any argument. I have known people (I'm related to some,) that are unable to come up with any rational justification for what they believe, and acknowledge this, but seem actually incapable of changing their mind.

I don't think there is any chance of educating Kirk Cameron out of his beliefs. I guess all you can do is call him on it when you think he is wrong and try to sway with reason those who reason can reach. I suppose the appropriate response to a civil but harmful opponent comes down to a question of what tactics will be most effective in opposing his goals.

Ultimately his goals have to be countered even if I personally don't think he is an evil person.(I absolutely consider many of his coreligionists evil.) And my judgement on whether or not he is hateful is bound to be less acute than someone who lives with the reality of discrimination.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Then the confusion is yours (and his). Homosexuality is not a "class of behavior," any more than heterosexuality is.

Listen again to specifically the questions that Kirk is asked, and to his answers -- particularly with regards to his hypothetical gay son. It's clear that Kirk is not talking about people being attracted to each other; he's talking about acting on that attraction. Same-sex marriage and relationships, permissive sexuality not based around the family unit. That's behavior. Of more concern, I would expect, is the attempt to force society to recognize and normalize these behaviors.
And with Kirk specifically you can't accuse him of hypocrasy when it comes to heterosexual attitudes destructive to the family. The guy has come out strongly and consistently against heterosexual promiscuity, divorce, porn. He really does believe we need to put sex into a very, very tiny box.
I recognize that many gay rights advocates consider same-sex relationships, gay sex, and other elements of that lifestyle to be so central to identity that it's equivalent to attacking a group of people, but this is simply not true. It's fine for you to claim you have the right to practice these behaviors (you absolutely do) and for you to decry other peoples' condemnation of them as oppressive -- but the purpose here is to change behavior, not to harm people. There's no malice here.

 

[Moss]

Well, I consider the former two to be more loaded than the latter one. Independant of Cameron's intent behind that specific comment, a progressive cultivation of homosexual membership would, logically, be destructive to society if we consider it destructive to have a barely-to-non reproductive society.

There is a trend to not reproduce. The cause does not seem to be the acceptance of already homosexual members. I think a society would have to be on its last leg already if it needs it "in the closet" members to reproduce because the heterosexuals don't.

 

[Lithrael]

a progressive cultivation of homosexual membership would, logically, be destructive to society if we consider it destructive to have a barely-to-non reproductive society.

Luckily as rather advanced primates when we find our reproductive drive not being automatically satisfied as a side effect of our sex drive, we know what to do about it.

Also I've never seen much of anyone suggest that the percentage of the population that's exclusively gay will ever be enough to cause a serious dent in the demographics of who all is having babies. "Progressive cultivation" what? Are we talking about people who think it's contagious?

Any other ideas?

 

[Jono]

There is a trend to not reproduce.

A western-european one mostly yes (looking at the past 100 years at least).

The cause does not seem to be the acceptance of already homosexual members.

No I don't think it is related to that,.

I think a society would have to be on its last leg already if it needs it "in the closet" members to reproduce because the heterosexuals don't.

True, however that wasn't the inherent point of the example.

 

[Cleon]

Listen again to specifically the questions that Kirk is asked, and to his answers -- particularly with regards to his hypothetical gay son. It's clear that Kirk is not talking about people being attracted to each other; he's talking about acting on that attraction. Same-sex marriage and relationships, permissive sexuality not based around the family unit. That's behavior. Of more concern, I would expect, is the attempt to force society to recognize and normalize these behaviors.
And with Kirk specifically you can't accuse him of hypocrasy when it comes to heterosexual attitudes destructive to the family. The guy has come out strongly and consistently against heterosexual promiscuity, divorce, porn. He really does believe we need to put sex into a very, very tiny box.
I recognize that many gay rights advocates consider same-sex relationships, gay sex, and other elements of that lifestyle to be so central to identity that it's equivalent to attacking a group of people, but this is simply not true. It's fine for you to claim you have the right to practice these behaviors (you absolutely do) and for you to decry other peoples' condemnation of them as oppressive -- but the purpose here is to change behavior, not to harm people. There's no malice here.

There is no behavior that homosexuals engage in that heterosexuals don't also engage in. None.

So the bit about "it's behavior, not attraction?" It's BS. You and Kirk are making a completely artificial distinction.

 

[Jono]

Also I've never seen much of anyone suggest that the percentage of the population that's exclusively gay will ever be enough to cause a serious dent in the demographics of who all is having babies. "Progressive cultivation" what? Are we talking about people who think it's contagious?

Any other ideas?

Have you actually ever talked to a die-hard jew, christian, muslim et al? It shouldn't be a mystery to anyone somewhat familiar with classic rethoric on the issue. For such people, there is indeed a fear of "homo-contamination" within society, as if that would cause an increase and add converts to it.

 

[Moss]

How do you separate identity, sexual identity and sexual behaviour? To me they seem so intertwined that asking to stop a sexual behaviour means changing who you are.

 

[Moss]

True, however that wasn't the inherent point of the example.

Sorry, apparently failed to understand what you were talking about. Would you be so kind to rephrase it?

 

[Chris L]

By... saying it. Without malice.

I guess I'm not understanding what's malicious about characterizing certain behavior as immoral and destructive.

If you are saying there is a difference between malice and stupidity, I'd say you are correct on a purely academic level. However, when the stupidity leads to harmful behavior (children dying of disease because their parents don't "believe" in vaccines), that stupidity crosses the line and becomes malice. I'm not saying Kirk crossed that line in this case (so far he's only succeeded in exposing his own stupidity), but believing stupid things (the Joose are to blame for everything!) is hardly harmless.

 

[Carnivore]

If you are saying there is a difference between malice and stupidity, I'd say you are correct on a purely academic level. However, when the stupidity leads to harmful behavior (children dying of disease because their parents don't "believe" in vaccines), that stupidity crosses the line and becomes malice. I'm not saying Kirk crossed that line in this case (so far he's only succeeded in exposing his own stupidity), but believing stupid things (the Joose are to blame for everything!) is hardly harmless.

Regardless of whether Kirk was malicious or not, this is not correct. Harm is irrelevant to malice. Malice is all about intent.

mal·ice  [mal-is] noun
1.
desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.
2.
Law . evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.

 

[Resume]

He really does believe we need to put sex into a very, very tiny box.

Then he needs to put his there. Mine, he gets no say in.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Then he needs to put his there. Mine, he gets no say in.

Sorry, but we have freedom of speech in this country -- which means he gets say in pretty much everything he wants to talk about, including criticizing practices he disagrees with.

 

[cwalner]

Listen again to specifically the questions that Kirk is asked, and to his answers -- particularly with regards to his hypothetical gay son. It's clear that Kirk is not talking about people being attracted to each other; he's talking about acting on that attraction. Same-sex marriage and relationships, permissive sexuality not based around the family unit. That's behavior. Of more concern, I would expect, is the attempt to force society to recognize and normalize these behaviors.
...
I recognize that many gay rights advocates consider same-sex relationships, gay sex, and other elements of that lifestyle to be so central to identity that it's equivalent to attacking a group of people, but this is simply not true. It's fine for you to claim you have the right to practice these behaviors (you absolutely do) and for you to decry other peoples' condemnation of them as oppressive -- but the purpose here is to change behavior, not to harm people. There's no malice here.

I completely disagree. I once tried to suppress my sexuality in order to conform to a religious (Orthodox Jew) person I considered to be an authority figure in my life. I ended up breaking the relationship and having nothing further to do with them because I was plagued by far to frequent suicidal thoughts.

You just don't seem to get how much actual harm is caused by trying to deny something so primal and visceral as your sex drive. As a Catholic, you should be more acutely aware of that harm as it has expressed itself quite harmfully in the behavior of your own priests (and most of them were suppressing a heterosexual drive).

So yeah, asking somebody not to act on their sexuality causes intense psychological harm to the person and can even in extreme cases result in the person acting out in a way that harms those around them.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Well, I consider the former two to be more loaded than the latter one. Independant of Cameron's intent behind that specific comment, a progressive cultivation of homosexual membership would, logically, be destructive to society if we consider it destructive to have a barely-to-non reproductive society.

What would you do? Force homosexuals to have sex and thus reproduce?

If you merely don't want them to act on their sexuality, but you don't force them to have children, they still won't reproduce, and you'll still have a "barely-to-non reproductive society".

So, what are you going to do?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm not a Catholic. I'm not sure where anyone would get the idea that I am.