Kirk Cameron Finally Weighs in on How Gays Will Destroy Civilization

[Chris L]

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.

Sorry, but we also have individual liberty in this country. So while Kirk can say whatever he likes about homosexuality, he has no say in what homosexuals actually do in their lives.

 

[Resume]

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.

He gets no say in it, as in his words carry no weight with me. It is of course his right to mouth whatever backwards nonsense he likes. And of course be criticized in return for his superstitious drivel.

 

[Chris L]

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

I stand corrected. Malice is not the right word for what I am describing. On the other hand, good intentions based on bad ideas can have the same effects as malice. The folks who go around trying to "cure" homosexuals really believe they are doing what is best for the person they are trying to cure. There is no malice in their hearts at all. That doesn't help the person they are focusing their good intentions on much though.

 

[cwalner]

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

My bad. I had thought you had mentioned it in posts on other threads.

Either way, my point still stands about the RCC abuse scandal as harm resulting from suppression of one's sexuality.

 

[Caper]

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

Straight people don't scissor

 

[Caper]

If he teaches his kids to restrict the happiness of homosexuals by dictating their rights, he's a bad parent. If he teaches them his crocoduck creationism, ditto.

Wow. It feels like such an honor to be part of the 1st generation of parents to be actually good. To think humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years and only now upon their acceptance of gay marriage do they have the possibility of being good parents.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Straight people don't scissor

Speak for yourself.

 

[bookitty]

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.

The behavior Cameron (and you) are trying to change is society's acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human variation. Somewhat like my grandmother who often said that things were better when homosexuals stayed out of sight. Nobody had to be bothered with that way.

That attitude completely marginalizes homosexuals and leads to discrimination. Historically that discrimination has lead to loss of employment, arrests, and murder. My grandmother would much prefer that homosexuals face that level of discrimination than "bother" her with all of this human rights nonsense. And that is what makes her a bigot.

Your "if they simply don't act on things that make me uncomfortable" is exactly the same thing. Whether or not you will admit to malice, you are promoting an agenda in which society increases discrimination against a group and you have full knowledge of the dangerous effects of that discrimination. That is malicious intent.

 

[Resume]

Wow. It feels like such an honor to be part of the 1st generation of parents to be actually good. To think humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years and only now upon their acceptance of gay marriage do they have the possibility of being good parents.

When you teach your kids to discriminate against others based on differences you are doing a poor job of parenting. Period.

ETA Not that it's Cameron's entire body of work as a parent but I feel it's a large flaw.

 

[Arisia]

I do wonder what Mr. Cameron meant by 'we'd work through the problem' (paraphrasing that bit, sorry) if one of his children came out as homosexual? Would he try to force a 'cure' on his child, or what?

 

[Ladewig]

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.

Yes. This is the JREF forum; therefore it is not inappropriate to use extravagantly precise definitions¹. I could derail this thread with a lengthy list of famous homosexuals who have had babies through artificial insemination, but that is not necessary.

Your post, while not intending to be so, is slightly irksome because there are many folks in the U.S. who believe that if we gave homosexuals equal rights ² then that lifestyle choice³ would become more attractive to young adults and the numbers of homosexuals would dramatically climb and then birth rates would drop to dangerously low levels. These chuckleheads think that they have constructed a non-Biblical, yet logically-perfect argument against rights for homosexuals.


.
(1) Extravagantly Precise Definitions is a good name for a band.
(2) although these folks never call them equal rights, they prefer to call them special rights.
(3) that's another one of their favorite phrases.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Wow. It feels like such an honor to be part of the 1st generation of parents to be actually good. To think humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years and only now upon their acceptance of gay marriage do they have the possibility of being good parents.

Hyperbole much?

You know very well that the point was not that the acceptance of gay marriage automatically makes someone a good parent, but that teaching your kids that homosexuality is bad makes someone a bad parent.

I was going to add that it makes someone a bad parent in a particular part of parenting, whilst not necessarily in others. However, telling your kids that homosexuals are bad is such an unforgivable thing that I couldn't think of any way in which the parent could still be considered a good parent.

 

[bookitty]

I do wonder what Mr. Cameron meant by 'we'd work through the problem' (paraphrasing that bit, sorry) if one of his children came out as homosexual? Would he try to force a 'cure' on his child, or what?

Depends on whether or not he believes in the Pearl Method of "Training Up A Child."

 

[Caper]

You know very well that the point was not that the acceptance of gay marriage automatically makes someone a good parent, but that teaching your kids that homosexuality is bad makes someone a bad parent.

No it doesn't. I've argued in favour of gay marriage with people who are great people and very good parents.

 

[Arcade22]

Same-sex marriages became legal in 2009 here in Sweden and since then homosexuals are still a small minority. Same-sex marriages are a tiny fraction of all marriages in total, and the amount weddings that take place in Churches is even smaller. Pedophilia is still illegal and polygamous marriages are not allowed. Child sacrifice and Satan worship is not that common.

What other harmful effects have people said would come from this? I mean these people are experts at playing off peoples emotions and spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst fearful fools, so being painfully vague is their main strength.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Same-sex marriages became legal in 2009 here in Sweden and since then homosexuals are still a small minority. Same-sex marriages are a tiny fraction of all marriages in total, and the amount weddings that take place in Churches is even smaller. Pedophilia is still illegal and polygamous marriages are not allowed. Child sacrifice and Satan worship is not that common.

What other harmful effects have people said would come from this? I mean these people are experts at playing off peoples emotions and spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst fearful fools, so being painfully vague is their main strength.

Any earthquakes or other major natural disasters?

Maybe a plague of frogs?

 

[Caper]

Same-sex marriages became legal in 2009 here in Sweden and since then homosexuals are still a small minority. Same-sex marriages are a tiny fraction of all marriages in total, and the amount weddings that take place in Churches is even smaller. Pedophilia is still illegal and polygamous marriages are not allowed. Child sacrifice and Satan worship is not that common.

What other harmful effects have people said would come from this? I mean these people are experts at playing off peoples emotions and spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst fearful fools, so being painfully vague is their main strength.

Slightly off topic. But was child pornography ever legal in Sweden? Something tells me that I read somewhere they were late to get it off the books.

 

[Halfcentaur]

This is going to be such an embarrassing non issue in another few decades. I have to actually strain to recall a single person my age (31) or below it that cares one iota about these restrictions, and I live in the heart of Oklahoma. The only people I can think of are some of the stricter religious people one encounters in this part of the country, and even that is rare here in this age group.

 

[Caper]

This is going to be such an embarrassing non issue in another few decades. I have to actually strain to recall a single person my age (31) or below it that cares one iota about these restrictions, and I live in the heart of Oklahoma. The only people I can think of are some of the stricter religious people one encounters in this part of the country, and even that is rare here in this age group.

Maybe in a few decades..... But I can invison a scenerio where it could break the other way. I don't think it is a guarantee at all the world becomes a more tolerant place.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Maybe in a few decades..... But I can invison a scenerio where it could break the other way. I don't think it is a guarantee at all the world becomes a more tolerant place.

But in that sense this is not an issue about tolerance. In my experience, my generation doesn't tolerate anything about this because there's nothing straining our tolerance. It's simply accepted because it's all over the place rather than something that used to be a taboo only whispered about. I cannot envision a scenario short of a sudden outburst of homosexual crime waves and gay on straight attacks that would change this shift in attitude. They could use either knives or shotguns in these crime waves.