Kirk Cameron Finally Weighs in on How Gays Will Destroy Civilization

[Bram Kaandorp]

Odd question, I wouldn't do anything about homosexuals. I don't see why I should need to.



Not sure how you're motivating that kind of question based on what I wrote.

I misread your post as being anti-gay. My mistake.

 

[Jono]

I misread your post as being anti-gay. My mistake.

No worries. As it is, homosexuality is always going to be with us and it will, equally, always be a rarity. Nobodys actual sexuality is decided by how they were reared at home. As to your perception of my post, I do in fact consider male homosexual activity to be notably icky and bleh. Of course, if I didn't then I would probably not be straight to begin with.

 

[crimresearch]

No worries. As it is, homosexuality is always going to be with us and it will, equally, always be a rarity. Nobodys actual sexuality is decided by how they were reared at home. As to your perception of my post, I do in fact consider male homosexual activity to be notably icky and bleh. Of course, if I didn't then I would probably not be straight to begin with.

Well, don't knock it based simply on your initial reaction... try it 6 or 7 times to be sure that's how you feel...

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

No worries. As it is, homosexuality is always going to be with us and it will, equally, always be a rarity. Nobodys actual sexuality is decided by how they were reared at home. As to your perception of my post, I do in fact consider male homosexual activity to be notably icky and bleh. Of course, if I didn't then I would probably not be straight to begin with.

There's a big difference between thinking it's "icky", and thinking that it's immoral. The first case is personal preference (and sexual preference), the second is based on moral objections.

 

[cwalner]

There's a big difference between thinking it's "icky", and thinking that it's immoral. The first case is personal preference (and sexual preference), the second is based on moral objections.

The problem is that it seems for many opponents they use the first as one of the reasons to claim the second.

 

[Ladewig]

Hmm, well no that was not the intended point. I do not believe social pressure/enviroment 'creates' homosexuals. I believe nature does. The norm in society is and will probably always be a heterosexual one, and when/if there's a progressive increase of social cultivation of homosexuality (independent from the actual number of homosexuals) then there will be, expectantly, an increasing inverse reaction to that. I'm not sure if this is Cameron's motivation, but I think it is a shared one amongst those who make such statements.

I will agree with everything in your post. I do, however, want to point out that such an inversion will be nowhere close to catastrophic. There are numerous fundies who believe that once homosexuality is legalized and made acceptable in the U.S.A., then young, impressionable people will flock to it in alarming numbers and then society will be doomed because the birth rate will drop below sustainable levels.

 

[Jono]

There's a big difference between thinking it's "icky", and thinking that it's immoral. The first case is personal preference (and sexual preference), the second is based on moral objections.

Of course.

 

[Jono]

I will agree with everything in your post. I do, however, want to point out that such an inversion will be nowhere close to catastrophic. There are numerous fundies who believe that once homosexuality is legalized and made acceptable in the U.S.A., then young, impressionable people will flock to it in alarming numbers and then society will be doomed because the birth rate will drop below sustainable levels.

Yes, the same people tend to think homosexuality is a choice of preference, at least indirectly, caused by so and so influence of society, gender of siblings and numbers thereof, growing up with no father etc. This makes the leap to "gay converting" a lot easier for them to make. Fundies very often argue on behalf of converting gays, laying to rest their 'wicked ways' and becoming heterosexual. The opposite is also, by them, considered true; gay people can and will convert straight people to 'gaydom'.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But the real question is -- will loyal subjects of the Gaydom be spared the Gaypocalypse?!

 

[Myriad]

I object to Kirk Cameron weighing in on how gays will destroy civilization. Gays should be free to decide for themselves how to destroy civilization.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Chris L]

The problem is that it seems for many opponents they use the first as one of the reasons to claim the second.

Unfortunately true. It doesn't help to live in a culture that is prone to using exaggerations in this context. For instance, where I grew up, routing for the New York Yankees would be called icky to the point of being a crime against man and God. Of course no one (well mostly no one) really considers Yankee fans (as a group) moral degenerates, but that's the kind of language we use. That use of language reenforces and solidifies hateful attitudes. So icky becomes immoral out of habit.

 

[Roadtoad]

Kirk Cameron can use whatever gloss he chooses when he smears gays and lesbians, but it doesn't change the reality that his words, however civil sounding, have a very uncivil root. This is a very cruel individual, whose actions are being echoed in unconscionable manners.

I don't give a damn how "dangerous" Cameron thinks homosexuality is. He has yet to present any facts to support his warped views. Enough.

 

[Ladewig]

Kirk Cameron can use whatever gloss he chooses when he smears gays and lesbians, but it doesn't change the reality that his words, however civil sounding, have a very uncivil root. This is a very cruel individual, whose actions are being echoed in unconscionable manners.

I don't give a damn how "dangerous" Cameron thinks homosexuality is. He has yet to present any facts to support his warped views. Enough.

completely seconded.