Kirk Cameron Finally Weighs in on How Gays Will Destroy Civilization

[Spindrift]

Probably.

I wouldn't have had Julie McCullough fired from a job where she is required to make out with me.

That was where he went from probably to definitely.

 

[Ladewig]

I really think he could have had just a great acting career (I said earlier Tom Hanks like).

Really!?

Tom Hanks?

If Kirk Cameron had made some different choices as a young adult he would have been nominated for five academy awards and would have won two of them. He would have been the 30th person to whom the American Film Institute gave a lifetime achievement award. He would have a net worth close to $350 million (dollars - U.S.). His movies would have a world-wide gross of $3 billion.

When I look at Kirk Cameron's past, I don't see the makings of next Tom Hanks, I see the makings of the next Peter Scolari.

 

[Ladewig]

If gays marry, then Nazis will ride on DINOSAURS!

I just realized that "Backdoor Godwin" would be an awesome name for a band.

 

[Ladewig]

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.

A great number of my posts bounce between snarkiness and sarcasm. I will try to avoid that tone in this post.

The man publicly stated on TV that the very existence of homosexuals is "detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." How is that not hateful?

Gays are asking for the same rights that all other adult Americans enjoy (rights that are already granted in the vast majority of western democracies), and Mr. Cameron sees those rights as destroying the very foundations of civilization? How can that be anything other than hateful, ignorant bigotry?

 

[Accidental Martyr]

Armed robbery, lesbian porn, drug abuse, dead at age 34.

Hey! What do you have against lesbian porn?

 

[Caper]

The man publicly stated on TV that the very existence of homosexuals is "detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." How is that not hateful?

He said homosexuality... not the people themselves. That might not mean much to you, but I think it's a big difference. But he thinks I'm going to hell too...... I don't care. The fact is, there are alot of very good people in this world that think I'm going to burn eternally in hell. Pretty much every Muslim in the world thinks because I am not Muslim, I will spend my eternity in hell. Do I hate all Muslims?.....yes No!, I don't. Orthodox Jews, Evangelical Christians... they all think I'm going to hell.... oh well, there are still alot of great people in those groups.

It might surprise you, because this forum can be a bit of an echo chamber... but probably 80-90% of the worlds population disagrees with gay marriage. Probably 50-60% of the Western world agrees with it. But Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America..... that part of the world would (I'm sure) disagree with gay marriage. Do I think they are right? No. But I'm not going to write off a massive majority of the worlds population, as hateful, because they disagree with me.... Or because where they think I might go when I die.

Gays are asking for the same rights that all other adult Americans enjoy (rights that are already granted in the vast majority of western democracies), and Mr. Cameron sees those rights as destroying the very foundations of civilization? How can that be anything other than hateful, ignorant bigotry?

Maybe it is. But it is one aspect of the man. I'm not going to agree with him on that. I'm going to think he sounds ridiculous when he talks about creationism. But he still seems like a really good guy. Probably a great father and a good husband.

I'm no better then him because I'm more evolved on a few different issues.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Yes. Specifically, Jesus said it...



Jesus is quoting Moses in Genesis, which is also clearly saying that Adam and Eve form the basis/example for marriage.

But where they actually married?
In other words, is there any indication that they weren't just (no pun intended) "living in sin" together?

 

[AvalonXQ]

But where they actually married?
In other words, is there any indication that they weren't just (no pun intended) "living in sin" together?

Again, the Bible makes very clear that God gave the man and the woman to each other; Jesus even confirms that this is the first marriage upon which further marriage relationships are to be patterned.

Plus, throughout Genesis 3, it repeatedly refers to Eve as "Adam's wife".

What precisely are you looking for, a license from the (non-existent) state?

 

[Resume]

It might surprise you, because this forum can be a bit of an echo chamber... but probably 80-90% of the worlds population disagrees with gay marriage. . But Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America..... that part of the world would (I'm sure) disagree with gay marriage.

Who gives a ****** They're wrong

But it is one aspect of the man. I'm not going to agree with him on that. I'm going to think he sounds ridiculous when he talks about creationism. But he still seems like a really good guy. Probably a great father and a good husband.

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.

 

[sgtbaker]

I don't think it matters if Adam and Eve were actually married or not. It comes down to the fact that the concept of marriage predates recorded history, including the bible. Meaning, the Adam and Eve story is not THE definition of marriage, it's the Abrahamic definition of marriage. So, allowing same sex marriage is not redefining THE definition of marriage, it's just not adhering to the Abrahamic definition. Outlawing gay marriage to avoid offending them is taking a religious stance and The First Amendment was set in place to prevent Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion. When it comes down to it, outlawing same sex marriages comes closer to destroying the concept of American, not the opposites.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I don't think it matters if Adam and Eve were actually married or not. It comes down to the fact that the concept of marriage predates recorded history, including the bible. Meaning, the Adam and Eve story is not THE definition of marriage, it's the Abrahamic definition of marriage. So, allowing same sex marriage is not redefining THE definition of marriage, it's just not adhering to the Abrahamic definition.

Even if you take the view that marriage pre-dates early Semitic culture, it's still true that other early definitions of marriage include the male-female relationship distinction. Even Greek and Roman societies, where homosexual relationships were common and at certain times/periods accepted, still distinguished those relationships from marriage.

 

[Resume]

Even Greek and Roman societies, where homosexual relationships were common and at certain times/periods accepted, still distinguished those relationships from marriage.

This is 2012. Those distinctions are less distinct. Let people who love one another marry. Christians have no more monopoly on the ceremony than any other group; don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.

 

[Dessi]

Even if you take the view that marriage pre-dates early Semitic culture, it's still true that other early definitions of marriage include the male-female relationship distinction. Even Greek and Roman societies, where homosexual relationships were common and at certain times/periods accepted, still distinguished those relationships from marriage.

They also fed Christians to lions, sectioned off a class of people as slaves, forced prisoners of war to fight each other to the death. Thankfully we ancient Greek and Roman cultural norms need not inform us today how to run our country 2500 years later.

I'll shout out a hearty "**** tradition" when it steps all over my rights for no rational reason. Thankfully 14th amendment's equal protection and due process clauses work in LGBT citizens favors so that their rights become the default rather than exception. The whole anti-gay marriage thing is a losing battle. And when same-gender marriage becomes the norm, when the "tearing about the moral fabric of society and people will want to legalize child rape" doomsday scenarios fail to materialize, we'll all wonder what the big deal was in the first place, why was their so much fear giving gay people their rights?

 

[Carnivore]

They also fed Christians to lions, sectioned off a class of people as slaves, forced prisoners of war to fight each other to the death. Thankfully we ancient Greek and Roman cultural norms need not inform us today how to run our country 2500 years later.

I'll shout out a hearty "**** tradition" when it steps all over my rights for no rational reason.

Tradition is all fun and games until someone chooses they're bi.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I watched the Kirk Cameron interview, and I don't see the basis for calling the man hateful.

He disagrees with homosexuality; he considers it destructive. He made it clear that if one of his kids came out as gay, he would consider that a problem to be worked through -- not a reason to end his relationship with the child and certainly not a reason to stop loving the child. And he acknowledges, with humility, that sin and problems are universal, making it clear that he doesn't consider himself somehow "better than" someone who's sin involves homosexual behavior.

The bottom line is that people want to engage in behavior that other people find morally wrong, but I think Kirk provides an excellent example that disagreeing on morality doesn't mean that you hate anyone.

 

[Carnivore]

I watched the Kirk Cameron interview, and I don't see the basis for calling the man hateful.

He disagrees with homosexuality; he considers it destructive. He made it clear that if one of his kids came out as gay, he would consider that a problem to be worked through -- not a reason to end his relationship with the child and certainly not a reason to stop loving the child. And he acknowledges, with humility, that sin and problems are universal, making it clear that he doesn't consider himself somehow "better than" someone who's sin involves homosexual behavior.

The bottom line is that people want to engage in behavior that other people find morally wrong, but I think Kirk provides an excellent example that disagreeing on morality doesn't mean that you hate anyone.

I agree with this. Unlike a lot of anti gay public figures I don't think Kirk's religious beliefs are just a handy prop for bigotry. Kirk has consistently "walked the walk" since his conversion and commited himself to his religion in a way that has been detrimental to his career. I disagree with just about everything he says but I give him credit for sincerity and compassion. He may not be the sharpest pencil in the box but he's a prince compared to the likes of Robertson or Santorum.

 

[sgtbaker]

Even if you take the view that marriage pre-dates early Semitic culture, it's still true that other early definitions of marriage include the male-female relationship distinction. Even Greek and Roman societies, where homosexual relationships were common and at certain times/periods accepted, still distinguished those relationships from marriage.

He is referring to Adam and Eve as THE definition of marriage, defined by god. He doesn't think he should alter that and he doesn't believe anyone else should redefine that. If his first assumption is wrong or cannot be proven, the rest of his argument fails.

I would also like to add that if same sex marriage predates recorded history, we have no way of knowing, to any degree of accuracy, the numbers of same sex marriages that occured prior to periods that began recording history.

 

[crimresearch]

I've never bought the 'We don't hate the filthy nasty sinners, just their filthy nasty sins' stuff, but then again, I'm not that fond of the 'hate the hater' extreme either.

Isn't there a less hateful word for Kirk than 'hateful'?

 

[GrandMasterFox]

What precisely are you looking for, a license from the (non-existent) state?

Actually yes. His entire point is that Adam and Eve are the set of what marriage is. But the fact of the matter is, a couple living together without a marriage license are considered "living in sin" - are they not?

Even if same couple has been together for 80+ years and were completely faithful to each other.

 

[Dessi]

The bottom line is that people want to engage in behavior that other people find morally wrong, but I think Kirk provides an excellent example that disagreeing on morality doesn't mean that you hate anyone.

Being gay or trans is a deeply personal aspect of one's identity. You probably don't think about your sexuality and gender identity that often because no one ever challenges you to defend it. LGBT people are forced to defend their identities constantly. They suffer from the stigma of being categorized as "destructive" -- it's character assassination on the most intensely personal level possible.

And it doesn't stop there. People routinely accuse LGBT people of attacking society, tearing down morality, being morally corrupt, morally bankrupt, being sexual perverts, being a danger to children, that gay people need to be stop being gay, and trans people should be "fixed". And yes, Kirk Cameron is on record for saying exactly these sorts of things.

This isn't "disagreeing with others". Its character assassination, reduces LGBT people to sub-human status, paints us as an enemy who should be crushed. If not crushed, then marginalized in every manner possible.

Kirk gets no points for being a "nice guy". His religious language is a facade to hide malice. If you were in my position, you would have no other way of interpreting these actions in any other way.