Nicole Johnson tells Kirk Cameron to grow up and drop the hate speech.
If you need a refresher, Kirk Cameron is best known for being a 1980’s teen heartthrob and star of the hit series “Growing Pains.” Presently, Cameron is back in the spotlight for his controversial comments about homosexuality and gay marriage.
Kirk Cameron, a father of six and a Born Again Christian, was a recent guest on the “Piers Morgan Tonight” show. When Piers Morgan asked Cameron about hot button social issues and if he supported gay marriage, Cameron had this to say about marriage:
“Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t.”
He then went on to explain his views about homosexuality:
“I think that it’s – it’s – it’s unnatural. I think that it’s – it’s detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”
Kirk, grow up! Homosexuality is not “unnatural” and “destructive” to civilization. Civilizations would have crumbled centuries ago if homosexuality was “destructive” to humankind. Gay men and women are a beautiful, innate aspect of our world, our government, our military, our industries, et al.
Clearly, you are afraid of homosexuality and threatened by gay marriage. May I suggest educating yourself on these subjects before announcing any more of your absurdities to the media? Furthermore, I would schedule a meeting with an anti-defamation advocate from GLAAD as soon as humanly possible.
Kirk, I understand everyone in America has the freedom to exercise their First Amendment rights. Amen! However, here’s what I think is destructive to civilization: giving celebrities (popular and unpopular) a forum to express their irresponsible, offensive opinions. Perhaps you should call Rush Limbaugh and ask him for some crisis management tips…
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
Obviously you know where I stand on Kirk’s comments. What about you? What do you think of his remarks?
Photo: AP
I certainly don’t agree with Kirk on this one. (even though he was a role model in the 80’s!) However, I’m also getting a little tired of the logical fallacy and over used canard that just because you disagree with something you necessarily have a fear of it. The conclusion just doesn’t follow from the reasoning. And on top of that it amounts to what is part of the author’s beef in the first place: name calling. And as such it only escalates heated rhetoric and doesn’t do anything productive for the conversation. I mean, what’s your goal? “begin with… Read more »
I am actually for the sake of argument willing to entertain a hypothesis about the detrimental effects of homosexuality on civilization, but I haven’t heard anyone so far coming anywhere close to making a valid, well-supported argument. They would first need to define “civilization” without using the circular logic of defining civilization as heterosexuality or falling back on a tautology – gay sex is immoral because it hurts society, and it hurts society because it’s immoral. They would also have to provide suitable counterbalancing evidence to the numerous influential people who have practiced same-sex sex who became heroes of their… Read more »
Sexuality in general as the ability to be destructive to society. Being straight doesn’t mean your sexuality is any less destructive or good for the family. He’s allowed to his opinion. As good old Rush L. is. The difference is Rush resorts to name calling and bullying to get his opinion across and Kurt here is jsut expressing his view point. See I don’t care that Rush as the opinion he does even if I disagree. I care that he used name calling and tried to shame a woman with it instead of just disagreeing on the issue. Same here.… Read more »
Erin, I almost always disagree with you but you made a very good point that, as you say, seldom gets talked about. There is this assumption that everyone is a slave to every desire they have, that it’s not possible to just say “I want to do that but I’m not going to.” I was going to rephrase your comment, but I will simply quote you because I don’t think I could say it any better. The only thing I will add is the scenario of a married person tempted to have sex with a co-worker on a business trip.… Read more »
I know this is changing the subject, but it goes along the same lines of “one person thinks its right and another thinks it’s wrong”. Drug use. Let’s say I enjoy smoking pot or taking narcotics. Society generally frowns upon these activities, but, if I do it in my own home and I enjoy it, why is it illegal? Why should someone tell me I can’t take a few pills and relax while watching a movie or share a blunt with friends? Why us that wrong? Isn’t that like prohibition? One group telling others they couldn’t drink because it “was… Read more »
I’d like to see Mr. Cameron provide some evidence, any evidence, that marriage was initiated with Adam and Eve, or that homosexuality is “detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”
He is the one making the claims, he needs to provide evidence. And pointing to a book of unsubstantiated beliefs is not evidence. I make the same requests of Muslims, Buddhist, feminists, Jews, Catholics and New Age Astrologers –
If he cannot, then I reserve the right to designate his beliefs as stupid.
The problem with your argument is that it assumes that human civilization is simple enough to model in a straightforward cause & effect relationship. It’s not.
Your argument seems to be that, even though there are thousands of years of history given to us indicating that homosexuality is probably not a good idea to accept in widespread practice, we should ignore all that and proceed with a course of action based on … No or minimal evidence that it will be beneficial to society. That’s not exactly very smart either.
Hi Olia, I’ve not made an argument beyond asking for evidence for the following: That Adam and Eve were the Genesis for the instrument of marriage That homosexuals have contributed, in some way, to the collapse of civilization. And I’ve asked that we don’t reference a book of fairy tales as proof that supports either of the above. But I do see you’ve personally shifted the goal posts towards “detrimental impacts for wide spread practice” – I watched that very episode on CNN and I don’t think Kirk was talking about a tipping point of societal gayness, rather he was… Read more »
I don’t think this argument about civilization’s well being is productive as both sides have exposure. I don’t know that he can prove that same-sex marriage will bring down civilization nor have I seen same-sex marriage proponents provide evidence that mothers and fathers aren’t beneficial to children, and hence society/civilization.
So,both sides would be best served staying out of that fray.
“Your argument seems to be that, even though there are thousands of years of history given to us indicating that homosexuality is probably not a good idea to accept in widespread practice, we should ignore all that and proceed with a course of action based on … No or minimal evidence that it will be beneficial to society. That’s not exactly very smart either.” How did you get that from his argument? He was arguing that there needs to be evidence to back up a claim like that, thousands of years of history backing up the claim definitely constitute evidence.… Read more »
I don’t agree with a word of what this uneducated has-been has to say here. But I take equally as big an issue with the use of the phrase “hate speech.” This is an idea designed to shut down freedom of speech — and ideas. I’d rather see Cameron’s lunacy countered with statistics proving gays can raise successful kids (there are many) or charts showing how no-fault divorce, not gays, killed marriage as we know it. Or testimonials about gay friends, like the ones that turned the tide toward gay marriage in Maryland. Or anything of the sort. Once you… Read more »
“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” – Sam Harris
On the one hand I agree with what you’re saying, Broken Arrows…on the other, I doubt that any counterargument could change some people’s opinions on this issue. And so the only way to counter-act their opinion is to label it for what it is…irrational hate speech.
Probably not, but even if they don’t some other listener might. It doesn’t help to paint LGBT rights campaigners as intolerant extremists.
See I don’t think pointing out when someone is using ‘hate speech’ or calling someone ‘racist,’ when it’s done accurately is intolerant or extreme. Being tolerant doesn’t mean letting people say hateful things towards you without calling them out for doing so. Not just criticizing it…but labelling what it is.
Trouble is, the label might only seem valid in the eyes of the labeller. It depends what you want to do I guess, if you want to educate people and inform their opinions then explanations usually work best. If you want to react to them and make a dichtomous stand then labels are your best friend.
Yeah which is pretty much exactly what I’ve said over in the “Why I Think Men Should Join Feminism” article. lol. But I do think that there is a point where you realize that you can’t educate someone or inform their opinions…because they believe in their uninformed and harmful idea. And then you’re left with the option of either arguing to death with them, or just calling out their opinion as hateful. – I do think it’s tricky to find that line though, and it is true that sometimes the use of labels like “racist” get used too readily, when… Read more »
I think when it comes to discussion with someone who’s never likely to change their mind the only important consideration is any audiance present that might change theirs, especially if they’re not familiar with the issues. In that situation calm responses are usually better ones. If they’re not going to change their mind and theres noone else listening of course… might as well pack it in 🙁
Yeah what you’re saying is true. I’m just trying think of times I’ve heard someone called a racist or homophobe or whatever and whether it had been right or not…and to think through why I do or don’t agree with using a term like that in these different situation. And I’m still thinking through these ideas so bear with me: In terms of public figures making statements which could be viewed as racist, etc…I think there are multiple ways to look at the response. 1 – respond rationally to try to convince them their opinion is based on discriminatory ideas.… Read more »
If Mr. Cameron is going to speak frankly about his negative beliefs about LGBT folks in our public square then he has to accept the shared civic frame that involves items like his notions being hypothesis tested (if possible, so not always), his notions being sifted to see what kind of civic space they provide for others of differing beliefs, and a whole lot of other audience factors that frequently come into play in democracies. Proclaiming flat earthisms about queer folks is just hackneyed conservative Christian habit, or is it? As it happens we have seriously started to hypothesis test… Read more »
Mr. Cameron was a child actor. He was surrounded by Pedophiles and homosexuals of every age, color, race and persuasion. I dare say he knows more about sexuality issues than most. Calling him a “flat earther” and denigrating his faith makes you feel superior, but doesn’t establish your superiority at all. You want him to test his beliefs, but are you willing to have him test yours? Observations and criticisms that stir us to anger are generally indications of fear or doubt in those who are quick to anger. If you truly believe in who you are then ignore him.… Read more »
“He was surrounded by Pedophiles and homosexuals of every age, color, race and persuasion. ”
Was he Catholic?
Don’t you hate it when they also say we can’t smoke weed? Who do these people think hey are anyway?
This insult against Catholics will probably not offend Ms. Blanton, because her earlier messages made a distinction between Catholics and Christians.
It is sort of an odd conflation, associating homosexuality with pedophilia. The vast majority of pedophiles self-identify as straight, so I’m not clear on the connection.
“He was surrounded by Pedophiles and homosexuals of every age, color, race and persuasion.”
The gay mafia strikes again!
Are you aware that most pedophiles are heterosexual? Now that you know this are you comfortable with your children being taught by a straight teacher?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/homosexuality-and-pedophilia-the-false-link
He’s a Christian and he has a value system he believes in. At least he knows what he believes and why. Why trash him for what he believes? I don’t get it. You don’t agree with him and hate on him for not agreeing with you, yet he’s not hating anyone. He’s not Westboro Church. He’s not frothing at the mouth. He’s not opposing or running against gay marriage. He didn’t even bring it up and obviously would have preferred not to answer it. Why are you all so quick to kick Christians around over this issue, but not Muslims—who,… Read more »
“Why trash him for what he believes?” So first, this isn’t trashing him…there wasn’t any name-calling or calls to boycott his next movie. There wasn’t any insults to his intelligence or violent language used. There was a slightly emotional tone to the article, yes…but not to the point of trashing him. Second…the reason I, personally, cannot let remarks like this just slide, is because comments like Cameron’s actually cause me harm. Someone was watching this, saw Cameron say what he did, and it re-affirmed their belief that gay marriage is wrong…and now when the issue ends up on a ballot… Read more »
I still don’t understand. When a group of lgbt college students who were obviously and visually “out” and openly lgbt went into a Christian bakery and ordered hundreds of cupcakes for a group function the bakery refused to serve them because they were lgbt. I disagree with that owner’s reason for refusing, but I respect it. It’s his business and businesses are allowed to serve or refuse service to anyone they want as long as it’s allowed by law. Outrage ensued. Yet, if a group of Christians showed up at a post Pride parade party at a gay restaurant holding… Read more »
Alrighty I’m going to focus on your first paragraph, to try to explain my position. Your example is treating lgbt people and Christians as though they were equal to each other (legally and socially). But they aren’t. Religion is a protected category in the U.S. You can practice your religion, educate your children based on your religion, get married in a ceremony that is both specific to your religion, and also recognized by the state…you cannot be fired from a job based on your religion, and you cannot be denied service or kicked out of a store based on your… Read more »
Absolutely right, Heather.
I don’t agree that people running a public business should be allowed to be selective about what groups they do business with. Lets take your logic to another situation: bus company run by racist owner decides not to sell bus tickets to black people, is that ok? How is it fair that someone should have to walk just because the bus owner doesn’t like how they look?
Incidentally I would find it equally wrong if an LGBT group decided not to serve a christian, but I’ve never once heard of that happening.
I’ve also never heard of a Christian being refused service because of their religion. If the example given by Becky is something she had observed, then I’d also argue that the fact it’s Pride probably played a role in the reaction. It’d be a bit like a couple of gay people making out in an evangelical church during Easter or something.
Depends… personally I find the whole “christian == conservative and anti-gay” thing a bit intolerant. I don’t think its reasonable to assume that a christian turning up at a gay bakery during pride is there out of hate, maybe they just ran out of bread.
lol true…and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I do agree that assuming any Christian must be anti-gay is incorrect and that Christians rightly are upset by it. However…how many progressive Christians are likely to go into a gay shop during Pride with Bibles and Jesus fish on their shirts? Ya know? This is one of those topics where, on a purely logical and rational level I completely agree with what you’re saying, Peter. On a more emotional and visceral level..I’d probably be right there staring down the group of bedecked Christians. So I’m trying to figure out how to explain my… Read more »
All feelings are valid, its what you do with them that matters. 🙂
So, why aren’t you criticizing Muslims? Or Mormons? Or Catholics? Why just Christians?
This is an article about Cameron, and he’s not a Muslim. Also…Catholics are Christian, as are Mormons (though I do recognize that there is some debate as to whether they should be classified as Christian considering they have different scriptures and beliefs that are quite different to the other denominations).
Also, like I mentioned, it is the Christian right that has publicly lobbied against lgbt rights…so they’re the ones who get called out for it. Also…like I said…go to any lgbt news website and you’ll see people from all different religions and cultures being criticized for their anti-lgbt beliefs.
Calling him a homophobe is most definitely trashing him. It’s just simple name calling and attempting to shame him. The sort of bullshit that people without a legitimate point to make use in lieu of having to actually refute his points. From the video Mr. Cameron comes across as well spoken, intelligent, and thoughtful. He thinks homosexuality is sinful, and doesn’t believe that gay people have a right to marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman sanctioned by God (or, in less religious terms, it’s a social contract between both the man and the woman… Read more »
I’m not saying he voiced his opinions in the tone of a crazed lunatic…and the article didn’t say that either. It’s just calling him out for his discriminatory views…because it is discrimination. “Calling him a homophobe is most definitely trashing him. It’s just simple name calling and attempting to shame him.” The term ‘homophobic’ has become used synonymously with ‘anti-gay,’ so in that sense, it wasn’t name calling, just descriptive. And as for trying to shame him – I’m sorry but when did it become a bad thing to make someone feel ashamed of their discriminatory and hateful opinions? If… Read more »
Actually, I have to kind of agree with her on the “homophobe namecalling” thing. Its a label which is often mis-applied and detracts from the actual conversation.
That said, given what he said I don’t think its an unlikely conclusion to come to.
Yes the term “homophobe” in this instance is problematic. However, I think that stems from a lack of a single term that indicates a discriminatory opinion on lg t people, withou the connotation of fear. We do not have a term like racist or sexist for sexuality. There is no sexualitist, or something. And so homophobe has sort have filled that gap in the language, for better or worse.
The terms “Sexist” and “Racist” are in no way better, since both terms are meant to control the debate and shut down opposition through shaming. Both of these so-called civil rights movements proceeded from simple observations “There aren’t any women in charge!” and “Blacks are discriminated against!” to courses of action that were poorly thought out and ultimately harmful to society. The “Equalist” mindset proceeds from a position of ignorance about the complexity of human nature, asserting that humanity should behave in a certain way determined purely by their political ideology, and that any deviation from this demonstrates some kind… Read more »
Wait…what? What? Are you saying that the idea of de-institutionalizing discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, etc is a bad thing?
I think she was saying that sometimes equality movements can become pretty intolerant.
Nobody asked you. lol (Kidding, of course). Anyway, yes Peter, what you’re saying is true. However, I don’t think using terms like racist and sexist properly constitutes being intolerant. I’d say the same thing goes for the term homophobe, though like I mentioned it sort of gets used as an equivalent to ‘racist’ for sexuality since there isn’t any other word for it. There is a very fine line between becoming intolerant of a different opinion, and failing to properly call out those who would discriminate against you. I’m not saying I always navigate that line well…but you can’t just… Read more »
“I don’t think using terms like racist and sexist properly constitutes being intolerant.”
Not in themselves no. Some opinions are racist and sometimes its absolutely correct to describe them as such. The problem creeps in when those terms become tools to silence any disagreement… sort of a Godwin’s law kind of thing. Instead of engaging with the ideas and deconstructing them some people use emotive phrases to reject them out of hand. Its a less intellectually honest form of disagreement and usually less constructive.
I don’t know what you’re talking about Peter. All lgbt people are absolute saints and would never resort to such tactics in a discussion. 😉 Hahaha.
Seriously, though…yeah it happens, and it probably happens more than it should. But sometimes, even that can be justified, or at least understood, as an emotional reaction to a very frustrating issue. But yeah, I see what you’re saying. Again…on an intellectual level I totally agree; on a personal level I’m a bit more reactive.
Becky. Just read everything Heather is writing x 10. He’s the calm face of the frothing underside of that form of Christianity. Gay marriage makes as much sense as two elderly straight people getting married (they can’t produce children). Infertile people can’t produce kids but we allow them to marry. If two adults wish to bond, marry, pay taxes, keep up their jobs, property, purchase things etc I fail to see how that is not promoting society as a whole. Gay couples love each other emotionally, mentally, and physically the same way anyone else does. It’s fear and nothing else… Read more »
Members of NAMBLA have a value system they believe in too.
You did not seriously just compare gay marriage to NAMBLA…I seriously can’t tell…were you making a joke or trolling? Or were you like actually serious?
NO! Sorry, a thousand times no. My fault for not making my snarky reply to ‘Becky Blanton’ clear. She wrote: “He’s a Christian and he has a value system he believes in.” Her position seems to be because KC’s hate speech is coming from a ‘value system he believes in’ it is beyond reproach. I was responding to this, albeit somewhat clumsily, and I didn’t want to just go for the standard ‘Nazi soldiers had a value system they believe in’ since Becky indicated elsewhere in this debate that because KC was a child star he was ‘surrounded by pedophiles… Read more »
No probs…I get ya now, and agree with your point. 🙂
As far as I can tell he was pointing out that having a belief system doesn’t make it ok (with reference to believing that gay marriage is wrong).
Ah, thank you Peter. I apologize Jake…there are so many comments in this little bit that I couldn’t tell exactly who you were replying to. I’m just used to people actually trying to compare homosexuality and child abuse, that I assumed that’s what Jake was doing.
No worries, my fault for not making myself clear.
If a young person wants to have sex, why should these people say they can’t? Especially gay sex, what’s to worry about? They can’t get pregnant?? Kids are allowed to jump off a roof into a swimming pool or climb tall trees and fall out and break limbs or launch off of skateboard ramps, but contact with another human is wrong?? What???
Oh Kirk….this shouldn’t really be news. He’s been an evangelical for years and years. Offensive indeed and misguided as hell. I’m sure he’ll run for office soon.
Ha! 😀 Santorum-Cameron 2012
One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage.
except the guy just did. it is always funny watching trad marriage supporters struggle with the fact that (old testament) trad marriage was actually, one man and as many wives as he could afford
So true!
I know, right.
Everyone who opposes polygamy is also trying to redefine marriage then. How can those who support same-sex marriage oppose polygamy (gender neutral consenting adults)? The answer is they can’t, if they operate according to the principles they espouse.
I personally don’t oppose polygamy, actually. So there’s that. On a purely legal standpoint it makes things a bit more difficult. In the case of next of kin decisions, which spouse would be the one legally able to make the ultimate decisions? In the case of taxes and health insurance, would you get benefits for each spouse? But although those are issues that’d have to be ironed out, I still don’t think polygamy should be illegal (long as everyone is a consenting adult).
“In the case of next of kin decisions, which spouse would be the one legally able to make the ultimate decisions?” Good question. Simple answer. They would be required to do what we all should do: have a simple Advance Medical Directive, which outlines one’s medical wishes, authorized legal agent in the case of incapacitation, and end of life wishes. What this does is largely remove the decision-making from anyone other than the person him/herself but, if the specific situation is not covered, the legal agent gets to decide – who does NOT even need to be the spouse. If… Read more »
Right well this is like way freaking off topic, so I’m not going to go into a discussion about the finer points of state sanctioned polygamy in the U.S. I’d actually suggest that proponents of same-sex marriage can’t advocate for polygamy…not without considerable risk to their own issues. I’m not talking about ideologically, just practically. If a group like HRC were to come out and say that they also believe polygamy should be legal, they’d be totally screwed the next time they wanted to drum up support for an issue. Plus, the public face of polygamy makes it difficult for… Read more »
They don’t have to go out and campaign for it. As long as they don’t think or speak of polygamy negatively/disapprovingly (as this actor has done re: same-sex), and as long as they don’t oppose it they aren’t guilty of hypocrisy.
I’m sure most lgbt advocates would like to ignore the issue of polygamy, and from what I’ve seen they do when they can. Unfortunately one of the tactics of opponents of same-sex marriage has been to use a slippery slope argument. – If you allow same-sex marriage you’ll end up having to legalize bestiality, pedophilia, and polygamy. – so they can’t always just ignore it. Plus, really, there are plenty of lgbt people out there who are quite conservative in their views, which is part of why they’re campaigning so hard for gay marriage. They want a stereotypical/traditional American family…which,… Read more »
Also..by your own argument, anyone who is against same-sex marriage has to be pro-polygamy too. If you’re arguing for traditional, Biblical marriage…well then that includes polygamy. If you’re arguing to open up the definition of marriage in the U.S. to include same-sex couples, well then that could also mean that we should open it up to include polygamy too.
So if we go by what you’re saying…no one can be against polygamy.
Animals (bestiality) and children (pedophilia) are abuse not marriage, so that argument doesn’t apply to the principle of freedom to marry the consenting adult of one’s choice.
“They want a stereotypical/traditional American family…which, hypocritical or not, doesn’t include polygamy.”
So, they are arguing for marriage discrmination (against freedom to marry whomever one chooses) as long as they are not the ones being discriminated against. Such persons defeat the basis of their entire argument.
That is no different than a person arguing for race-based discrimination with the exceptoin of their own race.
“If you’re arguing for. . .” If you haven’t noticed yet, I haven’t argued for or against either form of marriage. If you haven’t noticed, I always look for consistency in principle. If one is going to base their argument on a principle such as freedom to marry whomever one chooses, then do stand on that principle on a consistent basis. “If you’re arguing for. . . traditional, Biblical marriage…well then that includes polygamy.” Polygamy was discouraged but permitted in the Old Testament (Judaism) However, polygamy was outlawed in the New Testament (Christianity) Thus, from a Biblical/religious standpoint, Judaism tolerates… Read more »
“If you haven’t noticed yet, I haven’t argued for or against either form of marriage.” – my ‘you’ in those sentences were the general you, not you specifically. My point in bringing up bestiality and pedophilia is that they are often brought up by opponents of lgbt rights. There was Congressman that literally said that if we allow same-sex marriage, we’ll have to allow someone to marry their pet turtle. I don’t remember who it was, but it was said. So again, my point, is that the whole “slippery slope” argument gets made all the time, thus proponents of same-sex… Read more »
“So again, my point, is that the whole “slippery slope” argument gets made all the time, thus proponents of same-sex marriage are having to tread careful waters when it comes to discussing anything beyond monogamous same-sex couples.” Again, calmly explain the principle. Consenting adult humans having the freedom to marry whomever they choose. “As for the Biblical thing…I asked a Biblical scholar friend of mine about the differences in the New Testament versus the Old Testament with regards to polygamy, and I haven’t heard back yet. I’ll have to get back to you on that one.” False modesty aside, if… Read more »
Calmly explaining the logic of something does not sway the belief of someone who is holding onto an ideology for religious reasons. Religion is not logical, which is fine…but it means that you can’t argue someone away from a religious belief via logic. Right well what she informed me, about the Bible and polygamy, was that average work-a-day people in Judaism and Christianity both didn’t practice polygamy. You practised polygamy if you could afford it, and the people who could afford it were the guys in charge. She also said she couldn’t think of any passages which specifically banned polygamy.… Read more »
“Calmly explaining the logic of something does not sway the belief of someone who is holding onto an ideology for religious reasons.” I meant that in response to the Congressman’s comment about marrying a turtle. A religious person sticking to their views is respected by me IF (and this is a very big IF) they are consistent with it – if they don’t set their supposed strongly held views aside when it is convenient. “Now if you can point me to the verse which bans it, I’ll take a look…well first I’ll find a Bible, then I’ll take a look.”… Read more »
On further answer to your question, here is one more verse from the book of Matthew, chapter 19 verse 9. These are the words of Jesus himself regarding marriage, showing that having more than one wife is considered committing adultery.
Matthew 19:9
“And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery–unless his wife has been unfaithful.”
Right well your first passage doesn’t actually condemn polygamy…it just implies that having one wife is better than many. Also, whenever translating from one language to another (which the Bible has undergone many translations) the indefinite article, definite article, and the number one can often be mistranslated…especially if the original language doesn’t have an indefinite article. Your second passage, is a bit closer to condemning polygamy, but mostly it condemns divorce. If, as my friend says, the majority of people at this time would have only ever had one wife, then that passage could be read as condemning having successive… Read more »
Right well your first passage doesn’t actually condemn polygamy…it just implies that having one wife is better than many. “ It classes polygamists with lovers of money, drunkards, and those given to violence. All of those things are condemned. I’m impressed that you know about the definite/indefinite article issue in translation. Good show! I did a quick check on 28 English translations. 100% of them used the work “one.” “Your second passage, is a bit closer to condemning polygamy, but mostly it condemns divorce.” Let’s recap: it says “whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery.” Adulterers (and therefore… Read more »
I meant to say;
I would be happy to cite verses if you don’t believe ME on the scriptural stance on adultery.
This infographic does a great job of highlighting the 8 variations of the biblical definition of Marriage:
http://strplace.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/marriagechallenge.jpg
Love it Jake, thanks 🙂 Eric I guess thanks for the compliment about me knowing about definite and indefinite articles….and yet I can’t help but feel like it’s a bit underhanded. Like what, this whole time you thought I wasn’t the social scientist I claimed? Maybe I’m just reading into that comment. *shrugs* I’d like to point out that doing a check on all of the English translations hardly indicates that the word ‘one’ was actually used. It’s entirely possible it was mistranslated the first time and everyone else has just copied it. I’ve no idea..considering this isn’t my area… Read more »
The compliment was absolutely sincere as I know literally nothing about your background, and that’s something that many people know nothing about. Thus, I was surprised that you did – that’s all. “I’d like to point out that doing a check on all of the English translations hardly indicates that the word ‘one’ was actually used. It’s entirely possible it was mistranslated the first time and everyone else has just copied it.” That’s not how most Bible translation is done. That’s how the game telephone is played. There are thousands of pre-first century through 2nd century manuscripts and parchments available… Read more »
Okey pokey, Eric…we are again nested to the end. So first, sorry about assuming that your compliment was underhanded…again difficult to tell with just typing…and difficult to remember who I’ve specifically told different bits about myself to. So yeah thanks, and sorry. 🙂
Second…later I’ll post a reply staring a new comment thread thing. It’s 6:30am here though, so I’ve got to start getting ready for my day. I will be back, though. lol 😀
From his dormant Twitter account: “First Boner, now Gary Coleman? ::gulp:: What if Jesus takes me next… #Gary Coleman”
And as the super gay Oscar Wilde said: ‘there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.’
Kirk says what he truly believes – it’s just a bad coincidence that his beliefs are stupid.
So, they’re stupid because they’re not the same beliefs as you? What’s wrong with “live and let live,”?
Remember when that Christian minister was saying that the world was going to end, a few months ago?
My FAVORITE headline online from that time was, “Kirk Cameron says he’s not worried about the world ending.”
My Facebook status for that day: Relax everyone, it’s going to be okay, Kirk Cameron isn’t worried about the apocalypse!
I mean, phew! Now I can rest! Kirk Cameron says it’s all going to be okay.
Oh, and by the way, Kirk Cameron also believes in corporal punishment for children.
“Kirk Cameron also believes in corporal punishment for children.”
As in using the belt? So, what? So did my parents, and so do I, and so do my children (that’s right, they have already stated that, where necessary and approprate, they will get out the belt should they ever have children).
And, by the way, so do the majority of the black fathers I know. And I personally know at least a 1,000.
Well, there you go Eric M.
Do you also believe your wife should be subservient to you? Because he does.
Is she to be subservient? No. I don’t use that term. It’s not accurate. As the head of the family I am the servant of them, the one expected to make whatever sacrifieces are needed to ensure their well being. I’m not above her nor is she above me. We operate cooperatively. As the head of the family, I try my best to put her interests, preferences, and desires before mine always. But, working with her, I am accountable to take the lead to ensure that my family is cared for at the end of the day. The fact that… Read more »
Someone always has to make the final decision. Even at work or on the field during sports there’s a captain—the one who makes the call, but JUST as importantly, accepts the responsibility and consequences for that decision, good or bad. It’s not a matter of being subservient. It’s about love for one another and loving your spouse as you love yourself…meaning putting their needs first.
I can imagine a great deal of repercussions for bad behavior, strict and unpleasant ones. Physical violence against a child? Not on my list.
“Physical violence against a child? Not on my list.”
How about menal and emotional abuse? “Strict and unpleasant repurcussions” can leave a child scarred and worse off, not better. That’ not on my list.
Not on my list are any kind of repurcussions (physical, emotional, mental) which could potentially harm my children whom I love far more than I love myself. Mental and emotional (as well all know) can be far more harmful than a spanking could ever be.
I love how you leap to emotional abuse. I’m talking about reducing and eliminating privileges, additional chores and such. I’m not talking about abuse. Personally I think a spanking? Like over the knee, clothes on, brief, succinct can have it’s place. A belt? No. I’ve known too many adults who were belted as kids. They considered it humiliating emotionally, damaging mentally, and physically painful.
Frustrating to have someone leap to such a conclusion, isn’t it? Just as I love how you leaped to “violence against a child”. clearly implying abuse. I know adults who, as kids, weren’t belted but recieved “Strict and unpleasant repurcussions” which they considered “humiliating emotionally, damaging mentally, and physically painful.” Yes, they ended up with physical pain as a result of the mental and emotional mistreatment. ANY form of discipline can become abusive, not just physical – if not done with love, balance, reason, insight, and with the proper motive. BTW, you’ve heard me talk about my dad who loved(s)… Read more »
I do associate belts with violence and I personally have good reason to do so, having seen the aftermath in adults who still weren’t over it. Spanking with a hand, not so much if done with clothes on, though I think if one is to the point of having to use physical action against a child? You’ve lost already. I know too many people who have left their families or church because of “sparing the rod” and so forth. Things “not done with love, balance, reason, insight, and with the proper motive” but all because the parent wanted control of… Read more »
“Strict and unpleasant” mental and emotional repercussions can certainly result in long term damage to a child. I would wager that more people have suffered long term emotional and psychological damage from strict and unpleasant consequences meted out causing emotional and mental pain than spankings. Intentionally causing a child mental and emotional pain can just as much or more long term harm than a spanking ever could. Anyone can find a pretext upon which to justify their abuse. “When I hear the phrase, “I use the belt” that’s what I think of Eric. How in the world would I know… Read more »
Agreed it can be done right or wrong. I just don’t have any personal experience with it being done right. As for taking away tv, or video games, or having to do additional chores, I guess those can be done “wrong” if you are heaping bad language on kids, or telling them they are shits/worthless etc. That’s not how I do it. I do understand that kids need discipline, consistency, and as much love and self esteem protection (not coddling) as possible. As for being exposed to black people (or people of color period). Yes. Yes I have, having been… Read more »
Julie, please explain what you mean when you say: “I just don’t have any personal experience with it being done right.“
Just trying to understand what you are saying here.
You’ve mentioned that the beltings you know about/have had/delivered did no last emotional harm. If they can be done in such a way, I’ve not seen in the people who have experienced it.
To say that you’ve NEVER seen it not cause lasting emotional harm is a big statement, and frankly very hard to believe if you actually know more than a handful of people. That would mean that you either 1) you barely know the people you listed above, since the vast majority of them were spanked (by hand, with belt and/or with a switch, etc.) and currently spank their children, or 2) you do know them well, and all of them (I would imagine hundreds of people at least) show evidence of having experienced “lasting emotional harm.” (In which case I… Read more »
“Oh, and by the way, Kirk Cameron also believes in corporal punishment for children.”
Is that really such an awful thing? It can be taken way too far but a reasonable level of pain as a consequence for boldness isn’t beyond the pale of human civilisation.
My mother used the wooden spoon, my housmate gives her kid a smack on the hand.
As far as I know, my father decided before we were born that he did not like getting “spankings” using a “switch” or by hand and therefore decided not to discipline us using those methods. Personally, I thought it horrifying the idea that someone would actually hit a child and seen many friends who received this type of discipline at home. Very shocking indeed. To this day I carry my father’s belief that it is completely unnecessary to strike a child for whatever reason.
As for corporal punishment, there’s a passage in the Old Testament that says that if a son continues to be disobedient to his parents, the father or the larger community has the right to kill him. Actual *capital* punishment for a child’s misbehavior, not just corporal. Or if your kid’s a witch you can kill him for that, too.
People here express their pro and con views on many different topics. He was asked a direct question and he gave a direct answer. Why can’t Cameron have his views without being an object of hate speech himself?
Good question…why do we call out people who would go onto television and make racist comments? They’re just expressing their views, after all.
Simple: I disagree. Theres no reason two people can’t express their views. We don’t need to tell him to shut up to say that he’s wrong.
I agree. Intelligent people have conversations and discuss ideas, exchange opinions and beliefs. America has forgotten how to have a conversation. People are mostly intent on “being right” and “crushing those who don’t believe exactly like they do about everything.”
While I don’t agree with Kirk’s religious motivations for condemning gay behavior and disapproving of gay marriage, I’m glad he’s sticking to his guns and speaking his mind. He’s also correct in that our laws and morals are ultimately going to be based on a moral evaluation, a point that flies over the head of so many people who condemn him just for his belief in Christianity. Too bad most people are so willing to accept and follow along with propaganda expressed in our media.
Thanks to Nicole for responding to this inconsequential little twit has-been. As a gay man I find his words not only untrue but insulting. I usually don’t like to generalize or to push stereotypes, but all I had to see was 1 – “born again christian” (meaning he can’t think for himself and needed a support system to clean up his life after fame left him) 2 – “father of six” (meaning he doesn’t believe in birth control because his church told him it was a sin) Kirk, your belief system stinks. I was raised by real Christians, not ‘born-again’… Read more »
I don’t want to read intentions into effects, because that’s faulty logic, but I would point out that this comment makes him a little more famous. He is now getting attention that he otherwise would not have gotten. If there’s no such thing as bad publicity, then this comment is a brilliant move.
Yeah, those homosexual people bringing civilization down. You know, like Michelangelo….
In other gay news: You can see Brad Pitt and George Clooney (and other celebs) in a recording of the play 8: A Play About the Fight for Marriage Equality, here.
Anyway, comments like this make me want to say something disparaging about Cameron’s career since Growing Pains…but I’ll rise above it.
I was going to mention this, if we’re ok with George Takei fighting for gay rights and using his celebrity status as a platform, how can we be against Kirk Cameron being able to do the same?
Should celebrities only be allowed to raise their voice when I, personally, agree with them?
Because lgbt rights are about civil rights…and in the U.S. we treat civil rights (human rights) as a step beyond other political or social beliefs.
I’d like to point out that no one is suggesting Cameron now be allowed to voice his opinions. We’re just saying that the criticism in response is completely valid and justified. No one should have stopped him – except maybe his better judgement.
“Kirk, I understand everyone in America has the freedom to exercise their First Amendment rights. Amen! However, here’s what I think is destructive to civilization: giving celebrities (popular and unpopular) a forum to express their irresponsible, offensive opinions.” I was under the impression the author was suggesting we shouldn’t pay so much attention to celebrities, or emphasise their voices over other regular joe(sephine)s. If this was her argument I agree, I don’t think that we should get concerned when an actor says the wrong thing any more than we should be concerned if some guy in a bar says the… Read more »
Yeah I think there’s an argument to be made about not giving celebrities too much consideration over others. There was a great video that had Seth Green in it about this very topic…which was kind of funny…celebrities using their popularity to say, stop listening to me just because I’m a celebrity.
Anyway, I just think it’s more important that we call out those celebrities who say something discriminatory, because as you say, we do live in a celebrity culture. People do listen to them.
Oh, I’m all for people disagreeing with him, just as I’d disagree with anyone who made that argument. I just don’t think its reasonable to say that he shouldn’t express his opinion or that he should know better.
Ah, well I am far too emotionally and personally tied up in this particular issue to draw a distinction between the two. Ya know what I mean? Chances are if I’m going to disagree with someone on this issue, I’m going to do so emotionally and with a fair bit of snark.
But I understand what you’re saying, Peter.
Fair ’nuff 🙂 I save my ire for the kind folks over at the WBC.
Cameron’s comments are filed under “garbage that comes out of the mouths of washed-up teen heart-throbs who have found Jesus.” or, as I like to refer to it: irrelevant.
Hear, hear!
As with the “if you squint really hard you can maybe see a possible hint of aureola peeking out of J. Lo’s dress” incident, we should care about this because…? Is he running for office or something? Highly influential in the entertainment industry? A key religious or cultural authority? Someone droves of young people look up to and want to emulate?
Generally we think common clovers have 3 leafs, so when we find a 4 leaf clover, it’s a sign of good luck! Furthermore, clovers have been discovered to have more than 4 leafs, up to a recorded 56 leafs. Is this all natural? You bet is. Humans are no different than mother nature’s biology. Live, and let live, I say. According to Wikipedia: The four-leaf clover is an uncommon variation of the common, three-leaved clover. According to tradition, such leaves bring good luck to their finders, especially if found accidentally.[1] According to legend, each leaf represents something: the first is… Read more »