In News That Won’t Surprise You, Kirk Cameron Said Something Stupid on TV

Kirk Cameron appeared on Piers Morgan last night to promote his “documentary” Monumental. But the focus was on his misguided beliefs, including the notion that homosexuality is immoral:

MORGAN: What is your view of gay marriage?

CAMERON: I feel like I just got imported into the Christine O’Donnell interview you did back in August.

MORGAN: She wouldn’t talk about stuff in her own book.

CAMERON: I know, I know.

MORGAN: I’m just saying these issues are interesting to me about what you would tell your kids, who you’re trying to protect, for example.

CAMERON: Yes.

MORGAN: Would you tell them that gay marriage is a sin?

CAMERON: I would tell my children, as — I tell them what I believe myself. And dealing with these social issues, whether it’s abortion or gay marriage —

MORGAN: What do you believe?

CAMERON: I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago. 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. I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t.

MORGAN: Do you think homosexuality is a sin?

CAMERON: I think that it’s — it’s unnatural. I think that it’s — it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.

MORGAN: What do you do if one of your six kids says, dad, bad news, I’m gay.

CAMERON: I’d sit down and have a heart to heart with them just like you would with your kids.

MORGAN: If one of my sons said that, I’d say that’s great, son. As long as you’re happy. What would you say?

CAMERON: Well, I wouldn’t say that’s great, son, as long as you’re happy. I’m going to say, you know, there’s all sorts of issues that we need to wrestle through in our life. Just because you feel one way doesn’t mean we should act on everything that we feel.

MORGAN: And yet some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin or getting married is a sin or whatever, that in itself is incredibly destructive and damaging in a country where seven states now have legalized it.

CAMERON: Yes, but you have to also understand that you yourself are using a standard of morality to say that telling people such and such of a behavior is sinful. You’re using a standard of morality to make that statement and say that that is terribly destructive. So everyone is going to have a standard against which they —

MORGAN: No, no, no, listen, listen. I’m not an American. I’m making the point that seven states in America have now legalized gay marriage.

CAMERON: Well, Piers, you’re speaking to a man who’s a Christian and I believe that all of us are sinful. I could stand at the top of the list and say that I need a savior and I need an overhaul of the heart more than anyone.

And so that’s what I teach my kids. I teach them the values that I hold dear. I treasure the God that loves me and forgives me of my sin. I would teach that to my children, as well as having a wonderful relationship with them that my wife and I work on every single day.

So your value system, my value system, we’re all going to pick a standard against which we judge behavior morally. All of our laws ultimately, at their core, are going to be based on a moral evaluation.

Later in the interview, Cameron said he opposed abortion even in the (awful) case that his own daughter got raped.

This is the great thing about Cameron speaking on mainstream television: He’s no longer in his Christian bubble. Piers Morgan sounds (or acts) genuinely surprised that Cameron is so out of touch with reality. There’s no debate taking place. Morgan is basically responding the entire time with, “You seriously believe this shit?”

Meanwhile, reporters and gay-rights groups are acting like Cameron said something surprising. Like he didn’t make a video years ago in which a banana was offered as evidence against evolution. Like he didn’t go on Nightline and introduce the world to the Crocoduck.

It’s not news. He’s been this way for a while. But, hey, if more people are exposed to how much of a bigot he and other Christians who think the same way are, I’m glad he gets invited on shows like these. Here’s hoping Bill Maher invites him to be on the Real Time panel next.

For what it’s worth, there’s a petition at Change.org to “Tell Kirk Cameron It’s Time to Finally Grow Up.” Won’t do anything, but there you go.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/briansama Brian Sellers

    I have Kirk Cameron to thank for my old crocoduck avatar, so at least I’m happy about that.

    On some level, I feel bad for people like him whose entire worldview stems from a single myth that is completely removed from reality.  Cameron bases his idea of marriage (among other things, as we’ve seen) on the notion that God created the earth in seven days, and gave Adam and Eve his blessing in the Garden of Eden.  There’s no point in even arguing the modern-day morality of the issue with him, because his (mis)understanding of it comes from fiction.  

    I’ll give credit to Piers Morgan, though.  I’ve seen other interviews where his guests are far more liberal (and far less religious) than he is, and he can sometimes come across as a haughty Christian.  At least in this one, he recognizes that some beliefs are just too dangerous to hold.

  • http://www.facebook.com/briansama Brian Sellers

    I have Kirk Cameron to thank for my old crocoduck avatar, so at least I’m happy about that.

    On some level, I feel bad for people like him whose entire worldview stems from a single myth that is completely removed from reality.  Cameron bases his idea of marriage (among other things, as we’ve seen) on the notion that God created the earth in seven days, and gave Adam and Eve his blessing in the Garden of Eden.  There’s no point in even arguing the modern-day morality of the issue with him, because his (mis)understanding of it comes from fiction.  

    I’ll give credit to Piers Morgan, though.  I’ve seen other interviews where his guests are far more liberal (and far less religious) than he is, and he can sometimes come across as a haughty Christian.  At least in this one, he recognizes that some beliefs are just too dangerous to hold.

  • Anonymous

    The really weird thing is that he is given a platform like this. As said, his views aren’t new or surprising. He is well known to be a kook. So why invite him and allow him to spew this nonsense? What was the point?

    An interview like this is even weirder than having Peter Sprigg or one of the usual suspects for the usual token counterpoint and “balance”

  • Anonymous

    The really weird thing is that he is given a platform like this. As said, his views aren’t new or surprising. He is well known to be a kook. So why invite him and allow him to spew this nonsense? What was the point?

    An interview like this is even weirder than having Peter Sprigg or one of the usual suspects for the usual token counterpoint and “balance”

    • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

       Because he speaks for a portion of the population enough large and vocal enough to be relevant in politics and media. It’s important that those of us who don’t agree with him know that he and his supporters are out there doing everything they can to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

    • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

       Because he speaks for a portion of the population enough large and vocal enough to be relevant in politics and media. It’s important that those of us who don’t agree with him know that he and his supporters are out there doing everything they can to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

  • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

    More ignorance and bigotry from an irrelevant hacktor.  

  • Troy Truchon

    Incidentally, considering that birds, and their dinosaur ancestors, appear to have shared a common ancestor with Crocodiles, I think we should start calling the raptors the crockoducks. He may be a complete loon, but the name Crockoduck is kinda awesome.

  • Troy Truchon

    Incidentally, considering that birds, and their dinosaur ancestors, appear to have shared a common ancestor with Crocodiles, I think we should start calling the raptors the crockoducks. He may be a complete loon, but the name Crockoduck is kinda awesome.

  • https://www.facebook.com/GentleGiantDK GentleGiant

    Why is a has-been actor even newsworthy? Apart from the fact that he can be paraded out to show how fucked up in the head he is?

    • Anonymous-Sam

       Kirk Cameron is one of the more outspoken Christian semi-celebrities, to the point of having pissed off former coworkers by refusing to act out scenes which he felt implied too much immorality. More recently, he has starred in the premillennial dispensation series Left Behind, based on the book series by Tim LaHaye. That makes him semi-newsworthy if only as a “Look at the stupid stuff this whackjob is saying today” category update.

    • Anonymous-Sam

       Kirk Cameron is one of the more outspoken Christian semi-celebrities, to the point of having pissed off former coworkers by refusing to act out scenes which he felt implied too much immorality. More recently, he has starred in the premillennial dispensation series Left Behind, based on the book series by Tim LaHaye. That makes him semi-newsworthy if only as a “Look at the stupid stuff this whackjob is saying today” category update.

      • https://www.facebook.com/GentleGiantDK GentleGiant

        Yeah, but most people probably only know him from Growing Pains, thus he’s a has-been actor.
        That he has featured in crack-pot “movies” like the Left Behind stuff is just more reason to not give him the time of day. :-)

      • https://www.facebook.com/GentleGiantDK GentleGiant

        Yeah, but most people probably only know him from Growing Pains, thus he’s a has-been actor.
        That he has featured in crack-pot “movies” like the Left Behind stuff is just more reason to not give him the time of day. :-)

        • Anonymous-Sam

           I could one-up you by broadening the “don’t give them the time of day” rule to virtually all actors and celebrities (because, let’s face it, why should we give a damn what people think just because they’re popular and make a lot of money?), but Kirk Cameron gets special mention just for being one of the worst cases.

          Actually, if you’re interested, Fred from the Slacktivist blog here on Patheos has been dissecting the Left Behind series from the perspective of a liberal Christian liberal (repetition intended). Between the books, he’s also been covering the movies, so he gets to point out how uncomfortable everyone looks when Kirk Cameron gleefully acts out a religious scene. It doesn’t help that the character in question is named Cameron (which is, as far as I know, sheer coincidence).

          Kirk: Now let us pray for those poor heathen sinners, those misbegotten fools…
          Actors: (Do it for the paycheck. Just do it for the check.)
          Kirk: (DOIN’ IT FOR GAAAAAWD OH YEAAAAA.)

          • Anonymous

            There are occasionally intelligent celebrities with well-reasoned things to say, in which case they should be regarded equally to any other person with a valid point.  However I agree that there is no reason to pay any special attention to their personal beliefs simply because they’ve made a lot of money in the entertainment business.

            • servantheart

              implying that “well reasoned” means that they agree with your philosophy of life of course!

              • AnalogousGumdropDecoder

                No, actually. I was not implying that at all. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though!

    • servantheart

      Why is ANY actor even newsworthy? Seriously… people have to get a life!

      • https://www.facebook.com/GentleGiantDK GentleGiant

        “Seriously… people have to get a life!”
        Says the Kirk Cameron fanboy troll who starts commenting on a 2 year old thread. Good job!

        • servantheart

          Thanks Gentle Ben

  • https://www.facebook.com/GentleGiantDK GentleGiant

    Why is a has-been actor even newsworthy? Apart from the fact that he can be paraded out to show how fucked up in the head he is?

  • Ida Know

    Forget an overhaul of the heart… what he (Cameron) needs is an overhaul of the brain.

  • Ida Know

    Forget an overhaul of the heart… what he (Cameron) needs is an overhaul of the brain.

  • Gwen

    Obviously, Kirk has NOT read the bible. Marriage in the bible is a movable feast. It is between one man and one woman, one man and many many wives, one man, many wives and concubines, one man, many wives and concubine and female slaves….

    • Anonymous

      And of course, in the New Testament, celibacy is the ideal. You don’t see many fundamentalist Protestants choosing that path.

      • Anonymous

        That was one thing I never could make sense of when I was a Christian.  The Bible devotes an entire book to what basically amounts to the Bronze Age equivalent of a Barry White album, and then tells you not to take a wife and to remain celibate.

        • servantheart

          It also says NOT to divulge PEARLS before SWINE…. That’s you in case you couldn’t figure it out.

          • AnalogousGumdropDecoder

            Keep spreadin’ that Christian love around!

            • servantheart

              Tough love Gumdrop…. you can handle it! Everything in context….as you’re so famous for taking it out of…

              • AnalogousGumdropDecoder

                OH? So I’m not only famous, but famous FOR something? So what exactly is this community where I’m so famous for taking things out of context?

                • servantheart

                  On this very forum lover! Your words defy you constantly. If you had a general sense of what the Bible was actually about you might make some sort of sense with your constant rants. You refer to your former life as a Christian as if it really existed when you never really were one, as most REAL Christians know the difference between a fake and a real Christian. Of course, most of the people on this forum wouldn’t know a real Christian from a fake if their life depended on it because they’ve only experienced the latter. Their worldview is formed with COLORED glasses. So is yours!

                • AnalogousGumdropDecoder

                  So am I famous for taking things “out of context” with anyone besides YOU?
                  Please elaborate on what differentiates a “real” Christian, how you’re so certain I never was one (considering you don’t actually know me), and how this is relevant to whether I take things out of context.

                • servantheart

                  It’s extremely relevant because if you were a true Christian you would take the time to understand the context in which the Bible was written and not just throw some theory at the wall to see if it sticks. Most if not ALL people who throw out the baby (Christianity) with the bathwater(something that happened that they didn’t understand) NEVER had anything real in the first place. There are plenty of two bit religious people out there that call themselves Christians and it makes me want to barf. Piers Morgan is one of them. You on the other hand were one of Piers cohorts… not a real Christian and at least you had the sense to admit that religion wasn’t working out but you didn’t have the guts to get into what a real Christian was or is. If you truly want to know what differentiates a true Christian, that’s for another time. It’s way past my bedtime.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  So what does a differentiate a True Christian? Please do tell- I’ll be here tomorrow too, so take your time answering. I’ll ask a few questions to get you started.

                  Do they have to believe God is real?
                  Do they have to believe God is perfect?
                  Do they have to believe in Jesus and the whole died for our sins thing?
                  Do they have to believe Jesus died only temporarily?
                  Do they have to believe in Hell? Do they have to not believe in Hell?
                  Do they have to be Creationists?
                  Do they have to believe Adam and Eve literally existed, literally lived in a Garden of Eden, and literally ate a real magic fruit?
                  Are there any political positions True Christians must have? If yes:
                  Do they have to be pro-life?
                  Do they have to be pro-death penalty?
                  Do they have to be for gun control? Do they have to be against gun control?
                  Is there any particular political party for which they must vote?

      • servantheart

        Really? so all of the Fundamentalist Protestant women are married? Where are your facts?

    • Anonymous

      And of course, in the New Testament, celibacy is the ideal. You don’t see many fundamentalist Protestants choosing that path.

    • Anonymous-Sam

       Not to mention divorce , although the New Testament did a 180 and decided that divorce = sexual immortality.

      • Anonymous-Sam

         Er, immorality. XD

        • Annie

          For some it might be both! ;-)

        • Annie

          For some it might be both! ;-)

      • Anonymous-Sam

         Er, immorality. XD

    • Anonymous-Sam

       Not to mention divorce , although the New Testament did a 180 and decided that divorce = sexual immortality.

    • observer

       Here’s a graphic.

  • Gwen

    Obviously, Kirk has NOT read the bible. Marriage in the bible is a movable feast. It is between one man and one woman, one man and many many wives, one man, many wives and concubines, one man, many wives and concubine and female slaves….

  • Anonymous

    It’s funny that they always ask these patriarchal dimwits how they would want (i.e. force) their daughters to react to a rape, but I wonder if the response would be the same if it was their wife who was raped and the pregnancy was risky (after all, all pregnancies are risky)? Or if their wife had an affair and was carrying some other man’s kid–would they really encourage her to keep the child?

    • Annie

      “Or if their wife had an affair and was carrying some other man’s kid–would they really encourage her to keep the child?”

      I would pay money to help get this question raised to Cameron… I would!  An excellent twist on the overused rape scenario that I never considered.

      • servantheart

        How much would you pay? Maybe I can arrange it for you.

    • Annie

      “Or if their wife had an affair and was carrying some other man’s kid–would they really encourage her to keep the child?”

      I would pay money to help get this question raised to Cameron… I would!  An excellent twist on the overused rape scenario that I never considered.

    • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/ TCC

      I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the answer to both was “Yes.” The answers are generally consistent, regardless of whether their actions would match their words.

      • Anonymous

        True enough. “The only moral abortion is my  (or my wife’s or my daughter’s) abortion” is what they do, not what they say.

         Plus I hate the implication that it’s any of his (whichever patriarchal dimwit they happen to ask) business what his daughters or wife chooses to do with her body.

        • Anonymous

          While I certainly have my own opinions on political/social issues that concern women’s rights, I also sort of take the position that in many cases it simply isn’t my place to make those decisions.  Although, if women need me to stand up for their rights in some way I’d be glad to do so.

          • Anonymous

            My stance is sort of analogous on race issues as well.

            • servantheart

              Wow! I’m very impressed with your moral values! You shine guy!

              • AnalogousGumdropDecoder

                You’re welcome!

  • Anonymous

    It’s funny that they always ask these patriarchal dimwits how they would want (i.e. force) their daughters to react to a rape, but I wonder if the response would be the same if it was their wife who was raped and the pregnancy was risky (after all, all pregnancies are risky)? Or if their wife had an affair and was carrying some other man’s kid–would they really encourage her to keep the child?

  • Annie

    “And it was defined in the Garden between Adam and Eve, one man, one woman, for life, till death do you part.”Maybe some of our Christian friends who like to pipe in can help me with a few questions.  If Adam and Eve were indeed the first man and woman, where the heck did Cain’s wife come from?  I know she was from the land of Nod (east of Eden), but how was she produced?  Either Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman, made by God, or they were an incredibly incestuous bunch!Morgan did such a great job in the interview.  He could have easily blown Cameron out of the water, but instead stuck to the “Oh, really???” tactic.  Well played.

    • TheThirdChimpanzee

      Easy – Cain married a Human/Cylon hybrid! Or a Neanderthal…Lol. 

    • TheThirdChimpanzee

      Easy – Cain married a Human/Cylon hybrid! Or a Neanderthal…Lol. 

    • oli kenton

      I’ve asked this before and was told that answer to this lies in that Adam & Eve were the FIRST. That doesn’t mean god didn’t go crazy creating other people elsewhere. As far as I am aware, the bible doesn’t claim that everyone is descended from Adam and Eve (willing to be corrected if anyone has the time to trawl through Genesis).

      • Annie

        But what about original sin?  I thought that all people were said to have original sin because they are descendants of Adam and Eve, and thus have their “sin” of eating from the tree of knowledge.  So many holes in the biblical plot!

        • Anonymous-Sam

           An external source I read once stated that all the other humans of earth came from Lilith, a demon, who mated with Adam and spawned thousands of children every day. If I recall, these children were soulless and  considered to be godless creatures for all intents and purposes.

          Up to you whether to take that as canon or not; it’s been so long that I can’t even cite the source. It was a tiny little leather book which, IIRC, was basically an encyclopedia of angelic figures.

          It makes about as much sense as anything else I’ve ever read.

  • http://lizheywoodwriter.blogspot.com/ Liz Heywood

    Whoa…I just put on the soundtrack for The King’s Speech (Beethoven Symph 7) as this interview started…I’m having a Dark Side of the Moon/Wizard of Oz moment..I’ll get back to you later…

  • http://lizheywoodwriter.blogspot.com/ Liz Heywood

    Whoa…I just put on the soundtrack for The King’s Speech (Beethoven Symph 7) as this interview started…I’m having a Dark Side of the Moon/Wizard of Oz moment..I’ll get back to you later…

  • Mike Williams

    For some reason, the point that struck me the most was Cameron saying he teaches his kids the values he holds dear.  I’m sure he means well when he says that, as does pretty much every one of the millions of people that say the same thing, but now it seems creepy and I think speaks to one of the big differences between believers and non believers.

    I tell my kids what I think and what I value, but I teach them why I value those things and I leave it to them to decide what to value themselves.  I would like for them to grow up and hold similar values to mine, but I’m most concerned with them having good reasons for holding whatever values they do end up holding.

    Not only do people like Cameron not think that way, it’s nigh unpardonable to do so.  Their main, if not sole, responsibility as parents is to get their kids to fall in line with the orthodoxy.  Trying to develop compelling reasons for holding a position is only useful inasmuch as it helps to corral the flock.

    I don’t really know what that all means, but it was a curious thought I had while reading this and I felt like sharing.  Carry on.

    • Annie

      I see how impressionable my own daughter is.  She globs on to my ways of thinking quite easily… I think most kids do (to their own parents).  I make a conscious effort to tell her that it is not just okay, but great if she disagrees with me… but it is also important that she can offer an explanation as to why she thinks the way she does (disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing is not a good reason).  I don’t want her to simply accept what I say as the bottom line… I want her to question what I say and look for her own answers.  I try to keep my eye on the prize… her adulthood.  This idea that children should mimic their parents in every way is ridiculous.  If everyone had the same views as their parents, our species would never grow.  I love how you said you tell your kids what you think and value… and then why.  That’s an important step that many parents leave out.  “Because I said so” is as much of a cop-out as “because god made it that way” to me. If I can’t bother to take the time to explain, why should I ever expect my child to?

    • Annie

      I see how impressionable my own daughter is.  She globs on to my ways of thinking quite easily… I think most kids do (to their own parents).  I make a conscious effort to tell her that it is not just okay, but great if she disagrees with me… but it is also important that she can offer an explanation as to why she thinks the way she does (disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing is not a good reason).  I don’t want her to simply accept what I say as the bottom line… I want her to question what I say and look for her own answers.  I try to keep my eye on the prize… her adulthood.  This idea that children should mimic their parents in every way is ridiculous.  If everyone had the same views as their parents, our species would never grow.  I love how you said you tell your kids what you think and value… and then why.  That’s an important step that many parents leave out.  “Because I said so” is as much of a cop-out as “because god made it that way” to me. If I can’t bother to take the time to explain, why should I ever expect my child to?

  • James

    Setting Kirk Cameron and his stupidity aside,  let’s not forget that Piers Morgan was a dick to Penn Jillette for the sole reason of being an atheist and releasing a book on atheism. He might’ve handled the interview well, but Piers himself isn’t a pillar of reason.

    • http://www.facebook.com/briansama Brian Sellers

      That’s pretty much what I was getting at earlier when I mentioned that Piers can play the role of haughty Christian.  He might seem more moderate up against Kirk Cameron, but pretty much anyone would.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/briansama Brian Sellers

      That’s pretty much what I was getting at earlier when I mentioned that Piers can play the role of haughty Christian.  He might seem more moderate up against Kirk Cameron, but pretty much anyone would.  

  • James

    Setting Kirk Cameron and his stupidity aside,  let’s not forget that Piers Morgan was a dick to Penn Jillette for the sole reason of being an atheist and releasing a book on atheism. He might’ve handled the interview well, but Piers himself isn’t a pillar of reason.

  • http://www.wantonsoul.com/ Nowhere Man

    What? He’s still alive? :)

  • http://www.wantonsoul.com/ Nowhere Man

    What? He’s still alive? :)

  • Jmutoml

    You call Cameron’s remarks “stupid,” but how do you determine “stupid”? He was not condescending, and it does not appear he was rude. He simply holds a judeo-Christian view of marriage and homosexuality. He is not basing his answers on popular culture or the main-stream media. What would you say to someone who regarded your ideas or beliefs as “stupid”? Just wondering.

    • Jett Perrobone

      I’d consider his views “stupid” simply because they fly in the face of reality.  For example, he claims that homosexuality is “unnatural”, despite the fact that it is abundantly found in nature.  The fact that he was polite in the interview is beside the point.  I wouldn’t have a problem with someone calling my beliefs or opinions “stupid” – I don’t consider them to be sacred or immune from criticism.  Though I would appreciate an explanation as to why he (or she) thinks my views are stupid (which I may or may not believe is reasonable).

      • Jmutoml

        It seems to me that all of you defending the name-calling of Kirk Cameron are disingenous at best, and I do not believe for a second that you would like to be called stupid because someone disagrees with you. That is just my gut on this. Your argument from nature is weak; there are many things that exist or are found in nature that we do not consider proper for humans. I will not give examples because you are bright enough to think of them yourself.

        But my issue here is the idea that it is ok to speak negatively about Mr. Cameron due to the fact that he holds a different, albeit biblical, view on homosexuality and marriage.

        • Thackerie

          Bigots who try to hide their bigotry behind the Bible are still bigots and deserve condemnation in the strongest terms. If we are not allowed to criticize people who hold biblical views, then all those Bible-quoting plantation owners in the pre-Civil War South would have prevailed and slavery would still be legal in the U.S.

        • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/ TCC

          You have misread Jett Perrobone, who wasn’t making the argument from nature but rather pointing out that Cameron’s was in fact false (homosexuality does exist in nature). That’s not, as you say, a reason for it to be proper and accepted, but if your only attempt at a secular argument is “it’s unnatural,” then it’s right to note that it’s empirically false.

          As for calling Cameron “stupid,” I think I agree with Hemant’s original post that this really isn’t news and that he has said far stupider things (thanks, Hemant, for reminding me of the Crocoduck). But no, I’m not bothered by the thought of people calling me stupid, since I’m fairly confident that I can defend any of my positions against criticism.

    • Jett Perrobone

      I’d consider his views “stupid” simply because they fly in the face of reality.  For example, he claims that homosexuality is “unnatural”, despite the fact that it is abundantly found in nature.  The fact that he was polite in the interview is beside the point.  I wouldn’t have a problem with someone calling my beliefs or opinions “stupid” – I don’t consider them to be sacred or immune from criticism.  Though I would appreciate an explanation as to why he (or she) thinks my views are stupid (which I may or may not believe is reasonable).

    • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

      Q -”how do you determine “stupid”?”

      A – “He … holds a judeo-Christian view of marriage and homosexuality”

      Q -  “What would you say to someone who regarded your ideas or beliefs as “stupid”?

      A – That they are wrong because my beliefs are based on skepticism, critical thinking, facts and statistics and Kirk’s are based on fairy tales.

      Name-calling only really hurts when it’s true.

      • Jmutoml

        Critical thinking does not render one’s ideas correct, and I do not know what facts support your beliefs. An astute student of the Bible can can think just as critically as the next.  The bottom line is that we live in a pluralistic society where it is deemed incorrect to hold a view that believes in absolutes; the irony is that you would probably “absolutely” espouse your view and criticize Kirk’s etc. I would love to know the “facts” and “statistics” to which you are pointing (conversation for another day). In this case I am not even sure of the argument; I simply make the case that Kirk Cameron has a right to his beliefs, which are founded in the Bible. He was asked the question and answered politely; we all have faith in something, whether we would like to admit it or not. He is clear about his faith, which has a particular view of homosexuality and marriage. He has a right to this view without the name-calling. You can try to justify the name-calling, but that is a straw man and you know it.

        • oli kenton

           Can’t say I really agree with you here.

           - Critical thinking does not render one’s ideas correct
          True but it does make it more likely you will weed out ideas that are wrong, leaving you with ideas that are more right.

           - An astute student of the bible can think just as critically as the next
          True, there are many critical thinking people who study the bible. However, to BELIEVE what is written therein as fact does require the suspension of critical thinking.

          - Kirk Cameron has a right to his beliefs, which are founded in the Bible.
          Absolutely, and we have the right to say how daft those beliefs are.

          - He has a right to this view without the name-calling.
          Not necessarily. If I have the view that black people are clearly inferior to whites, it is quite justifiable for others to call me a racist.

          You said:
          “He simply holds a judeo-Christian view of marriage and homosexuality.”
          Followed immediately by
          “He is not basing his answers on popular culture or the main-stream media”

          How is christianity not popular culture in the states?

          • Jmutoml

            Perhaps we have a different view of pop culture. The mass media (a good gauge of pop culture in my opinion) that I engage on a daily basis is largely anti-Christian. By Christian, I am not referring to a nebulous belief in God or even certain Christian values; “Christian” is not a simple belief in the afterlife or spirituality in my vocabulary. By “Christian” I am referring to the orthodox teachings of Bible in regard to man, sin, purpose, God, and salvation through Christ alone. The irony is this: it is ok to believe in something, anything, as long as it is not biblical Christianity. The inconsistency of pluralism is palpable. Frankly, I enjoy these discussions. I am often disappointed by the lack of respect and willingness of so many to engage others. If we do not believe the same it is fine; I respect the right of others to believe according to their own conscious.

            I would love to challenge the idea that one who believes the Bible has suspended critical thinking; this statement is simply not true. Perhaps you have never engaged a sharp Christian who is also kind.

            I would like to hear from you in regard to what you consider foundational truth. In other words, what is authoritative to you? If you feel one way and I or someone else another way, who is correct now that we are a post-modern society?

            • amyc

              I’ll answer that last question (or try to). Most people here, I would think, don’t take any one thing to be authoritative. We don’t subscribe to what a particular person/group/book says is true. Instead we have created a system of finding truth (or the closest one could get to it). We ask ourselves the question: What is my criteria for finding truth? My criteria is largely evidence based, with logic and reason a close second and third. So, for example, if something makes logical sense, but has no evidence to back it up, I will withhold judgement. If something makes logical sense, but physical evidence shows it’s not true, I will take the evidence over the logic (this is where reason comes into play). I guess in the broadest sense, you could say evidence is authoritative to me. If I believe claim (A) today, but tomorrow I find evidence that contradicts and falsifies claim (A), then I can change my mind. It’s kind of like applying the scientific method to everyday thinking.

          • servantheart

            Apparently you’re from around here!

        • Anonymous

           That’s not what free speech means. Not at all. Free speech simply means that he won’t be punished simply for holding those beliefs.

          It doesn’t mean he is entitled to a platform for his beliefs and it doesn’t exempt him from criticism

          • Jmutoml

            I never mentioned “free speech.” However, he was a guest on the particular show in question.

            • amyc

               You said he has a right to his beliefs and to speak those beliefs. That’s  basically freedom of speech. Nobody is disagreeing that he has a right to those things, but when his beliefs are demonstrably wrong and/or harmful, we have a right to criticize. Nobody is exempt from criticism. His being a guest on the show has nothing to do with it. If anything, he agreed to be on the show and espouse his views on the topic and therefore he opened up himself to public scrutiny.

          • servantheart

            What country are you from? IRAN?

        • Anonymous-Sam

          Actually, no. Kirk Cameron holds many beliefs which are not found within the Bible, namely that of premillennial dispensation. He believes the Rapture will occur “any day now” and 144,000 Christians will leave the Earth, leaving behind everyone else (including many other Christians, Catholics, and all other religions) to face the Tribulations and all the wrath of Revelation, including the Antichrist (the one, singular Antichrist who is possessed by Satan, comes out of Rome, yet is middle-south-eastern in upbringing) and how Jesus will return to smite all his enemies with naught but his voice.

          Kirk Cameron is anything but a critical thinker merely following his Bible. Most premillennial dispensationists struggle to justify their beliefs to even the most hardcore conservative Christians and wind up declaring that even they will wind up in Hell with the rest of us.

          • Jmutoml

            I never stated that Cameron was a critical thinker; I only make the point that being a Christian does not render one incapable or unable to think critically. I cannot comment on Cameron’s eschatological view because I am not privy to the entirity of his beliefs. However, I do know that classic dispensationalism is espoused by many Christians. Those with whom I have spoken have biblical reasons for their belief, as do amillenialists etc. Many of Cameron’s views, at least some I have seen in the interview in question, are entirely orthodox. I have heard him speak of his faith in Christ in the past as well, and his soteriological views are in line with most protestant confessions as well.

          • servantheart

            You sound like a real “STUDENT” of Kirk Cameron’s!!! He actually said that 144,000 Christians will be the only ones to leave the earth in the rapture? Or are you surmising that one?

      • Ndonnan

        Ha,nowthis is an example of a stupid reply

      • servantheart

        Define Name-calling: Is Fairy Tales name calling?

        • Spuddie

          No, just being honest.

          • servantheart

            Honest about what?

            • Spuddie

              You believe in a fairy tale. Get over it.

              One about a mythical sky-god who watches over you. Who judges who you have relations with, whether you eat shrimp and ensures your team wins football games. This mythical sky god occasionally has an adversary who lives under the ground. A guy who had a falling out with his sky-god employer because he felt unappreciated. Now they sit on the shoulders of people telling them what to do. Sky god gets all the praise. Underground guy gets all the blame.

              Yep fairy tale.

              • servantheart

                I love how you dictate what my fairy tale is….when you have NO IDEA of what or who I believe in…… AGAIN typical atheistic ARROGANCE. Your fairy tale begins with Once upon a time in a land far far away or in other words… Billions and billions of years ago in a land we never knew…. and your fairy tale ENDS…. yes ENDS in a very very tiny winy little box and everything that is contained in your fairy tale is encapsulated in that infinitesimally sized box including you, your brain, and all of humanity.

                • Spuddie

                  You professed to be a “True Christian”. It comes with the package. The great thing about organized religion is their fairy tales are also organized and neatly placed out there for everyone to see.

                • servantheart

                  yes, and yet you have never really investigated them. All your fairy tale says is “everything is inside this teeny weeny box” for everyone to see. You see, I’ve already investigated everything in this teeny weeny box. You haven’t done YOUR homework nor has any so called atheist.

                • Spuddie

                  Riiiiight.

                  You have blown everyone away with your displays of intellectual prowess and skillful rhetoric. Your arguments are so well crafted and factually supported that they just reduce opponents to quivering piles of hurt by the mere sight of them.

                  Oh wait. You just babble on like a chimpanzee with dysentery.

                  Never mind.

    • Spuddie

      When they are ignorant, hateful, and do not show an ounce of common sense. Yes they are stupid. Just because he fervently believes in what he said didn’t make it less stupid. Just emphatically stupid.

  • Jmutoml

    You call Cameron’s remarks “stupid,” but how do you determine “stupid”? He was not condescending, and it does not appear he was rude. He simply holds a judeo-Christian view of marriage and homosexuality. He is not basing his answers on popular culture or the main-stream media. What would you say to someone who regarded your ideas or beliefs as “stupid”? Just wondering.

  • Ndonnan

    I really dont understand why somone who disagrees with homosexuallity is a bigot to athiests. Does this mean somone who agrees with homosexuallity is a bigot to non athiests??Is agreeing with it and abortion for that matter a prerequsiste to athism??

    • TheThirdChimanzee

      No, you can disagree with homosexuality all you want, it’s your right – but when you start telling people who you “disagree” with that they HAVE to live their lives according to YOUR beliefs – and it has to be enforced by law – and that if they don’t live to please *you* that they are evil and wrong and destroying the world and can’t even share your job or world or even be in your political party with you because you don’t like what they do in private, with another consenting adult…I think that might be slightly crossing the line into bigotry,  yes. 

      If a homosexual – or even just a plain atheist like me – suddenly said that “All Christians should be de-converted and not allowed to marry, or join the military, share my political party, work or even be be even *mentioned* to exist in public schools – unless it’s to tell them that they are wrong and evil – ,  have kids, join the Boy Scouts, be or do Christian things in public or private, wear Christian symbols…etc, because I “disagree” with it.” I think Christians wouldn’t hesitate to call that person a bigot – and I’d have to agree with them.  

      And that “homosexuality is destructive to society” – I think one could make an equal – and even more evidence-based and substainiated argument that so were/are the Inquisition, Crusades, Dark Ages, book burnings, censorship…so if that’s gonna be our basis for deciding what people HAVE to believe…

    • TheThirdChimanzee

      No, you can disagree with homosexuality all you want, it’s your right – but when you start telling people who you “disagree” with that they HAVE to live their lives according to YOUR beliefs – and it has to be enforced by law – and that if they don’t live to please *you* that they are evil and wrong and destroying the world and can’t even share your job or world or even be in your political party with you because you don’t like what they do in private, with another consenting adult…I think that might be slightly crossing the line into bigotry,  yes. 

      If a homosexual – or even just a plain atheist like me – suddenly said that “All Christians should be de-converted and not allowed to marry, or join the military, share my political party, work or even be be even *mentioned* to exist in public schools – unless it’s to tell them that they are wrong and evil – ,  have kids, join the Boy Scouts, be or do Christian things in public or private, wear Christian symbols…etc, because I “disagree” with it.” I think Christians wouldn’t hesitate to call that person a bigot – and I’d have to agree with them.  

      And that “homosexuality is destructive to society” – I think one could make an equal – and even more evidence-based and substainiated argument that so were/are the Inquisition, Crusades, Dark Ages, book burnings, censorship…so if that’s gonna be our basis for deciding what people HAVE to believe…

    • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

       Kirk can disagree with homosexuality all he wants.  He can abstain from it as his religious lifestyle dictates and he can teach his kids whatever he desires.  But when he starts preaching to the public that gay people are “unnatural”,  that they’re destroying society and that they don’t deserve the same rights he has that makes him a bigot. 

      Likewise I can disagree with Christianity and other religions all I want.  But if I were to go around proclaiming, for example, that religious people are mentally deficient and that they should be prevented from holding public office, then I’d be a bigot. 

    • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

       Kirk can disagree with homosexuality all he wants.  He can abstain from it as his religious lifestyle dictates and he can teach his kids whatever he desires.  But when he starts preaching to the public that gay people are “unnatural”,  that they’re destroying society and that they don’t deserve the same rights he has that makes him a bigot. 

      Likewise I can disagree with Christianity and other religions all I want.  But if I were to go around proclaiming, for example, that religious people are mentally deficient and that they should be prevented from holding public office, then I’d be a bigot. 

    • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

      Someone who disagrees with blackness or femaleness or the right to believe or not believe in their religion is a bigot, why would someone who disagrees with homosexuality not be?

      “Does this mean someone who agrees with homosexuallity is a bigot to non athiests?”

      Many theists claim persecution when they are not allowed or are called out on openly homophobic behavior, which is of course ludicrous. It’s not bigotry when someone denies you the “right” to deny other people’s rights.

    • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

      Someone who disagrees with blackness or femaleness or the right to believe or not believe in their religion is a bigot, why would someone who disagrees with homosexuality not be?

      “Does this mean someone who agrees with homosexuallity is a bigot to non athiests?”

      Many theists claim persecution when they are not allowed or are called out on openly homophobic behavior, which is of course ludicrous. It’s not bigotry when someone denies you the “right” to deny other people’s rights.

    • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

      Someone who disagrees with blackness or femaleness or the right to believe or not believe in their religion is a bigot, why would someone who disagrees with homosexuality not be?

      “Does this mean someone who agrees with homosexuallity is a bigot to non athiests?”

      Many theists claim persecution when they are not allowed or are called out on openly homophobic behavior, which is of course ludicrous. It’s not bigotry when someone denies you the “right” to deny other people’s rights.

    • TiltedHorizon

      Agreeing with homosexuality is not a requirement. I actually disagree with it and therefore protest it by NOT having sex with anyone of the same sex. Beyond that, as long as I am not involved, I don’t care.

      If one “disagrees” with homosexuality then one is likely heterosexual and is free to protest, as I do, by NOT have sex with someone possessing the same genitalia. However, if one is so bothered by what consenting adults do in the bedroom that one feels the need use the government to limit equality, then one may be a bigot.

    • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/ TCC

      Non-substantive comment: Can you please learn how to spell “homosexuality,” “atheism,” and “atheist”? And maybe consider proofreading your comments more generally.

      • Ndonnan

        true,wish i could,but its really not that important to me at this stage of my life,besides im sure you get the jist

    • Spuddie

      Because they attack people for being gay by discrimination, attacks on basic human dignity, their ability to live normal lives and with physical violence. That is why they are bigots.

      If you don’t like gays, don’t be one. Don’t have them for friends. Just don’t expect their presence to be gone just because you have such feelings.

  • Ndonnan

    I really dont understand why somone who disagrees with homosexuallity is a bigot to athiests. Does this mean somone who agrees with homosexuallity is a bigot to non athiests??Is agreeing with it and abortion for that matter a prerequsiste to athism??

  • http://profiles.google.com/nathanlee2 nathan lee

    I actually respect Kirk here a little. You know, not much, his views are still draconian at best, but he holds himself better than many fundies.

    He tries very hard to stay  civil and rational, without ever resorting to name calling and evil baby-eating non-christian claims.

    • servantheart

      Seriously, what fundies resort to name calling and evil baby-eating non-christian claims? I thought that was leftys.

  • http://profiles.google.com/nathanlee2 nathan lee

    I actually respect Kirk here a little. You know, not much, his views are still draconian at best, but he holds himself better than many fundies.

    He tries very hard to stay  civil and rational, without ever resorting to name calling and evil baby-eating non-christian claims.

  • http://twitter.com/eric1743 eric1743

    To be clear I have exactly no idea how much (if any) credence this holds. But a week or so ago Joe My God posted a (is there a term for less than thinly veiled) blind item. 
    http://blindgossip.com/?p=39111  But curious if there has been chatter about it elsewhere. 

  • http://twitter.com/eric1743 eric1743

    To be clear I have exactly no idea how much (if any) credence this holds. But a week or so ago Joe My God posted a (is there a term for less than thinly veiled) blind item. 
    http://blindgossip.com/?p=39111  But curious if there has been chatter about it elsewhere. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    On a related note, GameSpot has an article about homosexual relationships becoming involved in video games, namely Mass Effect. The game will allow the playable character to engage in homosexual or heterosexual relationships as they choose. The comments are filled with arguments over it. Some equating homosexuality to violence and disease or that by merely making it an option they are violating the player’s morality.

    http://www.gamespot.com/features/a-mass-effect-on-homosexuality-in-games-6363909/

  • Matt Edmonds

    So is Piers Morgan seen as a respected journalist over there?  In Britain his reputation is more as a sort of lizard in unctuous human form.

    • servantheart

      I have no idea Piers Morgan is even allowed to be a journalist in this country. Perhaps he should be deported.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cburschka Christoph Burschka

    His poor kids. Religious fanaticism should be a justifiable reason for loss of custody. (Not to mention rejection of adoption, since four of them are.)

    I feel like hoping all of them turn out to be gay just to spite him, but that’s petty. What I hope is that they learn to think for themselves, grow up to hate neither themselves nor others, and if he disowns them, to have enough of a support network to be able to leave and tell him to fuck off.

    • Anonymous

      In reality, someone religious is more likely to get custody than an atheist. In the US, there have been cases where the custody went to the person who goes to church more often

      • servantheart

        Correctly so because the real Religious fanatic IS the atheist!

        • Spuddie

          Did your mom have children who lived?

          • servantheart

            Did you pass the third grade?

            • Spuddie

              How long are your internet privileges in the joint?

        • baal

          Servantheart – don’t you have something better to do that smear shit on the walls?

          • servantheart

            Take a DEEP breath baal…. maybe you’ll wake up from your sleep walk

    • servantheart

      You’re an IDIOT! and a FOOL!

      • AnalogousGumdropDecoder

        You’re a TROLL! and a HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING!

        • servantheart

          ha ha ha…. I was talking to the Idiot who thinks he knows what’s best for children…. Not you lover! Don’t be a hater!

          • AnalogousGumdropDecoder

            You’ve got me pondering an interesting philosophical question now: Is being a hater-hater still an act of haterism?

            • Spuddie

              No, its just having sense. Hating the hate is being an understanding person. Insulting the hater’s intelligence is just fun.

            • servantheart

              ha ha ….. You’re quite right there buddy!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sandy-Kokch/100000074576649 Sandy Kokch

    Watching these interveiws s so frustratng when the celeb trots out nonsense about how gay marrage destroys societies. A smart intervewer could counter with:

    So…I take it you are not a scholar of Greek history. Heard of Sparta? The Spartan agoge schooling system formalised homosexual relationships for all male students. They had the most fearsome army in ancient Hellas, and also their legal system was much more egalitarian in respect of womens rights than that of Athens where women had little or no rights. So homosexualty obviously didnt have a destructive effect there.

    And how about the North European states where gay marriage is legal? Better economies, healthier and happier populations, less crime and violence. So…how is gay marriage wrecking those societies that seem to be doing better than the US?

    My point is that it isnt just good enough to sit back and let people say stuff and reply, like Morgan, with “you seriously believe that”. You need to aggresively pursue the point and expose it for the lies and nonsense it is. Softballing in an interview is pointless and a waste of air time, and just encourages prats to spout nonsense unchallenged.

    • Anonymous

      I’ve heard some pretty nutball arguments about how homosexuality destroyed ancient Greek culture… all of which are objectively false, or course.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sandy-Kokch/100000074576649 Sandy Kokch

    Watching these interveiws s so frustratng when the celeb trots out nonsense about how gay marrage destroys societies. A smart intervewer could counter with:

    So…I take it you are not a scholar of Greek history. Heard of Sparta? The Spartan agoge schooling system formalised homosexual relationships for all male students. They had the most fearsome army in ancient Hellas, and also their legal system was much more egalitarian in respect of womens rights than that of Athens where women had little or no rights. So homosexualty obviously didnt have a destructive effect there.

    And how about the North European states where gay marriage is legal? Better economies, healthier and happier populations, less crime and violence. So…how is gay marriage wrecking those societies that seem to be doing better than the US?

    My point is that it isnt just good enough to sit back and let people say stuff and reply, like Morgan, with “you seriously believe that”. You need to aggresively pursue the point and expose it for the lies and nonsense it is. Softballing in an interview is pointless and a waste of air time, and just encourages prats to spout nonsense unchallenged.

  • Anonymous

    Question: If religious people believe
    1. in marriage “till death do you part”
    2. in life after death

    Does that mean you get divorced before you enter heaven?

    http://memegenerator.net/instance/15600015

    • Anonymous-Sam

      From my understanding, the answer is “Yes and no.” Yes because your marriage, for all intents and purposes, ends. No because it’s not a matter of choice and it lacks the same deep negative connotation that Christianity gives divorce (which is to say, equating it directly with sexual immorality). The further context is that your marriage simply becomes irrelevant because you will no longer share the same relationship in Heaven, where you’ll have (and want) nothing better to do but praise God forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and

      • amyc

         sounds boring

        • servantheart

          it does sound boring but apparently it won’t be…

    • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/ TCC

      If your question is “Is there marriage in heaven?” according to Christianity, then the answer is an emphatic no: a statement to that regard attributed to Jesus appears in all three synoptic gospels (Mt. 22:30; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 20:35).

  • Nhills

    Why did Cameron hesitate at all when asked those questions? He’s not a politician and his audience WANTS to hear totally strict, anti-gay rhetoric from him. So why hesitate? Just state it plainly. It’s not like he’s ever going to be an actor again.

    • Anonymous-Sam

       At least, not unless the Left Behind movie series picks him up again. Apparently a remake of the series is in consideration.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JSZQDG2XAXPGNX5K2G6RBXWBFI Meghan

    The argument I never understand is “Homosexuality is not natural.” What is that even supposed to mean? I’m sure the feelings homosexuals have towards each other feel natural to them. Ugh, I could go on and on, but I won’t.

    • Anonymous-Sam

       Many Christians believe that homosexuality is one of two things.

      1) A choice, much like the choice to refuse to follow God. Sounds very shallow, yes, I know. That’s because not a lot of thought goes into it. However, this doesn’t stop them from getting it in their minds that if they just preach hard enough, that sinner will eventually decide that giving up homosexuality and taking up Christianity will be the only correct course of action.

      2) A disease, usually mental, sometimes physical. This means it can be treated and cured, and that it might even be contagious or passed down genetically. Never mind that the DSM no longer recognizes homosexuality as a mental disorder (because under no circumstances was anyone able to consistently correctly diagnose it, much less treat it), facts are not relevant to that argument. What it means is that even atheists should understand that homosexuality is a foul perversion to the natural order, and they squawk objections to anyone who argues otherwise.

    • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/ TCC

      What they mean is “God didn’t intend it that way.” The “unnatural” argument is pretty ridiculous even for Christians, though, as the key place in the NT where homosexuality is condemned (Romans) also calls the “grafting” of Gentile Christians onto the “tree of Israel” an “unnatural” thing as well. (And of course, argumentum ad naturam is a logical fallacy, but I doubt most Christians know that. There are some, however.)

  • oli kenton

    So strange that Piers Morgan comes across as the reasonable one here. Over here in the UK as Matt Edmonds points out, his reputation is that of a vile right wing gossip troll and purveyor of all things crass and ugly.

    • servantheart

      It’s funny, I perceive Piers to be a Left Wing gossip troll… I hardly think he’s EVER reasonable.

  • Anonymous

    it’s funny because I notice that most people outside of atheism have forgotten about Kirk Cameron… It’s only the fundies who think he is the best thing since sliced bread. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

    I have to think Cameron’s headed for a REALLY big crash.

    http://blindgossip.com/?p=22812#more-22812

  • tnskkeptic

    Predicating Cameron will say something stupid during an interview is like predicting that Oklahoma will have tornadoes this year.

  • AZboy

    Kirk Cameron is entitled to his opinion, but he is an ignorant person!  When he said that “we all should not act on our feelings” — he should take his own advice and keep his views to himself.  Why would they even book this guy on their talk show?  Unless, it is for controversy and ratings…so, so sad.

    • servantheart

      Why did Piers persist on his questioning if he didn’t want to get an answer? Can’t really blame Cameron for telling what he believes. Even if you think you’re smarter than he. That just shows your arrogance.

  • Anonymous

    Absolutely nothing Cameron said about his stance on homosexuality shocked me.  I was more surprised that he tiptoed around blatantly stating that he believed homosexuality is a sin.  I grew up in Alabama, went to the Church of Christ, etc., and Cameron’s line of reasoning (or at least what he’s willing to own up to here) would have probably been considered slightly left-of-center or at least moderate in that environment.  This anti-gay bigotry is such a common belief.  Despite whatever process of rationalization left-leaning Christians may go through to distance themselves from such bigoted nonsense, there’s no disputing that it’s written down unambiguously in their bible that homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death.  I wish “moderate” and “liberal” Christians would straighten up their heads, pay attention to this stuff, and ask themselves how they can associate themselves with such blatantly a homophobic, misogynistic, racist, xenophobic ideology.

    • servantheart

      Explain your rational? Why do you feel the Bible is homophobic, misogynistic, racist and xenophobic? Do you think God is all of these?

      • AnalogousGumdropDecoder

        I think the Bible is a patchwork book that contains within it certain texts that are unambiguously homophobic, misogynistic, racist, and xenophobic. Of course, being a patchwork, there are contradictory passages as well. Do I think God is all those things? No. I don’t believe anything like a deity actually exists, and of course I can’t ascribe properties to something that isn’t real. If there were a deity, it would not automatically follow that the Bible reflected its nature in any way. If the Bible did reflect the deity’s nature in some ways, it would still not follow that it was completely accurate and uncolored by human writers. If the Bible is actually the 100% accurate divinely-inspired “word of God,” then yeah… that guy’s a bigot (and contradicts himself a lot).

      • Spuddie

        Many of its believers seem to accept such ideas. Given your prior rants, I would be surprised if you weren’t one of them.

        • servantheart

          You truly are a complete MORON! Apparently you don’t like to be surprised either…. Go ahead and stay in your self loathing hole.

          • Spuddie

            Nope. Not surprised by your response. It is as moronic as all your others.

            • servantheart

              as I’m not at all surprised by your lack of a response.

              • Spuddie

                You may still be under the impression that you deserve to be taken seriously. Nothing you have posted so far has proven that it be true.

                • servantheart

                  Again, you prove your ARROGANCE by the words you say!

  • Andy

    It’s a shame, because he is REALLY cute. 

    • Anonymous

       Rumor has it is cruising the parks and that his wife at one point wanted a divorce because of it

  • Mairianna

    Do you know what is really “older than dirt”?  Prostitution. 

  • amyc

    One thing I noticed is that toward the end he started talking about how everybody has their own values.

    “So your value system, my value system,
    we’re all going to pick a standard against which we judge behavior
    morally. All of our laws ultimately, at their core, are going to be
    based on a moral evaluation.”I understand what he’s saying. That when we make certain laws (not all laws, in fact most are based on a logical/reasonable cost/benefits analysis), those laws will ultimately fall within a certain value system. The problem I have is his claim that marriage equality falls in this category. It doesn’t. Only compulsory/prohibitive laws fall in the category of affirming one value set over another (mandatory vaccinations, insurance mandates, drug prohibitions, etc.)Legalizing same-sex marriage will not force any single person to change their views or condone such marriages, it simply leaves the option open for those who do want to get married to their same-sex partner. Making it illegal, however, DOES affirm one value set over another. Think about it: if it’s illegal, then those who are opposed to gay marriage can’t get married to the same sex, and those who are for gay marriage are also barred from marrying same-sex partners. In essence, if we follow through on Cameron’s logic about applying values systems to laws, then we should legalize same-sex marriage.

    TL;DR: Legalizing same-sex marriage leaves room for individuals to make their own choices about the subject; prohibiting it closes those options for everybody and puts an unnecessary barrier up for people who would choose it, while neither option (legalizing or prohibiting) would affect those who wouldn’t choose it.
    p.s. I figured out why my spell check hasn’t been working. The language on my settings was set to French for some reason. lol I’ve studied French, so I should have just started commenting in that language.

    • amyc

       The formatting is all screwy on that post now. dammit.

    • servantheart

      “The problem I have is his claim that marriage equality falls in this category. It doesn’t.”Yes it does, because there isn’t any such thing as marriage EQUALITY! Unless of course you’re going to have one of the gay partners get a sex change with functional sex parts so they can have babies. Then and only then can marriage equality exist. And the obvious reason it was illegal is because it screws up children. Of ALL the studies out there, everyone of them shows that children are more well adjusted when raised in a one woman&one man parent family.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        No. The ONLY study on this actually shows that children do well when raised in a STABLE family. That included the families in the study that had one or two gay parents. You’ve been fed a pack of lies. Gay people parent exactly as well as straight people. ANd marriage equality was never illegal “because it screws up children.” You’re making things up.

        Marriage equality isn’t even vaguely related to having babies. That line is very ignorant on the topic. Even if you were correct on that count, and you are not: Why exactly do you have a problem with getting closer to marriage equality? Your argument is actually very similar to saying, “We shouldn’t bother to educate children because they can’t all be perfectly educated,” but you would never say that.

        • servantheart

          You’re the one making things up. Why don’t you cite the “study” if that’s what you call it. Marriage is ALL about having children to contribute to a stable society. You’re as IGNORANT as they come. and then you try to change the subject with another straw man “We shouldn’t bother to educate children because they can’t all be perfectly educated,” All the gays want is acceptance….which isn’t likely anyway.

          • Spuddie

            Because you were the one making the ridiculous claim.

            And the obvious reason it was illegal is because it screws up children. Of ALL the studies out there, everyone of them shows that children are more well adjusted when raised in a one woman&one man parent family.

            So you are telling us the studies you referred to are bullshit or don’t exist? I guess so.

            Gay couples have children whether you chose to believe that or not. Even married ones. The only reason gay marriage is banned is because of bigots who wrap themselves in religion so they can avoid social sanction.

            • servantheart

              Some gay couples have children but they don’t produce children which obviously is completely different Spuddle! You’re the bigot who drags religion into every conversation. What’s your obsession all about anyway?

              • Spuddie

                Not under the law, sparky. Children obtained in a family unit are children of that family whether adopted, step, or biological.

                You are a fucktard. This is an atheist forum and you complaining about religion being discussed, all the while insulting various Maybe you stumbled on the wrong website.

                • servantheart

                  Exactly! Why do you always obsess about religion Because obsessing about religion IS your religion. You wouldn’t have ANYTHING else to discuss if it weren’t for your obsession.
                  and as to your “under the law” comment. Laws can be changed Spudface! Biological family units are natural and functional.(as opposed to your brain)

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  If only you didn’t have to project and prevaricate in order to make an argument. Your obsession has led you to seek out others and dishonestly attack them for wanting to defend themselves against attack. So much for Jesus’s positive impact on your life.

                • servantheart

                  Nice try Honey! You don’t even know what you’re talking about.

                • Spuddie

                  Yes, laws can be changed, bigotry which used to have the color of law gets stricken down from official sanction all the time.

                  Biological family units are entitled to no more additional rights and privileges than those created by function of law. You get that child tax deduction whether your kid is biological or adopted. Not that you give a flying crap about such facts.

                  Your POV is perfectly natural to people who are too cowardly to say in public that they just don’t like gay people or want them to live normal lives.

                • servantheart

                  I’m not a coward like you Spud! I can say if I like gay people or not. I actually like them, not for how they present themselves but because they are people. The pride I see in who they think they are is detestable. Pride always comes before a downfall in human nature. Thus, theirs will be forthcoming. The fact that you think you have to defend them makes me think you must be affected by their status in the world. Maybe it’s personal to you.

                • baal

                  Have you been evaluated by medical professionals for a mental disorder servantheart? While it’s entertaining to use you as a chew toy, I’m concerned that you’re not getting care you need.

                • servantheart

                  I as well as billions of people worldwide can attest to the fact that atheism as a religion of choice is deeply seated in a mental disorder. Sorry you brought it up… but very apropos.

                • baal

                  Actually, I founded my concern given the evidence of your comments in this comment thread and not on the basis of you being a religious believer. We see a number of xtian trolls here. Not all of them come off as mentally disturbed (delusional sure but we overlook that). You’re different and not in a good way.

                • servantheart

                  Well, I’m sure you really are concerned. What you fail to understand is that I am NOT a religious believer. You are though and it shows like CRAZY as in YOU are the one who is delusional and needs some help. Please get some help!

              • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                Well, they don’t produce children *with each other*. Ever heard of surrogates or sperm donors?

                • servantheart

                  Of course, but there’s still the problem with the kids having two moms or two dads…. it screws them up when they have to go through puberty unlike other kids families. There’s a price to pay, and the kids always pay for social experimentation. Adults should know better but they’re MORONS.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  No, it does not. There are even studies showing that it does not. They’ve been cited on this site several times. They were mentioned TO YOU, and you stupidly and dishonestly claimed that they didn’t exist, rather than Google.

                  At the same time, on this same thread, you stupidly and hypocritically claimed that your fake study (which is actually the same study, constantly misrepresented by people like you, liars and hypocrites), is somehow magic proof.

                  Here’s the thing, Liar and Hypocrite: If you want to claim that it harms children, then prove it. The ball was always in your court. Go and look for that study, the one that ACTUALLY supports stable gay families, and then own up, you trashbag bigot.

                  Then own up to yourself that you’re feigning rationality as a cover for irrational hate, and grow up. Nasty little crybaby liar.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  No, actually, it doesn’t. And unless you can actually link to your studies, I’m going to assume you’re talking about one study (the Regnerus study) that is 1) only about one- or two- parent households, not gay and lesbian households, and 2) so shoddily constructed that it’s been repeatedly torn apart and actually retracted due to its absolute terribleness.

                  There have, on the other hand, been numerous well-conducted studies that compare gay and lesbian households to heterosexual households of similar socio-economic status and other appropriate values. What they found is the kids are comparable on every measure, including how well they’re handling puberty and what their sexual orientation is, except one- the children of gay and lesbian households are more compassionate and tolerant. So tell me again how people living the lives they want, with the people they love, makes them MORONS.

                • Bitter Lizard

                  Because an adult who cries to his imaginary friend at night is an expert on other people’s intelligence.

                • Anna

                  I love how fundamentalists continually refer to “social experimentation.” Good grief, how long will it take before we stop being referred to as experiments? The very first babies born to out lesbians are in their 40s now, and those from the first wave of the gayby boom have hit their 30s. How old do we have to get before they realize same-sex parenting isn’t a new thing?

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  But see, it’s not living their approved lifestyle (TM), so it’s always going to be social experimentation. Because God and Jesus. Or something.

                • Anna

                  Probably so. I’d have more respect for these people if they didn’t lie constantly. Maybe some are genuinely ignorant, but there’s no excuse for the unrelenting dishonesty from the rest of them. I know some groups believe “lying for Jesus” is acceptable, but if their point of view was actually legitimate, why would they feel the need to make stuff up?

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  I have no idea. I wish I knew why they thought ‘lying for Jesus’ was at all morally acceptable or made their position look stronger.

                • Anna

                  And of course, sometimes sperm donors, egg donors, or surrogates are gay, too. You don’t need a straight person to make a baby, LOL.

      • baal

        holy necros batman!

        Servantheart – wth are you resurrecting posts from a year and a half ago?

        • servantheart

          holy jiggernauts batman! Because I can!

      • Anna

        That’s ridiculous. I was raised by two lesbian mothers, and I am well acquainted with all of the research that has been done. Instead of spewing lies (which I will charitably attribute to ignorance), why don’t you take the time to educate yourself on these matters?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1181408624 Grace De Jesus Sievert

    I would be more shocked if he’d say otherwise. He is a Christian, and just any real Christian he would stand by what God says pleases Him or not. We cannot change the please man or to make GOD more appealing to man. But God created the laws not to condemn man but to make him realize that he needs a Savior. Man cannot save himself because of that sinful nature. Because of pride, man would rather think that he can change laws to make sin look right. God doesn’t conform to the patterns of this world. But God transforms man, not the other way around.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X