This Was Going to Happen …

A few months back, it was noted that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was looking to enlist “non-cognitive elites” to help champion their cause. And boy, did they find one.

Yes indeed, former Growing Pains star and current sidekick to Ray “Banana Man” Comfort, Kirk Cameron is not happy about the idea of gay marriage. According to Think Progress, Cameron got into some hot water for comments made to Piers Morgan that homosexual marriage is “unnatural… detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” NOM is now defending Cameron with everything they’ve got, claiming that he’s been “persecuted by the mainstream media,” and declaring him “one of America’s most important champions of marriage.”

So marriage is now basically screwed.

I suspect it’s only a matter of time until Cameron become the official spokesman for NOM. He’s about as non-cognitive as you’re likely to find.

Via Joe.My.God.

  • http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/ Andrewh_02145@Yahoo.com

    I think NOM would rather blow up marriage for everyone then allow gay ones.

  • trj

    I still can’t quite get over the wording in that job ad. It’s essentially saying: We’re dumbasses looking to hire a dumbass.

  • Kathie Wilson

    The bigotry of this man is appalling. Heterosexual marriage has been on the decline for 70 years – far longer than ‘gay marriage’ has been a subject of political discussion. Heterosexuals divorce FIFTY PERCENT OF THE TIME. There are hundreds of thousands of children waiting for adoption, whose heterosexual “parents” abused, abandoned, exploited, neglected, and /or failed to love them. Gay couples love each other just as deeply as straight couples, and if I perceive that their marriages threaten my marriage THERE’S SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME – not with them. Love is love. Kirk needs to open his eyes.

    • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

      Very well said. Unfortunately, in spite of the stark reality you’ve pointed out, NOM and Cameron will swear until the day they die that they are not bigots and this has nothing to do with homophobia. This particular vein of dishonesty really drives me nuts, because it is so insultingly transparent and it just derails any possibility of a genuine discussion about the issue. If NOM were truly concerned about the state of ‘traditional marriage’ they would be spending their resources on actually doing something to help the types of marriage they recognise. At least they would do some good by offering counseling and advice to struggling heterosexual couples, and maybe groups like NOM could try to get leaflets and lessons into school that tells kids to wait a while before marriage (rather than just the usual sex is bad, m’kay) and make sure they don’t become one of the 50% of divorcees.

      But they don’t give a shit about traditional marriage or helping heterosexual couples. They devote their time entirely to getting in the way of gay couples and gay marriage, then cry when somebody points out their blatant bigotry. They’re not only terrible people, they’re terribly stupid.

    • trj

      It doesn’t matter that gay couples (including those who have children) are just as loving and caring as straight couples, because… well, because God just doesn’t like it. I guess their love must be inferior in some inexplicable way. Or maybe it’s because they can’t have children through traditional biological means. Which is a big deal, for some reason. Don’t ask me to explain it, but it’s absolutely crucial to society and civilization, somehow.

      • Jabster

        That has always been the problem with the what seems the majority of the arguments against gay marriage. Why not just come out (no pun intended) and say what the real objection is – you find it a bit icky; my religion says it’s wrong; I just don’t like the idea of gay marriage.

        What we end up with is that’s how marriage has always been and gay marriage will somehow destroy straight marriage – nobody seems to be able to actually explain how this will happen though. The best example I’ve seen is the UK’s Daily Telegraph which was peddling the line that the public didn’t want it but that somewhat backfired when the pool they commissioned showed more in favour than against. Now some bright spark also included a question on whether it should be a priority for the government, to which the answer was no. So guess which line they now push and which they have conventionally forgotten about?

        • Kodie

          What will god do to them if gay people achieve marriage equality? Do they think if they don’t try so hard to stop it from happening that god will think they’re tolerant? And they are afraid they’re children will be getting the wrong message, well I don’t know about that. I do think they think it’s a choice and they don’t want their children to see it as a good choice, so they have to contribute to the factor that it seems like a terrible choice – you can’t get married or have a family and everyone hates you. When you “sin” like this, and nothing bad happens to you, and you can get married and have a family, you might get “confused.” They have to continue to make sure it is a bad choice. They are constructing the moral boundaries since there is obviously nothing wrong with it.

          I’m not really sure they just think it’s icky. They have been told what their opinion is, and rounded up for a crusade against a non-issue. Once people get fired up on something, it just becomes how they see things and how important it is for them to wake up every day to keep it from happening. I don’t know how long it will be until this is just going to happen federally, but they want to make sure they fought it hard, righteous, all that shit, before they go down. At the root of it, I think the danger of religion is that it magnifies petty problems into grand-scale biblical drama. It magnifies petty people into people who have a purpose, for whom this world was designed, and who are going to heaven.

          That said, marriage equality is a human-scale issue. Nobody seems to be stopping any two people from finding and declaring who the love of their life is. For Christians who think spouses are chosen for and led to us by god… I think that’s warped. But marriage is endowed by certain civil rights people should not be denied and I don’t know what they think Christianity has to do with any of that.

          • Jabster

            “I’m not really sure they just think it’s icky.”

            As a quick clarification it’s just the reason that some people have …

            • Kodie

              Have you ever known someone you didn’t mind all that much until you found out someone else hated him? Then everything that person does bothers you. I don’t think people think it’s icky until someone points it out that’s how they should think. Unless you go around imagining every straight couple you see and all the chandelier dangling gymnastics they might be up to in the privacy of their own bedroom, I don’t understand why anyone has any thoughts to be “icked” by. I would call it an obsession that they contracted from people telling them what to think and why and how emotionally they should react to it. For god.

              What’s really funny then, is that you think, well they are doing this all for god, their head is filled with almost nothing but gay sex, and the more they fight their cause, the more they can’t stop thinking about it, so where does that fall on the “sin” scale? If god doesn’t like it, he wouldn’t want you to think about it so much, right? Seriously, though, straight people don’t “ick” anyone out so much because, for the most part, you don’t start thinking about their sex lives when you talk to them, even if they are pregnant and/or have 20 kids. You don’t have to try not to visualize how that happened.

            • Jabster

              “Have you ever known someone you didn’t mind all that much until you found out someone else hated him? Then everything that person does bothers you. I don’t think people think it’s icky until someone points it out that’s how they should think.”

              Nope … sex with a man I find a bit ‘icky’ and I’m pretty sure that’s not because I’ve been told that it should be.

            • Kodie

              It’s the literal imagination of something you’re not privy to – you don’t picture all the straight couples you know doing it, and that’s why you can talk to them without getting angry for all the images you don’t want in your head distracting you on why you wanted to talk to them. That’s why you can see fully clothed adult straight couples at the supermarket and not throw up. Being gay is like that only gay. It’s not that they’re two dudes, it’s that their bed business shouldn’t matter or even enter your mind unless you’re the one who’s a pervert. If you have a sister with a husband, see? How can you tolerate any two people getting together if you can’t stop thinking about and imagining stuff that’s none of your business? You know, like how many times your parents did it? Gross.

              If people wouldn’t tell you to be grossed out about it – if people wouldn’t keep this important issue to the forefront of stamping its grossness out, they could see two guys without wanting to throw up. Or the people who oppose it might get another hobby, anyway.

            • Jabster

              “It’s the literal imagination of something you’re not privy to –”

              Thanks for telling me what I think …

              Hint – no it’s not …

        • UrsaMinor

          Organizations like NOM do serve a purpose. It wouldn’t be nearly as much fun for me to destroy Civilization As We Know It if nobody raised a fuss about it. That would just be lame.

          Today on the Insidious Gay Agenda: weaken my heterosexual neighbors’ marriages by Weeding the Vegetable Garden While Gay, and then deliver the coup de grace by having a quiet dinner with my husband. If that doesn’t push Western civilization over the cliff, I don’t know what will.

          If NOM is smart, it will have medical teams standing by to treat their members who faint from witnessing the depravity. Then they can evacuate to their survival bunkers in Idaho as law and order break down.

          • Len

            Weeding the Vegetable Garden While Gay

            having a quiet dinner with my husband

            Ursa, you fiend. I don’t know whether civilisation can stand this much “ick”.

            • UrsaMinor

              Why, thank you! If all goes according to plan, the sun shall rise tomorrow over the smoking rubble of a devastated America where the word “marriage” has no meaning and all children are illegitimate.

              Plus, there will be fresh ripe tomatoes.

            • trj

              What kind of tomatoes?

            • UrsaMinor

              Romas. A small, meaty plum tomato which is great for salads and pasta sauces.

            • trj

              I do enjoy a good salad with my apocalypse. Proceed.

    • Revyloution

      I’ve heard it’s even higher than fifty percent Kathy. Last I saw, it was just about half!

      <—Non cognitive elite.

      • Len

        Yes, but is it half that do end in divorce or half that don’t? We must be accurate if we’re to defeat TEH GAYZ.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    “one of America’s most important …”

    It doesn’t matter what the rest of the phrase says, Kirk Cameron is not important.

    • UrsaMinor

      He’s important if he gets between me and full equality at the Federal level.

      • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

        Is he really getting in the way, though? I can’t help but feel that all this quasi-intellectual BS that any talking head can come up with is pure theatre, and completely irrelevant to the actions of those who actually legislate against gay marriage (or block legislation in favour). These legislators are just following their own prejudices that don’t really require any explanation. Cameron’s just doing what they all do – putting out a smokescreen to deflect accusations of bigotry and homophobia based on blatantly bigoted and homophobic actions.

        • Kodie

          It’s not completely irrelevant. Organizations like this have no official power, nor do gay rights organizations, but do influence voters and people running for office don’t come from just nowhere – they’re people too who are influenced by what information or misinformation is spread to actively do something like run for office and vote in whatever capacity they gain to pass laws or block laws from being passed. There’s a sense for me, however, and I’m typically less informed, that some things will have to get to the Supreme Court and decided as per the Constitution, and these little chump states filled with morons electing other morons based on what Kirk Cameron told them won’t be able to force their religious beliefs on anyone. Eventually. I don’t know how long.

        • UrsaMinor

          What Kodie said. I think there’s a fairly high risk that the current Supreme Court will uphold DOMA and then we’ll have another round of skirmishes, so the issue may not be settled in my lifetime.

  • Igor

    “…This book is the authority on all things, including marriage..”. Yeah, and polygamy and slavery too.

  • kessy_athena

    I have to say that “non-cognitive elite” is one of the more amusing euphemisms I’ve heard for “stupid celebrity.” I wonder if they realize that non-cognitive literally means someone who doesn’t think? Personally, I think I’d rather just be called stupid.

    • UrsaMinor

      It’s a clever filter to be sure that they really are getting the stupid ones.

  • 100meters

    But, don’t you see how perfectly designed this banana is, to fit just right in my non-cognitive elite hand ?

    • Len

      Amongst other places.

  • John C

    Non-cognitive or innocent, non-dualistic and single-eyed?. Sometimes things are not as they appear, even when they appear foolish, childish or ‘non-cognitive’.

    • Ken

      Wonder how poor old Kirk feels being supported because he doesn’t think? Not exactly a resume builder: “my job description was to be deliberately dumb, unquestioning and without thoughts of my own.”

      • Yoav

        Lucky for him, he’s too stupid to realize he’s being insulted.

    • vasaroti

      “Single-eyed???” There are two things that are famous for having a single “eye.” One of these is the Cyclops. Kirk Cameron is an example of the other thing.

  • Healy Unit

    I’m sorry, but I cannot take seriously an organization that has a masticatory onomatopoeia as its acronym. Also, dem weasel words…

    • Elemenope

      LOL! The only question is whether NOM should be interpreted as a cookie-monster utterance or the ever plodding mastication of Pac Man. Nomming can go both ways.

  • Sue Blue

    Religion is all about keeping others from having what you think you have. It’s all about “I’ve got mine, so fuck you!” or “This is mine because I’m better than you”. There’s no reason for denying marriage to all who want to get married, for denying autonomous healthcare to women and universal healthcare to all, for denying autonomous rights to children, for denying welfare to the poor, other than religious belief. It’s basic out-group hostility. If they don’t have something to be against or some group to hate, then what makes them “special”? Nothing at all.

    Also, I like to point out to these religious “marriage” freaks that their Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver-style idyllic marriage is nowhere to be found in the bible. God’s most favorite people had hundreds of wives and concubines; wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers were regularly traded, sold, raped, and killed by the supposedly “righteous men of God”. God even told Hebrew soldiers during the Canaanite genocide to keep female Canaanite children alive as virgin sex slaves for themselves – hardly the kind of family values seen on “Leave it to Beaver”.

  • smrnda

    Plenty of posts point out that heterosexual marriages often fall short of whatever Biblical ideal these organizations hold up to show that gay marriage can’t cut it. I think that these organizations aren’t so much blind to that, but that opposing gay marriage is only their biggest goal – in the end, they got a vision of what a proper marriage looks like from Focus on the Family or some other propaganda organization and have to disparage anyone who happens to hold a different vision. I don’t think it’s any accident that a huge anti-gay marriage push and an anti-contraception push are occurring at about the same time.

    • UrsaMinor

      The anti-contraception push at least has some merit. We’re only about 130% over the planet’s long-term carrying capacity at the moment. If we’re really serious about pushing the world completely over the cliff by the end of this century, we need more people.

      Armageddon isn’t going to start itself, you know.

  • maniqot

    Above someone said, OK, just come out (no pun intended) and say it, you don’t like gay marriage because you think it’s icky and such. Also the comment was made that no good argument for the banning of gay marriage has been made because heterosexual marriages are falling apart all over the place; not a good example. In answer to both of those concerns I want to raise the issue of the future demands for further kinds of arrangements in the name of “marriage equality.” It is not the ick factor that causes me to have a real concern about this, but the anxiety that “marriage” as we know it, may die and become obsolete because those wired for both sexes (bisexuals) and those who claim they were not wired for just one sexual partner (polyamorous) will demand their right to marry not just whom they want, but however many they want. I have put this forth before and the rebuttal is that I do not understand bisexuality and that bisexuals generally choose one or the other sex to be romantically involved with at a time, so to suggest that a man might marry a man and a woman is ludicrous. But is it? Why won’t people demanding marriage equality just say it, they want anyone to marry (hopefully always consenting adults) whomever and however many they want. I hear that the marriage equality lobby is not pushing for that, so it’s a moot point. But why? And more to the point, why aren’t you? It seems to me that it is disingenuous to insist that marriage equality will only and always mean marriage between two adults only when there are, according to the “experts” many different sexual orientations out there; people wired, presumably at birth, for more than one sexual partner whether bisexual or polyamorous. So that is my concern. If we really want to keep the integrity of marriage, it seems that the fight for “marriage equality,” although limits its argument (for now) to two adults, will open a flood gate of demands for legally recognized marriages in many other kinds of arrangements. That is my fear. So, if the dissolution of marriage altogether is what you want, just say so and stop saying that marriage will only and always be between two consenting adults. I am not saying this to be mean-spirited, but rather to raise a real concern I have and that has yet been answered except to tell me that I am raising issues that are not being debated. Why aren’t they?

    • Yoav

      I’ll say it, I see no problem in recognizing marriage between more the two consenting adults as long as the rights of all members of the unions are preserved. Extending marriage to cover same sex couples is simple since we already have a legal framework in place that deal with how you deal with all the issues that are attached to marriage, such as custody of children, inheritance when one member dies and division of property in case of divorce, when two people are involved. Figuring how to deal with multiple partners may be complicated but if someone comes with a law that covers the issues I would have no problem supporting it.

    • UrsaMinor

      Hmmm, you really don’t know much about the history of the institution of marriage across time and culture, do you? You’re worried that somehow the institution of marriage will change from way it has always been for about the past, oh, maybe fifty years in your particular culture. The last big change that we made to the nature of the institution was to make women (at least in the U.S.) no longer legally subordinate to their husbands, but full partners in their own right.

      I don’t have a problem with plural marriages, subject to the same concerns that Yoav stated above. Historically, the one man/several women arrangement is quite common. Recognizing them would simply be a restoration of an older (and by your logic, more legitimate) form of marriage deeply rooted in legal and religious tradition. There are societies that never stopped practicing this form of marriage, so if you’re concerned with upholding tradition, you have to ask yourself, where did my culture go wrong by redefining marriage to exclude polygamy?

      The idea that everyone else should practice your preferred form of marriage so that you can feel secure in its “integrity” is ludicrous. Suppose for a moment that your next-door neighbors were two men and two women in a plural marriage. In what way would that affect your own one man/one women marriage?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X