Oh, Kirk.
What’s scary is that when you listen to Kirk Cameron speak, you can see how people predisposed to a certain mindset would listen to him and think what he says is perfectly reasonable. Guys like Kirk Cameron are, in their way, as bad as guys like Santorum is, or Rush Limbaugh is, or Andrew Breitbart was. Actually, maybe worse, because a guy like Cameron, who talks in a calm sort of way and just defends his position, and who actually makes the occasional valid point, as he does when he makes the point that everyone has a set of moral values against which they judge things, and that the other side does the same thing they accuse the religious right of doing, encourages people to listen to him and agree with him. He seems so innocuous and reasonable, right?
He’s absolutely right on that point, of course. Everyone’s entitled to their beliefs. It becomes an issue when people’s personal moral beliefs become a part of controlling the right of other people to live their lives according to their own values, which is what the religious right wants to do. They don’t want to just be free to live their lives the way they want to, they want to control how you live YOUR life, too, to force you to live (outwardly at least) in the way that makes THEM comfortable, which is where I call bullshit.
It’s kind of like in Douglas Adams’ Life, the Universe and Everything, where the people of Krikkit went to war with, well, everyone who wasn’t from Krikkit, because they couldn’t handle that there was a whole universe out there that wasn’t THEM, for 2,000 years. They were a peaceful, happy people, except when they were brutally killing everyone else. Of course, they were being manipulated the whole time by an intelligence named Hactar, the intelligent remains — the soul, if you will — of a computer built for the purpose of designing a weapon that would destroy the Universe.
In the book, the entire planet of Krikkit and all its occupants were locked in an envelope of Slo-Time in perpetuity until the rest of the Universe died, at which time they would be freed to live out their solitary existence with people who were all like them. Unfortunately, the envelope of Slo-Time option doesn’t work for us because that doesn’t exist, which means we all need to get a little mindful, a little Zen, as it were, of the rights of other people who aren’t like us to exist and live the way they want. Peaceful coexistence. You worship your God your way, and I won’t interfere, so long as “your way” doesn’t involve killing me or mine or trampling all over our right to live our way.
We attend a Unitarian Universalist church, and my husband and I co-lead the middle school youth group there. When people ask me what Unitarianism is, I tell them that I can only say what my own understanding of UU is, which is that it’s not so much a faith as it is a group of people of common moral and social values coming together to fill needs for companionship, commiseration, and activism in support of those shared values. For me, faith is what I have that’s mine alone, between me and whatever higher power I believe exists, whereas “church” is where I go for fellowship and to live some of those values by giving back in working with youth.
I believe absolutely that Kirk Cameron has the same right to hold to his own set of moral values as I have to hold to mine. He’s certainly not an idiot, in spite of the propensity of some of my outspoken atheist friends to assume that a person who holds to any type of faith must be intellectually inferior. He strikes me as probably being a really good dad who loves his kids and spends time with his kids, and who, if his kid came out as gay, would genuinely and lovingly try to help his kid see that making a “choice” to act on his gay feelings would be to act against God, and what he should really do is just push that aside, deny who he really is, get married, and raise up a quiver full of kids. And I believe that Kirk Cameron would believe, most sincerely and deeply, that he was saying these things to his child from a place of love, and of trying to help his child steer a Godly course through life that will preserve the salvation of his eternal soul. If you really believe that the Bible is God’s word, and that we are called upon to obey it, and you really believe that God made a mistake in creating some people gay and wants them to deny how He made them, then it makes perfect sense that you would do all that you could to save your child from making a choice that you believed would condemn their eternal soul to burn in a lake of fire, does it not?
I don’t happen to believe those things myself. I have dealt, as a parent, with losing a close friendship with a Christian family whose kids were all good friends with my kids when my daughter Neve came out as a lesbian last year. I listened to my friend telling me that she and her husband did not want their daughters coming to my home anymore, because Neve was a lesbian and might try to do lesbian things to them or recruit them into the lesbian brigade or something, and also because she was interested in paganism and wicca. And apparently those things could potentially open a portal to Hell in my daughter’s bedroom closet or something. Who knew?
Every Kirk Cameron movie marquee marks a portal to hell.
How does this make him “dangerous”? Because someone will try to misuse his views? People have and continue to misuse the Bible, does that make it a dangerous book? Unfortunately, both Christians and non-Christians will do bad things. That’s not what separates the two. Kirk is ten times more level-headed in expressing his opinions than any of the people you mentioned above. If anything, maybe his word choice was not the best and he should have just quoted the Biblical view that homosexuality is a sin rather than adding his personal views about it being natural.
Kirk Cameron has different opinions than you do, so that makes him “dangerous?” I would argue that what is dangerous is not Kirk’s opinions (with which I disagree) but your typical, leftist, “my way or the highway” mindset.
I’d rather suffer a room full of Kirk Camerons than a single one of you “My worldview is the right worldview and if you disagree you’re dangerous” types.
Child.
Adrian, did you even read the article?
Really, Kirk Cameron? Could we maybe get Urkel to give the rebuttal? How about Vanilla Ice? I’m sure he has lots of opinions about, ya know…stuff. Yeah, let’s get that guy.
John P. Slevin: Fortunately, few (if any!?) of those actually exist anymore.
First off, I just want to say that this article made me giggle. I love Douglas Adam references. The detail in which is used is impressive too.
Relating this one man’s statements to a movement is too critical however. Granted, you have a lesbian daughter, so it is easy to read into these things.
I don’t feel that just accepting what somebody says (Dad, I’m gay) at face value is healthy. Having a conversation would be the right move. If your child were to say I’m committing suicide because I think it will make me happy, you would have a conversation with your child. I am not in anyway equating the two declarations, but to insinuate that it is an agenda to make sure that a child doesn’t turn out gay might be reading a little too much into it.
Moreover, he says that he too is a sinner and doesn’t declare all sinners go to hell. I feel that you read into more than what was truly being communicated.
I can understand not wanting someone to tell you how to live. I believe in that core liberty. However, I dont think the people who are against homosexual marriage are trying to force their beliefs on anyone. They arent trying to CHANGE anything. They arent seeking legislation to say you will be arrested and jailed if you are gay. They arent seeking (or shouldnt be seeking) to have all businesses discriminate against someone based on their lifestyle; or allow for hate speech against gays (caveat: just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean you are judging them or hate them, that is a logical fallacy). They should be seeking the right for gay people to be gay, to live whatever way they choose. THEY ARE NOT trying to change anything about gay behavior. They are simply saying that they will not by law change the definition of marriage – and thus legitimize someones homosexual lifestyle. If America wants civil unions, great. Have at it. Then we can find out what gay activists are really after. Are they after equality? Or are they after legitimization of their lifestyle by law?
If the goal is the latter, then America will simply have to come to terms with what moral code she wants to rule by. Many(most) arent going to believe or allow themselves to be forced to believe that homosexuality is ok. However, the majority will eventually win in a democracy. Let the two sides give their best argument, and America will have to decide the rest.
Kirk explains his opinions against gay marriage with the phrase- “foundations of civilization,” and as the author in this article said, he makes a good-sounding argument. However, when you really think about what he is saying, you realize how harmful it is because it requires the denial of self for his civilization to exist. I say it is time to redefine what society we want. We have arrived at a crossroad of evolution, and it is up to us to decide what type of civilization we want to have as our future. If you want a civilization that is based on staunch gender roles where every woman is expected to produce X amount of babies- then you stick with Kirk’s way of thinking by continuing to have the norms of everyday society force men and women to hold a standard that was adopted during a time of high birth mortality and agricultural living that required large families to survive. During those times a large family wasn’t just expected but necessary. But if you want a civilization that is just as productive but is not structured around mandatory reproduction then you will have a society where who you sleep with doesn’t matter as long as it is consensual. To me that should be the measure. We do not live in agricultural times anymore. We live in the technological age. Our reproductive ability no longer dictates our level of wealth. I appreciate Kirk’s earnestness in what he believes, but it is outdated and demeaning to who we have evolved to be as God’s creation. God created human beings with free will, yet people like Kirk continue to use His word to limit our growth and our ability to serve God as our best selves. Kirk’s world is not a world I want to live in because it does not encourage us to be who God made us to be. In Kirk’s world, he would have us as humans tell God he was wrong by lying about who we are as if we know better than God.
To Renee: Some good points. I just hope we dont overgeneralize what all “Christians” believe. I doubt Kirk actually believes in some of the things you ascribed to him. Either way, I dont think many Christians (being one myself) actually believe in those things either. We dont believe women should have X number of babies. That isnt in the Bible anywhere. We dont believe women should have to be stay at home moms. We dont believe in mandatory reproduction. So, Kirks world might be different than the one you describe. Im assuming you said all of that because you were trying to invalidate his position on gay rights? If so, check my above comment (if I may be so vain) on what another major Christian position is on gay rights.
I dont claim to have GOD on MY side… my hope and prayer is that IM on HIS side. May we all try and approach these tough issues with that kind of heart.
Kyle, the problem with your argument lies in the language. You view the issue as “legitimizing” homosexuality, whether it’s “okay”, and directly in opposition to equality.
Let’s start with the issue at hand. What of marriage equality? How does a marriage between a gay couple affect a marriage between straights? How is a civil union the same thing? Are you suggesting that civil unions be granted equal and identical legal status with marriages? If no, how is that not discrimination? How does that not run afoul of the ‘separate but equal’ problem of the Jim Crow era? Or, conversely, of you are suggesting that they are, why should the government create a new category for what is, essentially, the same thing?
Let’s get to the more problematic part of your argument. By suggesting that this is an issue to even be “legitimized”, or made “okay” with people, you *are*, in fact, trying to discourage people from living the way they are, from expressing their immutable characteristics. It is no different from asking an Asian-American or an African-American to choose not to have almond-shaped eyes or obviously darker skin, and then suggesting they seek to “legitimize” their outward appearance in law.
Susanwho and others,
Someone like Kirk Cameron is “dangerous” to people who hold liberal values for exactly the reasons I spelled out in my piece. He isn’t as extreme as a Limbaugh or a Breitbart. He comes across incredibly well: He’s a good-looking, clean-cut, devoted husband and father of six. He doesn’t spew hateful rhetoric, and he calmly defends his right to his beliefs. He works in a field dominated by liberals, where being openly Christian gets you scorned, and he stands up for his beliefs. If FOX would give him a show, he’d be roughly the conservative equivalent of a Rachel Maddow: tremendously appealing, likable, great at communicating through that camera.
The POINT is that we on the left seriously under-estimate the power of a Kirk Cameron. He is the kind of guy who appeals to his demographic very strongly because he publicly takes a stand for the values he believes in, but he does it in this innocuous way that’s also appealing to moderate fence-straddlers. He’s not a huge polarizer, even when he says something “controversial” like he did on CNN.
And it’s not really “controversial” to have a difference of opinion. Everyone’s entitled to their beliefs, and I don’t really want to see a world where someone is villified for their moral values, for what they believe in. I don’t like being villified for mine, either. But the problem with Kirk Cameron is that he’s viable as a politician, folks, and we’re living through a time when the far right is bizarrely targeting women’s rights. We could conceivably, over the next generation, lose much of the ground we’ve gained.
And frankly, I do think he’s testing the waters for a future foray into political waters. He’s been out there for the past five years or so, since the did that televised debate with the atheists that was on Nightline. He’s actively working as a fundamentalist evangelist, sticking with movies that propagate Christian values. He’s been vocal in the news on political issues, especially The Gay Issue. And like it or not, The Gay Issue is a big, big issue for a lot of middle America. He is laying the foundation to be a leader here, folks, a uniter.
Kirk Cameron would be an enormously appealing political candidate for the Republican party. Squeaky clean, looks great, well-spoken, intelligent, great on camera, quick on his feet. He’s a GOP wet dream, if he can avoid getting caught with his pants down for anything, and he honestly doesn’t strike me as the type for that. And he could pull moderate and indecisive voters and really rally and unite the religious right vote in a way that neither Romney or Santorum can.
The left, especially the more liberal arm of the media (and, I daresay, many of my friends) are foolish to think he’s not been getting more active in political discussions for a reason. We think of him as just Kirk Cameron, that kid actor from Family Ties. He’s not. He’s been growing his brand as an evangelist for a long time now, and delivering the same consistent message. You think we can just brush him off because he’s just an actor? I have two words for you: Ronald Reagan.
Renee, well said. And exactly.
He’s the kid actor from Growing Pains. Although, the kid actor from Family Ties (Alex P. Keaton) would probably make a good running mate.
Many moderates and liberals don’t understand how *some* Christians view homosexuality. I was talking to a friends who is an evangelical Chirstian. I took the position, much like this article: believe and let believe. However, my friend felt honestly and sincerely that if he had to tolerate walking down the street and passing by two gay men holding hands, that his freedom to believe and practice his faith would be violated. Toleration of open homosexuality violated his right to freedom of religion because he couldn’t condemn them and drive their sin out of sight. And *that* is why so many people talk past each other on this issue.
“It becomes an issue when people’s personal moral beliefs become a part of controlling the right of other people to live their lives according to their own values, which is what the religious right wants to do. They don’t want to just be free to live their lives the way they want to, they want to control how you live YOUR life, too, to force you to live (outwardly at least) in the way that makes THEM comfortable, which is where I call bullshit.”
Which is exactly what Liberals do. They insist we believe that global warming is man-made, that the “science is settled”, that we are bad people if we don’t believe them and do all the things they insist we do.
It doesn’t stop there, of course. The laws and regulations passed by the left are far more restrictive to personal liberty than the ones passed by the right.
Jack Johson – seriously those silly liberals flooding the law books forcing us to believe in evidence based theories like “global warming” and “gravity.” it’s 100% equal to the civil rights issues of gay Americans. if i had a nickel for every time i was was turned away from the hospital room of my dying loved one because of my staunch anti-global warming stance…
After reading all of the comments and seeing the interview, I realize that many believe that Kirk is self imposing his beliefs on society which makes him dangerous. Kirk is living his life by biblical guidelines. His belief system is based on biblical principles. Read in the Bible the book of Romans Chapter 1 verses 27-32 and you will clearly see where he is coming from. He is calm because he lives what he believes. It is not very popular to be a Christian in our world today. In fact, it is very unpopular! I applaud the man for standing up for what he believes and not being afraid of sharing it. I wish more Christians would.
You giggled because you’re a fag.
He is allowed to believe what he wants. We seem so excited about freedom of speech and freedom of religion until someone disagrees with us. Good for him, At least he knows what he believes and he seems honest. I’m sure he is more at peace than most of us.
TO THE WRITER OF THIS ARTICLE:
I think you are just pissed off because we don’t love your nasty sin! He’s a wonderful man and he is 100% correct. But YOU, Kim Voynar, are stuck in the mindset of what sin has done to man, and refuse to see what is right. You can force a triangle into a round hole, but it isn’t going to fit!!!!!!!!!
Tim, you’re absolutely right. Growing Pains. Thanks.
And who let the homophobes in? Geez. Must run, lots of nasty sin things to do around here.
Kirk, I couldn’t agree with you more. Thanks for not bowing down to bullying sodomites. GLADD sucks in more ways than one, way to speak your mind. You’re an American and you have your opinion just like anyone else. Homosexuality is filty, unnatural and an abomination…no matter how pretty homosexuals try to paint it. Obviously, misery loves company.
“kim voynar you are an idiot Ma’am” wow what a calm and thoughtful response to the author of the article. must be the response Jesus would give.
For Jack Johnson and the folks who have sent me emails asking essentially the same thing:
You are attempting to compare a matter of science to a matter of faith. It’s a fallacious comparison. There is an abundance of evidence that global warming is happening (the physical evidence of disappearing glaciers, for instance) and, yes, some disagreement as to how to interpret causation and what, if any, actions should be taken because of them. If you’re arguing that the evidence does not exist, then I think you’re delusional.
I personally do not think people and businesses have a “right” to act in ways that damage or destroy the planet that we all have to share, but that has nothing to do with your faith or mine. Your right to pollute our shared air ends where I and mine have to breathe it. You don’t have the right to pollute common groundwater or to demolish the rain forests. And yes, society, when the majority of its members happen to agree about that, does have a right to restrict your right to damage our collective air, and water, and polar ice caps, and so on. That’s a political issue, not a religious one, and certainly not a civil rights issue.
Do I think that jobs that cause damage to our planet or harm our health should take precedence over a healthy, clean environment? Absolutely not. I think we need to support R &D into green technologies and create jobs that support our planet and our health rather than damaging it. And yes, I think we each have a obligation to act in ways that minimize our impact on this shared global space, which is one of the reasons I chose to move to a liberal, environmentally green city and to raise my kids here.
I might think the conservative opinion on the evidence pertaining to global warming is misinformed, dangerously ignorant, motivated by money and incredibly narcissistic, and I have the right to advocate with my political representatives to support legislation that tries to address environmental issues. You, of course, are free to disagree with me, to advocate for your interpretation of that evidence and to work to elect politicians who support your views.
I get really bummed out when these conversations settled into LEFT vs RIGHT territory. The world is not a comic book and should be discussed with this kind of binary classification.
To address some points here… We all have the right to believe and practice what we will, sure. But there are also certainly restrictions to this freedom. We don’t get to just run around doing whatever we want. There were plenty of people who have justified atrocities, racism, and other horrible things in the name of religion. I’m sure most or all Christians here rightly believe these things to be immoral now. But there are still many in this country that believe their Christianity gives them the right to segregate and treat different people as unequal. And that’s a real shame a it conflicts with some of the most important tenents of christianity.
I think we will look back on this discussion of homosexuality – as a society – in a couple of decades, and see it as antiquated as blacks and whites using different drinking fountains.
Also, it is silly to suggest that “it’s hard to be Christian”. Very silly. This country is still mostly Christian. Try being gay. THAT is difficult.
Also, folks, please stop looking LEFT and RIGHT. There are Christians (and non-christians) on both sides, with opposing views. Let’s not over simplify things like that. Laziness won’t help is get this all settled.
Kim, I am guilty of the same sin as you. Trying to intelligently reason with delusional people. Take solace that they are far and few between. I get caught up in these message boards because it can be fun. But ultimately scary because I fear real, living, breathing people actually believe these things. It’s very disheartening to realize that people can hold such ignorant disdain in their hearts for good people they have never met or held a discussion with. It’s unreal to me. But I am grateful that I am a straight woman capable of understanding and compassion toward people who are different from me. I will never understand why or how some people can twist Christianity to fit their warped view of the world. Luckily, I know many devout Christians who are intelligent and simultaneously not homophobic. I believe that is the majority in our dominant christian culture. I am atheist. But I am not religious-phobic. I do not believe religious people are inferior to atheists simply because I know my smartest friends are staunch believers…way smarter than me. And extremely patient with me. Christianity is part of our culture and I embrace it, I just don’t think it should be imposed. Celebrating holidays or unorganized prayer does not faze me. I feel that should someone of a different religious view, Muslim lets say, would be met with hostility by these same “good” Christians posting on your site. Freedom to spout hate seems to be reserved for Christians in many of these posters minds.
OH MY GOSH.. you people make it sound like Kirk Cameron is trying to start up a movement to ban Gays and gay marriage or something.. he was just say HE doesn’t think its right, and that’s how he’s going to raise HIS family… People these days are so dramatic… and if your wondering, I AM GAY and I happen to go to his conferences he holds every year at a church in Amarillo, TX because I love the way he speaks and he does have good points about other aspects of life and what the bible teaches.. so maybe I don’t agree with him on that one thing, and maybe he said some hurtful things, but I’m going to change how I’m living, and he’s not going to change what he thinks. If everyone would stop making a big deal about Comments, and he said this, she said that… we really could all live in harmony. He’s not the Bad Guy, everyone making a big deal out of an opinion is.
Just because something feels good or “natural” doesn’t mean it’s right. Truth is not something we make up as we go along – truth is God’d word. So many people embrace homosexuality in our culture, it’s no wonder so many teens and young adults are choosing that lifestyle. Questions are arising in young peoples minds regarding their sexual orientation that I believe is partly the culture’s pressure that homosexuality is normal and it’s okay to have those feelings. Each one of us are born with a conscience that God gives us, but most people that choose this lifestyle ignore those feelings that it’s wrong because the culture is screaming “it’s okay.” By the way, it’s not homosexuality sends people to hell – not having a relationship with God through his Son does. And if you are in a true relationship with God, you won’t be comfortable blatantly going against his Word.
anyone who is a christian believes in the Bible right? so…you try to live by it right? and…it does say that homosexuality is a sin…so how could gay marriage be ok? Kirk Cameron was asked questions and he answered them…he did not say everyone has to believe what he does or live like he does or anything like that…so why is everyone blasting him? people are too quick to talk about gay rights…well…what about heterosexuals rights? just saying:)
His comments are dangerous because someone could hear them, and then act on them. He basically said that gays are destructive to society…so if you believe in society and want it to continue, why wouldn’t you go out and kill gay people?
Take his quote: Homosexuality is “unnatural … I think that it’s detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”
Now insert Black, or Jew, or Muslim in there…he may be entitled to his views, but what if he had said “African Americans are unnatural and destructive to American civilization.”? Would that be ok with you? And don’t say it’s different, cause it’s not.
best response ever: http://theheavenlypress.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/new-guidelines-for-persecution/
Why not let Kurt have his opinion without being so mean about it?
It is not hate to state ones opinion.
So those that say he should not state his opinion are doing what they are accusing.
He was asked his opinion let him have it!
he was not out in the streets or on the television advocating hate!
HE WAS ASKED HIS OPINION!
In a country where everyone is allowed to have free speech there seems to be a lot people that are mad because christians do not agree with them so they call us haters .
I feel there must be a sense of self loathing to act this ay.
If you want to be gay go ahead.
But no one has to agree with you!
If the gay community is so proud of their “CHOICE” why not get so bothered because a man spoke his opinion when asked.
AGAIN: he was asked and not out to solicit others to hate.
Show some brains people and let others have their own thoughts even when different then your own.
By the way I am a Republican but that does not mean I hate Democrats, I just disagree with them.
Remember he is speaking based on his religious beliefs.
Funny thing about the comments as they imply he is full of hatred.
I heard an opinion not a call to hatred.
Opinion…at the end of the conversation it is entirely just that, opinion. We all have one and it is uniquely our own. Well thought out and rationalized to fit our uniqueness and our individuality. It saddens me to think that we have come so far in society to regress to a point we cannot see the humanity of other as feeling, thinking, emotional, creative beings who are deserving of the right to think, decide, and live their lives as they choose. I read the above comments with each defending their opinion and an underlying theme resonates: each wanting their opinion. Must we beat each other over the head with our own or can we find a way to come together in understanding and unity to respect our differences and celebrate our uniqueness? By example we can pave the way for our children to overcome those issues that have impeded us. My desire is to see us work together to embrace our human frailties, celebrate our differences, dance in our creativty, and above all live in respect of others ability to think and decide for themselves without the need to crush them with our personal opinion. Leading by a quietly gracious example.