What does he expect? I mean, seriously. I get a kick out of these assholes who say garbage like this and then summon shock and horror when they discover that people aren't taking as kindly to it as they thought. You said something retarded about gay people, in the year 2012 no less, and people (rightfully) called you to the carpet for it. No shiat, Sherlock. Welcome to the 21st century, can I get you a cookie? You either joined the enlightened crowd, or you get the fark out of the line.

This is no different than sticking your hand in a fireplace and then getting pissed off at the fire because it burned you.

hubiestubert: Aar1012: hubiestubert: Freedom of speech is not to be free from consequences.

You sound like a socialist.

I am a walking Hate Crime against Jesus, after all. Buddhists are worse than Judas and Pontius Pilate and Goliath rolled together. By reflecting on the teachings of a guy who came around half a millennia before Christ, I am actively engaged in a lifestyle that not only rejects Jesus, but keeps Chinamen and Japs and all the other gooks from realizing the glory of Heaven. Buddhofascists are the worst.

Well thank goodness there is a Chick Tract for you.

Apparently, all asians are Kim Jong Ill

/saw this one outside a local temple
//I giggled

BKITU: Ed Finnerty: [dtdstudios.com image 340x170]

You need to get the crocoduck in there.

Done and done.

Yes Kirk, in America the primary check on one's individual "Free Speech™" are the speech of other individuals and freedom of association. The community at large is delivering an important data set to about the cruel and antiquated sensibilities someone decided to associate with Kirk Cameron the person, and Kirk Cameron the commercial enterprise. A normal person would take this new data and try to integrate it with past learning and experiences to figure out the best way forward.

A conservative would blame realtiy for it's giant conspiracy to persecute them for nothing. Could be God is just being a dick again, like he was to Job. Stay faithful, suck it up, keep doubling down on the prayers. But don't whine about it. Whining is for pussies.

Too much gaygarble.....

Actually, that's a pretty good response. I don't agree with him, but he did a good job of straddling the persecution angle w/o quite fully stepping over it.

That said, the fact that his ilk can keep trotting out the "no, no, I love everyone!" rose petals neatly placed around "homosexuality is a sin" and biblical definition of marriage, and actually expect that to be computed and understood in the same spirit he thinks he means it among those without a literal interpretation of the bible (if any at all), is downright hilarious.

How much longer before Mr. Closet appears on GayHomophobe.com?

unlikely: Not clicking a WND link to find out the truth and trolly details,

Cliff Notes: "I was asked a question and I answered it honestly, and now I'm being attacked for hate speech".

Me: Well, Kirk, when you describe a large section of this country who are as God made them, and are asking for the same rights as everybody else, as "destructive", then yes, that is hate speech. In its own way, it's like a D.W. Griffith making a movie about how those freed slaves are now murderers and rapists and society needs the Klan to protect them. Do you have as much influence as he did when he made Birth of a Nation? Don't flatter yourself. Not even a fraction. But you are engaging in the same line of thinking.

thomps: yeah nothing subtle about it. it's nice when the headline can create a nice little straw man for everyone to refer to so no-one needs to even bother with the article.

I don't know whether to believe you and mock the submitter or distrust you since you clicked through to a WND link.... because there's exactly a zero percent chance I'M clicking through to WND to find out who's right here.

unlikely: Not clicking a WND link to find out the truth and trolly details, but this kind of double standard is hardly new.

Same here. Someone want to sum it up for us?

You've upset Nikki Sixx. Oh christer, it is no wonder that they've cancelled yo' sucky sitcom.

can someone combine this picture:





with this one?:

fusillade762: unlikely: Not clicking a WND link to find out the truth and trolly details, but this kind of double standard is hardly new.

Same here. Someone want to sum it up for us?

Well, he didn't play the First Amendment card like the headline suggests. Like I said above, his main point was "I was asked a question and I answered it honestly".

As far as I am concerned, if he said "I believe gay marriage is wrong", I wouldn't give a shiat.

But he said that homosexuality is "destructive", which for me, as much as it sickens me to side with Roseanne Barr, feeds into hate crime mentality. It's not just "Jesus hates gays and will judge them for it". It's "gays are destroying this country. What are you going to do about it, straighty?"

Why is this monumental douche dragging the American flag as if it is a handful of toilet paper?

/No clicky for you WorldNet Daily.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from opposition. Indeed, it could be argued that this is the whole point.

"I've been encouraged by the support of many friends (including gay friends, incidentally). Thank you!"

Kirk, I think they can read the writing on the wall and are just waiting for you to come out.

You have the support of your gay friends? Bullshiat. Is this like that "I have that one gay friend at work, how could I possibly be racists?!" arguement?

unicron702: You have the support of your gay friends? Bullshiat. Is this like that "I have that one gay friend at work, how could I possibly be racists?!" arguement?

Damnit, "black friend at work". Sorry.

I await Kirk's weather report for Narnia.

Hate to say it, but the "accomplice to murder" line is a bit much.

Asshole of the week, however, was spot on.

That coward David Lopan: Hate to say it, but the "accomplice to murder" line is a bit much.

Asshole of the week, however, was spot on.

Agreed. If you're trying to argue someone is crazy, don't have your rebuttal be more crazy.

Laugh now,but ol' family ties there has a bunch of "Jesus Deluded BozosTM behind him.

Sadly we can't lock them in the funny farm upstate or feed them to Lions for amusement...

(an aside, my fave part of "The Mist" was when they blew the crazy nutfark bible lady away...)

yeah..feed him to a lion, televise it.
i'd buy a television just for that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYr0Jz-rTY0

crazy christian biatch

Millennium: Freedom of speech is not freedom from opposition. Indeed, it could be argued that this is the whole point.

Exactly. It's all working out exactly as it should. Kirk Cameron uses his freedom of speech to share his bigoted opinion. Other people use their freedom of speech to call him a wanker. He then uses his freedom of speech a second time to complain about the criticism, and now we are using ours again to point out that he is still, in fact, a wanker. Everybody gets to speak their mind and nobody gets arrested or blown up.

The system works.

I think I'm gonna catch some shiat for this, but here goes:
If we truly believe that Freedom of Speech is absolute, then condemning gays really IS free speech, and while condemning someone who condemns gays is NOT a violation of the First Amendment, trying to silence them is.
Don't get me wrong. I sincerely hope that I eventually live in an America where any human alive can marry any other human alive, for any reason the two of them see fit. I also think Kirk Cameron is a total farking idiot.
But we do live in an America where Freedom of Speech, while it is often covered in political correctness, SHOULD be absolute. That means one person should have a right to offend another with their speech. Any part of their speech. Speech is not a crime, and therefore, hate speech should not be a crime. It's absolutely socially repugnant, but it should not be illegal.

In "Private Parts", the biography of Howard Stern, there was a conversation between two guys who were trying to get Stern off the air. Paraphrasing, it goes something like this:
A: "The liberals love him. When polled as to why they listened, they said they wanted to see what he would say next"
B: "What about the conservatives?"
A: "They listen to him more than liberals"
B: "Why? what could they be listening for?"
A: "The same thing. They want to see what he'll say next"
Howard Stern, meanwhile, was laughing all the way to the bank.

The point here is that if you don't want to listen to it, you can change the channel. You really CAN ignore Kirk Cameron, and let him fade into obscurity, like his 80's television show has. You can do the same thing with Rush, or Hannity, or Glenn Beck. They make money on you paying attention to their ramblings, and you have the power to let these people fall by the media wayside.

""I should be able to express moral views on social issues - especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years.."

So he doesn't know anything about history either? Why do all these groups think the last 2000 years of human relationships have been like a 1950's American TV show?

AlinaJoan: hubiestubert: Aar1012: hubiestubert: Freedom of speech is not to be free from consequences.

You sound like a socialist.

I am a walking Hate Crime against Jesus, after all. Buddhists are worse than Judas and Pontius Pilate and Goliath rolled together. By reflecting on the teachings of a guy who came around half a millennia before Christ, I am actively engaged in a lifestyle that not only rejects Jesus, but keeps Chinamen and Japs and all the other gooks from realizing the glory of Heaven. Buddhofascists are the worst.

Well thank goodness there is a Chick Tract for you.

Apparently, all asians are Kim Jong Ill

/saw this one outside a local temple
//I giggled

I always thought I basically couldn't be offended, but that Chick Tract pretty much did it.