Rurouni: It's his opinion and he's entitled to it just like everyone else.

But again, who cares? He doesn't like gays, who cares? Can we move on with our lives now?

I believe that the act of you having sex in your bedroom with an adult is completely unnatural, and you and said adult are destroying the very foundations of civilization with each and every thrust. I feel sorry for the children you and your spouse may raise together, and I will do everything in my power to make it as difficult as possible for you to live your life on your own terms.

I have no idea who you are, but this is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. I have convictions, unlike you.

Who cares what I think anyway? Can we move on with our lives now? I'm not a hateful person, I just have an opinion, just like everyone else! Sha na na na!

JackieRabbit: FTFA: ' Nonetheless, his answer was repugnant: "I think that it's unnatural. I think that it's detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."'

Repugnant? I don't agree with him, but his answer seems honest and straight forward. I can't see it as repugnant. I guess in "I hate you, you hate me" America, anyone with a different viewpoint is repugnant. Drama: it's what's for dinner.

Its not repugnant because its different. Its repugnant because it stems from ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance because he is believing it while doing his best to shut out any possibility he is wrong. Stupidity because it makes no sense and cannot be explained beyond circular logic of "its evil because its evil" type stuff. If you can't explain who is being hurt and why, what is being destroyed and how, but still choose to believe something is harmful and destructive, then fark you.

I don't care if thats the homo-sex, the devil's weed, the terror conservatives have whipped themselves up over the existence of the EPA, or anything else. If you believe it just because it feels good and someone told you about it, then you lock it in as a conviction, and then you make retarded statements that cannot be backed up without faith, then that is repugnant, to me.

There are plenty of things that are different but not repugnant. I've had my mind changed a few times, though I admit I'm a little stubborn. But even in my stubbornness there is still room for argument, and while I may not be converted to the opposite side, I do take their good points into account. This guy, and his type of people, do not. They believe that the things they've been raised to view as wrong MUST be wrong. That their parents or converters-to-the-faith cannot be wrong. And, further, that those things they view as wrong must be, by default, the greater cause of the problems in society. Look at Santorum's early answers regarding the economy: 'I am, of course, a fan of the free market, but I think we need to get the american family and american values straightened out, and once we get a handle on that everything else will fall into place' These farkers don't NEED to learn. They don't NEED to understand, or try to understand, a damn thing about anything, because deep down all it takes is a little more preaching about homos, pornography, and all that rubbish and then it'll be a goddamn utopia.

It is repugnant as all hell.

Rurouni: It's his opinion and he's entitled to it just like everyone else.

But again, who cares? He doesn't like gays, who cares? Can we move on with our lives now?

And people are entitled to speak out against it, and make an issue of it. Feel free to "move on with your life". The rights and freedoms of a entire subset of the American population is currently being debated and legislated at a national level with massive ramifications. Now is the time for responsible people of conscience and responsibility to speak up, not "move on".

He can have his opinions on a national stage because of his minor celebrity. He will hear ours as well.

StreetlightInTheGhetto: xanadian: Cythraul: Nah, he's not homophobic. He just thinks that homosexuality is "unnatural," and "detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."

That doesn't sound homophobic at all!

It's not necessarily homophobic. It is, however, ignorant. Selfishness, greed and sloth do a lot more damage to civilization than who you sex up. Also, Jesus never said word one about being gay. You have maybe 1 or 2 passages from St. Paul on the subject, and 1 or 2 passages out of Leviticus. Now, being gay back then would've been a detriment to ancient Hebrew (or any) civilization, because it's kind of hard to take over and populate a chunk of land if all your guys are buttsecksing each other instead of making babies. Today? With the world approaching 7 BILLION (say it like Carl Sagan, people!) people, buttsecksing is a godsend.

And homosexuality *is* natural, since it happens with other animals in the wild. "Unusual" would be a better (but not perfect) way to put it, since it happens in only a minority of cases. And then there's the whole Kinsey scale.

Can't find the right words today. My brain is full of fark for some reason. I think I need more coffee.

Jesus actually said this:

* Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
* Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)
* Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
* Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
* Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
* Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
* Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
* Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)

And Vonnegut said this:

"For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us ...

The actual words of the Gospel never seem to make it into the talking points of these zealots. Ironically, their conformist rants are similar to those that got Jesus nailed to a cross in the first place.

I'm pretty sure Kirk is afraid to look in the mirror. That dude's been running and hiding from himself for a long, long time.

Cythraul: phoxxy: Like I said in my earlier post, or at least where I was going with it, there are two types of folks who who believe homosexuality is wrong. There are those would believe it is wrong, hate the person and lash out openly in a hateful manner. Then there are those who quietly believe it is wrong based on their faith, but are lovingly tolerant of people (just not necessarily what they do) and love them as fellow human beings.

Unfortunately, all are lumped into the Fred Phelps of society. So I guess they are all cool to hate. At least on Fark.

I love 'lovingly tolerant' Christians who say I'm an abomination under their religion and put my civil rights up for vote on popular referendum.

No hate like passive aggressive hate.

Then they aren't very lovingly tolerant toward you as a fellow human being are they?

But they/we do believe it is a sin. That's something you aren't going to change. You will change it no more than I or anyone else could change you from being gay. Right?

There are those of us, many of us, who want equal rights for everyone. We have a profound separation of church and state. At least there should be. But in that process we can't just stamp out the long standing tradition of others. While myself, my family -- just so you know it isn't limited to me -- we do believe homosexuality is a sin. However, on the flip side of that, we recognize we live in a country that allows us the freedom to believe as we do.

So in this instance, the civil rights you believe are infringed upon are your right to enjoy a civil union under the law. A few things here, by going to State referendum and vote, they are following the process of State sovereignty which is allotted for in our Constitution and there are many good reasons for it. However, the issue you will have and will always have is trying to force the change in what is accepted traditionally as well as religiously the idea of marriage. While you think it is absurd, really the two sticking points we have here is 1) there are those who legitimately believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman and 2) the gay community wants civil recognition of their unions whether you call it gay marriage or not.

Here's the truth, straight or gay anyone can get "married". My husband and I could have walked into a local church and said "marry us" and they would have. However, if we wanted it to be civilly recognized, then we had to get a marriage license. So in that sense, we don't need a law specifically allowing gays to marry we need a law that puts everyone under the same umbrella: civil unions, civil licenses, etc. That's the only way it can be equal. Would I necessarily agree with it? No, I do believe marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. But.... (please keep reading before you get pissed off)... I do live in a society with other people that I have to get along with and who I would expect to respect my right to my choices and my beliefs as much as I do theirs. There has to be some commonality and some compromise. And this goes for all aspects in this country. Agree to disagree but find those thing you can agree on and the commonality between the two and work toward a solution. You are no more going to force Christians into giving up their beliefs than a Christian is going to stop you being gay. That said trying to force the issue of acceptance to one side or the other is only going to make matters worse. There has to be common ground.

And to be clear, the Bible does not say YOU are an abomination before God but the act with which you are doing is the abomination. I make that point clear because I do not think that you are an abomination. It is sad that some would see it that way. It is often interpreted that way. And to be clear, which I would hope more would understand, is that the word abomination as used in the Bible is translated from the old Hebrew word "to'ebah" which means "a disgusting thing" and in some cases whether abomination is used, the word "to'ebah" wasn't even used but perhaps a similar word. And in the Bible it talks about the act being "to'ebah", not the person. However, yes, we are sum of the acts we do as a person --whether you believe in God or not -- but on this point, if someone calls you an abomination and says the Bible says you are, I say, you stand up and tell them no, they are wrong. List those things that God calls upon to be "to'ebah" or disgusting in his eyes. It does say, however, those will not enter the kingdom of heaven if you do abominations before God. Trust me, those "abominations" aren't limited to homosexuality. Most pick and choose those they want to observe and follow or are frightfully unaware of the others outside of Leviticus as well.

I still think it is a sin; you won't dissuade me in my beliefs. But please know there are people, such as myself, who wouldn't shun you or put you down because you are gay. I honestly believe that whatever we do as a person, whether we believe or not, what we ask for of Him, how we behave toward Him and others... in the end, we have no one to answer to but God as individuals. But that's how I believe. I can no more say you are going to hell than the next person. But how I believe dictates how I live for my life not how I force others to live. There are a lot of us out here still. We're just not as vocal about it. It's that fine line that you teeter delicately on. And unfortunately, I get as much ridicule from fellow "Christians" for being "too tolerant", as they view it, as I get called a homophobe for saying what I believe or get called a lot of names for even saying I'm Christian in certain circles. Hell, I get made fun of for being half Cherokee sometimes. I don't really talk about it much, but intolerance, bigotry and such exist on all levels. And people do stupid shiat for stupid reasons. You can have beliefs, but how you act on them toward others makes all the difference.

Remember, the squeakiest wheel gets the grease. Unfortunately, some wheels need dismantled and thrown on the scrap pile than get another round of grease... if you know what I mean. That includes bigots and power hungry assholes who would as soon squash your rights as the next under the guise of religion, moral rights, or something worse.

Cythraul: xanadian: I still stand by my argument that his statement was more ignorant and unenlightened than anything else. I've seen "homophobic," where people will shout slurs at you or spit at you or threaten you. I'm sure other gay people have seen even worse. Granted, being a celebrity puts more weight behind his unenlightened statement and gives the real homophobes more ammunition. But he's free to believe whatever he wants, and I'm free to believe he's a moron.

Ignorant and unenlightened? Well, yeah. Aren't most if not all bigoted and homophobic statements ignorant and unenlightened?

Let me put it to you like this. "Black people are destructive to the foundations of civilization."

Is that statement ignorant, bigoted, or is it both?


I'd like to propose the following portmanteau: "bignorant."

thamike: That's the point. He has absolutely no idea how insensitive he is. Conservatives like him laugh at the thought of beating up queers. They have absolutely no idea why a queer wouldn't also find that aside absolutely charming and hilarious. This is what comes from having no education and living in a vacuum. Watch any conservative comedian or Fox n' Friends flunky. They have this "we're all in on my joke" way of delivering faceplant, dead hate as punchline.

It may be an illustration of what people in civil rights circles call "privilege." In this case it would be "heterosexual privilege," but it works much like what feminists call "male privilege" and people trying to actively right racism call "white privilege."

It's not just the really overt things like getting paid more for the same work, or getter preferential treatment by the police, or being allowed to marry. One of the hallmarks of privilege, ironically, is that you don't know you have it. You don't even know it exists. It's much like a fish denying the existence of water, having never been exposed to the lack of water for comparison.


phoxxy: There are two types of folks who who believe homosexuality is wrong. There are those would believe it is wrong, hate the person and lash out openly in a hateful manner. Then there are those who quietly believe it is wrong based on their faith, but are lovingly tolerant of people (just not necessarily what they do) and love them as fellow human beings.

I agree. I might call them "soft bigots." By and large, the soft bigots are the ones who deny that their bigots. They're the men who say they can't be sexist because they love women, the whites who say that some of their best friends are black so they can't be racist, etc. They are, in general, people who mean no harm, ensconced in their privilege, unaware that a world exists outside of privilege.

Unfortunately, "I think that it's detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization" goes a little beyond soft homophobia and heterosexual privilege. That's a pretty heavy thing to say, and whoever says it gets held accountable.

So by all means, Kirk Cameron, take your time and explain yourself at length. Let's not be hasty. But in the end, I think you're going to have to either apologize for it, or stand behind it. I don't think you can spin something like that into "it's not really homophobia."

phoxxy: thamike: phoxxy: You missed the point. Perhaps if you re-read what I posted in its entirety instead of puffing up at the analogy, then you might understand where I was going with it.

Let me chime in. I reread it. Makes no sense. Then I reread this:

phoxxy: Two consenting adult males (or females) can also commit thievery.

It's not that you're bigoted, it's that you're too stupid to explain yourself.

I explained it rather well, the fact that you fail to grasp what I was saying and resort to calling me a bigot indicates to me your failure to grasp the English language.

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender.

Do bigots exist? Yes. But I am far from one. Thanks for playing.

You would have made your point if you had started off by saying that you may enjoy the company of your friend, even though you disapprove of the fact he likes cricket and hates baseball. Instead you used the example of someone who commits crimes. While it is possible for gays to commit crimes, they are not commiting one by loving each other. The fact that you did use a crime as an analogy is telling.

thamike: CheekyMonkey: It's repugnant in that anyone with half a brain understands that homosexuality is genetic, not a lifestyle choice.

Even if it was a choice, being an asshole isn't excused. It's kind of like the "Obama is a Muslim" "accusations." Even if Obama is a Muslim, which he is obviously not, what's the problem? How would some of these people like it if being Jewish became an accusation? Oh, wait...

Correct, but bigotry against people because of their choices=asshole; bigotry against people because they were born a certain way=ASSHOLE. It's a whole different level of ass.

phoxxy: Like I said in my earlier post, or at least where I was going with it, there are two types of folks who who believe homosexuality is wrong. There are those would believe it is wrong, hate the person and lash out openly in a hateful manner. Then there are those who quietly believe it is wrong based on their faith, but are lovingly tolerant of people (just not necessarily what they do) and love them as fellow human beings.

Unfortunately, all are lumped into the Fred Phelps of society. So I guess they are all cool to hate. At least on Fark.

You're leaving out a vitally important part of the distinction, though. Just "not agreeing with someone's lifestyle" is one thing. Actively attempting to deny them civil rights because of it is not. You can "love the sinner but not the sin" all you want, and that's fine. Once you start using that to deny someone something like equal protection under the law, you are just as bad as the Phelps people.

I hate so many different people (like the aforementioned bigots and racists), but I don't think that they should be denied their civil rights. I hate people who think "The Big Bang Theory" is funny, but I still don't think soldiers should be allowed to be quartered in their homes without their consent.

doubled99: And sometimes people make your point for you.
Thanks, guys.


Yeah, but your point is silly.

Hating someone for their words and actions is not the same thing as hating someone for their skin color, my false bravado was in reaction to your specious premise.

That's like saying I'm "bigoted against rapists." Yes, I am better than a rapist, I just am, I have no problem admitting that. Just like I have no problem admitting that I'm better than racists and bigots.

No one is born a bigot any more than someone is born an apiarist or a brewmaster. Trying to create that false equivalence is laughable, and your absurd premise received the appropriate treatment.

DubyaHater: These people honestly believe that any one of you could choose to be gay tomorrow, regardless of whether you are attracted to the same sex.

What do they say when you note they choose their religion?

JackieRabbit: One side is as bad as the other.

Yes. I often hear about homos beating straight people to death for being straight and attempting to pass laws to deny them their civil rights.

Maybe it's because I live in the Bible Belt now (Roanoke, VA) or maybe it's because I'm running on 4 hours of sleep....but his comments don't shock me. His words are just variations of the usual "Hate the sin, love the sinner" line of bullshiat. These born-agains are too predictable these days. I've seen these people in action, they hate the sinner too. They are repulsed by the sinner.
Remember, these are the same people that believe homosexuals chose to be gay. Let me repeat that, they believe homosexuality is a choice. These people honestly believe that any one of you could choose to be gay tomorrow, regardless of whether you are attracted to the same sex.

/I'm surrounded by morons here
//But I have a great job and I love the mountains

Ennuipoet: The larger question we need to be asking: "Why do the opinions of a washed up teen heartthrob whose sole contribution to entertainment are a series of stunningly bad Christian movies merit this level of attention?"

Especially when the interviewer knew he was a fundamentalist Christian, and specifically asked just to drum up controversy. I remain apathetic about this as much because I don't believe in rewarding people that are just starting shiat for the sake of starting shiat as because it's actually not important.

So he doesn't approve of gay people. Fine. Plenty of people don't approve of gay people. It's not like he's actively campaigning for anything political, so he's not even really part of the problem. Half my family doesn't approve of the fact that I'm still unmarried, that's not exactly the same thing as them being the die-hard enemies of all unmarried people.

Growing Pains went off the air 20 years ago. Why is Kirk Cameron still relevant?

four95:
That boy is just bat-shiat crazy.

that goes without saying.
he has an invisible friend who tells him what to believe.

Like I told you with my buddy, there's nothing you could do or say-you're my friend and I care about you. But I'm a man of convictions

And this is everything that is wrong about religion, and why everyone who has moved past it (or decided it bends to their will) considers these people ignorant and stubborn.

The man can't figure out a reason to dislike gays beyond "gross" and "bible" so he just has to fall back on "CONVICTION". The best is the way these people say it. Like one minute they are losing the argument being forced to be friendly with sinners and the next they are up on a great white stallion looking down on you. I have convictions. I am superior to you, and the proof is that my beliefs are set in stone and I won't listen to any other arguments.

I clicked the link to open the story, saw that the first 2 words of the headline were "kirk cameron" and immediately closed the page without reading another word.

Thanks for completely wasting my time there, Subby.

That boy is just bat-shiat crazy.

Everybody taking things in their own hands? I don't want that. I don't want to take everything in my own hands. I want a good and loving God who made the world to show us the way for everybody.

Yes children, surrender critical thought and independent drive for knowledge, understanding and change. God's got that covered, just shut up and listen.

You can't claim you love someone and attempt to deny them their civil rights. thismomentinblackhistory: Via Infinito: He kept talking about wanting to take the guy out for a steak though, and that was a bit creepy

Heh. I'm on page two of this interview thinking to myself, "Why does Kirk Cameron keep asking this reporter out on a date?"

Because that's how he rolls. It's actually a pretty common dating strategy for closeted gay dudes. "Oh let's go discuss my feelings on homosexuality....Wow that sounds like something I'd like to try once!"

Next morning "Oops sinned gotta go confess."

PonceAlyosha: ThePastafarian: I'd like to propose the following portmanteau: "bignorant."

Bignorant sounds like a good thing though.

Doesn't it? Like a big, hairy, dumb but sweet guy who you just want to buy a cheeseburger and then cuddle...
shall I go on, Mr. Cameron?

phoxxy: Keizer_Ghidorah: The Bible says eating sea creatures and wearing blended fabrics are also sins, sins worthy of immediate execution. Why aren't there widespread killings of people at Sizzler or Target for these terrible affronts to God? Yet two adults who consensually love each other is still treated as one of the most horrible things to ever happen, it's so horrible that they're trying to take over the government in order to ostracize and demonize people for the "sin" of being in love.

Maybe when Christianity grows up, we'll be able to move on as a civilization.

Scroll up. I addressed those very things in previous posts.

You also limit the view on homosexuality to Christians alone.

The list:

Christianity
Judaism
Islam
Western and Eastern Orthodox
Sikhism
Eastern religions (generally discouraged)


So answer me this, is it more convenient to go after Christians due to knowledge of popular culture and traditions or are you frightfully unaware that many folks follow different religions and faiths that also have writings and beliefs that discourage homosexual behavior?

Would you rather Christians stone people in the streets as they still do in some Middle East countries? Because I'm quite sure they could if you are going to challenge them to the letter of the word in the Bible in its most literal translation. If that's really what you want them to do since you seem to be crying out for them to follow their own teachings.

How's this for you. Stop biatching about the candidates you think have some draconian Christian agenda and vote for folks who you believe don't? Freedom of religion should be celebrated in this country, instead I find folks who a lot more groaning and moaning about who is in office but fail to go to polls to vote because they think their vote doesn't count. It's a lot easier to blame it on a group than actually use the tools available and make change. Seriously, I'm Christian and some of these folks scare the crap out of me. Do you think I'll be ...

I'd rather Christians butt out of people's lives and stop trying to act like they know what's best for us. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Yes, I'll vote for the non-religious fanatics, but they're always going to be there, condemning and demonizing and blaming. Everyone and everything that isn't them is the reason the world sucks and God hates us, and they'll never stop yelling it as loud as they can to anyone in hearing range. According to them, two people with the same genitals loving each other makes God slaughter random people by the thousands around the world to teach one country a lesson for being nice to gays. And stupid people listen to and believe them, and they go out and commit murder and discrimination in the name of God.

If God was really so angry, why doesn't he just wave his hands and make all the gays die? Or fix straight people so they'll stop giving birth to gays? For an all-powerful, all-loving being who considers us his most wonderful and precious creation, God sure doesn't like doing anything to fix the problems HE STARTED by leaving the ONE THING he didn't want us to touch where we could walk right up to it.

BeSerious: phoxxy: Unfortunately, the utterance of God and any belief has people calling you crazy, a bigot and an intolerant person who wants to send everyone back to the stone ages.

Hyperbole at it's finest/worst.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. :P

But there is some truth to it. Everyone lumped in the same boat. I have an acquaintance that swears up and down that Christians are trying to cram God down his throat and lashes out at anything that has God attached to it. When you actually talk to him, no one has been knocking on his door, no one has been sending him literature, no one has been doing any witnessing to him directly -- he has zero contact other than what he reads on the Internet or might catch on the news. He sites the Crusades and the Fred Phelps of the world as proof that Christians are evil and immediate goes to name calling. There are some people so easy to jump on the bandwagon to call you names because they don't agree with your beliefs without really looking at the fact that you aren't acting and doing vial things based on them nor do they try to understand what you actually believe and make assumptions.

There are extremists out there. No denying that, but I would wholeheartedly wish that when I express a belief (and others like me), that it doesn't go instantly to go to name calling. Ah... but in a perfect world.... everything would be rainbows and butterflies right? :P I'm pretty thick skinned, being called names doesn't really bother me. I just am a little sad when folks immediately go to name calling instead of having a nice, articulate discussion.

Here Kirk, here is a a backhoe dig your hole even deeper, man. *Golf claps, then grabs some popcorn to watch the lulz his newest effort brings*

phoxxy: Unfortunately, the utterance of God and any belief has people calling you crazy, a bigot and an intolerant person who wants to send everyone back to the stone ages.

Hyperbole at it's finest/worst.

Parthenogenetic: phoxxy: However, if you read Acts 10:11-16 it says:

"And saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."

But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."

And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call unclean." This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again."

So this explains why Jews still considered pork and shellfish unclean but Christians eat pork and shellfish. Obviously, the New Testiment is not followed by Jews so this explains the discrepancy between the two groups.

I am probably wasting my time replying to this, but here goes anyway.

That passage you quoted is not about exempting Christians from Jewish dietary customs...

Since I was in the middle of fixing dinner in my last post, I leave you with this:

Mark 7:18: And [Jesus] said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" Thus he declared all foods clean.

Eph.2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands- 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

Col.2:13: And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

1Co.10:25: Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."

There... other passages that were written lifting the ban on certain foods.

phoxxy: However, if you read Acts 10:11-16 it says:

"And saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."

But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."

And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call unclean." This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again."

So this explains why Jews still considered pork and shellfish unclean but Christians eat pork and shellfish. Obviously, the New Testiment is not followed by Jews so this explains the discrepancy between the two groups.

I am probably wasting my time replying to this, but here goes anyway.

That passage you quoted is not about exempting Christians from Jewish dietary customs.

The full context of Acts 10 is that a Roman Centurion named Cornelius was noted by God to be a righteous man, though he was a pagan. He was visited by an angel and told to send his men to seek Peter in Joppa.

Peter had the vision of the unclean animals, and the voice urging him to eat them. Three times he refused, and three times the voice admonished him not to call unclean that what God had called clean.

At this point, Cornelius' men show up. Normally, a Jew would not keep company with Gentiles, but Peter got the point of the vision --- do not call unclean (Gentiles) what God has deemed clean (righteous Gentiles - OMG, an oxymoron!)

And here's the central point of the chapter:

²⁵And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

²⁶But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

²⁷And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

²⁸And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

²⁹Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for.

I assume that you are a Gentile, and not one of those "Jews for Jesus".

So please understand that if you lived during this period, a significant number of Christians --- who were originally all Jews --- would not want to have anything to do with you, because you are a Gentile. You would have been deemed a sinner, because you did not live according to Jewish law and custom, and had no Jewish lineage. Therefore, you would not have been considered eligible to be a Christian.

So when I see congregations - Lutherans and Anglicans, for example - splitting up because some members don't want to have anything to do with those filthy homos, I have to wonder if they understand what this part of Acts means, or if they just take it to literally mean that God says it's OK for Christians to eat bacon cheeseburgers. Why are they calling homosexual Christians unclean, when presumably Jesus has wiped away their sins and granted them forgiveness? Are they in a position to assert that Jesus was wrong to declare them clean? Are the servants greater than the Master?

Dear Lord I am beyond ready for his movie/documentary to debut so he'll finally go back to whence he came. Part of me feels like he's trolling just to get people talking, and so he can prop up his movie-film.

Kirk, please, please go away after your movie opens in theaters. Stick to smashing computer monitors, bananas and Crocoduck.

thamike: Publicist: I don't mean to interrupt. I think we've gone enough into it. The gay marriage, I just want to stay away from it. It's just so polarizing.

Cameron: He knows jujitsu. I didn't think we'd even talk this much about it, but you're really cool about the way you're asking all these questions.

This is why conservatives don't understand humor. They are completely unaware of themselves in the scheme of things. Cameron just implied a deserved ass-kicking to a homosexual for asking him his thoughts on gay marriage..

I think it may be you who doesn't understand the humor. I could be wrong though. The way I took it was the reporter was pressing on an issue, the publicist pushed for a subject change, and Kirk joked that they better listen to the publicist because of his marital martial arts skills.

/I could be wrong about the intent of the statement. It's impossible to tell from reading a transcript.

i^2: phoxxy: And to be clear, the Bible does not say YOU are an abomination before God but the act with which you are doing is the abomination.

That's very progressive of you. How do you reconcile that with Leviticus 20:13?

It does say, however, those will not enter the kingdom of heaven if you do abominations before God. Trust me, those "abominations" aren't limited to homosexuality. Most pick and choose those they want to observe and follow or are frightfully unaware of the others outside of Leviticus as well.

Now you're referring to the New Testament, specifically Revelation. Interestingly, the only abomination mentioned in the NT is in Luke 16, where (in context) Jesus is admonishing the Pharisees for their love of money.

Speaking of picking and choosing, do you believe that eating shellfish, failing to perform blood sacrifices at the temple and cross dressing are sins equivalent to homosexual acts*?

* Specifically, male homosexual acts. The Bible doesn't seem to have any problem with a little girl on girl action.

First point about the New Testament, because it is not mentioned more simply does not mean that it thrown out and discounted. Jesus didn't not come to change the law but to reaffirm it and add to it.

Secondly, you have to understand the original context of the Bible and how it is written. Yes, some things do come off as literal and I had the same questions myself. There is a lot to learn in reading of the history of the Bible, original translations, what was lost in translations and what parts of the Bible were omitted. Some parts of the Bible were bastardized on political agenda, meaning that the translation, if you read the same passage in some translations, it merely states that death will be upon them in that they will not be able to seek life beyond death and that this will be result of their actions. In others, it is quite literal. I believe it to be wrong, but as I said before, that is in application to my own life. And while I think it is a sin, I would not wantonly pass that kind of judgement upon others when there are discrepancies in the translation. I believe their actions are between them and God as are my own. The one thing that remains constant across translations is that it is wrong. That is what I believe.

As far as the other, well,

Deuteronomy 14:8-10: Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses. These you may eat of all that are in the waters: you may eat all that have fins and scales. And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you.

It does not say it is an abomination but merely advising that you should not eat these animals because they are unclean. At the time these laws were given in the Bible, pork was nor always cooked correctly. They would wallow in their own feces and be exposed to other bacteria and other parasites. This is why it was written. If you do not cook pork thoroughly, you can get Trichinosis among other things. The same for shellfish as well and the parasites and other issues that arose with them as well.

However, if you read Acts 10:11-16 it says:

"And saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."

But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."

And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call unclean." This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again."

So this explains why Jews still considered pork and shellfish unclean but Christians eat pork and shellfish. Obviously, the New Testiment is not followed by Jews so this explains the discrepancy between the two groups.


As far as...

Deuteronomy 22:5: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."

If you go back in history this has not to do with being a transvestite, as some would assume in today's culture. In was written for reasons that are different. Based in the context of history, they wanted roles to be defined. Men has certain rolls as did women and they wanted to celebrate and preserve the fact that God had created both man and woman. However, the real reason for this was so that men and women would not disguise themselves and pose in the the opposite gender group for the purposes of heterosexual adultery. Obviously there are several references in the Bible which discusses local customs of dress for people. Paul later hints at this in 1 Corinthians where we talks about adopting local customs in order to speak and converse with people. It isn't necessarily about what God dictates as specific dress for each gender but that you adopt and wear what is accustom to society that defines both male and female in their roles (with the already regard of what the intended purpose of the law was at the time when written). This is why it makes it okay for Paul to adopt the local culture and dress and God would not frown upon it and why we still don't run around in robes today. :)

Hopefully that answers your questions.

phoxxy: And to be clear, the Bible does not say YOU are an abomination before God but the act with which you are doing is the abomination.

That's very progressive of you. How do you reconcile that with Leviticus 20:13?

It does say, however, those will not enter the kingdom of heaven if you do abominations before God. Trust me, those "abominations" aren't limited to homosexuality. Most pick and choose those they want to observe and follow or are frightfully unaware of the others outside of Leviticus as well.

Now you're referring to the New Testament, specifically Revelation. Interestingly, the only abomination mentioned in the NT is in Luke 16, where (in context) Jesus is admonishing the Pharisees for their love of money.

Speaking of picking and choosing, do you believe that eating shellfish, failing to perform blood sacrifices at the temple and cross dressing are sins equivalent to homosexual acts^*?

^* Specifically, male homosexual acts. The Bible doesn't seem to have any problem with a little girl on girl action.

In my experience, if you have to say you're not homophobic, you probably are.

If you believe anything from the Old Testament was anything more than myths, laws for a nomadic civilization, and family/war/succession records, you're farking retarded. Why in the world people look for guidance and absolute truths in a set of texts written (and re-written) by a bunch of nomadic warrior shepherds thousands of years before modern science existed is beyond me.

Jesus is a great example of who you should strive to be like in life if you claim to be a Christian. . You can throw what Paul said out the window too. You don't worship Paul, you worship Jesus.

"Natural" bananas.

If you're lost, that's OK, because the truth of the matter is you're not here to read about Cameron's documentary. You're here to read about the time he put his foot in his mouth.

It's funny because it's true - I don't give a flying leap about Cameron's weird and childish version of history but I find his stunning naivete to be like a trainwreck I can't look away from.

Here's what I don't get: Cameron complains that the reason for the backlash is because he was convinced to talk about politics rather than promoting his movie.

His solution? Go and do the same thing again.

If I were his publicist, I'm not sure if I'd quit or double my rates after that...

The Homer Tax Smartest
Funniest
2012-03-20 01:58:58 PM


doubled99: And sometimes people make your point for you.
Thanks, guys.


Yeah, but your point is silly.

Hating someone for their words and actions is not the same thing as hating someone for their skin color, my false bravado was in reaction to your specious premise.

That's like saying I'm "bigoted against rapists." Yes, I am better than a rapist, I just am, I have no problem admitting that. Just like I have no problem admitting that I'm better than racists and bigots.

No one is born a bigot any more than someone is born an apiarist or a brewmaster. Trying to create that false equivalence is laughable, and your absurd premise received the appropriate treatment



You know, I truly believe you and others think you're being reasonable and progressive. You are the same as the people you hate. You simply have a different criteria for your predjudices,
It's kind of sad that you can't understand how limited your thinking is.

wildcat2011: Headso: wildcat2011: Headso: wildcat2011: Of course, we'll have to let all the pedophiles out of prison

they're not there for thought crime, they are there for diddling children against their will.

/just sayin

But, but they were born that way. You need to learn to accept them and embrace them.

/Of course I'd keep my kids away from them if I were you

If you were really open minded, which I'm not, you might be able to accept the idea of them fantasying about diddling kids but actually doing it is what lands them in jail. We don't have to accept anyone victimizing children. Two or three or 100 adults acting in consensual way is totally different. I am curious if you actually don't understand that or are you being intentionally obtuse?

So it's okay to have the desire to diddle kids but don't do anything about because that's they way they were born? Not sure you'll get many people to agree with you on that one, but knock yourself out.

Do you think consenting adults in a relationship is the same as a child being raped? Not sure you'll get many people to agree with you on that one, but knock yourself out.

Braindeath: Joe Blowme: Question, do you have to be a hater to not agree with their lifestyle?

Yes. Yes, you are a hater. Man up and accept it about yourself. And don't compare me to a vegan you asshole.

Gays live the same lifestyle as me: see someone you want to fark, make your move, try to get laid in a way you enjoy with a consenting individual who will enjoy it with you. Eventually hope you meet the right person that you want to spend the rest of your life with. I can grant the person I meet all sorts of nice benefits in our society that will be recognized in all 50 states and no one will argue with. Gays can't.


There is really no lifestyle difference there, only discriminatory practices.

JackieRabbit: But I'm sick of the politicization of sexuality.

Great. Lets give deviants and homosexuals (note to the offended, I put an "and" there, which means I'm not necessarily calling you deviants) equal civil rights and get the fark over it.

The people asking for equality are not those who politicize it. We currently have a successful primary candidate (not the winner, but not the last place guy by a long shot in terms of votes) who spews hate at women and gays every turn, and he is not denounced by the majority of his party, a party which makes up roughly half our nation's political positions.

Can we stop farking pretending that Cameron is just one guy in a vacuum with these beliefs? I mean, 3 of the big 4 republican candidates have blown dog whistles about blacks in this day and age. "bla-sghss", 'I'll go to the naacp and teach those blacks the value of a paycheck!' and mr. racist newsletters repeal the civil rights act himself. Romney, I'm 99% sure at this point, would be stringing up negroes left and right if he thought it would result in a net gain of votes. He's going to loosely tie himself in with the far right once the primaries are complete, willingly choose not to denounce their garbage, and let them drive more votes to the booths. Just watch.

But sure, its teh gays and the feminists fault that it gets political. Blame the hated, not the haters, right?

And, btw, there is nothing particularly modern about the general concept of "don't hurt others" complimented with a dash of "don't worry about what others are doing if they aren't hurting anyone".

Its not like my generation made this shiat up. Jesus was a couple thousand years ago. Then you've got buddhism too. I'm sure a theologian could do better.

Defending a lack of ability to think about ethics and morality without having a book to guide you, simply because you are intellectually lazy is repugnant. Doubly so when the farking book you rely on to guide you is one you've never read, and one whose primary teachings you don't follow anyways.

AverageAmericanGuy: That's a very modern conception of morality, and one that is not shared by the majority of people on this planet. That a morality that is based on laws handed down from a higher power is somehow repugnant is an interesting jumping off point for a discussion of philosophy, but the average person accepts that certain things are sinful based on the teachings of their church/synagogue/temple/shrine.

But there's the rub: while they CLAIM they get their views from a higher power, they really just believe whatever the fark their parents and elders taught them (or other guiding figure). They even have a book they believe is guidance from the higher power they claim drives their morality, and fail to follow it. See black slavery, among a thousand other things.

also, from my earlier post:

Smackledorfer: And this is everything that is wrong about religion, and why everyone who has moved past it (or decided it bends to their will) considers these people ignorant and stubborn.

Some people have thrown out the concept of god, as I have. Others take the bible (or book of their choice) as perhaps divinely influenced by still written by man, and as such can allow belief in a higher power to coexist in their mind alongside the ability to actually think. Those people don't bother.

The ignorant twats getting on a high horse talking about conviction, those are a different thing altogether.


/Why I'm bothering talking to Average American Guy I've no idea.

To be fair, he's not homo 'phobic', he's just an idiot.

Headso: wildcat2011: Headso: wildcat2011: Of course, we'll have to let all the pedophiles out of prison

they're not there for thought crime, they are there for diddling children against their will.

/just sayin

But, but they were born that way. You need to learn to accept them and embrace them.

/Of course I'd keep my kids away from them if I were you

If you were really open minded, which I'm not, you might be able to accept the idea of them fantasying about diddling kids but actually doing it is what lands them in jail. We don't have to accept anyone victimizing children. Two or three or 100 adults acting in consensual way is totally different. I am curious if you actually don't understand that or are you being intentionally obtuse?

So it's okay to have the desire to diddle kids but don't do anything about because that's they way they were born? Not sure you'll get many people to agree with you on that one, but knock yourself out.

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [i44.tinypic.com image 300x232]

So does a moderator have a farking hard on for Kirk Cameron?

Geesh, we get it. Move on


Almost 200 comments, seems it is relevant to Fark's interests in some way or other, not just the mods.

/not subby
//tired of hearing about Cameron, too

FTFA: Everybody taking things in their own hands? I don't want that. I don't want to take everything in my own hands. I want a good and loving God who made the world to show us the way for everybody.

Are you farking kidding me guy? Clueless dolt. So you want everyone to just believe what is told to them, never be critical or questioning of anything. The church will think for you. Our political leaders will think for you. Your teacher will think for you. fark off Kirk Cameron you ignorant bigot.

Authoritarian boot lickers can fark off. Even worse when they're religious zealots to top it off.

PsiChick: Via Infinito: It's obvious Kirk was trying to be very nice and understanding during this interview. He didn't actually apologize for being a douche, but he came very very close... It's definitely more than I was expecting from him.

He kept talking about wanting to take the guy out for a steak though, and that was a bit creepy.

/he was probably all out of birthday sandwich

He comes off as the sort of person who really doesn't hate gays, but was raised to. He's trying to express that. No, he doesn't hate gays--but airing that view will get him condemned to hellfire, so he's pretending.

I kind of feel sorry for him.

Question, do you have to be a hater to not agree with their lifestyle? Or to each his own but its not for me? Is it still ok to hate vegans? Or am i bigot for that too? What "groups" is it ok to hate? Here on FARK that would be republicans and cops but is there a guide book you can post?

Cythraul: Yes, because two consenting adult males (or females) who love each other is the same as thievery.

To be fair, since they think that homosexuality is a choice, they really do think that the comparison to the choice to be a thief is a cromulent one. It's pants-on-head retarded, but at least it's consistent.

Cythraul: phoxxy: What I'm saying is that to think homosexuality is wrong in of itself does not make a person a homophobe. It would be no different than disapproving of someone who is a thief. You may really enjoy their company and they may be your friend, but they steal from others. You think stealing is wrong. Are you a bad person now because you think stealing is wrong? You are still this person's friend, you just don't approve of what they do.

Yes, because two consenting adult males (or females) who love each other is the same as thievery.

Two consenting adult males (or females) can also commit thievery.

You missed the point. Perhaps if you re-read what I posted in its entirety instead of puffing up at the analogy, then you might understand where I was going with it.

doubled99: And, once identified as such, you can dismiss all opinions of these "bigots", because they have proven, with their distasteful world view, that they are less intelligent, and less of a person than you.

Yes. Bigots are less intelligent and less of a person than I am. I have no problems saying that.

I am racist against racists and I am bigoted against bigots.

I am better than them in every single way. Judge me how you must, I fully own my hatred of the racist and bigoted.

StreetlightInTheGhetto: xanadian: Cythraul: Nah, he's not homophobic. He just thinks that homosexuality is "unnatural," and "detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."

That doesn't sound homophobic at all!

It's not necessarily homophobic. It is, however, ignorant. Selfishness, greed and sloth do a lot more damage to civilization than who you sex up. Also, Jesus never said word one about being gay. You have maybe 1 or 2 passages from St. Paul on the subject, and 1 or 2 passages out of Leviticus. Now, being gay back then would've been a detriment to ancient Hebrew (or any) civilization, because it's kind of hard to take over and populate a chunk of land if all your guys are buttsecksing each other instead of making babies. Today? With the world approaching 7 BILLION (say it like Carl Sagan, people!) people, buttsecksing is a godsend.

And homosexuality *is* natural, since it happens with other animals in the wild. "Unusual" would be a better (but not perfect) way to put it, since it happens in only a minority of cases. And then there's the whole Kinsey scale.

Can't find the right words today. My brain is full of fark for some reason. I think I need more coffee.

Jesus actually said this:

* Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
* Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)
* Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
* Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
* Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
* Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
* Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
* Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)

And Vonnegut said this:

"For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us ...

Yes and it has been commonly said among Christians to "hate the sin, love the sinner". Nothing that Jesus said directly, but definitely a reflection of how we should treat one another. BTW, St. Augstine -- coincidental the patron saint of brewers -- is the one who is attributed to this phrase in an early letter of the church. This is based on the idea that God loves mankind but hates sin from the Bible.

What I'm saying is that to think homosexuality is wrong in of itself does not make a person a homophobe. It would be no different than disapproving of someone who is a thief. You may really enjoy their company and they may be your friend, but they steal from others. You think stealing is wrong. Are you a bad person now because you think stealing is wrong? You are still this person's friend, you just don't approve of what they do.

For many Christians, this is the case. And they live day to day with these ideals who you would never hate or disapprove of what they believe unless you asked them directly how they belief. There are some who you are self-righteous douchenozzles (Phelps/WBC dipshiats come to mind) and take it to an extreme. Unfortunately, for every Christian who says they believe homosexuality is wrong, they are automatically viewed as and lumped into the same group as the other. This is not always the case.

I didn't see the interview nor did I read the article. I'm not here to judge what this guys actions are or what he believes. Keeping that in mind, the way you treat people -- if you want to quote the Bible -- based on what Jesus said some how nullifies the teaching of the Old Testament, this is not the case. Yes, we are to treat people with kindness and love one another, but that doesn't mean turn a blind eye and say the sin doesn't exist.

Mathew 5:17

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil."

Both Moses and Jesus said to love your neighbor and to love one another. This is no different. The perceptions that Jesus came to change the law (first 5 books attributed to Moses), is based on that of rabbinical tradition that led to distortions of the law (aka organized religion ... tada!) that Jesus came to "change". He did not contradict the word of God. Instead he contradicted the word of man -- the Jewish scholars of the time who distorted God's meaning of the Word.

In short, those who use what Jesus said in to dismiss the old, is fallacious. This was never the case.

dready zim: [www.thedailybeast.com image 503x335]

His forehead is unnatural and will be the cause of the destruction of civilisation through sheer mass and gravitational collapse.

Also he looks gay.

Is it just me or does he look like NPH in that pic?
What I'd really love is for NPH to get all judgemental and say homosexuality is wrong, he's been wrong all these years, he's been born again, etc. All on national TV. Then wrap it up by saying "The only positive thing about homosexuality is the buttsex."

OnlyM3: ohhh nooo someone believes something I don't believe. Burn them!!!

Party of "tolerance" my ass.

Ahahahaha "You're the real bigot because you don't like bigots!"

That one never gets old.

"some of my best friends..."

immediately thought this was about mittens

/disappointed

Shakespeare's Monkey: FTFA: I was surprised on a couple of levels, yes. [Pauses.] I was surprised that people acted surprised by what I said.

Did he really say that? Holy fark.

Was anyone suprised by Kirk Cameron, Captain Banana-Hand's feelings on Gay Marriage?

I take it, Capt. Cameron is unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm, perhaps?

I can't help but like the guy after that article. It is nice to see a full transcript for once rather than 10 second blips and edited content.

victrin: Kirk Cameron doesn't think


FTFY

xanadian: I never saw the whole interview that caused such a stir. What I read in TFA didn't seem particularly inflammatory. People are free to believe what they believe. That he wouldn't condemn his own son if he came out is heartening.

Eh. I can't seem to get worked up in a lather over this today...

Well, it's different when it's your own. Every hate-fill sack of shiat suddenly becomes a pillar of understanding when it's someone they know personally and already have attachments to.

If he had said that about random strangers on the street instead of then turning around and calling them unnatural and whatever other hate-filled vernacular he uses, then you might have a case.

thamike: ciberido: Yeah, I noticed that. Was that a complete non sequitur, apropos of nothing, or was Cameron on some level joking about (or even threatening) the publicist beating up the reporter?

Maybe it was nothing. But a bit eerie, given the situation.

That's the point. He has absolutely no idea how insensitive he is. Conservatives like him laugh at the thought of beating up queers. They have absolutely no idea why a queer wouldn't also find that aside absolutely charming and hilarious. This is what comes from having no education and living in a vacuum. Watch any conservative comedian or Fox n' Friends flunky. They have this "we're all in on my joke" way of delivering faceplant, dead hate as punchline.

You said "queer" twice.

Smackledorfer: JackieRabbit: FTFA: ' Nonetheless, his answer was repugnant: "I think that it's unnatural. I think that it's detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."'

Repugnant? I don't agree with him, but his answer seems honest and straight forward. I can't see it as repugnant. I guess in "I hate you, you hate me" America, anyone with a different viewpoint is repugnant. Drama: it's what's for dinner.

Its not repugnant because its different. Its repugnant because it stems from ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance because he is believing it while doing his best to shut out any possibility he is wrong. Stupidity because it makes no sense and cannot be explained beyond circular logic of "its evil because its evil" type stuff. If you can't explain who is being hurt and why, what is being destroyed and how, but still choose to believe something is harmful and destructive, then fark you.

I don't care if thats the homo-sex, the devil's weed, the terror conservatives have whipped themselves up over the existence of the EPA, or anything else. If you believe it just because it feels good and someone told you about it, then you lock it in as a conviction, and then you make retarded statements that cannot be backed up without faith, then that is repugnant, to me.

There are plenty of things that are different but not repugnant. I've had my mind changed a few times, though I admit I'm a little stubborn. But even in my stubbornness there is still room for argument, and while I may not be converted to the opposite side, I do take their good points into account. This guy, and his type of people, do not. They believe that the things they've been raised to view as wrong MUST be wrong. That their parents or converters-to-the-faith cannot be wrong. And, further, that those things they view as wrong must be, by default, the greater cause of the problems in society. Look at Santorum's early answers regarding the economy: 'I am, of course, a ...

That's a very modern conception of morality, and one that is not shared by the majority of people on this planet. That a morality that is based on laws handed down from a higher power is somehow repugnant is an interesting jumping off point for a discussion of philosophy, but the average person accepts that certain things are sinful based on the teachings of their church/synagogue/temple/shrine.

Mugato: "You had a girl kicked off your show because she was in Playboy? If you're a homo that's fine but stop using my name, you farking dildo."

[images.sodahead.com image 350x337]

It's funny that right-wing Christians stand for everything Jesus preached against.

Andrew Wiggin: i'm not racist, i just think black people are destroying civilization.

/and the chinese pee in our cokes

Let me tell you how this goes now, if a true believer finds his way into the thread:

Totally different. Cause being attracted to men is a choice, see?

Me? No, I've never been attracted to men, why would you think that?
What? No, I didn't just wake up one morning and decide to like boobies. Where are you going with that?

Well, I still believe its a choice, I don't care what kind of points you make. I believe it in my heart. I'm a man of convictions.

wildcat2011: Of course, we'll have to let all the pedophiles out of prison

they're not there for thought crime, they are there for diddling children against their will.

/just sayin

Jim_Callahan Smartest
Funniest
2012-03-20 11:51:12 AM


Ennuipoet: The larger question we need to be asking: "Why do the opinions of a washed up teen heartthrob whose sole contribution to entertainment are a series of stunningly bad Christian movies merit this level of attention?"

Especially when the interviewer knew he was a fundamentalist Christian, and specifically asked just to drum up controversy. I remain apathetic about this as much because I don't believe in rewarding people that are just starting shiat for the sake of starting shiat as because it's actually not important.

So he doesn't approve of gay people. Fine. Plenty of people don't approve of gay people. It's not like he's actively campaigning for anything political, so he's not even really part of the problem. Half my family doesn't approve of the fact that I'm still unmarried, that's not exactly the same thing as them being the die-hard enemies of all unmarried people.


Your reasonable view has no place here.

FTA: Publicist: I don't mean to interrupt. I think we've gone enough into it. The gay marriage, I just want to stay away from it. It's just so polarizing.

Cameron: He knows jujitsu. I didn't think we'd even talk this much about it, but you're really cool about the way you're asking all these questions.

thamike: This is why conservatives don't understand humor. They are completely unaware of themselves in the scheme of things. Cameron just implied a deserved ass-kicking to a homosexual for asking him his thoughts on gay marriage..

Yeah, I noticed that. Was that a complete non sequitur, apropos of nothing, or was Cameron on some level joking about (or even threatening) the publicist beating up the reporter?

Maybe it was nothing. But a bit eerie, given the situation.

ThePastafarian: I'd like to propose the following portmanteau: "bignorant."

Bignorant sounds like a good thing though.

Cameron seems like a normal guy. About as normal as any American guy you'd meet at church on Wednesday.

xanadian: I've seen "homophobic," where people will shout slurs at you or spit at you or threaten you. I'm sure other gay people have seen even worse.

Pretty sure Matthew Shephard saw even worse, yeah.

Kirk Cameron doesn't think homosexuality is right, Kirk Cameron says he is not a homophobe.

Let's play bigotted mad libs!
Kirk Cameron doesn't think being a woman is right, Kirk Cameron says he is not a misogynist.
Kirk Cameron doesn't think being black is right, Kirk Cameron says he is not a racist.

Of course the last two are not true, but it does highlight the unfortunate cognitive dissonance of this man in that he vilifies an inborn trait but does not think he has a negative bias. Let's see yours:

Kirk Cameron doesn't think ______________ is right, Kirk Cameron says he is not a ______________.

Cythraul: Nah, he's not homophobic. He just thinks that homosexuality is "unnatural," and "detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."

That doesn't sound homophobic at all!

See, those are just his convictions. HE isn't the hater, god is. And because he listens to god, he is better than those homos, and those who don't hold the convictions that they will destroy the foundations of civilization as we know it.

I didn't finish the article, does he ever explain what foundations of civilization are going to be destroyed by teh gays? I would really love to see one of these twerps get specific. I'm sick and tired of generalities and wishy-washy mumblings about this and that. Surely at least one of these morons has thought it through one step further and has specifics.

Rurouni: It's his opinion and he's entitled to it just like everyone else.

But again, who cares? He doesn't like gays, who cares? Can we move on with our lives now?

We're entitled to our opinion about his opinion. If I went on a national television program and said something equally ignorant (people who have more than one kid are destroying civilization - for example) I would expect to take some serious flak for it.

This is more than his dislike of gays. I dislike hipsters, but I'm not going to claim they are destroying civilization.

Cythraul: xanadian: I still stand by my argument that his statement was more ignorant and unenlightened than anything else. I've seen "homophobic," where people will shout slurs at you or spit at you or threaten you. I'm sure other gay people have seen even worse. Granted, being a celebrity puts more weight behind his unenlightened statement and gives the real homophobes more ammunition. But he's free to believe whatever he wants, and I'm free to believe he's a moron.

Ignorant and unenlightened? Well, yeah. Aren't most if not all bigoted and homophobic statements ignorant and unenlightened?

Let me put it to you like this. "Black people are destructive to the foundations of civilization."

Is that statement ignorant, bigoted, or is it both?

Sounds like you want everyone as pissed off as you are - and that just isn't your call.

Ennuipoet Smartest
Funniest
2012-03-20 08:39:29 AM


The larger question we need to be asking: "Why do the opinions of a washed up teen heartthrob whose sole contribution to entertainment are a series of stunningly bad Christian movies merit this level of attention?"


So a bunch of ninnies with sandy vaginas can get outraged at the "persecution" they face from important people like Kirk.
The same way Farkers love to rail against some unknown loser somewhere in America who said/did something racist.

PonceAlyosha: JackieRabbit: Repugnant? I don't agree with him, but his answer seems honest and straight forward. I can't see it as repugnant. I guess in "I hate you, you hate me" America, anyone with a different viewpoint is repugnant. Drama: it's what's for dinner.

Yeah, claiming that two people being in love will destroy civilization is farking repugnant.

More of the drama. This is repugnant: "Those filthy cocksuckers are destroying civilization. They should be rounded up and gassed." And, BTW, he never said what you said. He's wrong, he's stupid, but he is entitled to his opinion. We don't like it? that's okay too. But let's not blow it out of proportion. Just roll our eyes and move on. Overblown rhetoric has never fostered dialog or consensus.

Rurouni: It's his opinion and he's entitled to it just like everyone else.

But again, who cares? He doesn't like gays, who cares? Can we move on with our lives now?

Thank you.

xanadian: What I read in TFA didn't seem particularly inflammatory.



I agree, he makes a point when he says "But I'm a man of convictions. If you press me about how I feel about an issue, you're going to see my convictions." This guy is obviously really into the modern version of Christianity stuff.

It's his opinion and he's entitled to it just like everyone else.

But again, who cares? He doesn't like gays, who cares? Can we move on with our lives now?

His forehead is unnatural and will be the cause of the destruction of civilisation through sheer mass and gravitational collapse.

Also he looks gay.

JackieRabbit: Repugnant? I don't agree with him, but his answer seems honest and straight forward. I can't see it as repugnant. I guess in "I hate you, you hate me" America, anyone with a different viewpoint is repugnant. Drama: it's what's for dinner.

Yeah, claiming that two people being in love will destroy civilization is farking repugnant.

FTFA: ' Nonetheless, his answer was repugnant: "I think that it's unnatural. I think that it's detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."'

Repugnant? I don't agree with him, but his answer seems honest and straight forward. I can't see it as repugnant. I guess in "I hate you, you hate me" America, anyone with a different viewpoint is repugnant. Drama: it's what's for dinner.

Personal opinions in America, land of the free.... how do they work?