Kirk Cameron Provokes...

[confuzzled]

**The reason I started this thread is to not discuss homosexuality...as it is a heated and very emotional topic. With that being stated Mods....IF this is not appropiate please remove**

Kirk Cameron provokes with anti-gay comments - msnNOW

Whether or not you agree with Kirk I for one have to respect him for standing up for his beliefs when it simply isn't popular to do so.

[pam]

I did find the comment "and all 12 of his fans" extremely humorous.

[prisonchaplain]

Kirk was cautious, tempered, and spoke his convictions with certainty, but with respect for those who disagree.

[annewandering]

I did see that video but now I am trying to figure out who he is. sighs.

[Maureen]

I did see that video but now I am trying to figure out who he is. sighs.

Kirk Cameron used to be on the show Growing Pains with Alan Thicke. He is the brother of Candace Cameron from Full House.

M.

[Jenamarie]

Kirk Cameron used to be on the show Growing Pains with Alan Thicke. He is the brother of Candace Cameron from Full House.

M.

Okay, I knew the first half of your post, but didn't know the second! Had no idea they were related! (and I used to watch both shows!)

[annewandering]

Kirk Cameron used to be on the show Growing Pains with Alan Thicke. He is the brother of Candace Cameron from Full House.

M.

No wonder I never heard of him. Never watched either show.

[Traveler]

I am sorry the the link was nothing more to me than propaganda. The insinuation that most people think homosexuality is a good idea and will cause society to be better off and more enlightened is completely unsupported and even if true do not mean that most people so thinking are correct.

Many times I have asked for one shred of evidence that society is better off with homosexuality - I have also stated that I find no evidence that human society would suffer any problems or set backs if for some reason homosexuality completely disappeared. At best many are supporting and defending homosexuality when if homosexuality did not exist there would not be even a single provable or demonstrational negative.

Hmmmmm: if those that argue for something cannot show actual reason that something is necessary - it is likely that it is in fact not necessary and likely that society (any human society capable of enduring through generations) will not suffer a single ill effect should homosexuality be lost and gone forever.

None of this means that we need to hate or discourage homosexuals from attempting to be a positive part of society in any way they can - or for that matter we all should contribute in a positive way to society - And I consider recognition of truth as a positive contribution.

The Traveler

[annewandering]

I am sorry the the link was nothing more to me than propaganda. The insinuation that most people think homosexuality is a good idea and will cause society to be better off and more enlightened is completely unsupported and even if true do not mean that most people so thinking are correct.

Many times I have asked for one shred of evidence that society is better off with homosexuality - I have also stated that I find no evidence that human society would suffer any problems or set backs if for some reason homosexuality completely disappeared. At best many are supporting and defending homosexuality when if homosexuality did not exist there would not be even a single provable or demonstrational negative.

Hmmmmm: if those that argue for something cannot show actual reason that something is necessary - it is likely that it is in fact not necessary and likely that society (any human society capable of enduring through generations) will not suffer a single ill effect should homosexuality be lost and gone forever.

None of this means that we need to hate or discourage homosexuals from attempting to be a positive part of society in any way they can - or for that matter we all should contribute in a positive way to society - And I consider recognition of truth as a positive contribution.

The Traveler

Well I know I might be sad if at least a few of them were gone although I am sure you are referring to homosexuality not homosexuals. Right?

On the other hand I am thinking there's a lot of things that would be nice to be gone. Mosquitoes for one. Flys for another. Pedophilia as well. Hmm lots of things would be nice to be gone. Dang. I guess adversity is one thing we accepted when we came here but it's a good thing God never warned us about mosquitoes.

[rameumptom]

I've also seen Kirk Cameron attack the LDS Church on his tv program in the past. So, his "courage" is simply a very strong stance he's had since his conversion back in the 1980s. The concern for me is not his convictions, but possibly the intolerance that he has towards others that do not agree with him.

That he is free to promote his version of Christianity is fine with me. But after listening to him several times on his tv show (I like to know what people are about before making a judgment), I find he's about as tolerant of others as Rush Limbaugh.

[Adam0319]

I have watched the reaction to comments Kirk Cameron made regarding homosexuality on Piers Morgan Tonight.

On Piers Morgan Tonight, Kirk was asked about his views on homosexuality, and basically said that he believes that marriage is between man and a woman and homosexuality is unnatural. He also said ”I think that it's detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

The backlash to his comments has been vicious. He has been accused of being hateful, homophobic, contributing to gay teens being bullied, and even so far as being an accomplice to murder.

I have watched things change in the last few years. I am concerned that even having the view that homosexuality is sin, you are a hateful, intolerant bigot. I am concerned about how thing will be in a few years.

[LittleWyvern]

There's a very fine line between the concepts of "I shouldn't do this" and "Nobody should do this." People on both sides of the issue often either forget this difference or step over the difference at will like it doesn't exist.

[Just_A_Guy]

There's a very fine line between the concepts of "I shouldn't do this" and "Nobody should do this." People on both sides of the issue often either forget this difference or step over the difference at will like it doesn't exist.

I would also respectfully suggest that there's a similar line between "Nobody should do this" and "Nobody may do this".

[PrinceofLight2000]

There's a very fine line between the concepts of "I shouldn't do this" and "Nobody should do this." People on both sides of the issue often either forget this difference or step over the difference at will like it doesn't exist.

The problem with this is that the gospel is for everyone, whether they accept it or not. We may be ultimately judged based on our level of understanding of the gospel but it's our prerogative to increase that understanding as much as possible while we're here, and that means seeking out the correct path. Personally, I think there's going to be a special level of guilt for those who choose to reject and ignore the very idea of the gospel, God, or even spirituality in general solely upon the basis of an inconvenient commandment.

[annewandering]

I never did see him act but he is a brave man. Has he given any indication that he is homophobic at all? For real?

[prisonchaplain]

As FYI, Kirk Cameron has focused his last several years on promoting Christian evangelism. He's also appeared in the movie Fire Proof, as well as the two Left Behind movies. So, he really is a public face for evangelical Christianity, which joins LDS in supporting traditional marriage, for the most part.

[annewandering]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kirk-Cameron/40667713734

He gives a very interesting comment on his interview tonight on the tv show. Check it out.

[Traveler]

Well I know I might be sad if at least a few of them were gone although I am sure you are referring to homosexuality not homosexuals. Right?

On the other hand I am thinking there's a lot of things that would be nice to be gone. Mosquitoes for one. Flys for another. Pedophilia as well. Hmm lots of things would be nice to be gone. Dang. I guess adversity is one thing we accepted when we came here but it's a good thing God never warned us about mosquitoes.

Any species that depends on flies or mosquitoes as part of their food chain supply would indicate at least one positive. Therefore, even though such items are an annoyance to some their elimination would be detrimental. However, as to your other point of pedophilia, you are correct it does exist - but its existence is not a valid argument to create laws to protect pedophiles from not being able to achieve their intent.

The point is that if we are going to support a change and use the force of law to require that all society accept and embrace a change - there should and ought to be a requirement that the change bring some measurable and definable benefit. Those that purport a change to marriage to accommodate homosexuality are obligated to offer a positive benefit - at least a supposed benefit that is open to free and public scrutiny to ensure actual measurable and definable benefit. However, using propaganda ploys, such as name calling (like homophobe) is hardly an argument of open and free public scrutiny. Such tactics if anything demonstrates a negative - most definitely not a positive.

But the discussion is not over even if any positive benefit can be measured and defined - the next and final step is to demonstrate that the aggregate benefit is more that the aggregate or worse possible negative. Which BTW as defined by Chaos Theory (reason used environment laws) is the extinction of the human race.

So in essence those that purport homosexual marriage do so realizing that in the best possible scenario - there will be absolutely no benefit - not a single one and in the worse possible scenario - the human race will become extinct. Logic would indicate that in reality something in between the best and worst possible will be the reality in forcing a change. The most important point to realize is the absolutely no benefit.

The Traveler

Edited March 7, 2012 by Traveler

[annewandering]

Any species that depends on flies or mosquitoes as part of their food chain supply would indicate at least one positive. Therefore, even though such items are an annoyance to some their elimination would be detrimental. However, as to your other point of pedophilia, you are correct it does exist - but its existence is not a valid argument to create laws to protect pedophiles from not being able to achieve their intent.

The point is that if we are going to support a change and use the force of law to require that all society accept and embrace a change - there should and ought to be a requirement that the change bring some measurable and definable benefit. Those that purport a change to marriage to accommodate homosexuality are obligated to offer a positive benefit - at least a supposed benefit that is open to free and public scrutiny to ensure actual measurable and definable benefit. However, using propaganda ploys, such as name calling (like homophobe) is hardly an argument of open and free public scrutiny. Such tactics if anything demonstrates a negative - most definitely not a positive.

But the discussion is not over even if any positive benefit can be measured and defined - the next and final step is to demonstrate that the aggregate benefit is more that the aggregate or worse possible negative. Which BTW as defined by Chaos Theory (reason used environment laws) is the extinction of the human race.

So in essence those that purport homosexual marriage do so realizing that in the best possible scenario - there will be absolutely no benefit - not a single one and in the worse possible scenario - the human race will become extinct. Logic would indicate that in reality something in between the best and worst possible will be the reality in forcing a change. The most important point to realize is the absolutely no benefit.

The Traveler

I would assume the reasonable benefit would be that homosexuals werent discriminated against and that they would be happier.

[Traveler]

I would assume the reasonable benefit would be that homosexuals werent discriminated against and that they would be happier.

What is wrong with discrimination against something that is noticable different and offers no discernable benefit? Are we to never discriminate about anything? Discrimination does not mean unjust treatment - we should not exclude just recognition (discrimination) of difference of things that are indeed different. And as near as I can see - it is considered (propaganda ploy) to be a detrimental discrimination against - to simply recognize and openly declare that homosexual marriage does not benefit society with the same possible benefit that traditional marriage offers in insuring continuing generations.

The Traveler

[annewandering]

What is wrong with discrimination against something that is noticable different and offers no discernable benefit? Are we to never discriminate about anything? Discrimination does not mean unjust treatment - we should not exclude just recognition (discrimination) of difference of things that are indeed different. And as near as I can see - it is considered (propaganda ploy) to be a detrimental discrimination against - to simply recognize and openly declare that homosexual marriage does not benefit society with the same possible benefit that traditional marriage offers in insuring continuing generations.

The Traveler

I dont disagree with you. What they perceive as a benefit doesn't mean it really is. :)

[laffopuritain]

I've also seen Kirk Cameron attack the LDS Church on his tv program in the past. So, his "courage" is simply a very strong stance he's had since his conversion back in the 1980s. The concern for me is not his convictions, but possibly the intolerance that he has towards others that do not agree with him.

That he is free to promote his version of Christianity is fine with me. But after listening to him several times on his tv show (I like to know what people are about before making a judgment), I find he's about as tolerant of others as Rush Limbaugh.

here's a video I found of it

[Traveler]

I dont disagree with you. What they perceive as a benefit doesn't mean it really is. :)

Thank You for the clarification. But I would like to point out that individual "benefits" do not necessarily transfer to social benefits. In fact - crime in general results when an individual benefit does not translate directly into a benefit to the whole society. Some think that it is only a crime when a particular benefit to one individual results in a loss of benefit to another. However, when only one immediately benefits the long term consequence may not be as as easy to determine - that is why it is so important to assess the possibility before the consequences are later forced.

Kind of like debt - the short term may seem well worth the contract but when the full payments are required - the regret then is too late.

The Traveler