Perhaps, it’s because Kirk Cameron is not an elected official that I didn’t make much of his comments earlier this month, calling homosexuality “unnatural“, even, as he put it, “detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” He has a right to his opinions. And we have a right to challenge him on them.
The fact that so many have raised such a ruckus over his remarks shows how far we’ve come since he was at the peak of his celebrity. His hit TV series Growing Pains ended its run in 1992, five years before Ellen DeGeneres’s coming out made the cover of Time magazine. Today, homosexuality has become so mainstream that we barely bat an eyelid when a celebrity comes out.
Had he made offered similar comments at that time, his notions would have generated far less controversy.
Not just that, most of us are secure enough in our sexuality that we don’t feel threatened by a one-time teen hearth throb’s contrary opinions.
Something else to bear in mind: the night Mr. Cameron offered his opinions on homosexuality, fewer than half a million Americans tuned into Mr. Morgan’s show. More than twice that number were watching the openly lesbian Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. Ellen De Generes’s daytime talk show draws nearly three million viewers.
And that’s the real change. These “out” lesbians anchor television programs and continue to flourish in the open market. So, let Mr. Cameron speak his mind; his opinions won’t undo the social changes of the past twenty years.
I always cringe when people make public statements like Cameron did. While I’d like to see Cameron’s new film, I’d like to hope that people’s personal relationships are not necessary for it’s historical subject.
When people love one another, not only is there nothing wrong with that, it’s also no one’s business but those doing the loving.
On the one hand, strictly speaking, having a group of people in relationships that are incapable of producing offspring runs counter to the primary biological imperative of any organism- the propagation of the species. Since humans are sentient and possess free will, however, individual liberty must supersede any other such considerations. Besides, there are plenty of methods available now (adoptions, surrogates, etc) that allow people to become parents and pass on their DNA outside of the standard heterosexual relationship.
As has been pointed out on more than one occasion here, a relationship being a monogamous commitment is far more vital to society than what the precise gender makeup of that relationship is.
I’d a friend ask me about his statements (honestly, I’d not heard about them prior).
I told her “Unnatural” is incorrect, as it is often pointed out homosexual activity exists in other species. OTOH, beating the frak out of a weaker member of the species and taking his stuff also happens in nature all the time, and no one wants to encourage that. 🙂
As to destructive behaviour, any behaviour taken to extremes can be destructive. *looks down at his belly, wonders where his feet went.* So strictly speaking he’s not incorrect on that point.
Indeed, as you pointed out Dan, the beauty of this country is that consenting adults *can* engage in behaviour that others find ‘immoral’ and ‘disgusting’. The key is to remember that as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another, we live and let live.
The argument made homosexual/bisexual community that makes me cringe is that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. For the life of me, I cannot find any animal species that places extremities into vaginal and anal orifices, let alone multiple extremities. The APAs/ABA want to normalize sadomasochistic sexual behaviors, a continuation of adolescent suicidal ideation, and encourage state-sponsored genital mutilation, when long term empirical studies already indicate that gender identity disorder cannot be cured through gender reassignment.
“I cannot find any animal species that places extremities into vaginal and anal orifices, let alone multiple extremities.”
Um, you do know where babies come from, right? *ducks*
More seriously, the sadomasochistic tendancies I don’t think should ever be ‘normalized’ (and this is coming from someone who enjoys them) but it does go back to what I said about ‘consenting adults’ a little slap-and-tickle between consenting adults is fine.
Kerns and Thicke became second-parents to their TV children – played by Jeremy Miller, Tracey Gold and Kirk Cameron, who were themselves coming to terms with new found fame, and the pressures of being child stars.
The show catapulted Kirk Cameron into teen heartthrob status. He was on the cover of every Tiger Beat and Teen Beat on newsstands in the 1980′s.
“Growing Pains” also launched the careers of dozens of young stars who’ve made it big today, including Matthew Perry, Hilary Swank and Leonardo DiCaprio.
” We loved him so much!” Kerns said. ” He could mimic anybody.”
“He had a great sense of humor – brought a great light touch to the set,” added Thicke.
I used to like reading your blog. I AM about freedom, but whatever happened to free speech and believing what one believes, even if it’s anti-homosexual?
I have no problem until homosexuals shove their beliefs down my throat, and what the disgusting Rachel Maddow does on a daily basis proves my point. You mentioned her in your post and that, my favorite gay blogger, shows who you really are. Knocking Mr. Cameron’s supposed few fans proves your pettiness. Let me and others believe what we believe and you can believe what you believe.
What the hell is happening to America?
I have always believed and taught my children that civil debate is how you make people think and come over to your way of thinking. Any time religious or political people come to our door, my husband tells them to wait for his wife. I love debating with these people, although I don’t think they always like it. I especially remember one Sierra Club member who started by asking me if I liked children’s health. I told him no, which took him aback. I pointed out by starting with such an inane question, he now had to convince me children’s health was good, instead of whatever cause he wanted to discuss., I also didn’t tell him I have a son studying to be a doctor.
>disgusting Rachel Maddow does on a daily basis
That’s because she is a far left partisian Democrat, not because she’s a lesbian.
By the way I cannot watch Hannity or Maddow, shallow shallow programing
@Carol,
I understand your frustration, but I think it is at the wrong target. Dan’s not for shutting Mr. Cameron down, or shouting him down. He’s saying that Kirk Cameron isn’t a figure in any position of (political) power, and his ‘star power’ is not what it was in the 80’s. *shrug* At least that’s my inferrence.
As to the comment about More people watching Rachel Maddow, I’d have to ask, how many of those viewers actually know Rachel Maddow is female? 😉
Yes, Charles Beaumont’s fictional story The Crooked Man is becoming the reality.
And when we are pushed underground, verbotten to speak of heterosexuality, will GLBT be satisified with then?
I agree totally after hearing his comments I felt a need to post on my facebook page my own sentiments on his opinion. I only felt that need because so many people were making a big deal about them. I had not heard his comments initially … I had to search out what he said.
Here is a copy of my post:
Here is a short comment on Kirk Camron’s statement on Gay people.
This is currently a free country and people are still allowed to have their own opinions.
Therefore I support Kirk’s right to have that opinion.
I of course disagree with him whole-heartedly.
Why would I take to heart the opinion of a right winged religious nut case and has been actor.
He acted on a popular TV show and a few movies and the movies haven’t really been replayed that much as they were less then classics. His existence has nothing to do with me.
Why people care what Celebrities think about politics or the world is something I have always wondered a bout.
What I find more disturbing than Camerons comments is that there is anyone who watches Piers Morgan and that the show is still on the air.
Oh… And Live… Here’s yer Slap and Tickle!!!!! 🙂
Kirk Cameron’s opinions are his own; it’s part of living in a free world that the Democrats want to change into a Communist groupthink State. I have seen many Facebook postings about Cameron’s opinion & they take the typical turn of calling him names for his opinions. I just roll my eyes & move on.
Although I don’t agree with Cameron’s opinion, resorting to ad hominem attacks does nothing.
Given that this private citizen has been attacked for expressing his views in public, I wonder when Obama will be calling Cameron to commiserate.
4.The argument made homosexual/bisexual community that makes me cringe is that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom.
Actually, many times I heard anti-gay persons say that homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn’t exist in the (non-human) animal kingdom. It always made me laugh, because these people never argued that computers, schools, religion, and a host of other things are unnatural as well.
Carol, please re-read my post. I am supporting Mr. Cameron’s right to speak his mind (even if I disagree with what he has to say). And I am definitely not knocking his fans.
I’m with sonicfrog at number 13!
So, a born again Christian thinks homosexuality is unnatural? Not exactly surprising. Still, one thing I’ve always wondered about the “it’s against nature” argument, if we’re not supposed to do it why the hell is the prostate where it is?
Hmmm…. For the first time since she’s been on the air, now I’m curious about what she does on her show. What does she do that is so disgusting? 😉
How about this: Kirk Cameron’s views on homosexuality/bisexuality, SO WHAT!!! We still get up in morning, the sun shines, we still live our life regardless of what a former teeney bopper says.
i’m no born again Christian and see nothing wrong with the “unnatural” argument. it just depends upon the presupposition necessary to justify its use.
from a scientific point of view it just comes down to whether or not it is biological or learned. the problem with just viewing it scientifically is the fact that science does not allow for moral judgments in its conclusions and it is in the nature of man to make such judgments on human behaviors. without it laws have no place in a society.
Who has a right to challenge him, Dan. And who defines when it becomes a ruckus?
Been searching around to find out the reason Morgan had Cameron on his show. Most of these ‘talks how’s rely on publicists looking to book folk to push a book, movie or some hunting. It isn’t like Cameron called up Piers to say ‘hey, Piers, wanna pencil me into your schedule?’. Cameron was pushing the new film Monumental. Haven’t seen the movie but some of the previews and trailers are pushing the notion of returning the Nation back to the principles that the Founding Fathers and the biblical connections to the Constitution.
So, it wasn’t like Morgan was getting at Cameron with a gotcha question. Cameron, although some say appeared reluctant, popped off with his ‘Mo is a no-no rant.’
Cameron is no different than Cruise popping off for Scientology.
Cinesnatch, my answer to both questions is “everyone.”
Talks how’s should be talk show’s
http://www.monumentalmovie.com/
Each day as I look in the mirror and see another wrinkle or a renegade gray hair, I’m reminded of how short life really is. My thoughts go straight to my children. I want them to have a bright and wonderful future, but what will life will be like for them when I’m gone?
Our country has changed so much since my days of fighting with Carol and Ben. America has always been known as “the land of the free” and “the home of the brave.” It’s the richest, freest nation the world has ever seen. Everyone wants to live here. But as I look around, I’m left with a sinking feeling that America is losing her way. Big time. The soul of our country is sick, and history shows me we are headed for disaster if we don’t change course now.
Think about it. We are over $13 trillion in debt. If this were MONOPOLY, we’d have been out long ago. Families are falling apart. Divorce is at an all-time high. America’s moral values are crumbling before our eyes. Just the other day, one of my friends was arrested on Hollywood Boulevard for talking to people about the Bible—that’s right, the same Good Book upon which our Forefathers built this country. What’s going on?
I turn on the news looking for answers, but all I hear is noise. Everyone is pointing their finger at the Left or the Right when, frankly, neither side seems to get it. Time is flying by too quickly for petty arguments. My children’s future won’t wait. I’ve got to do something now.
Kirk Cameron http://www.flickr.com/people/monumentalmovie/
My set of ideals is that all people not married (Marriage defined as one man and one woman.) should be abstinent and married partners should be faithful. There is no such thing as, “safe sex”, it only takes one instance to become involved in an unwanted pregnancy or to contract and STD or other physical/mental damage. Sex is a risky business for heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered humans. The idea that a pairing of homosexuals can expose heterosexual teenagers moving through puberty to the same unspoken examples as a heterosexual pairing takes a leap of faith I don’t seem to have.
First of all, I have no idea who Kirk Cameron is and I wonder why something he said matters at all (OK, I wrote that before I read the whole post, but I stand by it. He seems to be an incredibly irrelevant person).
Second of all, over a million people were watching Rachel Maddow? I find that very hard to believe.
I agree. Just as Kirk Cameron has the freedom to say whatever he wants (as long as it is not libelous), so does Mr. Blatt. Just like someone has the freedom to say something racist and hateful (and, where they don’t, they should), I have the freedom to condemn them (which isn’t removing their freedom).
No; the perpetually aggrieved gay community will never be satisfied, until the victim mentality is eradicated from it.
Near as I can tell, the gay community isn’t the ONLY community with a victim mentality….
I don’ watch the squawking heads shows. It’s either complete confirmation bias blather, or gotcha questions to stir outrage and ratings. There are a number of good radio interviewers that are reliable and are almost always fair, asking good questions and not set ups. These include
Jerry Doyle – Yes Garibaldi from Babylon 5 has a radio show. He’s actually had a very interesting career path outside of Hollywood, including ten years as a Wall Street broker. Knows his stuff on that topic.
Jim Bohannon – Really like his show. It was a good year or so before he revealed what side of the political isle he was on; center right as it turns out.
Michael Medved – More traditional right. I have my quibbles with him, but he is a very fair interviewer and a good guy.
Michael Schmerkonish – Probably spelled that wrong. Independent / center left. yes he does apparently do quite a bit of sub’ing for Chris Mathews, but he’s another good solid interviewer, and has more than once made a bit of fun of Mathews over the “tingling leg” comment.
Sandhorse, I agree with you, but the gay community seems to be the only one called on it, but that’s okay. It’s particularly funny when one calls out victimhood on the gay community when one demonstrates such victimhood. In any case, victimhood is usually not the way to go.
And that’s the real change. These “out” lesbians anchor television programs and continue to flourish in the open market. So, let Mr. Cameron speak his mind; his opinions won’t undo the social changes of the past twenty years.
Love it
I never said it was. But, just to be clear, are you subtly referring to a specific community?
Yup..
Ok, which one?
Actually, it’s secular progressivism that is “detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization;” but considering that is the philosophy that both promotes, and is promoted by, the majority of the gay community… I think KC has a point… sort of.
Let’s see…..actor whose career has pretty much reached oblivion….let’s see; what can you do to whip up yourself a lot of free publicity? hmmmmmm……..
“Observe how noses were made to bear spectacles,” said Dr. Pangloss, “and so we have spectacles. Legs are evidently devised to be clad in breeches, and so we have breeches. Stones were formed in such a way that they can hewn and built into castles, and so His Lordship the Baron has a beautiful castle. And the prostate was manifestly situated by Providence that it might be all the more conveniently poked by another man’s penis or hand, and thus we have hot gay buttseckx and DP fisting with Bulgarians, in this best of all possible worlds.”
( — from the original X-rated version of Candide )
Really?
Well played, Throbert. Too bad your reference will fly right over the heads of our lefty commenters; most of whom will think Candide is a shade of nail polish.
I’m thinking you might want to scroll up to #7, but even more so #11.
(Note that “The Crooked Man” referred to in #11 is a sci-fi dystopia about a straight man and woman in a future society where the universal practice of test-tube breeding has made heterosexuality at first unfashionable, then taboo, and then outright criminalized. However, the story — published by Playboy in 1955 — was a pro-tolerance, anti-homophobia fable, and definitely NOT a cautionary tale about gay rights run amok.)
P.S. See this page at TV Tropes (Warning: it’s a TV Trope page) for a short list of other sci-fi with themes of “heterophobia” or “compulsory homosexuality” in futuristic societies.
Rattlesnake,
I’d rather not go into specifics of who I am referring to as I really don’t think it’s necessary. Let me just say that, IMHO, the term ‘victim mentality’ gets used so indiscriminately against the gay community as to be nearly devoid of all meaning. Which, to me, implies it is being used more as a means of instilling a feeling of superiority over said group. And, if you think about it, that says as much about the person using the term as it does about who it is being used against.
If one truly believes any person or group has such a low self image, what purpose does it serve to point it out in such a fashion? It wont improve that self image or the situation in general. In fact, it will just make it worse. So again, the only benefit of pointing it out is to prop ones SELF up. A condescending attitude is a light weapon used only by the weak. It’s the easy way out.
So while I am not disputing the fact that the gay community CAN have a victim mentality, I just think it’s WAY overused, and serves no edifying purpose.
Thanks, VtK.
By the way, at first I took Cy’s question (#19) at face value and started to write a serious answer (having the reproductive orifice right next to the urinary and fecal exits is pretty much a universal feature of vertebrate anatomy, from jawless lampreys to eagles to rats to humans; and naturally the internal reproductive glands will tend to be not far from the external hole from which semen, eggs, or babies emerge — so where else would you expect the prostate to be?)
But then I figured Cy must be joking, so I went with a flippant answer instead.
Throbert, it is always fun when you pop in and share. 🙂
Thanks for the reply. From my perspective, I more sympathetic to traditionalists who dislike how “aggressive” some homosexuals are with regards to their sexual orientation and sex life (aggressive isn’t really the right word, but the word I’m looking for seems to be escaping me). I do not think concern about that is victimhood, but I can see how comment #11 can be interpreted that way (especially now that I know what “The Crooked Man” is). I don’t agree with that interpretation; I would consider it hyperbole, but not necessarily victimhood. And that is because the gay activists have been very aggressive with demanding “equality,” and have stated that the goal is to “knock marriage off its cultural pedestal altogether.” I think it is reasonable, therefore, to be threatened by gay rights (since that quote implies a strong disdain for tradition). I don’t believe comment #11 is reasonable (it goes too far), but I standy by my comment #33.
On the other hand, many homosexuals consider themselves “second class citizens” and are afraid of “the evil right-wing people” who will “send them to concentration camps.” None of that has any basis in reality.
I don’t believe I can objectively determine the level of victimhood exhibited here, because I find the irresponsible lifestyles lived by many homosexuals appalling and I therefore have a bias against them, while I favour the traditionalists.
Kirk is such a hottie, but he is entitled to his opinion, even though I disagree with it.
I remember watching the show Growing Pains, and one year, Kirk is a goofball and troublemaker, and the next year, he is a goodie goodie. That is because during the summer break, he found Jesus and wouldn’t do anything on the show that would be impure. No shirtless shots, no being the bad boy.
Thanks for the reply, Sandhorse.
Maybe it does get over-used, but it isn’t devoid of meaning. I am not trying to say the entire gay population is this way, but many gay people seem to claim to be “second class citizens” quite frequently (among other things). The only reason someone, in the United States or anywhere else in the West, would be a second class citizen is if they made themselves one. But they claim to be the victim of conservatives, or Christians, or heterosexuals, or whoever (or whatever) causes their second-class citizen status.
Perhaps. I believe I am superior, in a way, to people who are reckless and who needlessly endager their lives by having unprotected sex and by using drugs (for example). However, that belief is inconsequential as the measurement of my success will ultimately determine my superiority or inferiority (in a way).
It is not low self-image; it is the feeling of (unjustified) entitlement, which can be pernicious.
Please stop, titillating each other and realize that the large intestine didn’t evolve for the purpose of “poking” the prostate. Start really caring about each other and do your best to find other ways to find fulfillment. I don’t want to see any of you “disappear” as so many have already.
To clarify the final statement I made in my previous comment, a feeling of entitlement that is caused by an unjustified feeling of victimhood (that is, whoever possesses the feeling of victimhood feels as though they are entitled to reparations for being subjected to that which they are a victom of (or something)) can be pernicious (from my perspective), especially when that feeling is combined with sympathetic people in power. And to be clear, I am not suggesting that my morality be enforced upon anyone, but I would not like to be subjected to (or enforced to comply with) beliefs that I believe are perverse (which is the effect of such entitlement/victimhood, such as with hate speech laws).
53.Please stop, titillating each other and realize that the large intestine didn’t evolve for the purpose of “poking” the prostate.
I’ll have to tell my urologist that next time I have an appt. with her so she can “find other ways” to check my prostate. 🙂
#55 – Pat- Okay, I’ll grin along with you for the moment, knowing you realize there is a difference between a check-up and not a check-up.
Thanks in return for your reply, Rattle. I understand your point of view. Though I still stand by my statement that ‘victim mentality’ is use far too cavalierly. Perhaps some other time we can discuss the terms ‘second class citizen’ and the ‘entitlement’ mentality to which you refer. I enjoy thoughtful discussions but detest having to sit in front of a computer to have them.
SF >> Michael Medved will spoil plot twists if he doesn’t agree with the politics behind the story.
Sandhorse, ever skype. I have friends who love it. Tis a good way for many of my friends in rural Mt although bandwith can be troublesome.
Interesting suggestion Rusty. I’ll have to consider that. I have a system set up in my living room that would be ideal. Though I don’t know how my other half would feel about me menopolizing the room for that. 😉
Just pointing out, “second class citizen” isn’t my word.
Sorry, it’s a phrase, not a word. It isn’t my phrase.
And he really hates movies with snow ninjas in it!
rjligier, it’s hard to parse that comment, but the charitable interpretation would be that you cannot find an animal species which has anything but male-female, penis-vagina sexual contact. Assuming that’s what you meant… well, you also won’t find any animal species that uses machines to fly. BUT, leaving that aside, and just focusing on the sexual behavior of other species… Amazon has a book for you, that you may want to read before you try to make that kind of comment again: http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331692885&sr=1-1
To be clear: Yes, homosexuality definitely exists elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Lots of it. In that sense, homosexuality is quite natural. If you’re against it, you’d be better off making an ethical argument (like, “well fighting is natural too and we don’t want that…”).
Fantabulous ILC
Homosexuality in its myriad forms has been scientifically documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and other animals worldwide. Biological Exuberance is the first comprehensive account of the subject, bringing together accurate, accessible, and nonsensationalized information. Drawing upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than two centuries, Bruce Bagemihl shows that animals engage in all types of nonreproductive sexual behavior. Sexual and gender expression in the animal world displays exuberant variety, including same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting—even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding.
I hate that annual prostate exam. I walk around gingerly for a few minutes.
Lorigirl Started with: I always cringe when people make public statements like Cameron did.
davinci latest statement: I walk around gingerly for a few minutes.
Funny thread
RACHEL MADDOW IS A LESBIAN?!?!?
And let me say that I do have a “feeling of superiority over said group” just as much as any person who finds it pathetic when abused people keep running back to the abuser “because he said he loves me!” has. Hell yes. What’s more, I’m happy and secure in myself. I don’t need a politico or a slutty parade once a year to make me feel good about myself. Don’t need to surround myself with people telling me how wonderful I am either.
Miserable slobs repeating the same “Jewish Nazi” agitprop, insisting that others kill themselves or that their parents really don’t love them is…..what in your book?
I would just point out that lots of things humans find abhorrent… cannibalism, rape, incest… are also common in the animal kingdom. The point of being human is that we’re supposed to be better than animals.
@70
Amen. Thus my comment about ‘beating up the weak and taking their stuff’ 🙂
The tangent about ‘victim mentality’ caught my eye. I’m fond of pulling out my sinister card when it gets to arguments of oppression. Usually it annoys the ‘professional victims’ because it uses the exact same arguments. Over on the Paizo boards, there’s often commentary on how there’s no (openly) gay Iconic character (we’ve been told at least one plays for the other team). I usually reply with some rift of “but why is there no openly left handed character? How can young lefties feel included in Pathfinder when there’s no left handed character for them to look up to?” the agrieved class always walks right into it, claiming there’s no history of persecution of lefties. When I show they’re wrong, it becomes “there’s no persecution of lefties in recent history.” Then when I show that’s wrong and I lament how society is still designed against the left handed person, they’re reduced to sputtering it’s not the same.
It’s always great fun.
“68.RACHEL MADDOW IS A LESBIAN?!?!?”
I had the same reaction.
Grab me next time. Not left handed, but it oughta be a hoot to read.
Not something I would ever dispute.
Who compares us to animals?
At #64, I pointed out that one specific line of argument, “homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that other animals don’t do it”, is false.