Gay Patriot Header Image

Offering an un-PC view of homosexuality is “hate speech”?!?!

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:40 pm - March 20, 2012.
Filed under: Gay PC Silliness,Gays & religion

There seems to be a pattern among gay activists and their supporters in the legacy media, to define as “hatred” any opposition to their views on homosexuality.  Now, I do not share Kirk Cameron’s view that homosexuality is “unnatural” and believe this view shows an incredible ignorance of the history of human behavior and of artistic and mythological representations of human relationships.

That said, there is a difference between expressing a view colored by a fundamentalist faith and manifesting animus to those who do not live by the strictures of that faith.  In expressing his (very) un-PC views (and, in my mind, narrow) opinion on homosexuality, Cameron has never adopted a hostile (or hateful) attitude toward gay people.

In her interview with the actor, however, the Today show’s Ann Curry asked if his remarks were “hate speech” and wondered if he were “encouraging people to feel hate towards gay people“.  Later, she speculates that his words might make others feel it’s okay to “mistreat gay people”.

The question is not so much why Mr. Cameron holds these views, but why Ms. Curry would compare them to “hate speech.”  Couldn’t she have questioned them using different language, asking instead why he believes homosexuality to be unnatural, possibly rebutting him with evidence of social tolerance for homosexuality in, say, the ancient Near East and classical Greece?

Seems she’s more interested in reducing his views to animus than in actually understanding his opinion–or changing his mind.

Commenting on the interview, John Nolte contends, “Ann Curry and Leftists like her don’t give a damn about gays. If they did, you would see the same amount of hostility directed towards Muslims.

Share

49 Comments

  1. The thing I find most ironic is that NBC/Rockefeller Center is a “no heterosexuals need apply” work place. How do I know? I woked there when International Music had it’s main office there. It’s not the only place in NYC that is becoming the realm of the LGBT activist class either. The new “blacklisting”, without even mentioning Broadway, is alive and well.

    Comment by Richard Bell — March 20, 2012 @ 8:33 pm - March 20, 2012

  2. I do not share Kirk Cameron’s view that homosexuality is “unnatural”

    Agreed; homosexuality is demonstrably natural.

    That isn’t a complete proof of its rightness. I believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality alike are ethically neutral; what matters is why and how you’re doing them. Others may disagree with me.

    I’m only saying that anyone making a particular scientific claim, namely “homosexuality is unnatural” in the sense of “not found elsewhere in nature”, is waaaaaaay off.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2012 @ 9:46 pm - March 20, 2012

  3. What if a woman has a hysterectomy, no uterus? How about post menopausal women and sterile men? How about older men with erectile dysfunction? Would their sexual activities be considered “unnatural?” That’s what I would have asked Cameron. What exactly is his criterion for “unnatural?” Sex is only natural if it results in reproduction? Isn’t he really just saying that homosexuality is unnatural because he doesn’t like homosexuals or the idea of homosexuality? The reproduction reason is just a cover.
    Does that make his opinion hate speech? No, but he should have been pressed to explain his opinion.

    Comment by RCCA — March 20, 2012 @ 10:10 pm - March 20, 2012

  4. There are plenty of things that I do not find appropriate or agree with…and, no matter how small minded those ideas of mine are, I am entitled to them. Policing the mind and restricting one’s right to express it, such as labeling things you may not agree with as “hate speech”, is in direct contrast to the 1st Amendment and opens the door to allowing others to label your perspective as wrong.

    The Nazi Party, for example, went after artists who were part of the “degenerate” art movement (or more popularly known as “modern” art), which had flourished prior to the rise of the Nazis. Now, having watched Nazi propaganda film for a history class, I would say “degenerate” art is in the eye of the beholder (it was truly horrid…and cheesy in a vampires-glitter sort of way *shudders*) but such political correctness (which is, ironically, a bastion of communism, socialism, liberalism, etc.) was established by the ruling power. So, be careful what you wish for…the peasantry may elect someone who not only disagrees with your world perspective (Ms. Curry) but will feel empowered to act upon it due to some farcical belief he or she has a “mandate from the masses.”

    The 1st Amendment is about everyone having a right to their opinion and the freedom to express it. Stating you take issue with something, like free contraception to all, should not equate to encouraging a #WarOnWomen.

    I really miss the school yard, when sticks and stones could break my bones, but words…well, words have never and will never hurt me.

    Comment by hellocat — March 20, 2012 @ 10:30 pm - March 20, 2012

  5. RCCA–While the position you outline is a better means of rebutting the “natural”/”unnatural” argument than Curry offered, I prefer to approach that topic by saying, as one line of response, even if we were to concede it is “unnatural” (which, as ILC’s comment demonstrates, we don’t need to do), there are many more “unnatural” things which are part of our current existence which no one seems to have a problem with. Blood transfusions are “unnatural,” organ transplants are “unnatural,” driving cars is “unnatural,” as is working at a computer. And the list goes on and on.

    My second line of response would be that it isn’t “unnatural,” as demonstrated not only by historical and cross-cultural evidence, but also the biological sort that ILC cited.

    Comment by Kurt — March 20, 2012 @ 11:33 pm - March 20, 2012

  6. Seems she’s, Ann Curry, more interested in reducing his views to animus than in actually understanding his opinion–or changing his mind.

    well that might be true.

    But Cameron is out pushing his movie again, Monumental. and has a publicist plugging him into talk shows.

    from Metro Weekly
    http://www.metroweekly.com/news/last_word/2012/03/kirk-cameron-tells-daily-beast-im-not-homophobic.html

    In the new interview, Cameron tells Setoodeh, “I’m not homphobic. … That pains me in my heart to think that someone who is gay would think that I don’t love them and care about them.”

    However, when Setoodeh asked about his the actor’s comments and beliefs about gay marriage, Cameron’s publicist stepped in to stop the line of questioning.

    So it is kinda strange that some folk get to ask Cameron about his views and some others get redirected by his publicist.

    Comment by rusty — March 20, 2012 @ 11:50 pm - March 20, 2012

  7. God has blessed Cameron with dumb critics.

    I cringe when American left-liberals claim that they were “hated on.” Unless the h-word is used in the satirical sense, the offended comes across as dumb and narcissistic.

    By the way, if I agree with a left-liberal does that mean I’ve “loved on” them? Yuck.

    Comment by Ben — March 21, 2012 @ 4:49 am - March 21, 2012

  8. Well said, Ben.

    And why is there such an obsession with Kirk Cameron on the left, anyway? Did Ann Curry make a big deal out of this because she thought it was newsworthy? Did she make a big deal out of it because gay rights are so dear to her heart? Or did she make a big deal out of it just to show how politically correct she was by pandering to the left’s current favorite pet victim group?

    Comment by V the K — March 21, 2012 @ 5:52 am - March 21, 2012

  9. First of all, the Evangelical-Religious crowd think ALL gay people are “Militant” “Radical” “Activist.” There’s no such thing to these people as “mild,” “decent” “conservative” gays. The Kirks of this world do not allow for any divide between Left-Right gays, — there’s only one sort of HomoSEXual to them. They are rather clear on this point. The minute you say you’re gay and it’s OK — you are a militant activist with a radical agenda — regardless of your political position on any other issue.

    Second: the question for Kirk was not whether he hated gay people, but just why does he think that we are a threat and dangerous to our own families and to society? How are we undermining the foundations of civilization, Mr. Cameron? You say, here, that Kirk has never “adopted a hostile (or hateful) attitude toward gay people” — I beg to differ — once you tell me that I’m a threat to society and undermining civilization for waking up in the morning you’re hostile towards me. One removes, destroys, eliminates, etc, threats to society which undermine civilization, doesn’t one? How is that not hostile?

    Ann Curry is the fool for questioning Kirk’s faith – and I don’t question his faith in God or his beliefs about “nature” — I question, very strongly, his hostility to ALL gay people for thinking we are undermining civilization as we live and breath.

    Comment by Jim Hlavac — March 21, 2012 @ 9:09 am - March 21, 2012

  10. “Unnatural” would mean that it does not occur on its own and is therefore not found in nature. I would say that when a woman straps on phony penis and goes at pseudo-heterosexual intercourse that there is are grounds for discussing the unnatural. But slight.

    “Abnormal” in the sense of anomaly is in keeping with the Kelvinistic world where statistics count.

    However, I begin to get myself confused when bestiality enters the picture. I suppose that where you put your equipment or train animals to stick their equipment is just a lust fulfillment and is neither “unnatural” nor “abnormal” for those who cherish conjugal relations with other species.

    The objective “science” of the thing is where my mind begins to boggle. I image that whorehouses are no different from doggy motels where one can shack up with professionally trained canines. But, I don’t think that one would escape the morality/ethical issues that would be open for discussion in the public square.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 21, 2012 @ 9:26 am - March 21, 2012

  11. If we are disusing the merits of something by how prevalent it exists in nature, then by that standard prayer and the worship of a deity is irrefutably ‘unnatural’, and incest, infidelity and poo flinging are natural.

    More to the pont, it’s critical to make the distinction between a fetish and psychosexual attraction. I understand plenty of people have an obsession with feet. (or for some people, lesbian and animal sex) That doesn’t mean they want to marry a foot. Realized psychosexual intimacy can and should be fulfilling. Indulging in a fetish is icing on the cake; it adds flavor but does little to increase its rewarding effects.

    Psychosexual desire and attraction is morally neutral; it’s fetishes that enter the realm of morality.

    Comment by Sandhorse — March 21, 2012 @ 10:36 am - March 21, 2012

  12. First of all, the Evangelical-Religious crowd think ALL gay people are “Militant” “Radical” “Activist.” There’s no such thing to these people as “mild,” “decent” “conservative” gays. The Kirks of this world do not allow for any divide between Left-Right gays, — there’s only one sort of HomoSEXual to them. They are rather clear on this point. The minute you say you’re gay and it’s OK — you are a militant activist with a radical agenda — regardless of your political position on any other issue.

    Yes, I understand, my podmate at work gets wigged out when I mention the girls, and their relationship… She *gasp* prays for them!

    Oh the horror!

    That she understands they’re acting on impulses, and does something as horrible as asking the Divine to interceed! People like this must be stopped!

    Comment by The Livewire — March 21, 2012 @ 11:53 am - March 21, 2012

  13. I hope your podmate also understands that Prince William and Kate Middleton are acting on impulses as well.

    Comment by Sandhorse — March 21, 2012 @ 12:46 pm - March 21, 2012

  14. And the entertaining thing — turns out the gay hairdresser in New Mexico who insists that businesses should be forced to do whatever gays and lesbians order but says that gays and lesbians should discriminate against anyone they don’t like is also a supporter of racist slurs.

    But last week he left a telephone voice message with the governor’s assistant explaining that Martinez’s opposition to gay marriage was the reason he declined to schedule an appointment for the governor about two months ago.

    “I am going to let all gay people know, ‘Stop serving you.’ ‘Stop providing you with what you need,’” Darden said in the phone recording, which was released by the governor’s office.

    In the phone message, which at times rambled, Darden also referred to an offensive statement by a state legislator, who had called the governor a “Mexican.”

    Democratic state Rep. Sheryl Williams Stapleton has apologized for the December comment, saying she did not mean to offend anyone. But Darden in the voice message said the comment was “appropriate.”

    I wondered why this guy vanished from the radar so quickly. Probably because the gay-sex liberals realized that actually showing how gay-sex liberals support racist slurs and discrimination against conservatives, especially Hispanic female conservatives, undercut their whining about “equality” and just made them look like the opportunistic racists and bigots that they are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - March 21, 2012

  15. ND30 >> It’s unfortunate that the hairdresser compromised the message he was trying to send by inappropriately and pointlessly referring to her as a Mexican (if that’s what he said; I wasn’t able to listen to the message myself).

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 21, 2012 @ 1:19 pm - March 21, 2012

  16. In the phone message, which at times rambled, Darden also referred to an offensive statement by a state legislator, who had called the governor a “Mexican.”

    On closer inspection, the sentence is ambiguous. While they assert Darden called Martinez a “Mexican,” they also say, “Darden also referred to an offensive statement by a state legislator.” They don’t actually quote what Darden said and what offensive term he is accusing Martinez of using.

    It is possible, in the phone message, he said (FOR EXAMPLE), using the word “f*ggot” in regards to gay is like referring to a Hispanic-American as “Mexican.”

    Very interesting that they didn’t quote Darden in this instance. Very interesting.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 21, 2012 @ 1:27 pm - March 21, 2012

  17. Again, I don’t know what Darden said, because the article writer, who had heard the message, doesn’t quote Darden. So, we don’t know what Darden said, nor do we know the context. What they should have done is just printed the entire voice message so readers like ND30 and Cinesnatch can judge for themselves, rather than get someone to “interpret” for them what was said.

    ND30 and I speak and write English just fine (mostly). Last time I checked, we didn’t need a translator.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 21, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - March 21, 2012

  18. 15.ND30 >> It’s unfortunate that the hairdresser compromised the message he was trying to send by inappropriately and pointlessly referring to her as a Mexican (if that’s what he said; I wasn’t able to listen to the message myself).

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 21, 2012 @ 1:19 pm – March 21, 2012

    And therein lies the problem, Cinesnatch.

    Your reason for being upset is that the “message” was “compromised” by what the guy said.

    You don’t care that he supported and endorsed making a racist remark about the governor of New Mexico.

    Or, in other words, you don’t care about racist remarks or statements unless they threaten or undercut your demands that people who disagree with you on gay-sex marriage be publicly punished and discriminated against.

    Which also means you’re perfectly OK with racists as long as they’re helping you push gay-sex marriage and publicly punish and discriminate against those who disagree.

    We won’t even get into the hilarity of you defending gays and lesbians who shriek that they should be allowed to deny service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want — in a state where denial of service is automatically ruled discrimination and punished.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2012 @ 1:35 pm - March 21, 2012

  19. @ sandhorse

    She’s also on me about being fat. Gluttony, not lust being my sin. :-)

    My tongue in cheek point was that Jim’s lumping of “the Evangelical-Religious crowd” into one wailing group was as stupid as the idea that “the Evangelical-Religious crowd” lumps all gays into one group.

    And even if they did, the most offensive thing ‘they’ do is pray. If yJim is going to take the worst aberrations and claim they represent a whole (Which is what Jim seemed to be doing) then he shouldn’t be surprised when the same is done right back at him

    Comment by The Livewire — March 21, 2012 @ 1:44 pm - March 21, 2012

  20. Yes, ND30, when you use inappropriate and discriminatory language, you compromise your message, regardless of which side of the aisle you’re on. I’m glad we agree.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 21, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - March 21, 2012

  21. On closer inspection, the sentence is ambiguous. While they assert Darden called Martinez a “Mexican,” they also say, “Darden also referred to an offensive statement by a state legislator.” They don’t actually quote what Darden said and what offensive term he is accusing Martinez of using.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 21, 2012 @ 1:27 pm – March 21, 2012

    You could see much better if you would stop spinning, Cinesnatch.

    In the phone message, which at times rambled, Darden also referred to an offensive statement by a state legislator, who had called the governor a “Mexican.”

    Democratic state Rep. Sheryl Williams Stapleton has apologized for the December comment, saying she did not mean to offend anyone. But Darden in the voice message said the comment was “appropriate.”

    Perhaps you should consider reading and researching the comment.

    Especially the fact that even the person making it admitted that it was a racist slur aimed at the governor.

    Which our friend Darden said was fully and completely “appropriate”.

    So it seems our little gay-sex marriage supporter is also an anti-Hispanic racist who supports racist Obama Party members.

    Instead of spinning for him, Cinesnatch, why not just call him what he is — a racist bigot?

    Why not also state that his stance that he should be allowed to discriminate but others must be forced to provide services is patently bigoted and unequal?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2012 @ 1:50 pm - March 21, 2012

  22. Not to worry Livewire, I was smelling what you were cooking. (sorry for the culinary metaphor) ;)

    I too dislike the use of painting any demographic with such a wide brush. And thats gos to both sides of the fence.

    My response was somewhat tongue in cheek as well. I just wanted to make the clarification that the lack of impulse control is not exclusive, and the desire for intimacy (in all its forms) is universal.

    Comment by Sandhorse — March 21, 2012 @ 2:08 pm - March 21, 2012

  23. Sorry, ND30, I didn’t realize that there was more than one politician being discussed in the first article. I thought it was just about the hairdresser and the governor. My reading comprehension skills aren’t up to snuff, but the article wasn’t also very well-written, if the truth be told.

    Count down to ND30 popping off on Cinesnatch and the liberal left never bothering to examine all of the evidence in front of them if it isn’t pertinent to their cause in three, two, one …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 21, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - March 21, 2012

  24. My point is, I would have liked to hear the message myself so I could draw my own conclusions. Like with anything, I don’t like being told how to think.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 21, 2012 @ 2:25 pm - March 21, 2012

  25. Count down to ND30 popping off on Cinesnatch and the liberal left never bothering to examine all of the evidence in front of them if it isn’t pertinent to their cause in three, two, one …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 21, 2012 @ 2:24 pm – March 21, 2012

    Yup. You didn’t bother to read, didn’t bother to examine or research the evidence, and clearly let your own bias get in the way of the facts.

    And then your blaming the article writer for not writing it well enough so that you would understand it despite your total lack of effort in reading or researching it is typical gay-sex blame shifting liberalism.

    Last, but certainly not least, you’re still stuck in the idiotic position of defending a hypocritical racist bigot simply because he’s gay.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - March 21, 2012

  26. I believe Cameron is talking about his faith-based religious viewpoint on homosexuality. Thus your comment “his view shows an incredible ignorance of the history of human behavior” distorts his opinion and contradicts what you intended to say on hate speech. Its like traditional Christian opinions on homosexuality is deemed ignorant because real life over-rules such religious doctrine. It’s like the sin is fun and accepted so the religion is invalid. No it isn’t.

    Actually, the Bible is quite clear that the world is wrong. No Christian should follow the ways of the world. It is demonstrated from your one-liner that it is very true.

    On your central premise, I agree there is no hate speech.

    Comment by anon23532 — March 21, 2012 @ 2:56 pm - March 21, 2012

  27. I do not disagree with you anon, but let’s not confuse the gospel according to Kirk Cameron with the gospel according to Jesus Christ.

    Comment by Sandhorse — March 21, 2012 @ 3:28 pm - March 21, 2012

  28. I wouldn’t say Mr. Cameron’s words were hate speech. I’m not sure it’s hostile, but I could see how people could see it that way. As for ignorance, possibly. And I’m not sure what he meant by unnatural. Perhaps he was talking about sexual mechanics, or the low percentages of homosexuals? Who knows?

    If Mr. Cameron’s words were repeated with “fundamentalist Christian,” “Jewish,” or “left-handed” in place of “homosexual,” I wonder how people would react to it.

    In any case, we’ve heard this all before. As time goes on, comments like Mr. Cameron’s are coming across as increasingly ignorant, and people aren’t buying the excuses that people are using to justify the comments. Whereas such comments used to be universally applauded, I don’t think we want to go to the other extreme and identify it as hate speech.

    Comment by Pat — March 21, 2012 @ 6:48 pm - March 21, 2012

  29. My dear Livewire, it is hard in a blog comment to separate very rational Evangelicals and Christians of all sorts who do not think gays are destroying the world from the more vocal element which is quite clear we are destroying the world. I was of course referring to the latter, such as Kirk, who are on record, that we are indeed, destroying the world by our mere presence and insistence it is good. As a rather evangelical Christian myself I know many others who don’t think as Kirk does. But it takes a book to parse the difference, and a blog comment is alas too short. But people like Kirk, who pretend to speak for ALL evangelicals and Christians will lump us all together, regardless of any nuance between us gays.

    Comment by Jim Hlavac — March 21, 2012 @ 7:52 pm - March 21, 2012

  30. It occurs to me that if you’re really comfortable with yourself, you don’t give a dang what Kirk Cameron says. Most of Hollywood hates my guts for being a Christian Conservative, but I don’t lose any sleep over it.

    Comment by V the K — March 21, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - March 21, 2012

  31. They don’t lose sleep over and they’re willing to make money because of it with such films as The Blind Side.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 21, 2012 @ 9:25 pm - March 21, 2012

  32. Loved the Blind Side. . . Sandra Bullock :)

    Cameron is releasing Monumental for one night in 300 theatres and then signing to push the film for private viewings for church camps, youth groups and such. . .

    Getting folk to chat the movie up is key.

    Comment by rusty — March 21, 2012 @ 10:01 pm - March 21, 2012

  33. @Jim,
    I disagree. This isn’t twitter after all, we’re not limited to 160 characters. So we can be as verbose as we need to be in the comments here. Do we agree?

    Comment by The Livewire — March 22, 2012 @ 7:42 am - March 22, 2012

  34. The category of “hate speech” is the problem. It is wholly and entirely a PC creation of the Left, used to silence opposition. Like the “phobias” and the “isms”.

    Once you admit the idea of “hate speech”, then all speech must orient itself to making sure it does not go there. Mind control.

    Comment by EssEm — March 22, 2012 @ 10:26 am - March 22, 2012

  35. Pat: “Who knows?” “As time goes on, comments like Mr. Cameron’s are coming across as increasingly ignorant, and people aren’t buying the excuses that people are using to justify the comments.”

    You’re opining about something you already claim you know nothing. So Cameron is ignorant, while you don’t know what the heck he is talking about. He explained himself already. His views on homosexuality is based on his religious viewpoint.

    People, like you, aren’t buying his opinion because they are not Christians. Its as easy as that. And you’re ignorant of Cameron’s religion, which tells you more about yourself than him.

    Comment by anon23532 — March 22, 2012 @ 10:40 am - March 22, 2012

  36. Anon, Cameron apparently went beyond his religion, and tried to support his religious views of homosexuality by calling it “unnatural” and his other comments. So you know exactly what he means by “unnatural.” Fine, I’d be happy to be enlightened.

    In the meantime, you are making a huge error in your assumption, namely that people who don’t buy his opinion are not Christians. Many (if not a majority) of Christians do not view homosexuality as sinful.

    I am ignorant of most religions, because there are so many. I don’t even know exactly what Christian religion Mr. Cameron is. Regardless, that doesn’t mean Mr. Cameron can play the “I can say whatever I want and not be challenged on it if I say it’s based on my religion” card.

    Comment by Pat — March 22, 2012 @ 11:25 am - March 22, 2012

  37. If a Christian sited scripture to express disdain for interracial marriage and an atheist opined that society would deem that viewpoint ignorant, would the atheist be wrong?

    Pats, ‘Who knows?’ was referencing Cameron’s use of the word ‘unnatural’. Not the rational of his religious viewpoint.

    Regardless of ones religious stance, one would have to have fallen of the turnip wagon yesterday to NOT know why some evangelical Christians take exception to homosexuality.

    MY evangelical upbringing leads me to believe such a legalistic view of the Gospel is a sign of spiritual immaturity. And I am as free to hold that opinion as Cameron is to hold that of his. Neither is hate speech.

    Comment by Sandhorse — March 22, 2012 @ 11:36 am - March 22, 2012

  38. It appears Rusty has a good handle on what is actually going on. Unless, either Cameron and/or his management team know exactly what they’re doing.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 22, 2012 @ 12:25 pm - March 22, 2012

  39. Unnatural.

    1.Romans 1:26
    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

    “Many (if not a majority) of Christians do not view homosexuality as sinful.”

    This obviously means they should not be calling themselves Christians. When there are Catholics that advocate abortion and birth control, they still consider themselves Catholics regardless of Church doctrine.

    Cameron is doing the right thing. It’s the others who have compromised their faith. Nonetheless, if you wish to challenge him, it should be based on his religion and not a popular sentiment.

    Comment by anon23532 — March 22, 2012 @ 12:32 pm - March 22, 2012

  40. One other comment about Cameron (amusingly, anon, I was reading Romans yesterday)

    There’s nothing wrong with Kirk Cameron speaking his beliefs. In fact he should be encouraged to do so especially if you disagree. Not just because we’re a country that prizes freedom of speech, but because whether you agree or disagree with KC, it’s clear where he stands. No ‘code words’ no ‘dog whistles’ or any libspeak. He’s Out and he’s Proud.

    You can choose not to listen. You can choose to microwave your DVDs of Growing Pains in protest. The acts of the individual are equal, whether it be Kirk Cameron saying homosexuality is wrong or if you’re saying Kirk Cameron is wrong.

    IT is when the threat of bringing the government to bear to silence someone that you tread a dangerous line. If Kirk Cameron (or quoting Romans) is declared ‘hate speech’ what does that make condemning him? “Love speech”? More importantly, if the government abrogates his right of expression, what’s to keep a future government from abrogating yours?

    Now there’s a clear line. IF Kirk Cameron went all “We must kill teh gheys,” then he’s threatening. Asking that they “Come into G_d’s grace” is different. It’s akin to pestering me to diet, vs. putting a gun to my head and tofu in my plate.

    Indeed, that’s a core tennant of Christianity (I won’t speak to the Jewish Faith) that has been historically ignored and often forgotten in the heat of the moment. Our place is to witness, not to judge. Kirk Cameron can preach until he’s blue in the face, he can hold prayer rituals outside Oscar Wilde’s tomb, he can tell you his faith says you’re wrong, but the moment he takes up the sword to render judgement on being wrong, he crosses that line.

    The Way made flesh may have indeed come with a sword, but when Peter used his sword, he got chewed out.

    (Aside, I did some research on Christian sword blessing rituals. I was moderately surprised and pleased they were of the “Let this blade protect the innocent” and not “Let this blade hack the heathen into pieces, in thy mercy.”)

    Now at the same time, I don’t see an issue with Senator Cameron (or Senator Livewire for that matter) using their moral judgements to guide their votes (provided they don’t forswear their oath to protect/defend the Constitution). If those guidelines don’t reflect his voters will, he’ll find out soon enough.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 22, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - March 22, 2012

  41. Amen Live!

    Comment by Sandhorse — March 22, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - March 22, 2012

  42. In regards to Romans Chapter One, gay and lesbian people have been made to feel ashamed by this passage of scripture in recent years and it’s no wonder. Due to our cultural history and most of the non-literal translations of this passage, nearly everyone who reads it thinks that Paul is talking simply about homosexual intercourse. The fact that such a limiting, simplistic interpretation has a relatively short history and makes little sense in the context of what Paul is saying is usually overlooked.

    Some strange conclusions that would follow from this interpretation include the following:

    First, homosexuality would be rightly identified as not in the realm of choice, but for the wrong reason. The “degrading passion” God gave them over to is not the cause of God’s anger but rather the consequence God gives them over to. (“For this reason…”)

    Secondly, everyone is homosexual. The intended highlight of Paul’s argument is Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned…” The immediate context makes it clear repeatedly (1:14, 18, 20, 2:1) that he is talking about all people or at the very least all non-Jews (Gentiles). Romans 2:1 states it succinctly, “you who judge practice the same things” and eliminates the Jewish distinction.

    In Romans 1:26-27. Alluding to pagan religious practices, Paul notes that the women exchange natural use for unnatural and also the men, leaving the natural use of women, lust in their desire for each other, males working shame with males, and receiving within themselves the penalty of their error.

    Here, in typical Jewish polemic, Paul is ridiculing pagan religion. He says that the pagans knew enough about God to be thankful, but that they rebelled and worshipped idols instead of God. To build his case – which he turns against self-righteous Jews just a few sentences later – he takes note of the cross-dressing, sex-role exchange, and sex among priestesses and between men and eunuch prostitutes in the temple of Aphrodite under the shadow of which he’s writing this Roman letter from Corinth.

    Bible scholar Catherine Kroeger describes these sexual cultic rituals in the very conservative Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society: “Men wore veils and long hair as signs of their dedication to the god, while women used the unveiling and shorn hair to indicate their devotion. Men masqueraded as women, and in a rare vase painting from Corinth a woman is dressed in satyr pants equipped with the male organ. Thus she dances before Dionysos, a deity who had been raised as a girl and was himself called male-female and ‘sham man.’” Kroeger continues: “The sex exchange that characterized the cults of such great goddesses as Cybele, the Syrian goddess, and Artemis of Ephesus was more grisly. Males voluntarily castrated themselves and assumed women’s garments. A relief from Rome shows a high priest of Cybele. The castrated priest wears veil, necklaces, earrings and feminine dress. He is considered to have exchanged his sexual identity and to have become a she-priest.”

    Doesn’t this sound like what Paul has in mind in his ridiculing the ungrateful goyim? In short there are no homosexuals in the Bible. Contrary to the opinions of the antigay lobby, neither the men of Sodom, nor cult prostitutes and their customers were gay. And contrary to the special pleading of the GLBT apologists, Ruth and Naomi were no lesbians, David and Jonathan weren’t gay, and neither were Jesus and John. The Bible is an empty closet.

    Comment by Sandhorse — March 22, 2012 @ 1:45 pm - March 22, 2012

  43. You really think you’ve ‘missed’ something sonic? C’mon, it would be like a day wothout orange juice….

    Comment by Sandhorse — March 22, 2012 @ 4:50 pm - March 22, 2012

  44. 39.Unnatural.

    1.Romans 1:26
    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

    Anon, assuming this is what Mr. Cameron meant about unnatural, that’s fine. It just provides more evidence that his opinion is simply based on what he believes the Bible says. Of course, that’s his right. But, as shown above, their are other perspectives that differ from yours and his.

    “Many (if not a majority) of Christians do not view homosexuality as sinful.”

    This obviously means they should not be calling themselves Christians. When there are Catholics that advocate abortion and birth control, they still consider themselves Catholics regardless of Church doctrine.

    It’s not so obvious. At least not to the many Christians who blog on this site, and their friends and families. And if all the Catholics who support choice in birth control are excommunicated, the Catholic population would drop by at least 90%. That would certainly take care of the priest shortage (or perhaps not, because I suspect a lot of priests don’t support the birth control ban either).

    Nonetheless, if you wish to challenge him, it should be based on his religion and not a popular sentiment.

    Thanks for the suggestion. While I appreciate that he can give his views even though its not popular, I don’t see why anyone who would challenge him should limit the scope to religion.

    Comment by Pat — March 22, 2012 @ 7:22 pm - March 22, 2012

  45. Thank you Dan for a reasoned position. As a straight married Christian, I think Kirk could have handled Curry better by explaining that we Christians are called not to judge, but to love one another. In fact, Paul slams those of us who do pronounce judgement on other’s for their sins. Cameron could have explained that there are many gays who are Christians. That many straights in the church are accepting of gays and don’t consider their actions as sinning. There are Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin because of Romans 1 and other scriptures, but they absolutely love the sinner…because they recognize they too are sinful, and it’s why Christ came to save us all from ourselves. And of course there are those who are not as generous and who give the faith a black eye. We religious after all are the ones who strung Christ on the cross because he didn’t fit our agenda. Scripture is pretty clear that we all are equally plagued by sin. Thank God, the scriptures say we will be judged by Christ and not by humans.

    Comment by Justasking — March 23, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - March 23, 2012

  46. Attacking Kirk Cameron is like kicking a puppy. Yeah, he’s another one of those “gays are fundamentally psychologically damaged” types who inspires people to protest gay marriage, but he’s got the right to be. He’s not a bad guy, just a guy I personally disagree with. Although those Left Behind movies are hilarious…

    Comment by Johnny Barnstorm — March 23, 2012 @ 2:20 pm - March 23, 2012

  47. Kirk Cameron and I share the same Christian views. These views are based on biblical principles, not man’s opinion. I appreciate that you Dan, are able to address the ad hominem attacks and the traps the media uses to twist conservative people and their viewpoints. I appreciate that you are able to take a reasoned position. To say that all Christians think gays are extreme, etc. etc. as Jim seems to think is simply hysterical. A true Christian is not out to bully, demean, or condescend to anyone, but simply to point out that we all are sinners. We do not give up our pet sins easily. There is a Savior who loves us, and if we could truly comprehend that, then by his grace, and ONLY by his grace are we able to relinquish our sins for the all surpassing privilage of a relationship with the God of the universe. The reason that Kirk can speak honestly is because he is not putting himself above anyone, but like John Newton, he sees himself like this:” Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me.” It is cowardice to state that homosexuality is ok to a Biblical Christian. Biblical truth is truth and no need to dilute it. I was an adulterer…I was in the same position. I appreciated the hard truth in an era of not making waves at a time when I knew there was something more than what I had settled for in my life. BTW…it is also true that if Kirk Cameron gets stifled in what he says…you are next. Wait and see. Again, thanks Dan…I have read your blog many times and you are such a voice of reason, able to separate the issues from the emotions.

    Comment by Candy — March 23, 2012 @ 5:05 pm - March 23, 2012

  48. Kirk Cameron seems a lot happier and more centered than Bill Maher. I bet he never calls women c–ts or t–ts, either.

    Comment by V the K — March 23, 2012 @ 9:44 pm - March 23, 2012

  49. [...] old-fashioned, hidebound, social conservative blog would like to offer a round of applause for Gay Patriot:There seems to be a pattern among gay activists and their supporters in the legacy media, to define [...]

    Pingback by You’ve Got To Admire Gay Patriot, If Not Agree On Everything : The Other McCain — March 24, 2012 @ 12:02 pm - March 24, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.