Kirk Cameron says he's now target of "hate speech"

[JayQueer]

I heard about what Kirk Cameron said, but I have remained silent about this.

What he said IS extremely painful. Especially when he uses words like "unnatural" and "ultimately destructive."

But what many far-left gay liberals do, predictably, in situations like this, is to automatically call him a "hateful bigot", "homophobe", "idiot," etc -- anything to essentially attack his character. Just take a look at this thread & the other one in "Hot topics".

Religious conservatives LOVE IT when you call them those names. Because then they can go to their supporters and claim that you are attacking them, and they are the real victims.

People whose opposition to homosexuality is grounded in their religious beliefs are the hardest to sway. This goes whether they are White, evangelical Republicans, or Black church-going Democrats.

Name calling won't induce Kirk Cameron change his views. Not hiring him for major roles in mainstream Hollywood projects won't induce him to change his views either. He will say that he chose God over Hollywood fame.

You can't force people to "accept" homosexuality or force them to support gay rights issues or gay marriage. Such change must come from within.

And that's where the hard work lies.

I think we have to be able to talk about homosexuality and LGBT issues with social conservatives, knowing that they will disagree. It's a starting point.

 

[Rolyo85]

I kinda prefer the idea to just force the extremist right wing idiots to fall in line, whether they agree or not. As for actual normal thinking people, you're totally right for once. Too bad you spend so much time defending the extremist right wing idiots...

 

[Kulindahr]

I heard about what Kirk Cameron said, but I have remained silent about this.

What he said IS extremely painful. Especially when he uses words like "unnatural" and "ultimately destructive."

But what many far-left gay liberals do, predictably, in situations like this, is to automatically call him a "hateful bigot", "homophobe", "idiot," etc -- anything to essentially attack his character. Just take a look at this thread & the other one in "Hot topics".

Religious conservatives LOVE IT when you call them those names. Because then they can go to their supporters and claim that you are attacking them, and they are the real victims.

People whose opposition to homosexuality is grounded in their religious beliefs are the hardest to sway. This goes whether they are White, evangelical Republicans, or Black church-going Democrats.

Name calling won't induce Kirk Cameron change his views. Not hiring him for major roles in mainstream Hollywood projects won't induce him to change his views either. He will say that he chose God over Hollywood fame.

Except that "bigot" and "homophobe" aren't names, as in name-calling, but are objective descriptions. "Hateful" and "idiot" are no different levels; the second is really just a slur, since he clearly isn't an idiot.

So you're going to keep hearing some of those terms, because they're just factually accurate.

 

[Ninja108]

Kirk Cameron is more than free to say what he wants,just like another person can say all women are whores or all blacks are thugs,it's freedom of speech.
However,that right also means others can take offense to what you say and express their own options.
The only thing Kirk is upset about is being called a bigot,which he rightfully is.

 

[JayQueer]

Except that "bigot" and "homophobe" aren't names, as in name-calling, but are objective descriptions. "Hateful" and "idiot" are no different levels; the second is really just a slur, since he clearly isn't an idiot.

So you're going to keep hearing some of those terms, because they're just factually accurate.

"Homophobe" and "bigot" may have definitions in the dictionary, but their application and use is subjective.

Take the word "homophobe." I think that most people would agree that the "Westboro Baptist Church" are "homophobes." But what about someone who has gay relatives, supports non-discrimination laws, supports civil unions with the same protections as marriage, but believes that the term "marriage" should be used solely for a union between one man & one woman? Would they be a "homophobe" too?

Regardless, calling someone a "bigot" or a "homophobe" does absolutely nothing to at least urge them consider changing their minds. If anything, it makes them retreat further into their anti-gay views.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Much like Rush (to the buffet) Limbaugh, Cameron is another right-wing attention whoring troll that got all butthurt when he got called out on his bullshit.

Here's a hint, has-been: quoting the hateful derp you spewed doesn't count as slander. Also, you may have the right to jabber on about shit you don't understand, but the public has a right to disagree with your claptrap.

By the way, Kirky-boy, about those "gay friends" you profess to have? Those dudes behind the 7-11 that blow you for crack money don't count, OK?

 

[Mariatenebre]

I heard about what Kirk Cameron said, but I have remained silent about this.

What he said IS extremely painful. Especially when he uses words like "unnatural" and "ultimately destructive."

But what many far-left gay liberals do, predictably, in situations like this, is to automatically call him a "hateful bigot", "homophobe", "idiot," etc -- anything to essentially attack his character. Just take a look at this thread & the other one in "Hot topics".

Religious conservatives LOVE IT when you call them those names. Because then they can go to their supporters and claim that you are attacking them, and they are the real victims.

People whose opposition to homosexuality is grounded in their religious beliefs are the hardest to sway. This goes whether they are White, evangelical Republicans, or Black church-going Democrats.

Name calling won't induce Kirk Cameron change his views. Not hiring him for major roles in mainstream Hollywood projects won't induce him to change his views either. He will say that he chose God over Hollywood fame.

You can't force people to "accept" homosexuality or force them to support gay rights issues or gay marriage. Such change must come from within.

And that's where the hard work lies.

I think we have to be able to talk about homosexuality and LGBT issues with social conservatives, knowing that they will disagree. It's a starting point.

You can talk with them knowing they will disagree however you should not cater to their foolishness. You should denounce and repudiate their religious beliefs. When Christians or Muslims say they are being attacked or victimized what this really means is that someone is calling them out for their bigotry and the cry that they are being discriminated against when in reality these people are defending themselves. They want to be able to spew their bigotry without anyone checking them for their foolishness. It is a common tactic of these groups as victimizers to claim victimhood and descrimination when really people are defending innocent groups from their bigotry. Kirk Cameron deserves everything he gets.

"Homophobe" and "bigot" may have definitions in the dictionary, but their application and use is subjective.

Take the word "homophobe." I think that most people would agree that the "Westboro Baptist Church" are "homophobes." But what about someone who has gay relatives, supports non-discrimination laws, supports civil unions with the same protections as marriage, but believes that the term "marriage" should be used solely for a union between one man & one woman? Would they be a "homophobe" too?

Regardless, calling someone a "bigot" or a "homophobe" does absolutely nothing to at least urge them consider changing their minds. If anything, it makes them retreat further into their anti-gay views.

Yes someone who blieves marriage is between one man and one woman is a homophobe. Just like racists who support equal rights for other races but are against interracial unions. Also calling someone a bigot and a homophobe is the right thing to do. It shows that their ideas are evil. If they retreat into their foolish ideas that is their problem.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

JayQueer is being an apologist for the GOP?

This is my shocked face: 8^|

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

There's NOTHING a bigot hates more than being called a bigot. I've never met ANYONE who thought that THEY were actually a bigot. I say calling them on it is exactly what they need.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Homophobe" and "bigot" may have definitions in the dictionary, but their application and use is subjective.

Take the word "homophobe." I think that most people would agree that the "Westboro Baptist Church" are "homophobes." But what about someone who has gay relatives, supports non-discrimination laws, supports civil unions with the same protections as marriage, but believes that the term "marriage" should be used solely for a union between one man & one woman? Would they be a "homophobe" too?

Maybe not, but they'd still be bigots.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

-I got this link in an email. I didn't go to it til now. Seems his co-actors are against his speech.

http://www.glaad.org/wherearetheynow

Left Behind indeed.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem with the word "marriage" is that people are speaking two different languages. One says the "marriage" sound and means "an institution established by God for humans, to reflect His internal unity by forging a union between them, with the built-in result of offspring to carry on the name", while another makes the same set of sounds but means "a legal arrangement sanctioned by the government with certain attendant benefits and privileges under the law".

 

[hotatlboi]

ahhhh..... yet another back at ya "false equivalency" in which bigots cry "intolerance" and "oppression" when their intolerance is not "tolerated" by decent people.

Yep, you see this a lot with intolerant bigots. Claiming they are the victim because they get opposition to their intolerance. That it's their "right" to walk all over gays have their disgusting statements welcomed.

 

[chance1]

Ain't it always the truth.

or

'People are trying to take away my right to spread lies and intolerance'

Cameron is such a dumb cunt.

It must be about time for our resident apologists for right wing asshats to spring to his defense.

the difference is you won't hear that here

that's the difference

THAT'S YOUR GAME

and it's a mess frankly

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Yep, you see this a lot with intolerant bigots. Claiming they are the victim because they get opposition to their intolerance. That it's their "right" to walk all over gays have their disgusting statements welcomed.

Yeah DUH....It's called religious FREEDOM! Look it up!**















** on the off chance the teasing nature of this did not translate, let me clearly state that I am being facetious

 

[Kulindahr]

Ultimately the law is what matters here... and what about those atheists who get married? Should they not be allowed because they aren't meeting the religious merits?

Of course -- what's under dispute is the second word, the one in "governmentese", if you will. What's happening is that a bunch of people from Religistan have moved in and don't realize they're speaking a different language -- or, if they do, they're pretending there isn't a different language in hopes if they speak loud enough everyone will understand them.

 

[hotatlboi]

Yeah DUH....It's called religious FREEDOM! Look it up!**

Exactly. Their religious freedom is being violated if we don't welcome their slanderous hateful statements. It's laughable.

It's similar to the absurd argument that Rush Limbaugh's freedom of speech is being violated if people don't welcome his statement that that woman is a slut.

 

[Kulindahr]

Exactly. Their religious freedom is being violated if we don't welcome their slanderous hateful statements. It's laughable.

It's similar to the absurd argument that Rush Limbaugh's freedom of speech is being violated if people don't welcome his statement that that woman is a slut.

They equate freedom with winning.

It isn't freedom they want, it's triumph. It's actually a form of Christianity that has been judged a heresy, called "triumphalism". Wiki has a nice list of some symptoms:

Triumphalism may both benefit and prove detrimental to the survival of a doctrine, culture, or social system. Dangers[1] include:

• Impaired ability to judge the value or morality of the group's actions;
• Cessation of creativity and innovation within the group;
• Blindness to other groups’ strengths and innovations;
• A tendency to over-reach against the group’s competitors, based on an inflated sense of the likelihood of triumph in conflict.

In Christianity, it's a return to the Messianic hopes of ancient Israel for a conqueror, one who will triumph over all enemies on the worldly level, though its proponents rarely see that. It's a subversion of the Gospel by turning it into a law to coerce people into desired behaviors. It pushes the Christ of the Cross off into the shadows, replaces the donkey of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem with a rampant stallion, and casts aside the humility of persuasion for the arrogance of the power of the state.

Since it casts aside the Cross, those who teach it are rightly called antichrists.

Kirk Cameron is arguably deserving of that title.

 

[rareboy]

JayQueer is being an apologist for the GOP?

This is my shocked face: 8^|

Oh gee.

Me too.

Imagine my surprise that it took so long for one of our reactionaries to stick up for Kirk Cameron.

I imagine it is because someone thinks he's rilly rilly hawt.

 

[Jack Springer]

Kirk Cameron has the same view as Obama regarding gay marriage.