Yeah, and to make a Trek connection, it also starred Andrew Koenig, son of Walter Koenig, who died two years ago, and who also appeared in the DS9 episode Sanctuary as Tumak.
Kirk Cameron's Comments
- Thread starter Gryffindorian
- Start date
Yeah, and to make a Trek connection, it also starred Andrew Koenig, son of Walter Koenig, who died two years ago, and who also appeared in the DS9 episode Sanctuary as Tumak.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yup, what a has-been. As others have said, his beliefs are as dated as his 1980s career.I also think it's a publicity stunt.
I think he actually has a decent career producing Christian oriented entertainment. And I think this is a publicity stunt to promote that business. And I also think people freaking out about it and attacking him is exactly what he wanted.
It likely is, and yeah, he's got a following for being the "star" of the Left Behind movies, his "Way of the Master" programs (which are hilarious, not in a good way) and his work on the Fireproof series. My (extended) family loves him. Ugh.
Yes, he played Boner, so named because he was slow and the son of "Sylvester Stabone."
To make another Trek connection, Kirk Cameron said on Entertainment Tonight that he was actually named after Captain Kirk. I don't know if that's true, but it adds another level of surreality to a burnt out celeb handing down religious edicts. I'd be more likely to follow the advice of William Shatner in a green wrap around if he told me Snake Handling was the one true faith, but that is beside the point.
It's like saying, "Oh, it's perfectly acceptable to be a straight man, but you shouldn't have sex with anyone."
It sounds a lot like Michelle Bachmann's philosophy on gay marriage.
Something to effect of 'Homosexual males and females have the freedom to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they wish. Its the same freedom that all Americans enjoy.'
That's what I heard as well. His father named him after Shatner's character.
As for Growing Pains, one could say Cameron is a hypocrite when it comes to attacking gays. He played Mike, a teenager who spent an inordinate amount of time hanging out with a guy named "Boner." Come on! What was that all about?!
Well here's an interesting response.
By taking this extreme reaction, aren't you just basically sitting on the same coin, just the opposite side?
That whole coin isn't exactly one to be proud of, whichever side one is on, mind you...
There is a difference. Being intolerant of an individual due to his/her sex, race, religion, orientation, etc., is hardly acceptable. At least being intolerant of intolerance is justifiable.
Too bad he wasn't named after Sulu . . . .
It's just an opinion, and so long as it doesn't become criminal or lead to something criminal, why are we allowed to judge so harshly and extremely when that's the exact same reason for condemning him? And to what end?
What's that old Voltaire quote again?
As an individual I am also entitled to an opinion, and my opinion is that his opinion makes him no different than people who wear white robes and hoods and burn crosses on lawns. I take his words with the same grain of salt as I would the opinion of the aforementioned robe-wearing hate-mongers. A bigot is a bigot.
For the win.
On the one hand, I would think one of his points is that you're wishing someone to go to hell, which is pretty much the same thing that person wishes upon gay people. Wishing someone to go to hell is pretty extreme.
On the other hand, though, I've noticed that the people who claim their anti-gay beliefs aren't being tolerated only say so after they've run out of logic. (re: their go-to, fallback phrase)
Are we really equating "I don't believe something is right" to the KKK? Are his actions truly that harsh?
Sure, we all have our opinions, but shouldn't there be SOME facts backing them up?
Or is "KKK" the same as "Hitler" now, the severity of their actions being played more for laughs than for actual legitimate comparison? I know, this is the internet, but still, there's gotta be SOME reason out there.
Or is it that we just don't have an apt comparison for a person who has out-dated beliefs, that most people don't believe in or even put any value in his words, but isn't criminal in reacting to them, so we just go for an obvious extreme?
Or did I misread his quotes? Is he asking for murders, death, and blood? Is he asking for others to take a stand against what he hates? Are people reading WAYYYY too much into what Kirk Cameron has to say about anything?
Some opinion has to be based on fact. He's a tool for what he said, sure. But he's certainly no KKK.
Nope. I am equating people who hate and harass and try to deny rights and privleges granted to others because of the way that they were born to the KKK. The KKK believe that they are right with their bigotry as well.
Oh, and you brought up Hitler, not me.
Yeah, I know all about the "right to speak" Voltairean quote.
An opinion is exactly that ... an opinion. I can say I don't like garbage cans because they're ugly. It doesn't bother other people. But homophobes like Cameron are expressing more than just an opinion. They're expressing their beliefs, what they hold to be true (though other people don't necessarily share them), and they are offensive to others. Granted, they're entitled to freedom of speech in this country.
I wouldn't go so far as wishing a homophobe to burn in hell. (I'd wish it upon bad drivers, but another's story.)
I have yet to see or hear someone with anti-gay sentiments to come up with a non-religious, practical or scientific concept to back up their claim. Cameron hasn't done so. He claims homosexuality is detrimental to society, but in what way? How did he come to that unsubstantiated conclusion?
The New Testament makes no mention of homosexuality FWIW. It does, however, tell slaves to obey their masters.
The issue is open to debate as there appear to be references to it in the New Testament, for instance, 1 Corinthians 6:9.
Link
Even if that's the case, the beliefs lead back to the Old Testament teachings mentioned in Leviticus, which hardly apply to modern-day life.
I was reading an article in TIME magazine recently about a guy named Jeff Bethke, who's posted videos of his spiritual perspectives on YouTube. In some ways, I can sort of relate to his values, given his aversion to organized religion while maintaining his faith as a Christian. One's relationship with God should be more personal rather than institutional.
I'm not anti-gay at all (believe that or not, it doesn't matter to me) but isn't the easiest example to give one of biology and procreation? Not that this is something I guess we need to get into, but I wouldn't bring science or biology into this because, taking that argument to the extreme would probably point out, at its extreme, if homosexuality became the dominant way of living back in the day and everyone paired up as such... well, we probably wouldn't be worried about over-population, that's for sure.