Kirk Cameron

In Kirk Cameron’s Defense

In a recent interview with Piers Morgan, former Growing Pains actor Kirk Cameron boldly took a stand for traditional marriage and against abortion. The results? Exactly what you’d expect:

@TheHendryx – “looks pretty gay for a dude that hates fags.”

@JimmyGirlPhotoG – “I can’t believe Mike Seaver turned out to be such a lunatic douche… #GrowingPains@kirkcameron

@ArabRabbra – “I swear, I canNOT believe in 2012 we have shit like the GOP candidates, @kirkcameron ignorance, #kony2012 ect. Its legit #endtimes”

@bgsmithdc – “Cool so a washed up, never was “star” is now an expert on marriage and virtue? @kirkcameron ur a JACKASS…go back to being irrelevant pls!”

@Matthewinnz – “All of you praising @kirkcameron for his words are disgusting excuses of a human being. Its 2012, not 1012, times have changed #learntolove”

On a Tuesday episode of The Talk, Latoya Jackson described Kirk Cameron’s words as “hateful,” while Sara Gilbert essentially stated that Cameron’s words could cause a spike among the suicide rate of the gay and lesbian community. Even Alan Thicke and Tracey Gold, Cameron’s former TV dad and sister, respectively, took to Twitter to express their distaste for his choice of words. I came across a lot of hateful Tweets aimed at Cameron on Twitter, but Roseanne Barr’s Tweet was by far the most bizarre, although I don’t expect anything less from her anyway: “Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” Ah, yes. Supporting traditional marriage is equivalent to murder. You’ve got to love liberal logic, or lack thereof.

Piers Morgan invited Cameron on the show to discuss his upcoming movie, Monumental. Morgan can never pass up an opportunity to ask someone what their stance is on gay marriage or abortion. He asked, “What do you believe?” Cameron responded with, “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, until death do you part.” Morgan then went on to ask, “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?” Cameron answered, “I think that it’s unnatural,” “detrimental,” and “ultimately destructive.” I suppose Piers Morgan was expecting Kirk Cameron to give an ingratiating answer that would tickle the ears of every homosexual and gay activist, because the answer he gave was, according to Morgan, an answer that was “abnormal and offensive.” Cameron didn’t accept Piers Morgan’s interview invitation to adamantly voice his unacceptance of the idea of gay marriage; he was asked how he felt about gay marriage and homosexuality.

A few news sources are saying Piers Morgan came to Kirk Cameron’s defense when he said Cameron was “honest and brave” for “saying what he said,” and he may genuinely feel that way, but to say Kirk Cameron “hated” homosexuals, is pure dishonesty. Cameron never said he hated anyone; he is just not in favor of homosexuality, and that is what the Left is trying to ostracize him for. The ever-so-tolerant Left is only tolerant when you say what they like to hear; any opposition to their views, and it is open season for you.  Maybe that’s why the mainstream media solely contrasted those who spewed their hatred for Kirk Cameron’s statement. What about the individuals who supported his stance on marriage?

From Kirk Cameron’s Facebook page:

Rolanda DelaMartinez – “Kirk, you said a mouth full. I’ve walked in your shoes and have nothing but the utmost respect for you stating your Christian beliefs with TRUTH and LOVE. However, many will twist the words of those who stand for God’s word…Jesus experienced this and you will be no different. Praying for you and your family during this difficult time.”

Sarah Baker Prox – “Thank you for your comments….they were sensitive and loving yet TRUTHFUL. Thank you for standing firm!!!”

Sara Gibson – “way to stand up for a Holy God!! Thank you, Kirk.”

Elizabeth Fuentes – “Being GAY LESBIAN BISEXUAL IS WRONG PEOPLE !!!! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! GET OVER IT KIRK SPOKE THE TRUTH THAT IS ALL !”

Pamela A Berry – “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? Though an army encamp against me, my heart shall not fear; though war rise up against me, yet I will be confident. (Psalm 27: 1, 3)

Twitter:

@StephenBaldwin7 – “GREAT JOB Kirk !!! Let’s pray one day Piers Morgan finds true Salvation, God Bless !”

@Danielprays – “Pray for @KirkCameron He’s face great heat after speaking the truth in love at @PiersMorgan”

@Ayana_Kay – “Get off of @KirkCameron back.. Certain things are not right and America is full of double standards and our core values are slipping.”

@anotherday1 – “@KirkCameron THANK YOU FOR NOT COVERING UP WHAT YOU BELIEVE WHILE @PiersMorgan IS TRYING TO STICK IT TO U! GOOD JOB!”

@linsey_lynn – “Marriage is between a man & a woman. God designed it that way & its rite. I am 100% behind @KirkCameron, he’s speakin truth 2 a lost world.”

The Left will only reveal to you what’s convenient for them. For as many of those who disgorged their hatred for Kirk Cameron’s opinion, there were just as many that stood by him and voiced their support. Liberals will do everything they can to, as Michelle Malkin puts it, “criminalize conservative dissent.” The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, also known as GLAAD, has a petition called “Tell Kirk Cameron It’s Time To Finally Grow Up” trying to circle the web (it only has 6,686, and their goal is 7,500). This watchdog organization reminds me of the website the Obama administration launched; you know, the one you visit when you want to report a really mean comment someone said about the President? For those of you in favor of stifling free speech, feel free to report me; the link has been provided.

Sure, liberals, you can hate the conservative stance on marriage, but you’re going to have a very difficult time shutting us up. You may very well continue to reveal one-sided views to the public, but TheCollegeConservative will continue to call you out on it. You will never scare us into submission or compliance. There is nothing wrong with saying, “I support traditional marriage!”

Atarah Golden :: Cecil College :: North East, Maryland :: @LastCivilRight

Related News

44 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. KW Lowery
    Mar 27, 2012 - 08:46 PM

    A shameless plug for a post I did on this topic. I thought it ironic to use their naturalistic philosophy against them. Darwin and Cameron would agree that homosexuality is unnatural!

    “Darwin would say that homosexuality is…umm…unnatural. According to his theory (Law, some would say), we can only evolve if our genes and whatever special adaptation we have developed through mutation is passed on to our offspring through sexual reproduction. But, homosexuals do not reproduce (test tubes don’t count), and believe it or not, according to evolution, that is extremely destructive. Imagine this: if every person on earth decided to be a homosexual today, the human race would die on in one generation. Scary.

    The irony of this argument is that, if you believe evolution is true, you must agree with Kirk Cameron. The path of logic is different, but the conclusion is the same.”

    http://kwlowery.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/darwin-would-agree-with-kirk-camerons-stance-on-gays/

    Reply
  2. Brenda Jo Hoke
    Mar 09, 2012 - 06:57 PM

    God Bless you young lady and thank you for speaking up for Kirk and others who follow Christ, we are saved by his grace and far from being perfect…but we are to speak the truth in love and Kirk did that. He has NEVER been cruel or mean to anyone, he has only shared the love of Jesus Christ. The Bible says as they hated him so will they hate us. AND to see someone like you, so young, I feel there is hope for our Country. You are a blessing.

    Reply
    • Michelle
      Mar 09, 2012 - 11:57 PM

      Telling people they aren’t normal is totally loving! When white folks told black people that they weren’t normal, it was totally out of love and not racism.

      Reply
      • Matthew Mason
        Mar 10, 2012 - 01:09 AM

        And with your comparison of skin color to sexual behavior, coupled with your actually referring to women as a minority group, you have successfully run the race of intellectual vacuity, crossing the finish line into irrelevance.

        Please bear in mind, that laughter you hear is not people laughing with you, but at you.

        Have a nice life.

      • Michelle
        Mar 10, 2012 - 04:20 AM

        I repeat, Matthew here doesn’t 1) Doesn’t know basic sociological terms 2) Doesn’t understand that homosexuality isn’t a mordern day thing or limited to just humans.

      • Conservative And Proud
        Mar 14, 2012 - 02:29 PM

        Don’t forget – he has a right to free speech, no matter if you agree with it or not.

      • Michelle
        Mar 14, 2012 - 04:09 PM

        Kirk? When the government is trying to censor him, then we can talk about the right to free speach.

        Until then, he can say bigoted things and people can call him out for it.

      • clownlucky
        May 07, 2012 - 03:52 PM

        It’s only bigoted on your side.

  3. Michelle
    Mar 09, 2012 - 04:46 PM

    Kirk Cameron boldly took a stance against minority groups. So brave, so bold.

    Reply
    • Matthew Mason
      Mar 09, 2012 - 06:29 PM

      “Minority groups?” Which ones?

      Reply
      • Michelle
        Mar 09, 2012 - 11:51 PM

        That would be the gays and women. Did you not read the article?

        Of, you’re probably one of those’s that don’t understand that minority in this context means people who are not in power.

        IE males are majority vs women, straights are the majority over gays, whites over blacks. Basic 101 stuff here.

      • Matthew Mason
        Mar 10, 2012 - 01:02 AM

        For one thing, for you to cite women as a minority group is absurd to the point it doesn’t even deserve a response.

        For another, neither are homosexuals. When a group of people decide to create an entire world based on their sexual behavior, they do not get to define themselves as a minority group deserving of special treatment. And the only reasons they have gotten as far as they have are due to activist judges, sympathetic politicians, and a populace who didn’t realize this could have been stopped long ago if this said group had been told to go straight to hell.

      • Michelle
        Mar 10, 2012 - 04:04 AM

        1) Doesn’t know basic sociological terms 2) Doesn’t understand that homosexuality isn’t a mordern day thing or limited to just humans.

        Please, tell me more. You’re so knowledgable!

  4. Mary
    Mar 09, 2012 - 01:26 PM

    Amen.

    Reply
  5. Concerned Mom
    Mar 09, 2012 - 11:16 AM

    I think we should let each state decide, by letting the people vote, how they want to handle gay marriage. Ca and Fl have already done that with the majority of votes against gay marriage. Fl didn’t just ban gay marriage, but civil and domestic unions also. I don’t care if gay couples receive the same legal benefits straight couples do, I just think that the definition of marriage should not change. 1 man 1 woman 1 God.

    Reply
    • Robin
      Mar 09, 2012 - 04:41 PM

      Unfortunately, California’s law is being overturned by the Appellate Courts and will be presented to the Supreme Court. The voice of the majority in this country no longer counts. Thankfully, God the Creator has a voice and His Word is the only thing that ultimately matters.

      Reply
    • Michelle
      Mar 09, 2012 - 04:45 PM

      So a man and a woman who don’t believe in god can’t get married?

      Reply
      • Concerned Mom
        Mar 09, 2012 - 11:21 PM

        Of course a man and woman who don’t believe in God or aren’t religios can get married. But guess what? Many times they opt for a ‘civil ceremony’. Which doesn’t involve a church, priest, pastor or whatever. I would say, just based on what I’ve read, they don’t really care about using the word marriage either. Unlike the movement now, they don’t need a term to validate their relationships. And believe it or not, because you sure won’t hear about it in the media, there are many gays who don’t want to be “married”. They are not interested in being the same as a heterosexual couple, but do want their relationship recognized by the state with the same benefits. Which, as I said, I am not opposed to. In my opinion, this entire agenda isn’t about getting the same rights, but rather forcing those who oppose the gay lifestyle to accept it without question.

      • Michelle
        Mar 09, 2012 - 11:56 PM

        “Of course a man and woman who don’t believe in God or aren’t religios can get married”

        Contradicts your 1 man 1 woman 1 God statement then.

        “just based on what I’ve read, they don’t really care about using the word marriage either. ”

        Please post where I may read this. And use unbias sources, thanks.

        ” there are many gays who don’t want to be “married”. ”

        There are many straight people, including those who believe in God, that don’t want to be married either. So unless “Gay Marriage” is now about forcing them to get married, I’m not sure how this is relevant.

        “rather forcing those who oppose the gay lifestyle to accept it without question.”

        Please tell me how gay marriage will affect you any differently than gay civil cermonies.

        Oh wait, can’t have those gays thinking they’re on the same plane of exsitances as the straight folks.

      • Concerned Mom
        Mar 10, 2012 - 01:22 AM

        My first statement was referring to how they can legally get “married”. You missed the point of my following statements. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean they believe in the traditional meaning of marriage. As far as posting unbiased sources, I’m not on this site to defend my position. You chose to enter a discussion with people you disagree with, so you can post unbiased sites to disprove my statement.
        As for my last comment you quoted…. At this point the entire debate isnt just about gays having the right to marry. It’s also about having everyone who opposes gay marriage be viewed as hateful and bigots. I believe even if gay marriage was legal that agenda would continue.
        I have the right to religious freedom. Which means I have the right to believe that gay marriage is wrong. I also have the right to pass these beliefs to my children. And, Yes, these are constitutional rights.

      • Michelle
        Mar 10, 2012 - 04:19 AM

        “My first statement was referring to how they can legally get “married”.”

        So again, why do you have an issue calling it a marriage? Christianity didn’t invent marriage – early Christian marriages didn’t even have a religious figure presiding over them.

        If you don’t want to share the word marriage with them (which is not soley defined legally by man and wife now matter how much anti-gay marriage folks want to claim) then call your marriage another word. Or how about you say you got Christian married? :)

        “Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean they believe in the traditional meaning of marriage.”

        There is no traditional meaning of marriage, since marriage is an age old insituation that means many different things in many different cultures. It’s evolved over time. Just because your idea is that its man, woman and god doesn’t mean that’s what marriage is.

        “As far as posting unbiased sources, I’m not on this site to defend my position. You chose to enter a discussion with people you disagree with, so you can post unbiased sites to disprove my statement.”

        So why did you even post? You want policy makers to make laws based on your beliefs that affect other people but won’t bother backing them up?

        Frankly, I don’t even know where to even beginning to disprove that. Multiple google searches haven’t pulled up any polls on who nonChristians view their marriage/union.

        “At this point the entire debate isnt just about gays having the right to marry. It’s also about having everyone who opposes gay marriage be viewed as hateful and bigots.”

        Prehaps you should take a step back and analyze why that might be.

        “I have the right to religious freedom.”

        As does everyone else – therefore, your religion should stay out of the government. The government is there to act as neutral figure. Despite what you think, making gay marriage legal is a neutral stance. People are free to have one or not to have one as they wish.

        “Which means I have the right to believe that gay marriage is wrong. I also have the right to pass these beliefs to my children. And, Yes, these are constitutional rights.”

        No one is saying you don’t have the right to believe that. Everyone’s saying you (general you) don’t have the right to make laws that govern everybody based on your beliefs.

        Basically, if you don’t want laws to interfer with your lives, you shouldn’t support laws that interfer with other people’s lives.

      • Concerned Mom
        Mar 10, 2012 - 05:30 PM

        If the traditional meaning of marriage is not 1 man and 1 woman, then what is it? And quoting a dictionary doesn’t help since up until recently that was exactly the definition listed. I am fine with labeling my marriage a Christian marriage. Seems fitting to me. :)

      • Michelle
        Mar 10, 2012 - 05:38 PM

        “Traditional” marriage is just a contratual union between people/persons. In some cultures (including the ones Christianity started in), a traditional marriage is 1 man 2+ women. It’s definetly evovled and some people/mordern society may view “traditional” marriage as 1 man 1 woman but that doesn’t mean it is or that the word won’t stop evolving.

        Good, I’m glad we solved that problem. I always figured letting people describ their marriage the way wanted to was the best way to go about it.

        Frankly, I think we can both admit that a 10 year relationship between the same genders that ends in marriage will probably do less harm to the idea of marriage than two straight people that elope after two months only to divorce a year later.

      • Michelle
        Mar 11, 2012 - 10:43 PM

        Matthew, the only one acting like a troll here is you. You’re the only one who is attacking other commenters, presenting your opinions as facts (pride parades are a sign of mental illness? How so?), stating facts that have no baring on the discussion at hand (yes, same sex couples can not procreate without assistance. Neither can a lot of straight couples, nor do some want to. Does that mean they can’t get married?) and denying other facts stated by people simply because they go against your arguement.

        Everything I’ve stated is factual and can be verified by a simple google search.

        According to people who study sociology, some with docorates, the majority is determined by who holds the social, economic and political power in a society. That would be white straight males in our country. This is easily proven by just looking at movies, elected officals and CEOs – all most likly to be or about a while straight male.

        Yes, homosexuality has occured through out history (even predating Christianity) and in other animals (the most famous case being the two pengiuns who raised an egg together in New York).

        Yes, there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage past a contractual union between people/persons. And it also predates Christanity.

        CM and I were (are if she chooses) having a polite dialogue. She does not need you to protect her or tell her what to do. She’s a smart person who is capable of deciding who to engage with.

        If you’re not interested in a discussion, then I suggest not stating your opinion on a blog that discusses things.

      • Matthew Mason
        Mar 11, 2012 - 12:47 AM

        CM,

        Do yourself a favor and engage Michelle no further. Just look at her responses to me. She is either one of the stupidest people on the face of the earth or a simple troll. No matter which, arguing with her will only make your head hurt. Ignore her and feel better today.

      • Concerned Mom
        Mar 12, 2012 - 10:48 PM

        Michelle,
        My point is simply that for the last 150 plus years in this country the definition of marriage has been accepted as the following:
        “Marriage” (1828 Noah Webster Dictionary)-
        1. The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
        It wasn’t until recently that meaning has changed. I realize that times change and meanings evolve. But who initiates that? and what about those that don’t want it? Shouldn’t those things be decided by a majority? And I realize to many marriage is not as sacred as it use to be. Which is sad. You can point out things from another time and place all day long. My argument is for what we believe in this country in recent times. It has been proven multiple times that the majority of the population in this country would like to perserve the orginal meaning, defined by Noah Webster, of marriage. The fact that there seems to be an agenda to push this change no matter what the majority wants is what causes friction. I would like to point out that I do not promote hate toward gays, nor do I teach my children to treat anybody differently. I do not want to deny the benefits that heterosexual couples have to gay couples. Can an agreement be made to accomodate both sides? I’m have no idea.
        Matthew, while I appreciate the advice (and in fact almost listened) I don’t mind defending my position. I believe it is factual no matter what anybody says. And I don’t really think Michelle is the “stupidest person on the face of the earth”. A troll maybe, but she does put forth some interesting arguments. Although, I still disagree. :)

      • Jared Cowan
        Mar 13, 2012 - 06:30 AM

        Sure, let’s have sacramental marriage for churches to officiate, not protected by the state, but by the church. And on the other hand, we have civil marriage, officiated and regulated by secular authorities, such as magistrates,etc. This would grant marriage to both sides, but also grant the sacrality to the people who want it and the validity under the state to those who value that in lieu of being “blessed” by a minister

        A majority doesn’t determine the definition of something, especially in a dictionary, which documents usage over history, which means you get antiquated uses of words we take for granted as meaning other things. Marriage may have traditional ideas in its etymology, but the idea of the practice is more open than simply a man and a woman.

        No one will force churches to accept or officiate gay weddings, which will allow you to advocate that the marriages are wrong. But they will, in fact, be legal notwithstanding.

        As I posted elsewhere, gay marriages are hardly the bane of traditional marriage. That would be no fault divorce laws. When you enter marriage with the forethought that you could annul this contract for no reason whatsoever, how serious do you think society takes it? No less seriously than when we give gay people the same right, which I doubt many will do, considering how hard they worked to get it.

      • Michelle
        Mar 13, 2012 - 03:17 PM

        What it comes down to, some people oppose gay marriage.

        Other people oppose gay marriage but support civil unions – which is the exact same thing as a marriage. All it shows that these people don’t want gays on the same “level.” Now, I don’t automaticly think these people are bigots just because they think this but I do think they’re ingorant and not thinking it through.

        It’s all the same – its a legal contract between two people recongized by a government system. Just because gay people can pratice this doesn’t mean it’s “destorying or changing the defination of marriage.”

      • Michelle
        Mar 13, 2012 - 01:21 PM

        Just because Noah’s dictionary was intended to be the American dictionary doesn’t mean it is. It actually flopped in our country – it was called “radical.”

        Now, the most commonly used dictionary in America is probably the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Here’s the defintion for marriage:

        a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
        2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
        3: an intimate or close union

        Again, the concept of marriage is very old. 150 is a blip on the radar. In America, marriage is govern by the state, not the church. Yes, someone can get married in a church and say their husband and wife. But until they legally get married ie since a marriage license, there are no legal ties. So yes, marriage is not soley a religious insituation anymore. Arguing that it should be prevents any nonbelievers from having a marriage.

        By the way, it wasn’t so long ago in this country that interracial marriage was considerined illegal and immoral.

      • Matthew Mason
        Mar 14, 2012 - 07:53 PM

        Michelle:

      • Matthew Mason
        Mar 14, 2012 - 07:45 PM

        CM,

        The second Michelle referred to women as a minority group in an attempt to rationalize and defend homosexuality I could hear Spock laughing.

        But then she doubled down and dragged out the old, tired and utterly worthless BS about how skin color compares to sexual behavior. You know, the same way a fire hydrant compares to a bag of Lay’s.

        Let me put this to you in plain English: I could say Michelle is a complete freaking imbecile without the ability to think, let alone engage in rational thought, but that would be an insult to complete freaking imbeciles.

        I am quite frankly sick and tired of these amoral looney tooneys who want to make this country just as screwed up as they are.

      • Michelle
        Mar 14, 2012 - 09:01 PM

        Yup, we should leave all the voting up to people who attempt to pass their opinions as facts.

        Everything I’ve said can be verified using google. Women are minorities (and sometimes gay people are women! shock!) and homosexuality is not some new fad.

        But whatever, keep taking people and adding nothing to the convo.

        I thought you were ignoring me by the way?

  6. Jared Cowan
    Mar 09, 2012 - 07:15 AM

    I would denounce those who insult Kirk Cameron, but at the same time, he’s kind of falling into obscurity anyway. It would be an exaggeration to say he would cause more gay teens to kill themselves, because I doubt even straight teens care about what he says anyway, along with Ray Comfort, since they’ve proven time and again that they are way under-qualified to speak with such authority about things they tend to know next to nothing about, such as evolution for the most obvious example of their gaping ignorance.

    He presented no evidence for his claim. He simply based his position on religion, which he has a right to do. But his position, however much he has a right to hold it, is irrational and unsupported by any significant studies or evidence, far as I can tell. This is what makes me facepalm at his and others’ claims that homosexuality is so terrible and people who “suffer” from it should pray and seek help.

    They regard it as a disease when it is something we all have in one form or another, unless one is asexual in their orientation, which is exceedingly rare, if I had to hazard a guess. Sexuality overall is not a disease and attraction is not aberrant to human interaction unless you force your attraction and desire upon others physically or emotionally.

    I would agree with conservatives that there should be a certain degree of restraint in terms of homosexual activism, but virtually every so called red flag that is brought up is fairly harmless in the grand scheme of things, especially if you trust that children can be raised by their parents to be independent thinkers and not just go along with the crowd.

    I would not defend Kirk Cameron’s position, but I agree he has a right to say it, however unsubstantiated it is in fact.

    Reply
    • Matthew Mason
      Mar 09, 2012 - 07:34 AM

      And who made you the expert on homosexuality? You want facts? Here are a few:

      *There is no evidence homosexuality has biological origins. 100% of all the “findings” have been revealed flawed, self-serving, or both.

      *The American Psychological Association, the very same people who published the infamous Rind study, confessed they could not find a “g-y” gene.

      *Homosexuality was removed from the DSM not because mental health professionals came to a consensus it wasn’t a mental illness, but due to a campaign from outside political forces.

      *Homosexuality is still a mental illness. The pride parades, held in various cities each year, are the greatest and most incontrovertible evidence of this.

      *Homosexuals cannot procreate.

      Reply
      • Brenda Jo Hoke
        Mar 09, 2012 - 07:00 PM

        Matthew, the sad truth or it seems to me, it’s a big fad now…it’s cool to be gay. It makes you with the IN crowd and something you can rebel against the ‘old’ people or worse those hateful Christian people…all we can do is pray for these folks and pray for our Children, their children, we MUST start with the children we are losing another generation.

      • Jared Cowan
        Mar 10, 2012 - 11:15 PM

        This assumes you can just turn on a switch and be gay. I don’t think it’s cool in modern culture, but it’s more accepted, like being another religion besides Christianity. Being gay is a bit more than just culture, it’s part of your biology, you have to be comfortable with it yourself and then others will possibly understand.

        I think you still have a generation, if we just consider basic demographics. Not to mention the likelihood of many of this generation being gay is 1 out of every 1000 or maybe even more. It’s fairly small if we assume the genetic drift and such maintains a 5% population over time just by reproduction by straight individuals with recessive gay genes, perhaps

        Being atheist, on the other hand, is not even remotely like being gay in today’s culture. You’re more likely to be voted as president if you’re gay than if you’re atheist, if that Gallup poll from the late 2000s is any indication.

      • Jared Cowan
        Mar 10, 2012 - 11:11 PM

        Did I claim to be an expert? And you can parrot these so called facts that you claim to know so certainly, but it doesn’t make them correct. No one said homosexuality was 100% biological, no one says there’s a gay gene now that has even had a cursory glance into more recent science concerning homosexuality and its genetic factors.

        Your politicizing the association’s changing of the term does not negate the fact that there is evidence within psychology to support the idea that homosexuality is not on the same level as real paraphilias that are damaging to people in the genuinely aberrant types of attractions. Being homosexual only affects your life negatively if you have horrible friends and family or you yourself have been taught to hate it so much that you cannot resolve the cognitive dissonance resulting from realizing you are homosexual, but that you believe homosexuality to be sinful or immoral.

        Gee, I didn’t know parades were evidence of mental illness. The biggest one in New York is not just done to “rub their homosexuality in your face”, but celebrate the results of the Stonewall riots in the 70s that motivated people to be concerned about gay rights.

        No one’s saying you can’t oppose homosexuality, but we are saying you cannot legislate your religious beliefs on everyone else. That would violate the establishment clause pretty clearly. You can still promote straight marriage as better even if the Supreme Court says all the “marriage amendments” on state constitutions and even the DOMA are unconstitutional. You’ll just be a slowly disappearing and insignificant minority of people who have little to no support for your beliefs.

      • Matthew Mason
        Mar 11, 2012 - 12:43 AM

        “No one said homosexuality was 100% biological”

        And every single homosexual who says they were born that way make a liar out of you. But then again, they do not need to do anything you can do all by yourself.

        “Your politicizing the association’s changing of the term”

        I didn’t politicize anything. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM because of the demands of outside political forces. That is a fact, and shutting your eyes real tight, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!” will not make this fact change or go away.

        “Gee, I didn’t know parades were evidence of mental illness.”

        Jared, you need to stop playing games of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness. It makes you look like a troll and you will be ignored as surely as Michelle is.

      • Jared Cowan
        Mar 11, 2012 - 10:45 PM

        Saying you are born this way does not preclude that there are certain environmental factors related to homosexuality. It’s just that those environmental factors are influences more than determinants of physiological and psychological attraction to one sex, the other sex, both, or none. You misconstrue what homosexuals mean and what science says about sexual orientation as something that is both inborn and also nurtured in one direction or another by environment, which is not explicitly a contradiction.

        I don’t deny there was politically charged activism, but it doesn’t invalidate the findings we have after the fact that homosexuality is not demonstrably comparable to other actual paraphilias just by the basics of what constitutes one in psychopathology. It would have to be extreme or otherwise severely atypical from normative sexual arousal and stimulation. And it doesn’t necessarily cause distress or problems unless people take sexuality far more seriously than it should be taken.

        You’ll forgive my sarcasm if I could forgive your sensationalizing things that you don’t agree with as mentally aberrant. Heaven forbid we be proud of trying to give gay people equal rights. I guess black people are being aberrant when they have a parade for equal rights sometime in February. You’re making this such a divisive issue when no one is forcing you to accept homosexuality as normal, but tolerate its existence and grant homosexuals equal rights under civil law, even if not under religious partiality.

      • clownlucky
        May 29, 2012 - 05:50 PM

        Like Ms. Golden said in her article, we may be shrinking, but you’re going to have a hard time shutting us up. So go ahead and think that you’re winning, but we’re not going away.

  7. Danny
    Mar 09, 2012 - 06:40 AM

    Very interesting.

    “In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
    – George Orwell

    Reply
  8. Matthew Mason
    Mar 09, 2012 - 06:33 AM

    Atarah, if you have not already experienced the real hate and intolerance of the pro-homosexual left, get ready. These people are so transparent in wanting to somehow make you feel guilty for saying no to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda you’ll be able to see them coming from half a world away.

    Stick to your guns, never let them control the debate. It’s about the homosexual agenda, not you, and they will try hard to make it all about you.

    Jesus Christ Himself said marriage is to be between a man and a woman. That is the end of the argument.

    Reply
    • clownlucky
      May 09, 2012 - 05:49 PM

      I know that myself, but my experience is on the internet.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2014 THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE.

Facebook

Twitter