Actor Kirk Cameron defends his controversial comments about homosexuality

posted at 4:50 pm on March 20, 2012 by Tina Korbe

On “The Today Show” this morning, actor Kirk Cameron told host Ann Curry that he stands by his past controversial comments about homosexuality. Earlier this month, on “Piers Morgan Tonight,” Cameron said he does not support gay marriage and thinks that homosexuality is “destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

In his conversation with Curry today, Cameron said it would have been more newsworthy if he had said otherwise — and he has a very valid point:

“I was surprised, frankly, that people were surprised by the things that I’ve said,” he told host Ann Curry. “I have been consistent for 15 years as a Christian. I’m a Bible-believing Christian. What I would have thought was more newsworthy is if I had said something that contradicted the word of God, if I had contradicted my faith.”

Curry asked the actor if he hated homosexuals.

“Absolutely not,” he said. “I love all people, I hate no one…When you take a subject and reduce it to something like a four-second soundbite and a check mark on a ballot, I think that that’s inappropriate and insensitive. To edit it down to that, it certainly didn’t reflect my full heart on the matter.”

When you think about his comments in that light, any outrage over them does seem hyper-sensitive and strange. “Noted Christian believes what Christianity teaches.” How shocking!

What’s sad, though, is that it is a surprise to many non-Christians when they hear a Christian stand up for controversial Christian doctrines because so few famous Christians do. When actress and Christian Kristen Chenoweth, for example, appeared on “Piers Morgan Tonight” in the fall, she presented quite a contrast to Kirk Cameron — and, as I recall, created no stir whatsoever by voicing her support for gay marriage.

It’s also interesting that so few people seem to remember a couple important people who theoretically still don’t support gay marriage.

A quick note on Cameron’s comment that homosexuality is “destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization”: If you take that very literally, it’s actually pretty indisputable. The very first foundation of any civilization is existence itself. Human reproduction is necessary for human civilization. If our twenty-first century civilization consisted entirely of homosexuals who engaged only in homosexual behavior, civilization would rapidly cease to exist. From this literal perspective, homosexuality is no more destructive to civilization than contraception or abortion — but it is destructive. It serves no point to deny that.

Nor does it serve any point to deny what we all know from personal experience: Every single human being has certain destructive tendencies inside of him — the tendency to meanness, maybe, or to unkindness, to sloth, to gluttony, to thievery, to murder. What Christianity claims to offer or, more specifically, what Christ claimed to offer — and what many Christians joyfully attest to experiencing — is a grace-sustained way of overcoming those tendencies. In that offer is not condemnation, but an invitation to true freedom.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 15 16 17

Conservatives can troll, too, it’s not just libtards.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM

But from my experience, blink doesn’t fit the spectrum of ideas of what an internet troll is.

Though Wikipedia hardly is an objective source of truth, it is useful in collecting a plethora of opinions on a topic.

Trolling, identity and anonymity.

I’ve never seen anyone, such as yourself, label an online debater as a troll.

shick on March 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM

shick on March 22, 2012 at 1:03 PM

First of all shick, I call a spade a spade. Blink has been pricking pretty much every poster here on HA for a long time. trying to get a rise out of people with his own false characterizations of what people actually said, so he’s a #rick in that regard. He does it to get a rise out of people. As Luna said, he’s a troll/#rick/whatever other name fits when it comes to how he replies to comments.

Secondly, REALLY? Your pastor spoke about those specific verses that I mentioned in the post? He talked to the congregation about how god didn’t want men who’d had their nuts smashed or members cut off not being allowed into the presence of the Lord? All I can say is wow, if it’s even true. He may have spoken on those BOOKS and other verses IN those books but somehow I doubt he had anything interesting to say about those specific verses.

How original I am? Words are words whether I wrote them myself or someone else did, I felt no need to recreate the wheel there. How about you address the words and comments themselves and not where they came from.

Perhaps instead of taking this list with any grain of seriousness you should consider hearing responses from Christians regarding them.

Words have meaning for a purpose shick… So that everybody is on the same page and understands what is being said. The words should stand “on their own two feet” so to speak, they DON’T need interpreting. As I said before, deceivers need believers, and that’s why religion needs faith and apologia.

Look, I was a Christian for 38 of my 41 years on this earth. I know the “explanations” that have been foisted on me and you as regards their interpretation… I know apologia shick. I used to profess it. I decided to grow up and accept that it’s all bunk, that these explanations are just rationalizations that apologists have made up over the years to try to explain away these more barbaric verses.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 1:17 PM

You’re obviously on her side of the issue. You’ll see more biased in trying to sort out your opinion on the comments. From my perspective, evidently anyone with an objection to any part of the movement is a hater. She used the term here in not just a few exchanges. She then proceeded to lose her temper and name-call and make rather creepy references to death and sending angels to another commenters way. I see no similar comments returned her way. When people on my side of an issue make disparaging remarks, I try to collar them and at least express my opinion that their words are over the top. I never see that in threads like this from your side. More often than not, they’ll say they were egged on into anger by some Christian. I myself have been threaten for my opinion and had someone wish. “I’d be punched in the face”. “Or worse.”

You’ll excuse me if I’m not receptive to the same old excuses for poor behavior.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

shick on March 22, 2012 at 1:03 PM

First of all shick, I call a spade a spade. Blink has been #ricking pretty much every poster here on HA for a long time, so he’s a #rick in that regard. He does it to get a rise out of people. As Luna said, he’s a troll/#rick/whatever other name fits when it comes to how he replies to comments.

Secondly, REALLY? Your pastor spoke about those specific verses that I mentioned in the post? He talked to the congregation about how god didn’t want men who’d had their nutz smashed or members cut off not being allowed into the presence of the Lord? All I can say is wow, if it’s even true. He may have spoken on those BOOKS and other verses IN those books but somehow I doubt he had anything interesting to say about those specific verses.

How original I am? Words are words whether I wrote them myself or someone else did, I felt no need to recreate the wheel there. How about you address the words and comments themselves and not where they came from.

Perhaps instead of taking this list with any grain of seriousness you should consider hearing responses from Christians regarding them.

Words have meaning for a purpose shick… So that everybody is on the same page and understands what is being said. The words should stand “on their own two feet” so to speak, they DON’T need interpreting. As I said before, deceivers need believers, and that’s why religion needs faith and apologia.

Look, I was a Christian for 38 of my 41 years on this earth. I know the “explanations” that have been foisted on me and you as regards various verses interpretations… I know apologia shick. I used to profess it. I decided to grow up and accept that it’s all bunk, that these explanations are just rationalizations that apologists have made up over the years to try to explain away these more barbaric verses.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Showed his posts to a few disinterested, apolitical friends of mine. They all said he was a troll. We had a laugh.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM

My wife read most of your posts and she came to the conclusion that you’re unstable. She’s not familiar with terms like troll though, so that wasn’t really an option for her.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

blink,

I’ve tried to make the sames points you have on previous posts with much of the same results.

shick on March 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Do you mind explaining what yo mean about your time as a Christian?

smoothsailing on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I’ve tried to make the sames points you have on previous posts with much of the same results.

shick on March 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Same with Gelsomina. Things and people are not always what they seem or say. Gelsomina actually has a pretty big axe to grind with Christians.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

@blink

You most certainly made this clear in your comments that I quoted.

What you quoted from me is me saying that everyone tries to impose their morals on everybody else. What I essentially said was that churches impose their morals on their flock, parents impose their morals on their children, governments take the consensus that WE all come to as a society as regards morals and ethics and imposes it on us.

(what I said) but I don’t force my opinions on others,

(what you said)You certainly support the government doing this. We’ve already established this. Unless you’re claiming that you DON’T support laws against rape.

I support the government attempting to do it yes, because who else do we have to appeal to when some wrong has been done? I don’t say that the government has everything right, and I don’t say government always gets everything right. There is plenty that our government has done wrong in the past, still has wrong today, and will try to wrongly impose on us in the future. This is reality. We fight it when they overstep like they do with Obamacare, et al.

Sure, many of the moral standards that are held by a majority are often those that are enforced by the government, but that doesn’t mean that EVERYONE holds those moral standards.

Never said they did, but we’re a Republic, we vote on these things and let public opinion sway which direction we go.

Someone who has a self-interest moral basis certainly isn’t included in your word, “our”.

What you fail to realize apparently is that we ALL have a self interested moral basis. When it becomes “our” moral basis is when we come to agreement that that is the moral truth we want to observe and accept. Once it’s been peer reviewed so to speak and tested in theoretical mind games and passed muster, then we make it a law. Do some laws get rescinded from time to time meaning some things that we consider moral sometimes get overturned and replaced with a new or altered morality? They very obviously do.

As for me calling you a #rick… I don’t have the time to go back through 17 pages to find the start of our spat but my recollection is that you called me and many other people here monkeys and other stupid, childish names. I descended to your level

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

smoothsailing on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I’m not going to write a book in a forum on how good of a Christian I was or what my upbringing was but suffice it to say that I was all in. I believed it with all my heart, then I grew up and out of childish rationalizations and apologist tripe.

The stories we’ve been told pale in comparison to the reality we find ourselves in.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 1:57 PM

blink on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

zing! and a miss.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 1:57 PM

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

If by “her side of the issue” you mean that I generally disagree with Christian doctrine on the sin of homsexuality and take the position that it impacts me not at all what someone else’s sexual orientation is, then yes I am on her side.

However, I also do not call Christian “haters”, unless that particular person’s argument seems to stem out of hate. If a person believes it to be a sin based on their religious ideals, then it is hardly my place to question their beliefs.

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

You’re not being objective.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I try to be objective. None of us manages it successfully all of the time, and perhaps I have not always been in this case.

Nor am I trying to offend, I was merely making an observation in an attempt at some level of constructive criticism. Like I said earlier, I recognize the generic point you were making, it just took a long time to get there. I think you could have made the point much sooner and more directly, and much of the combativeness from both sides could have been avoided. It doesn’t invalidate your point, just makes the reader less likely to give your point fair consideration after they’ve been insulted.

If I say, “You’re an friggin’ moron, now consider my point carefully…”, then my reader probably is not likely to consider my point carefully. :)

Like I said, just trying to offer a view for you to consider to better make the point that ultimately was a valid point. Take it or leave it.

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

I gathered all that. Sorry you had to take the trouble to repeat that. My point is how hypocritical her commentary is. Your’s is consistent. Rank atheists who make no bones about their distain for Christians are consistent.

But someone who comes on here right out of the blocks whining about how hateful Christians are and then lets loose with both barrels of hate are just pathetic. The second point is since you have more in common with her views, you’ll be less critical of her behavior in that regard.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

If a person believes it to be a sin based on their religious ideals, then it is hardly my place to question their beliefs.

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

What if their belief does not spring from their “religious ideals,” but is instead a judgment regarding reality that developed from their life experience and observation of human behavior? Is it then okay to question their motivations and accuse them of “hate” because they didn’t get their beliefs from a religious text?

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

If I say, “You’re an friggin’ moron, now consider my point carefully…”, then my reader probably is not likely to consider my point carefully. :)

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I am NEVER going to be able to live that down, am I?
Sheesh. The weeping-angel comment was out of line. I’ve said that. Bringing it back up is bringing you to the level of a schoolyard twit.

LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Why are you acting so nasty? Can you exchange without losing your temper and name calling?

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Exactly right.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 2:14 PM

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 1:57 PM

So you are saved though?

smoothsailing on March 22, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Squirm? Are you kidding? Is anything you’re involved in based in reality? I guess I’d like to see a quote of me “squirming” if you really imagine that happened. Give it a shot. Otherwise …

Watching you is like setting up a lawnchair to watch a train wreck. You have one or two nice exchanges with one of your buds here in your 360 degree progressive peer assisted masturbation exercise and then you proclaim you’re angry, use bold caps, insinuate harm to others and name call.

Why would someone like you laughingly include “love” in your name. It’s satirical irony, right?

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 1:23 PM

^ Squirming. Or perhaps ‘ragetyping’ would be a better term.

…Right. So you’re accusing me of insanity and hatred, in frankly disgusting language, and I’m the unstable one.

… Oi, Muggles these days. They don’t know anything. *eyeroll* Luna Lovegood is a character from Harry Potter. She’s my favorite female fictional character of ALL time.

I ought to take a leaf out of her book and be a bit more unflappable, to be honest. And I ought to not argue with people who just don’t accept my basic premises.



@ All the people saying I hate Christians:

I am a Christian.

I admit that I’m not a very good one. I am a sinner. I do things I ought not to do all the time (like getting angry and siccing fictional monsters on people, in my head). But I’m still a Christian. I think I have more things in common with you than you realize.

I seem to be getting along well with people that I disagree with (e.g. Cindy Mundford, Akzed, and so on) that behave like ladies and gentlemen. The fact of the matter is, there’s hate on both sides.

…I’m sorry for contributing to it.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Nope. A direct hit. That’s why you’re getting so angry.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I’m not angry, whatever gave you that idea? Maybe your childishly imaginative mind?

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM

I’m not angry, whatever gave you that idea? Maybe your childishly imaginative mind?

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Hey, I resemble that remark. ;)

Seriously… I think we all need to calm down, Gravvy’s right. I’m being a spaz, and we’re all flinging bile at each other.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM

The fact of the matter is, there’s hate on both sides.

…I’m sorry for contributing to it.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I don’t see any hate here at all on this thread, at least not between any of the major commenters on the thread. Seriously.

I see some foolishness, some teasing and maybe a bit of casual head bumping, but nothing remotely approaching hate.

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 2:32 PM

So you are saved though?

smoothsailing on March 22, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Nope, nothing that needs to be saved from. When I was a Christian I considered myself saved, but that was only because I swallowed hook line and sinker the lame idea/concept of original sin. Rid yourself of the concept of original sin and all the rest isn’t needed.

If there is a god out there, he surely doesn’t hate us enough to send us to an eternity of torture just because we didn’t accept an unnecessary sacrifice for an original sin that never was.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Rank atheists who make no bones about their distain for Christians are consistent.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I hope that is not what you are saying about me. Then I would have to take exception, because I have made no such argument of disdain for Christians.

I am an atheist, but grew up Catholic, went to Catholic school for many years. I studied the Bible in school obviously, and have even studied outside of Catholic school as a historical interest (it’s actually an interesting study in the relationship of politics and religion in Judea under Roman rule, and better understood and very deep in it’s political undertones when viewed in that light).

I have no disdain for Christians at all. I simply don’t believe in it myself. To each their own when it comes to their personal belief system.

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM

But you must admit that calling someone a stupid monkey at the end of my comment doesn’t inhibit your ability to understand anything that was above the insult.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I admit as much. It does not invalidate the point at all. It just engages the reader’s red mist, through which it becomes more difficult for them to want to see the point. :)

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Just because tough harsh words are spoken doesn’t mean we hate each other… It’s just heated debate, not hateful debate, well maybe a little bit of exasperation when someone tries to mischaracterize things that you’ve said.

Luna, you’re all right in my book.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I’m not angry, whatever gave you that idea?

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Your progressive irrationality.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

I’m completely rational on this topic, your mis-characterization notwithstanding.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Rank atheists who make no bones about their disdain for Christians Christian theology are consistent.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

We don’t hate the sinner, but we hate the sin. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S37NiXl8eJo

We could all use to listen to this song a few times. Yes, I’m including myself in this dictum.

Luna, you’re all right in my book.

If you’re making a Wrock reference, you’re my new best friend. ;D

I’m already calm, but I will be nice to you. I LOVE Cindy Mundford, and I get along great with annoyinglittletwerp (even though I think our first discussion was contentious as well).

ALT is AWESOME. :D

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 2:48 PM

First of all shick, I call a spade a spade. Blink has been #ricking pretty much every poster here on HA for a long time, so he’s a #rick in that regard. He does it to get a rise out of people. As Luna said, he’s a troll/#rick/whatever other name fits when it comes to how he replies to comments.

I’ve been posting comments on HA for many years and am familiar with blink. I think you are projecting the very image you are giving to him from yourself. Many other commentors have agreed with his comments and would likely agree with me that you are projecting. As far as trolls are concerned, you fit that idea more aquerately.

Secondly, REALLY? Your pastor spoke about those specific verses that I mentioned in the post? He talked to the congregation about how god didn’t want men who’d had their nutz smashed or members cut off not being allowed into the presence of the Lord?

Really. It’s called expository preaching. If you paid attention to what I said, we are currently going through Deuteronomy and haven’t gotten to the back yet where the genital grabbing is mentioned. So I have to say, no specifically to that one.

All I can say is wow, if it’s even true. He may have spoken on those BOOKS and other verses IN those books but somehow I doubt he had anything interesting to say about those specific verses.

Then just say wow and don’t accuse me of lying. I think you’d be surprised at what he said about those verses.

How original I am? Words are words whether I wrote them myself or someone else did, I felt no need to recreate the wheel there.

No, you felt the urge to demonstrate a troll technique.

“Arguing with John Doe is the same as playing chess with a pigeon: the pigeon defecates on the table, drop the pieces and simply fly, claiming victory”

How about you address the words and comments themselves and not where they came from.

I might later tonight when I might have the time. But it’s important to show where it comes from is it not? Regurgitated simple cheap shots.

Words have meaning for a purpose shick… So that everybody is on the same page and understands what is being said. The words should stand “on their own two feet” so to speak, they DON’T need interpreting.

It’s good to finally have some kind of common ground. But I’m not sure how far you are willing to go with that statement. As one who believes in the historical-grammatical method I must say that I believe that 100%.

As I said before, deceivers need believers,

Why can’t this be true of skeptics? Doesn’t Richard Dawkins need you as a follower? Why doesn’t this apply only to believers? Why does it have to apply to all of them?

and that’s why religion needs faith and apologia.

Balogna. Everyone needs faith. Scientists and atheists need faith. We all demonstrate faith(trust) in certain truths we haven’t yet explained or can’t explain at all.

Look, I was a Christian for 38 of my 41 years on this earth.

Really? I do not question your honesty but instead the possibility of such a claim. You were a christian at age three? What makes you think that you were a Christian at age three? I’m sorry. By God’s previenient grace I think I became a Christian roughly at the age of 23. The details are fuzzy because I don’t know exactly the moment when I was saved because salvation isn’t something that happened to me because I said the magic “sinners prayer” or magic confession of faith. Rather, the Holy Spirit interviened in my life in His good time. So I ask again, how do you know that you were a Christian at age three?

I know the “explanations” that have been foisted on me and you as regards various verses interpretations… I know apologia shick. I used to profess it. I decided to grow up and accept that it’s all bunk, that these explanations are just rationalizations that apologists have made up over the years to try to explain away these more barbaric verses.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Until you respond to my above question, I’ll wait before I respond to this.

shick on March 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

“People are people so why should it be you and I should get along so awfully?” – Depeche Mode

We do not all have the same idea about what is right and what is wrong, and we try to force others to conform to our ideas about what is right.

For instance, when I try to force Muslims to change their rules so they will stop stoning so many raped girls, they want to kill me for violating what they see as basic moral law, the loss of which would lead to social breakdown, anarchy and general slaughter.

It really is not complicated at all. Clueless pollyannas who lose track of this reality can bring about great social breakdown, anarchy and general slaughter.

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM

…I was talking about the people on this thread. ‘Specially me, blink, and hawkdriver. (Great name, by the way. It sounds like some kind of trucker superhero. XD)

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Same with Gelsomina. Things and people are not always what they seem or say. Gelsomina actually has a pretty big axe to grind with Christians.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

It happens again and again but I give them all the benefit of the doubt to seeing truth as we all dislike being shown our errors and behave the same way.

shick on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

It’s strange because the point is incredibly logical and obvious.

It’s almost as if they are arguing that purple is purple. Actually, I think they are slowly starting to realize that I’m right which is upsetting them. That’s why they are twisting themselves up or trying to say that I’m making claims that I’m not making.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Like I said to Hawkdriver, we should always give them the benefit of the doubt of coming round.

The best reason to give them the benefit of the doubt is because the Holy Spirit does not fail when Christ calls his sheep to him.

shick on March 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM

(Great name, by the way. It sounds like some kind of trucker superhero. XD)

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Well, thanks, Luna, but I’m more of a graying bookkeeper/entrepreneur guy than a trucker superhero. I save people with my paperwork and my persistence rather than my Kenworth and my road wisdom. :)

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

We don’t hate the sinner, but we hate the sin. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I’ve seen your exchanges when you get animated. They don’t come any more hateful or misguided than you. You hate Christians. That was a freebie. Now don’t address my comments.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I think we’re all superheroes. Except me. I’m a witch.

*would rather be a witch than a superhero*

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM

^ Squirming. Or perhaps ‘ragetyping’ would be a better term.

Are you kidding. There isn’t one of my comments that exhibit rage like yours with the needless name-called and all caps to give the inference that you’re yelling. Don’t project your awful behavior on me.

…Right. So you’re accusing me of insanity and hatred, in frankly disgusting language, and I’m the unstable one.

My wife said it. I’m no more responsible for that than your apolitical acquaintance calling blink a trill. But even my wife didn’t name call. She said your comments sound unstable. That’s not even an indictment of insanity. But again, you’re trying to project your poor behavior.

… Oi, Muggles these days. They don’t know anything. *eyeroll* Luna Lovegood is a character from Harry Potter. She’s my favorite female fictional character of ALL time.

Perhaps considering your demeanor, Lucius Malfoy might have been a more appropriate pseudonym.

I ought to take a leaf out of her book and be a bit more unflappable, to be honest. And I ought to not argue with people who just don’t accept my basic premises.

I don’t really care about your basic premise. I haven’t even tried to understand it. It’s your caddish behavior after calling us haters.


@ All the people saying I hate Christians:

I am a Christian.

I admit that I’m not a very good one. I am a sinner. I do things I ought not to do all the time (like getting angry and siccing fictional monsters on people, in my head). But I’m still a Christian. I think I have more things in common with you than you realize.

I think not.

I seem to be getting along well with people that I disagree with (e.g. Cindy Mundford, Akzed, and so on) that behave like ladies and gentlemen. The fact of the matter is, there’s hate on both sides.

…I’m sorry for contributing to it.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Ma’am, for the most part, you’re the source of it.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I prefer fadetogrey. ;)

blink on March 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Are you a brit?

shick on March 22, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Same with Gelsomina. Things and people are not always what they seem or say. Gelsomina actually has a pretty big axe to grind with Christians.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

It happens again and again but I give them all the benefit of the doubt to seeing truth as we all dislike being shown our errors and behave the same way.

shick on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Pearls.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 3:43 PM

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 3:41 PM

…I realize I was less than polite earlier. I lost my temper because I truly misunderstood what Blink was saying.

I don’t hate you, as individuals. I think some of your positions are a little disturbing, but I don’t hate you.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I’m not evoking a rhetorical non-argument at all.
My point is perfectly on-topic and germane.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM

It’s vapid, is what it is.

Then you bully to act as if the lack of content in your posts is an intellectual game, but no…you’re just vapid and off topic. Again and again. You lack coherence, let alone the intellectual ability to be obtuse while on topic.

You evoke the term “morals” the way those Loose Change crazies evoke “grammar”.

What can be gleaned from your posts resemble college aged attempts at finder deeper meaning in life, caught up in academic rhetorical arguments such as “everyone is evil”, “everyone is racist”, “history is not based on facts”, “small government and big government are the same thing”, “everyone imposes morals on everyone else”. It’s the weakest way to disclaim, or dissuade others because it forfeits to black and white presumptions that hold no value outside the classroom. Oh, and we’re not talking about a Conservative classsroom.

What is your viewpoint of morality and homosexuality? You won’t answer.

Like I said, you’re vapid and off topic.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 4:01 PM

I don’t see any hate here at all on this thread, at least not between any of the major commenters on the thread. Seriously.

I see some foolishness, some teasing and maybe a bit of casual head bumping, but nothing remotely approaching hate.

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I agree with you to a point. I do so because hate is deceptive. We typically think of hate as something that produces something as vile as concentration camps and slavery.

But I would argue two points:

1) It comes out of all of us to easily. Most times it is easily sedated when we see ourselves. I would argue that the hate that comes out of us when we RAISE OUR VOICE or name call is the same hate that leads to horrible things as violence.

2) But hate is not all bad. as SauerKraut537 said,

We don’t hate the sinner, but we hate the sin. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Why is it okay to hate the sin? Because it is evil. God hates injustice, cowardice, sloth, lies, murder, etc.

I should hate the same. But I do not hate the same was as a holy God. When I hate, I seldom can call it a righteous hate.

Hate comes from original sin that some deny. So be it if they choose to deny it. They can reduce it to a primal urge if they like. That doesn’t make sense to me.

shick on March 22, 2012 at 4:03 PM

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. – Matthew 5:21-22 ESV

By our actions we are all condemned.

shick on March 22, 2012 at 4:06 PM

I’m not angry with anyone. Just weary of casting pearls.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM

What can be gleaned from your posts resemble college aged attempts at finder deeper meaning in life

…I resemble THAT remark very strongly. ;)

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 4:26 PM

We (atheist/anti-theists) don’t hate the sinner, but we hate the sin. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I’ve seen your exchanges when you get animated. They don’t come any more hateful or misguided than you. You hate Christians. That was a freebie. Now don’t address my comments.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 3:31 PM

That’s not how it works hawk. You can’t tell me I can’t address your comments, if you put something out then be prepared for a response.

I don’t hate anyone here on HA. I get exasperated and frustrated at some comments and the jabs people fling at myself or others who come from my point of view, but I certainly don’t hate them for it and I mean that.

I’m perfectly capable of separating the person from the ideology.

In other words hawk, I love my father and mother, brother and 2 sisters who are still “Christian” as well as many of my friends who are. I don’t love you guys but only because I barely know you, but that doesn’t mean I hate you.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

…. 1) It comes out of all of us to easily. Most times it is easily sedated when we see ourselves. I would argue that the hate that comes out of us when we RAISE OUR VOICE or name call is the same hate that leads to horrible things as violence.

…………………..

shick on March 22, 2012 at 4:03 PM

You are making a very common error. Anger and hatred are completely different things.

We should almost always try to avoid being angry, even when facing evil. We should hate evil.

We are most often angry with people whose opinions we care about, to one degree or another. We are rarely angry at people we genuinely hate. We know what their opinion is, and we despise them for having it. There is no point in getting angry. In extreme cases of hatred, we may even kill the object of the hatred, but that can be done without any overt anger at all, the way you would stomp on a spider.

I hate the NYT. I rarely get angry at what they print any more. I expect it. I despise it, but it does not make me angry.

On the other hand, when my mother hands me an editorial from the NYT, telling me this is something I really should read, it makes me furious, even though I know better. I still care about her opinion on politics, even though I know I should not. It takes all of my willpower to stifle my anger, smile and change the subject.

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM

blink on March 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM

And yet you prove his point blink. He asked you a question… Quit being offended by his jab at you and answer the question.

What is your viewpoint of morality and homosexuality?

Open up bro, let us in.

Like contrarytopopularbelief, I suspect you won’t let us in because you know you’ll get “torn to shreds” just like you enjoy doing to anyone else here who opens up and lets others know what they’re thinking.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I don’t hate anyone here on HA. I get exasperated and frustrated at some comments and the jabs people fling at myself or others who come from my point of view, but I certainly don’t hate them for it and I mean that.

No. What’s happened each and every time is you’ve invested hugh amounts of time trying to talk people out of their faith. You never have and you invariably lose your temper and say the most incredible cruel things to the object of your discussion. I finally had tio tell you to just stop one time because your tantrum became embarrassing.

I’m perfectly capable of separating the person from the ideology.

I could post your vicious ad hominem attacks till the cows come home.

In other words hawk, I love my father and mother, brother and 2 sisters who are still “Christian” as well as many of my friends who are. I don’t love you guys but only because I barely know you, but that doesn’t mean I hate you.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

You’ve made so many claims and then contradicted them, I don’t even know what I believe when you post anymore.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 4:53 PM

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 4:53 PM

It’s called appeal to mockery hawk. While not a particularly effective way of arguing, it’s sometimes effective in getting people to shake free from fossilized forms of logic and belief.

I’m not particularly proud of it, but I know that it’s worked on me in the past where when subjected to it I stop what I’m thinking and ask myself, is he right? Does he know something I don’t know?

I’ve changed my thought processes throughout the years when being subjected to such ridicule.

Ridicule, while it more often makes people bow their backs and become more stubborn, can often jar them into thinking or rethinking things.

If you’re brain is calcified, shake it loose with ridicule.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 5:01 PM

My argument was germane and right.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I’m sure it was intended to be, but what you conveyed didn’t reflect such grandiose goals.

Interesting that your meaningless arguments about morality/immorality do not extend to the concepts of being right or wrong. Not only are you not Right, you’re not confident enough in your own thoughts to lucidly reply when challenged.

Do you believe all moral is intrudes on the morals of others?
Do you support Gay Marriage?
Do you support Government enforcement of morality?
Do you equate a belief in morals of any type, with a desire to impose said morals?
Do you support stonings?
Do you make a moral equivalency between pedophiles and non-pedophiles?
Do you support Government handouts when using municipal services?
Are you conscious of the Progressivist mindset of your posts?
Do you support Tina’s belief that Gay Americans are wreckers of civilization?
Are you anti-homosexual?

Many are questions you posed to others.
Yes or No answers should be sufficient for your B/W arguments.
I’ll expect you’re too cowardly to incriminate yourself by answering.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM

It’s called appeal to mockery hawk. While not a particularly effective way of arguing, it’s sometimes effective in getting people to shake free from fossilized forms of logic and belief.

It hasn’t worked for you here.

I’m not particularly proud of it, but I know that it’s worked on me in the past where when subjected to it I stop what I’m thinking and ask myself, is he right? Does he know something I don’t know?

You shouldn’t be.

I’ve changed my thought processes throughout the years when being subjected to such ridicule.

I’ve only ever seen you initiate it.

Ridicule, while it more often makes people bow their backs and become more stubborn, can often jar them into thinking or rethinking things.

If you’re brain is calcified, shake it loose with ridicule.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Rationalization for your boorish behavior, nothing more.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM

@ Hawk- Here. I’ll take the Kraut Khallenge for you.

Do you believe all moral is intrudes on the morals of others? No.
Do you support Gay Marriage? Yes, but on a state-by-state level. As in, each state should be able to vote pro-or-anti.
Do you support Government enforcement of morality? To a very, VERY limited extent.
Do you equate a belief in morals of any type, with a desire to impose said morals? No.
Do you support stonings? No.
Do you make a moral equivalency between pedophiles and non-pedophiles? H*ll to the no.
Do you support Government handouts when using municipal services? No.
Are you conscious of the Progressivist mindset of your posts? N/A.
Do you support Tina’s belief that Gay Americans are wreckers of civilization? No.
Are you anti-homosexual? No.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM

The kraut challenge has failed more times than I can count. I’ll pass.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 5:21 PM

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM

see? I gave you an honest answer and you come back with flippant disregard.

ME: It’s called appeal to mockery hawk. While not a particularly effective way of arguing, it’s sometimes effective in getting people to shake free from fossilized forms of logic and belief.

YOU: It hasn’t worked for you here.

Because of what I stated further into my comment… “Ridicule, while it more often makes people bow their backs and become more stubborn

ME: I’ve changed my thought processes throughout the years when being subjected to such ridicule.

YOU: I’ve only ever seen you initiate it.

Simply a case of selective memory on your part. Many times, you and others have come back with what I initially thought were thought provoking comments/arguments that made me stop and think for a bit. Sometimes I agreed or left it alone, sometimes I replied with a counter argument or more mockery. Again, I’m not proud of it but your assertion that you’ve only ever seen me initiate it is puerile.

ME: Ridicule, while it more often makes people bow their backs and become more stubborn, can often jar them into thinking or rethinking things.

If you’re brain is calcified, shake it loose with ridicule.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 5:01 PM

YOU: Rationalization for your boorish behavior, nothing more.

Not rationalization, reality.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 5:28 PM

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Why won’t you just answer a few questions? c:

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 5:33 PM

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Why won’t you just answer a few questions? c:

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Because I don’t think it’s necessary for the point of what we were discussing here. I was simply making the point that Christians aren’t haters. I guess a second point was that was exactly the way you were behaving, Zeke. Hateful I mean.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM

@ Hawk- Here. I’ll take the Kraut Khallenge for you.

Do you believe all moral is intrudes on the morals of others? No.

Of course not all. The question proposes a straw man. There are moral issues none of us want to impose on others, yet there are other moral issues everyone understands we should impose on others, such as making rape illegal.

Do you support Gay Marriage? Yes, but on a state-by-state level. As in, each state should be able to vote pro-or-anti.

I would favor that, too, except if there is only one state that has it, everyone who wants to marry goes to that state to get married, and under the Constitution all of the other states have to recognize the marriage.

Do you support Government enforcement of morality? To a very, VERY limited extent.

You call it limited. Others consider you a busybody who wants to run their lives.

Do you equate a belief in morals of any type, with a desire to impose said morals? No.

Again with the straw man. Clearly there are morals we each have that we recognize are personal, and there are morals we consider to be important enough and where the violation of those morals impacts the society enough that we should impose them as laws.

Do you support stonings? No.

It is insulting to ask blink that question.

Do you make a moral equivalency between pedophiles and non-pedophiles? H*ll to the no.

The serious question would be “what do you think the age of consent laws should be?” But why should blink answer that question when no one here has been discussing it? The issue is whatever age of consent laws you think would be moral, do you want government to impose those laws on us?

Do you support Government handouts when using municipal services? No.

You oppose the Fire Department putting out fires that only threaten non-taxpayers? Perhaps one of us is misunderstanding the question.

Are you conscious of the Progressivist mindset of your posts? N/A.

Perhaps you are unaware of it, but the argument “don’t legislate morality” is one of the fundamental hypocritical arguments of the proggs, so it is not blink who is showing the progg mindset when he needles people who say they do not want to do that.

Do you support Tina’s belief that Gay Americans are wreckers of civilization? No.

I agree. I think she is confusing correlation with causation. Open homosexuality is a symptom of cultural decay much more than a cause.

Are you anti-homosexual? No.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Few people are. The accusation that someone who opposes the homosexual agenda is anti-homosexual and/or homophobic is a one of the casual slanders the left throws at anyone who opposes them.

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

blink on March 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

LOL@blink.

Keep confirming contrarytopopularbelief’s point…

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Few people are. The accusation that someone who opposes the homosexual agenda is anti-homosexual and/or homophobic is a one of the casual slanders the left throws at anyone who opposes them.

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

What’s the ‘homosexual agenda’?

My gay/lesbian/bi friends have wildly different ones.

One wants to adopt as many cute furry things as is humanly possible, breed fish, and make this Minecraft server awesome.

One of them wants to be an artist, designs costumes for anime conventions, and is scary good.

One of them wants to be a video game designer.

One of them’s a writer and a poet.

One wants to be a Shakespearian actor.

One wants to be an Olympic coach.

… Funny. Gay people? They’re still PEOPLE.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 6:44 PM

My moral basis is immaterial to a discussion about the application of moral standards.
Why are you unable to separate the two?

blink on March 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Then you compare it to sports rules? You’re done.

Nobody should indulge you in a morally bankrupt conceptual discussion because you’re ashamed to take a stance.

Tina mentioned CIVILIZATION, yet you wanted to talk about Government. You can’t even distinguish between Theocracy and the State.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 6:57 PM

The accusation that someone who opposes the homosexual agenda is anti-homosexual and/or homophobic is a one of the casual slanders the left throws at anyone who opposes them.

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

It’s not “casual” and it has nothing to do with ideology. It’s about decency. When people blame Christians for the destruction of civilization, I stand up against such anti-Christian views too.

Tina does not merely oppose the homosexual “agenda”, it’s movement, and it’s identity politicization, she very clearly opposes homosexuality and homosexuals themselves.

You might prefer less damning phrasing, but how is she anything but anti-Homosexual?

It’s not slander, it’s an accurate portrait of the views she promotes on Hot Air under the banner of Christianity.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 7:07 PM

blink on March 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

The accusation that someone who opposes the homosexual agenda is anti-homosexual and/or homophobic is a one of the casual slanders the left throws at anyone who opposes them.

fadetogray on March 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Both of you, great comments.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 8:00 PM

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 8:00 PM – Where did Tina’s comments suggest she was limiting her criticism to the homosexual “agenda” as opposed to the act, and preference itself?

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Northdallas, if you make it back, I know you sometimes check, I hope you caught the comment I left. You really are someone’s comments I look up to here. Damn few of em too. You keep up the great comments too.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2012 at 11:06 PM

It’s an analogy – NOT a comparison.
blink on March 23, 2012 at 8:54 AM

You’re not very bright.

Yes, what a CRAZY leap to mention the oversight system that CIVILIZATIONS put in place in order to keep themselves CIVILIZED.
blink on March 23, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Oversight system, singular? Sounds sci-fi, and like you need to lay off the crazypants psychobabble. Tina was referencing Christian doctrines specifically. Since the foundations of Civilization predate Christianity, you need to at least speak of “oversight systems” plural, if you want to talk about history accurately. No wonder specifics scare you.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 23, 2012 at 2:48 PM

You’re like a 9 year old telling Einstein that she’s not very bright because his theories don’t make sense to her.
blink on March 23, 2012 at 5:58 PM

No, you sound more like a mental patient who thinks his belly button lint is the key to the universe.

Remind me again how you made an analogy as opposed to a comparison, because you’re unaware that the very definition of an analogy is a comparison?

The topic of Tina’s post involves issues related to specific moral views. Everyone has specific moral views, and everyone has a basis for those views. Most people want government (yes, government, singular form of the word) to enforce morals on others.
blink on March 23, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Not even Tina has said anything about outlawing homosexuality, you troll.

Your leap in logic that anyone wants the government to do anything is built out of your own weird hysterics, tied to that crackpot agenda of yours. Maybe YOU are the one who wants government to enforce your morals, but I doubt anyone else here does. Which makes your point utterly pointless. Next time stick to pouting.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 24, 2012 at 5:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 15 16 17