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
Menendez – Looks like we don’t have the votes for that immigration bill after all
America in decline – Bars selling rubbing alcohol as “scotch”
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: « Previous 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 Next »
Just because other people would agree with YOUR moral standard doesn’t mean that it isn’t YOUR moral standard.
Are you really this slow of a learner?
blink on March 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM
Hi, SauerKraut’. I haven’t argued with you in a LONG time. Our schedules conflict, apparently.
Here is a reply from you to portlandon last night,
and then my counter response.
.
listens2glenn on March 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM
Apparently I am. I can’t stop arguing with you and your Insane Troll Logic.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 3:44 PM
More evidence of you wanting to impose YOUR moral standards on others.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 3:45 PM
My logic is completely sound.
It isn’t troll logic just because you know that you’re getting called out on your beliefs.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Would you prefer I ignore you, or attempt to grapple with your insane troll logic re: rape, bestiality, and pedophilia being okay? Because I can, but it will involve many more references to Caps Lock, which I don’t think your poor oversensitive mind can handle.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM
So, you’re finally admitting that you WANT government to force your moral standards on others. I think we’re getting somewhere.
Now, please tell me why you think YOUR moral standards and ONLY your moral standards should be enforced.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM
… Forget you.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 3:50 PM
Only an idiot would claim that I’m saying rape, bestiality, and pedophilia are ok.
I’m saying that anyone that supports using the government to prevent rape, bestiality, and pedophilia clearly support using the government to force their moral standards on others.
Other commenters know exactly what I’m saying so you’re just making yourself look stupid by pretending that you don’t.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Do you always have this much difficulty admitting things about yourself?
blink on March 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM
You could have fooled me, Troll. You could have fooled me.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM
.
No, decent people don’t hurt others deliberately, except maybe in self-defense, but that’s a whole other issue.
listens2glenn on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM
wth?
You are one creepy dude.
hawkdriver on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Luna, blink is not a troll. He is just refusing to give you slack on your failure to recognize you want to impose your morality on others.
You are wrong. He is right. And not just a little bit. It is night and day.
He is not saying the things you say are wrong are not wrong. He is pointing out that there are those who would disagree with you, and you want to impose your morality on those people.
Luna, just say, “Yes, that is what I want to do.” That is what an intellectually honest person would say.
Then you can honestly engage in the argument about whether or not homosexual behavior or gay marriage or cloning unicorns are morally acceptable things or things we should ban as being immoral.
fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Yes and yes.
You’re not being dishonest about our idealism.
You’re being dishonest by not admitting that you favor imposing your moral standards on others.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM
I wasn’t attempting to fool you at all.
I was making it extremely clear for you, but I know it’s difficult to for you to be honest with yourself.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM
Homosexuals sue if they think that their way of life is insulted. Christians sue if they think that their way of life is insulted. Where is the difference? That’s what I try to assert.
As for your bigger question: I know a few homosexuals, some of them quite well. I don’t recognize them in what is said about them in this thread. They are decent people who live decent lives. They don’t harm anybody. Most people don’t even know that they are homosexual. It has absolutely nothing to do with “popular culture issues”.
As I wrote yesterday, everybody is cherry picking the Bible. Most protestants ignore Paul’s words that mulier taceat in ecclesia, but they are adamant that his words about homosexuals should be obeyed.
Why? Give me a reason why one can be ignored but the other one has to be followed.
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 3:56 PM
That was the point.
Bob's Kid on March 21, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Not as much difficulty as you seem to have with logic, morality, and reason.
And speaking of ‘moral standards’- Isn’t it imposing your moral standards on me to say that I’m not allowed to threaten you with creatures that don’t exist? Just a thought?
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 3:57 PM
See? Like I said, once I tied it back to your friend, you’d suddenly discover a whole new appreciation for sex with children.
After all, you wouldn’t want to be called a homophobe, would you?
northdallasthirty on March 21, 2012 at 3:58 PM
Except maybe in self defense??
My father dropped bombs on Germany. He pulled the trigger dozens of times, raining down hundreds of bombs over 32 missions. I am sure he killed many decent people who were just trying to run for cover.
By your rules, he was a monster, not a hero who by all statistical measures risked horrible death over and over and over to bring the war to Hitler.
If you really believe that, you are really not a decent person.
fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM
…My friend was abused when she was a kid. Don’t you EVER say that she’d think it’s okay.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 4:00 PM
.
AWWWWWWWwwwwwwwww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fibbledeejibbits.
.
Well, there goes my plans for entertainment, this evening.
listens2glenn on March 21, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Absolutely not. Simply defending oneself is NOT a moral standard.
My logic is completely sound. Others have explained it to you.
You’re simply refusing to deny such a simple concept.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Gel, you never acknowledge points anyone makes. You move to a different bar, argument, point at the drop of a hat. You conduct rabbit hole arguments that make less sense than l anything I’ve ever read. What you’re arguing here is pretty rank indoctrination points. And even in that? Really, respectfully? Not very persuasive.
hawkdriver on March 21, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Why is it in these threads, that sooner or later the folks arguing for the gay community start wishing for some harm to befall the folks they’re arguing with?
hawkdriver on March 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM
But your link makes it very clear that NAMBLA and IGLA were denounced by many other homosexual groups. Your link is a defense against the other groups. You are proving the opposite or what you are trying to prove.
And again, you want me to start talking about child abuse in the church and religious organizations and the cover-ups? I don’t think so.
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 4:11 PM
For the record:
LunaLovegood supports using the government as a means to force HER moral standards on others.
She believes that SHE is the arbiter of what moral standards should be imposed on others.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM
I think it’s hilarious how blink has been running circles around these people with their own logic for 3+ pages and not one of them has any idea what he’s doing.
Kelligan on March 21, 2012 at 4:14 PM
Excellent!
JellyToast on March 21, 2012 at 4:19 PM
LOL! Of course you think I’m losing, because you agree with Akzed. Nothing new.
Think outside the box shick.
SauerKraut537 on March 21, 2012 at 4:23 PM
blink is always amazing to watch. The point that these folks get painted into a corner and start with the threats and death wishes though makes me sick. Neither blink or anyone else here that I can recall ever wish/threat/hope for any harm to fall on anyone. Then all the other posters here extolling the virtues of their civility and the hate hate hate of the Christians, make outright threats, wish for us to die out generationally or for Gods sake wish some creepy death angel us.
Right, Lunas first comments was an exasperated “Keep your religion out of my life” and then he wishes death angels on everyone else. Ironic?
hawkdriver on March 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM
Since blink is accusing me of trying to force my moral values onto others, as well, and since you are trying to explain his point of view, please let me ask you a question:
Who are those who disagree with me that rape is a crime? If there is no group or culture that disagrees with me, then the entire discussion is useless, at least in our world. It is intellectual masturbation and proves nothing.
If you want to credibly accuse me of forcing my moral values onto others, you must come up with an example that is more controversial than rape or murder.
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Whatevs Brian. I didn’t get my view from Henry, I just wondered if he agreed with me when you asked for links, and since he did I sent the link to show I was not being obstreperous.
Akzed on March 21, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Why does this matter?
It doesn’t matter if you THINK that your moral standard is almost universally accepted. It’s STILL you wanting government to force your moral standard on EVERYONE.
Seriously? You think this is difficult?
Tell us the appropriate “age of consent.”
blink on March 21, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Come on, hawk. You are accusing me of betraying my faith. And I ask you: why can you ignore the Bible without betraying your faith, but I can’t? It’s a fair question.
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 4:38 PM
When did I do that? Linky?
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM
I don’t think I’ve ever advocated biblical annotations for laws in the US.
As a conservative however, I wish to preserve the founders’ principles for good govt, and since they were Christians their principles tended to be in tune with Christianity.
They no more wanted biblical annotations for laws than I do, even so the tenor of their government and governance was Christian: and lo and behold, it produced the most prosperous and free nation in history.
I think that, had the founders advocated for abortion on demand, gay marriage, deficit spending, ubiquitous p0rnography, secular public schools, depraved entertainment, banning symbols of faith from public property and so on down the liberal and secularist laundry list of good times, rather than gradually ease our way into the mess we are in now, we would have gone the way of Ozymandias long ago.
Back to the thread topic: a Christian speaks his mind and the left and God-haters go nuts and change the topic to Christians who want to make us a theocracy!!!!!111!!!!!
Akzed on March 21, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Oh, the irony. You accuse me of not thinking outside the box while you fail to see beyond the walls of this debate to see that I made a point of the name calling. Dope vs. theocrat?
shick on March 21, 2012 at 4:45 PM
Then I ask you as well: who are these magical people whose moral values I infringe on by saying that rape is a crime?
Who are these people who would happily and joyfully and saintly rape and murder each other, if I wouldn’t prevent it?
If there aren’t any, then blink tries to make a point that doesn’t exist in the real world. It’s sophomoric.
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Luna has been shown her error and hasn’t known how to respond. The best she could do was to make a joke about Dr. Who monsters known as the weeping angels that will only move towards you when you “blink”.
Actually, I thought she was rather clever with the joke.
shick on March 21, 2012 at 4:48 PM
For the love of pete. :P
Firstly, I’m a GIRL. GIRL. FEMALE. There are girls on the internet. I’m aware this is a foreign concept to you, so I’ll give you some time to let it sink in.
…
…
Second of all… I did NOT wish death angels on everyone else. That was sort of an angry pun on Blink’s username. You ‘blink’, and they get you. Get it?
I admit, I lost my temper. I shouldn’t have said anything. But for HEAVEN’S sake, anyone who even SEEMS to be advocating child abuse is NOT my friend. It wasn’t your ‘differing moral standards’. It was the fact you were wishing a horrible fate on kids who didn’t deserve it.
I’m a CHRISTIAN, for heaven’s sake. We ought to be on the same side. But because I think my friend ought to be allowed to love the people she loves, that makes me instantly a bigot and a moron?
For the record, Blink still didn’t answer my question re: why it isn’t okay for me to threaten him with completely FICTIONAL creatures from a kids’ TV show. After all, there’s nothing but his ‘moral standards’ saying that’s not okay, isn’t there?
…It’s not my ‘moral place’ to answer that, is there?
Right back at you. :P
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Didn’t say you did. Lunahategood did this thread. Triple threatened me on a thread last July, liberalforlife and libfreeordie (same person) and ernesto wishing our entire generation away more times than I can count. Never saw a Christian do that. I do see a lot of people who claim to be some manner of Christian call us homophobes and bigots and sit idly by and make no correction to the actual words of hate though.
hawkdriver on March 21, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Why, thank you. ^^
Okay, I admit, I’m wrong. You caught me indulging in fuzzy logic. The great thing is, I don’t rule the world. And thanks to people like blink, I have NO interest in doing so. :) So what I think doesn’t really matter, in the grand scheme of things.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM
Now, let’s see.
Yesterday blink called me a “stupid monkey” and you agreed with him, because I “hate evangelicals”, as you stated. Since I hate evangelicals it’s okay to call me a stupid monkey, of course.
Today I didn’t say one impolite word to blink and you accuse me of starting with threats and death wishes, since I am obviously one of “these folks.”
Cognitive dissonance, again?
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM
Luna Hategood? That’s a new one. *snerk* It’s the name of a charrie from Harry Potter, for the record. The quirky, dreamy one. I’d like to be her when I grow up.
I’m sorry. I lost my temper. I get rather rabid and irrational where pedophilia is concerned. I would not willingly hurt any of you, though some of you deserve to have some sense shaken into you. (Not naming any names.)
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 4:57 PM
Akzed,
I think you have forgotten our previous discussions on similar topics through the years. I’m a fellow Christian. I agree with everything you have posted here.
I chose my words poorly. My intent in the use of the word ‘loosely’ was to convey that the Anglican church is/was the state religion of Britain.
Sorry.
shick on March 21, 2012 at 4:57 PM
Sorry, Gel. I made your life harder.
And Blink refuses to answer my question, still. I think I scared it off.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 4:57 PM
Sure, the grayer the better, in terms of making actual policy, but rape and murder do dramatically illustrate the concept you and Luna appear to be rejecting.
The definition of “rape” within Islamic cultures can be quite different from what you are used to seeing. If a woman behaves “alluringly” and dresses “provocatively,” then it is not the man’s fault, and it is not rape.
However, if you prefer even more gray than the culturally mobile definition of “rape,” I see blink has already pointed out the age of consent laws. Deal with those. Then tell us how you are not trying to impose your morality on others.
fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 4:59 PM
First. You can have your hateful condescension.
…
Second, BS, you’ve been saying for pages you’ve been getting angry. Those words were hateful. Ironic.
You invented that part of your conversation.
I take that with a grain of salt these days when your issues seem so much more important than your faith.
For the record, the question was immaterial and not worth his time because it was based on your false canard.
None of you seen to want to answer that question of blinks. It’s come up before.
Make a threat again and I’ll drop your comment in a email.
hawkdriver on March 21, 2012 at 4:59 PM
Never anything wrong with quoting Shepherd Book. He is a wise man. :)
Personally, while I have strong libertarian views on this subject, I’m staying well out of this particular debate.
gravityman on March 21, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Well, LunaLovegood is not “these folks”. And she is actually very nice and reasonable, but was thrown off balance by blink’s surreal attacks.
I have been called names here, as you know, but I am not going to behave like the Christian martyrs in the Colosseum, just because somebody called me something at HotAir.
I despise the passive aggressive innuendos much more. Those commenters who make others angry and then play the victim.
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 5:14 PM
They called the HotAir comments section the ‘Meat Grinder’; guess they weren’t kidding.
Right. I’m sorry for the condescension. And the ‘hateful’ comments. And taking Blink’s words the ENTIRELY wrong way. Usually when you say something isn’t wrong, that means you think it’s right. I was rude and boorish and out of line, especially with the weeping angel comment, that was intended as a joke. Seeing as, you know, they aren’t even real.
And oh? I just want my friend to be happy. That’s all. Yes, my faith comes second to that. I don’t want to be one of those people who’s so ‘religious’ they can’t see the people around them anymore. Remember the Pharisees?
Okay, I’ll bite. I think the current, FEDERALIST system for age of consent works JUST fine. People can decide what age they think works, based on their area.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 5:15 PM
That would be wise, yes. :P
Some of these people are… Either they’re so much smarter than me that I don’t see what they’re getting at, or they’re completely mad. I’m leaning towards the latter.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 5:17 PM
You call us haters and ignore her death wish? You’re no longer worth an exchange. Worthless waste of time with a very disingenuous person.
hawkdriver on March 21, 2012 at 5:18 PM
Right, says death angel girl.
hawkdriver on March 21, 2012 at 5:20 PM
Thank you! Thank you VERY much. I needed to hear that. *curtseys*
I am still not even sure what they’re getting at, other than that I’m not an utter moral relativist. I thought conservatives thought moral relativism was bad. Apparently I’m wrong.
…
…
…
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
No, you didn’t. I love your name, by the way. It’s exactly how you come across.
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 5:24 PM
Well, thanks for sticking up for me. You are made of total win. :)
And she’s my hero. I try to be like her. ^^
… You know what I think? All the hate on here? I suspect the Nargles are behind it. Maybe if we’re nice to them, they’ll just go away.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 5:26 PM
I’m saying that anyone that supports using the government to prevent rape, bestiality, and pedophilia clearly support using the government to force their moral standards on others.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM
contrarytopopularbelief on March 21, 2012 at 5:37 PM
It’s amazing that free speech goes right out the window when you disagree with gay marriage or abortion.
Kirk has the right to believe what he wants.
If you are gay or believe in gay marriage you can believe what you want.
If everyone thinks and feels exactly the same we would be robots or stepford people.
Get over it, he has his own mind and his own moral code. I respect him for that.
SgtRed on March 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM
Yes, you are right. It is called “moral relativism”. The left loves it.
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM
I can answer blink’s question now, because fadetogray explained it to me. blink was not very good at explaining his own thoughts.
blink’s view of moral values is called moral relativism.
So, if I say that rape is a crime I try to force my moral values onto others, because in Muslim cultures, for example, rape is not always a crime, but often actually the fault of the woman or girl.
Therefore we cannot condemn the stoning of raped girls without forcing our moral values onto others.
That’s what blink tries to tell us stupid, morally absolutist monkeys. He is soooo enlightened, don’t you agree?
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 5:51 PM
Preventing someone from punching my in the face isn’t forcing my morals on them.
Preventing someone from threatening me isn’t forcing my morals on them.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 5:56 PM
I thought conservatives were supposed to be all about upholding values…?
@blink: In the words of Major Charles Napier, British Empire:
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 5:56 PM
When did I call you a hater?
And it was already explained to you that the Weeping Angels have nothing to do with a death wish. The Weeping Angles are an ancient race in the Dr. Who series who send their victims back in time.
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 5:56 PM
In case you didn’t realize this. There are plenty of people in this world whose morals are completely based on self interest. Those people will rape if they want to rape.
So, you are forcing your moral values on them simply because you have a different moral basis.
This shouldn’t be completely obvious to you and not difficult for you to admit.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM
:-))
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM
Getsomina said it wayyyyy better than I ever could…
They don’t kill you. For cripe’s sake. I was expressing my wish to have you and your trolling removed from this situation. If it’s a death threat, it’s the nicest one you’ll get this lifetime.
… Please clear the nargles from your brainpan before commenting again. Thank you! Have a nice day.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM
Great. Now that you have admitted that you want to force your moral standards on others, we can have a rational conversation.
Please explain the basis for your belief that your moral standard is superior to the moral standards that others use.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:01 PM
Yes, I understand it now. You are a moral relativist. I am not.
Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM
No. It is most definitely not moral relativism to recognize that we make judgments about what is moral and what is not, and that those judgments are affected by the kind of society we are in and what the context of each individual act being judged happens to be.
That is just common sense. There is no meaning without context.
Moral relativism is saying that all morality is established/defined by the culture, and all cultures are thus “correct” in their morality, and therefore no culture’s morality is superior to the morality of any other culture.
And that is stark raving lunacy.
There is no absolutely good definition for the right and wrong of what the age of consent should be. Every ‘child’ is different. Every relationship is different. That does not mean there should not be an age of consent. It does not mean that whatever the society has decided should be the age of consent will necessarily be ‘correct.’
We decide. We each make a judgment call as to what our society’s age of consent laws should look like. And then we impose what we think is right on the other members of our society. Hopefully, we will get it ‘right’ and the consequences of the laws we impose will be better than the consequences of other judgments we could have made would have been.
fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 6:03 PM
Your irrationality was on full display in this thread.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:03 PM
You may not be, but Blink is. He/she/it/zurb is arguing in favor of the moral judgement of RAPISTS.
Rapists.
Either a troll, or a truly brilliant, twisted mind.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:05 PM
Ha ha. Yes, my “attacks” were surreal.
How dare I ask someone to confirm that they support laws which attempt to control behaviors that they think is wrong?
Wow, I’m such a radical.
Hilarious.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM
… It’s definitely superior to yours. Somehow, you got the idea into your head that rapists/murderers/other monsters have some say in what’s ‘moral’.
News flash: They don’t give a crap.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM
I’d rather be irrational in the service of right (like Jeanne d’Arc) than rational in the service of wrong.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:07 PM
I never said that anything wasn’t wrong.
I merely said that I don’t attempt to force my moral views on anyone else.
Maybe you should slow down and read more carefully from now on.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:08 PM
It’s the first one. Think about it, and you’ll agree.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:09 PM
You are so completely missing the point. No one here is saying you cannot condemn the stoning of the raped girls. What we are saying is you cannot condemn the stoning of the raped girls without imposing your moral values on others.
That is what you are doing: Imposing your values. And that is a very good thing in this instance since your values (and blink’s and mine) are vastly superior to the culturally psychotic moral values of those societies that would stone the raped girls
fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 6:10 PM
…I was attempting to be generous and not give offense.
My apologies.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Your analogy is bad.
A better analogy is that people who support using government to fund street lamps and Fire Dept’s should most certainly admit that they support using government to fund items that they support.
Just like people that support using government to prevent behaviors that they don’t like should most certainly admit that they support using government to support their morals.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM
Forget about homosexuality for a minute.
The only thing that makes an act criminal is the fact that government attempts to prevent an act and/or penalize an act.
In reality a criminal act is arbitrarily dependent on what behaviors government ultimately decides is a criminal act.
You can’t deny this.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:16 PM
@blink- What I said was not a threat. THIS is a threat:
True. Very true. Homosexuality itself used to be a crime. The fact of the matter is that in a just and free society, as few things are criminalized as is possible.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:19 PM
Wrong, again. The opposite is true.
Wow, you really are a stupid monkey.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You can condemn the stoning of raped girls, but you can’t then attempt to admit that your condemnation ISN’T an attempt to force YOUR moral values onto others.
Seriously, this should be obvious. Maybe you’re just pretending to be this stupid.
No, it’s not. Start thinking.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM
Ugh. The formatting mucked up. :P
I suspect the Rotfang Conspiracy’s behind this one.
The link is seperate from what I said. And it is a joke. Just so’s you know.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM
So you’re morally bankrupt, support Big Government, stonings, and you’re argue moral relativism to do it. You’re lost in absolutist nonsense that would make even the biggest liberal French theory groupie blush.
What brought all this on?…. Your discomfort with tagging anti-homosexuality for what it is.
contrarytopopularbelief on March 21, 2012 at 6:22 PM
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:22 PM
UGH! More formatting fail.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/131/351/eb6.jpg?1307463786
Note to self- to not to include links anymore until I know what I’m doing.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM
Neither of you responded adequately.
1. It doesn’t matter if they give a crap.
You should still admit that you want to force your moral standard on them.
2. They most certainly do give a crap. Many rapists/murderers/other monsters have their behaviors deterred by government’s attempt to force its moral standard on them.
Seriously, how old are you?
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:24 PM
More evidence that you want to force what you think is “right” on others.
Seriously, why can’t you just admit it?
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM
Never ask a lady her age, my friend.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM
No, you are 180 degrees off, and you are making yourself look more like a monkey by claiming this.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:26 PM
How would you know? I haven’t articulated my moral standards on here at all.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:27 PM
…
Who doesn’t?
Seriously. We’re created in God’s image. Meaning: We all want to create the world over again in our own image.
I happen to think that you can’t force people to be better, and you need to leave people alone as long as they’re not hurting anyone. But hey, go ahead. Make your world in your insane image.
Mr. Teatime would be proud.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:28 PM
Now, it seems as if you’re TRYING to be stupid.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:29 PM
…
…
…
Not sure if trolling, or that much of a coward.
If you were talking to his/her face, you would NEVER call him/her a stupid monkey, would you?
Smeg off. Seriously.
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:29 PM
Yes, I was. That was a JOKE.
It’s the freggin’ EAT MORE CHIKIN cows. For pete’s sake.
Are you seriously that humorless? Or are you taking offense at every little thing just to be a jerk?
LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:31 PM
I’ve stated nothing that would make any rational reader believe that I support Big Government or stonings.
I’m saying that if someone supports the government spending money, then they can’t claim to be opposed to the government spending any money.
If someone supports the government restricting behaviors, then they can’t claim to be opposed to government restricting behaviors.
Seriously, there’s nothing radical about these statements.
No, I’m doing the opposite of that.
blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:32 PM
Glad you are better. Always remember that we are all a bunch of anonymous people talking to other anonymous people with no impact on our real lives. It makes the times you disagree, especially with people you like, easier to take.
Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 6:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 Next »