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 14 15 16 17

fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Let’s go back to the topic of this thread, before blink hijacked it.

Alan Turing was forced to take hormone treatments. He suffered terribly, before he committed suicide.

That’s what I was talking about, before blink accused me of forcing my moral values onto others.

I never talked about rape. blink started it, because he wanted to make a point about something that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I think that it was terrible that Turing had to suffer. His only crime was being a homosexual.

If you and blink think that I am forcing my moral values onto others, because I think that this shouldn’t have happened, so be it.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Let’s go back to the topic of this thread, before blink hijacked it.

Alan Turing was forced to take hormone treatments. He suffered terribly, before he committed suicide.

That’s what I was talking about, before blink accused me of forcing my moral values onto others.

I never talked about rape. blink started it, because he wanted to make a point about something that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I think that it was terrible that Turing had to suffer. His only crime was being a homosexual.

If you and blink think that I am forcing my moral values onto others, because I think that this shouldn’t have happened, so be it.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 6:36 PM

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

You are extremely right. Keep it up.

LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:37 PM

@Cindy: Thank you. ^^ You’ve helped me regain a bit of my faith in humanity Blink drained away.

Keep being awesome and effortlessly classy.

LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:39 PM

No, I’m much nicer in person. Hopefully, you’ll see that if we ever do our Hot Air meet-and-greet.

But I’m not nice enough NOT to think it. ;)

blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:38 PM

So being anonymous gives you the courage to say things you would NEVER say to someone’s face?

You utter, utter smeghead. >_>

That’s not bravery. Or manners. That’s cowardice.

I hate to say this, seeing as I’m on the younger end of the commenters here, and I’m an immature fangirl… but grow up.

‘Stupid monkey’ is a preschool level insult. As is the utterly puerile way you’ve been conducting this argument.

And yes. If you were talking about my friends this way, I would call you out on it. In real life. To your face.

LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 6:42 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

Of course, you do. With every thread you hijack you force your moral views on anyone else.

You see, if I am in a thread about homosexuals I’m not interested in what you think about the moral values involved in rape. But you stalk and stalk me, until I am stupid enough to react.

That’s your modus operandi. You talk about nothing but moral values. You are obsessed with them, but in a negative way.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM

At least you’re no longer denying your desire to force your moral values onto others.

Another breakthrough.

blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Whats so funny blink is that everyone tries to force their morals on each other. Not at the tip of a sword, although there are certainly quite a few who would and do so, but we all discuss these issues and come to a conclusion.

Every conversation is an argument at its core. It’s people discussing things and trying to sway thought one way or the other. That’s how ALL our accepted morals came to be. Throughout time we’ve mistepped now and again and regressed and progressed, but we’re getting to a better place morality wise.

I mean look at the morals espoused in the bible. Nowhere in the Christian big book does god provide an injunction against slavery, yet here we are with the majority of the world in agreement that slavery is a bad thing.

Instead, god wastes four of his big ten commandments talking about how we should worship him above all others.

Nothing about child abuse, nothing about womens rights, only negative laws saying we can’t mix fabrics, can’t eat pork, how women must kill two birds when going through menstruation, etc.

INANE laws that have very little to do with being good to each other and instead seek to control people…

Look blink, just quit being a #rick.

SauerKraut537 on March 21, 2012 at 6:57 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.

fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 6:10 PM

No, I am not imposing may values on anybody. I express my opinion. This, I think, is the root of the misunderstanding.

Expressing an opinion is not imposing a moral value.

If I think that rape is a crime I don’t change or confirm the law. Nothing changes, no matter what my opinion may be.

Take the stoned girl. I’m quite sure that she thinks she is innocent, but that doesn’t mean that she imposes anything on her killers.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM

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

Nobody mentioned laws, regulations or government but you. It’s a paper tiger argument of a mad person who feels guilty about their own beliefs.

Reframing the debate so it’s about religious laws vs. man made laws overseen by a government makes you seem desperate.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 21, 2012 at 6:59 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

Blink is a coward. We had exactly the same discussion a few days ago. He endlessly rambled on about my moral values and constantly called me stupid. When I asked him/her outright what his moral values are he said that he wouldn’t tell me.

His shtick only works as long has he can hide his own moral values.

All hat and no cattle, as I said.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM

He’s tenacious, I’ll give him that much… But being overly tenacious is like being a fossil.

SauerKraut537 on March 21, 2012 at 7:06 PM

I’ve stated nothing that would make any rational reader believe that I support Big Government or stonings.blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:32 PM

You were being mocked for your Trollish posts putting words in the mouth of others.

You do clearly support stonings though. It’s that darn moral standard of the status quo that stops you from being a good Christian. See, that is how base you sound.

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.blink on March 21, 2012 at 6:32 PM

You’re a Leftist with an absolutist Anarcho-Fascist mindset. You just gave yourself away.

Conservatives are typically mature and balanced enough to know opposing misappropriation and fiscal abuse doesn’t prohibit supporting a Government that is well budgeted, towards responsible spending.

…and you’re off topic.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 21, 2012 at 7:10 PM

His shtick only works as long has he can hide his own moral values.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Whatever his morals, his reoccurring argument is to diminish their value.

There’s a reason he’s unable to find context with the OP’s post.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 21, 2012 at 7:13 PM

If you and blink think that I am forcing my moral values onto others, because I think that this shouldn’t have happened, so be it.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Thank God there are good people who are willing to impose their moral views on other people.

No, I am not imposing may values on anybody. I express my opinion. This, I think, is the root of the misunderstanding.

Expressing an opinion is not imposing a moral value.

If I think that rape is a crime I don’t change or confirm the law. Nothing changes, no matter what my opinion may be.

Take the stoned girl. I’m quite sure that she thinks she is innocent, but that doesn’t mean that she imposes anything on her killers.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Well, drat, and here I was thinking you were a decent person willing to impose your “don’t stone the raped girl” value on other people.

My bad.

fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Nope. I have all the courage I need to call someone a monkey to their face.

I wouldn’t do it because it would probably hurt their feelings worse if they had it called to them in person.

… You majored in Completely Missing the Point, didn’t you?

At least I have the guts to admit to it. That I’m immature.

1. I admit that I’m not proud of the insults I hurl on here. I will make it a point to try to resist the urge to do this to you and others on here.

2. There’s nothing wrong with the way I’ve conducted this argument. It’s not my fault that you took such great offense on having to be honest with yourself.

I’ve counted at least three rhetorical fallacies. Care for the list?

Blink is a coward. We had exactly the same discussion a few days ago. He endlessly rambled on about my moral values and constantly called me stupid. When I asked him/her outright what his moral values are he said that he wouldn’t tell me.

His shtick only works as long has he can hide his own moral values.

All hat and no cattle, as I said.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Oh yeah. Well… Hopefully he/she/it/zurb will see the error of his/her/its/zerb’q ways. :)

LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Well, drat, and here I was thinking you were a decent person willing to impose your “don’t stone the raped girl” value on other people.

My bad.

fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 7:13 PM

You were wrong.

I don’t want to impose any of my values on other people. I want to convince them. I don’t have the power to force anybody to believe what I believe, but have the power to talk with people.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 7:44 PM

You were wrong.

I don’t want to impose any of my values on other people. I want to convince them. I don’t have the power to force anybody to believe what I believe, but have the power to talk with people.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Of course you have the power. You have something called the “vote.” You vote for people who reflect your values and who will make decisions and pass laws that will impose your values on others, whether by the imposition of new laws, the removal of existing laws or the alterations of laws and regulations.

You can’t pick and choose any particular imposition of your values with a great deal of accuracy, but the vote is quite effective at altering government over time to impose on us the changing values of the masses of which you are one.

fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Of course you have the power. You have something called the “vote.” You vote for people who reflect your values and who will make decisions and pass laws that will impose your values on others, whether by the imposition of new laws, the removal of existing laws or the alterations of laws and regulations.

You can’t pick and choose any particular imposition of your values with a great deal of accuracy, but the vote is quite effective at altering government over time to impose on us the changing values of the masses of which you are one.

fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 7:51 PM

That’s what I would have said in a different context, but we are talking about the stoning of girls. Thousands of soldiers cannot force the Taliban, or the Iranian Mullahs, to stop stoning girls.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 8:06 PM

That’s what I would have said in a different context, but we are talking about the stoning of girls. Thousands of soldiers cannot force the Taliban, or the Iranian Mullahs, to stop stoning girls.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Of course we could. Our “don’t stone the raped girls’ value is just not strong enough to not be offset by other values like the “avoid global war with Islam” value.

Also, your “don’t stoned the raped girls” value matters even here in America. Muslim immigration is sharply on the rise. Honor killings are already here.

fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Of course we could. Our “don’t stone the raped girls’ value is just not strong enough to not be offset by other values like the “avoid global war with Islam” value.

Also, your “don’t stoned the raped girls” value matters even here in America. Muslim immigration is sharply on the rise. Honor killings are already here.

fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 8:24 PM

What does this have to do with the topic of the post? Just wondering?

LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM

What does this have to do with the topic of the post? Just wondering?

LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM

It has to do with people imposing their moral values on others.

fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 8:49 PM

contrarytopopularbelief on March 21, 2012 at 6:59 PM

It’s a Damn shame you will live till you die without the self awareness realizing how stupid that statement you made was.

tom daschle concerned on March 21, 2012 at 9:56 PM

It has to do with people imposing their moral values on others.

fadetogray on March 21, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Do you impose your moral values on your children or didn’t your parents impose theirs on you?

Nothing wrong with doing it, but do it for the right reasons rather than because of some make believe theory you have on the creator of the universe.

An idea stands on it’s own merits, not because you say a god told you to be this way or you assume its his absolute morality.

The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include things like what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? Punishment for breaking the sabbath? Death for homosexuals? These are all things which are religiously based absolute morality… I don’t think I WANT an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, and discussed.

SauerKraut537 on March 21, 2012 at 9:57 PM

It’s a Damn shame you will live till you die without the self awareness realizing how stupid that statement you made was.
tom daschle concerned on March 21, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Oh please. I was replying to one of your fellow off-topic provocateurs who can’t articulate a point of any depth or merit to begin with. Who even knows or cares what position you’re taking.

Meanwhile, Tina…if you’re out there…love it or hate it, homosexuality has been around as long as civilization. Homosexuality did not stifle or detour the advent of Christianity which continues to thrive, so crediting it with the downfall of civilization itself is nothing but anti-homosexual sensationalism.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 21, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Do you impose your moral values on your children or didn’t your parents impose theirs on you?
Nothing wrong with doing it, but do it for the right reasons rather than because of some make believe theory you have on the creator of the universe.
An idea stands on it’s own merits, not because you say a god told you to be this way or you assume its his absolute morality.
The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include things like what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? Punishment for breaking the sabbath? Death for homosexuals? These are all things which are religiously based absolute morality… I don’t think I WANT an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, and discussed.
SauerKraut537 on March 21, 2012 at 9:57 PM

.
That last line says you want to be “your own God.”
.
Below is only part of the story of the rich man, and the beggar Lazarus. This was not a “parable”, but rather was an actual true story.
V 27-31 emphasized
.

Luke 16:23-31

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeing Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, No, father Abraham: but if someone went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though someone rose from the dead.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2012 at 11:09 PM

contrarytopopularbelief on March 21, 2012 at 11:06 PM

.
Homosexuality has never been able to be practiced out in the open, shamelessly and stigma free, except at Sodom & Gomorrah.

The U.S. today is like Sodom & Gomorrah.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2012 at 11:19 PM

The American Medical Association, Psychiatric Association, Psychological Association, Bar Association and Academy of Pediatrics all support equality of gays and lesbians. Civil society is settled on this issue and the troglodytes who oppose gay rights are on the wrong side of history.

Zime on March 21, 2012 at 11:51 PM

listens2glenn on March 21, 2012 at 11:19 PM –

You really need to learn some history pertaining to the Greeks, and Egyptians.

When has Soddomy ever ceased to exist? Civilization has kept on going strong, accepted or not.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 12:01 AM

That last line says you want to be “your own God.”

listens2glenn on March 21, 2012 at 11:09 PM

you ARE your own god glenn.

Below is only part of the story of the rich man, and the beggar Lazarus. This was not a “parable”, but rather was an actual true story.
V 27-31 emphasized

How, pray tell, do you know it’s a true story? Please enlighten us all about the historicity of those verses…

The fact is that it’s just a parable in a book about a guy some people said was divine. Just like many other people’s claims throughout history saying the same about other people or themselves.

Keep in mind, this book you’re quoting from also has verses like Deut 23:1 which says. “No one whose test-tickles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.”

or Malachi 2:3 which says, “Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces”

ANY god who has a holy book with verses like these is most assuredly NOT the god of the cosmos. You’re gonna have to do much better than that Glenn.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Fallacy #1 – “mom’s and dad’s built this country”.. thanks for ignoring and diminishing a minority (invisible) population, as well as single people, etc. I don’t mind his convictions, but they seem ill-placed and sort of narcissistic.

freerider on March 22, 2012 at 2:33 AM

You really need to learn some history pertaining to the Greeks, and Egyptians.

When has Soddomy ever ceased to exist? Civilization has kept on going strong, accepted or not.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 12:01 AM

.
It has NEVER ceased to exist since it started.

What I was failing (apparently) to say was it had to be kept clandestine/undercover/in-the-closet ever since Sodom & Gomorrah, until the 1970s in America.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2012 at 3:02 AM

How, pray tell, do you know it’s a true story?

The fact is that it’s just a parable in a book about a guy some people said was divine. Just like many other people’s claims throughout history saying the same about other people or themselves.

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 1:21 AM

.
(S i g h)

Every time Jesus told a parable, the author (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John) specifically states it as being a parable.
When Jesus started a story with: “A certain man . . . . “, that was a real historical event he was presenting.
.
Jesus left an empty grave/tomb behind as evidence of himself and his resurection.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2012 at 3:19 AM

This thread still won’t die?
o.O I thought it had given up the ghost by now.

Actually, I think you’re going a little bit crazy.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 3:22 AM

‘Going’? *laughs* Do you know what character my username is based on?

I’m mad as a hatter. But in the words of Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter, it’s okay. All the best people are.

Thanks for the gratuitous ad hominem, by the way. ^^

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 3:40 AM

I’m sure you would claim that a quantum physics professor is merely rambling on – because you don’t understand him.

You were being stupid.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 3:14 AM

Nice try. Once more, without ad-hominem arguments.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 3:42 AM

What I was failing (apparently) to say was it had to be kept clandestine/undercover/in-the-closet ever since Sodom & Gomorrah, until the 1970s in America.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2012 at 3:02 AM

You’re actually wrong, historically speaking we know of many instances of noted cases of homosexuality…and what difference does it make?

Gays would remind you that societies over the ages have been wrong about women, people of specific religions, people of certain skin tones, people with birth defects, and special needs, and a whole host of other denominators. Some lifestyle choices, some God given attributes, quirks, weakness, qualities, whatever the case may be. Why should Gay men have to gather in secret in the back rooms of bars in San Francisco or New York, and fear risk of police raids as they did in the late 60′s? Why would you want someone to suppress their lifestyle when we know there will never be such a thing as a prohibition on same sex relations? If you view it as a sin, then how is demanding one sin out of sight, and out of mind, any better? At least now your neighbor can say they’re Gay, and avoid tip toeing behind their spouses back.

Anyway, It’s absolutely trivial to explaining anti-homosexual attitudes in the modern age.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 3:47 AM

People falsely claimed that they didn’t support government enforcing their moral standards on others, and I merely called them out on it.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 3:12 AM

You keep repeating this, yet you have yet to find relevance in any posts here, the OP’s or otherwise.

It’s starting to read like repetition in ramblings of noted mad men like Jared Laughner or the Unabomber.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 3:55 AM

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.”

-Tina Korbe, HotAir.com blogger and promoter of the anti-gay Rick Santorum

Wow, what a surprise to see a supporter of the homophobic bigot Rick Santorum defend the idea that gays are a threat to human existence.

Thank goodness Rick Santorum and his crowd are getting trounced in the primaries. You people are an embarrassment to the party!

bluegill on March 22, 2012 at 4:10 AM

blink on March 22, 2012 at 4:03 AM – I just see you evoking the same rhetorical non-argument, assigning the SAME accusations to virtually everyone you disagree with, while dodging the actual topic.

Apparently you have made a habit of this in other threads.

Maybe someone who thinks you made some point can articulate it, because you sure can’t.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 4:13 AM

bluegill on March 22, 2012 at 4:10 AM

I’m still shocked at the direction Hot Air has taken.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 4:16 AM

I’m still shocked at the direction Hot Air has taken.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 22, 2012 at 4:16 AM

Yeah, I agree. HotAir needs better bloggers and more perspectives represented.

It’s fine if Tina wants to post about what she sees as the dire threats posed by homosexuality. I don’t agree with her and don’t think she makes any sort of strong case, but whatever. She’s free to express herself.

What I’d like to see is a strong libertarian voice on here. Maybe also someone else with a strong background in foreign affairs/islamic terrorism/national security, etc. Someone else (similar to Greg Gutfeld) who is solid at comedy or lighter stuff would also be good.

Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit are obviously solid writers, though Allahpundit’s wishy-washiness doesn’t really make for a strong voice for anything. More main bloggers are needed, with more interaction and back and forth between them.

I’m also not happy at all with how this site has become one that goes along with the fashionable “true conservative” media trend of dumping on Romney, who I strongly support. It gets very tiresome.

HotAir, please recruit more bloggers who represent a wider range of perspectives! I want to see more debates between you guys.

bluegill on March 22, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Whats so funny blink is that everyone tries to force their morals on each other.

SauerKraut537 on March 21, 2012 at 6:57 PM

It’s good that you can finally admit this.

Another breakthrough.

LOL! I never denied it!

Now, you can tell us why you think that your moral standards are superior to everyone else’s.

LOL! I never said my moral standards were superior to anyone else’s did I? There you go putting words into people’s mouths again.

Look blink, just quit being a #rick.

I never was. I was simply providing a clinical diagnosis of you.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 3:03 AM

Oh yes you were, and still are, a #rick

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 8:39 AM

HotAir, please recruit more bloggers who represent a wider range of perspectives! I want to see more debates between you guys.

bluegill on March 22, 2012 at 8:13 AM

.
No, Hotair. Please don’t recruit any more bloggers with conflicting/contrary beliefs.

All of us evil conservatives want to just gang-up on bluegill.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2012 at 8:48 AM

(S i g h)

Every time Jesus told a parable, the author (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John) specifically states it as being a parable.
When Jesus started a story with: “A certain man . . . . “, that was a real historical event he was presenting.
.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2012 at 3:19 AM

An even BIGGER sigh than yours…

It’s JUST a book glenn, NOT the word of god, and most certainly not true, and NOT the wishes of the creator of the entire cosmos but of some ancient people who thought they knew everything yet knew only a fraction of what we know today…

Jesus left an empty grave/tomb behind as evidence of himself and his resurection.

As I said, it’s a book ONLY. You take it so literally yet it’s funny how you discount/discard the obviously wrongheaded and stupid verses like the ones I provided. Do your eyes just glaze over and you can’t see the obviously stupid parts of the bible?

God seriously cares if one of his creations who had his nutz crushed or member cut off is let into his presence/assembly/church?

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Ten Verses Never Preached On

10. 2 Kings 2:23-24 NKJV

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Comments: George Costanza envokes the wrath of God.

9. Mark 14:51-52 NASB

A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.

Comments: Possibly the first streaker in history.

8. Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

Comments: We can’t just be letting anyone in. We have to draw the line somewhere.

7. Genesis 38:8-10 NASB

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.

Comments: Not only do you have to carry the body out, but you have to mop the floor too.

6. 1 Samuel 18:25-27 ESV

Then Saul said, “Thus shall you say to David, ‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.’” Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.

Comments: How do you present a gift like that? Do you tie a bow on the box?

5. Exodus 4:24-25 NASB

Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and threw it at Moses’ feet, and she said, “You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me.”

Comments: I imagine the son was screaming in pain and Moses just kinda stared at it in disgust.

4. Ezekiel 16:17 NIV

You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them.

Comments: What did she do with her gold and silver idols?

3. Ezekiel 23:19-20 NET

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Comments: Can’t wait to hear this taught from a pulpit.

2. Judges 3:19-25 ESV

And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out.

Comments: Apparently the sword pierced all the way through and something unexpected came out the other side. The author felt this was a necessary detail to include.

1. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NASB

If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Comments: My question is why would she do this and were there any repeat offenders?

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 9:01 AM

No, response is needed to this.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 3:46 AM

Yes, actually. As it turns out…

I’m AUTISTIC, you yellow-bellied coward. AUTISTIC. Like annoyinglittletwerp.

I have a MENTAL CONDITION. I try to stay positive about it, because the alternative is to get bitter and play the victim. So I quote Luna Lovegood and the Mad Hatter, and try to make everything cheerful.

You reeeeeeally crossed a line. >_>

Oh please. My reminding him that he WAS being stupid pales in comparison to the taunting he delivered in his comment. You selective outrage is obvious.

Call him out on the taunting, and you’ll save a shred of your credibility.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 3:48 AM

Do you even know what the words ‘ad hominem’ mean?

In the words of the famous Professor Kirke: “Bless me, what DO they teach them in these schools?”

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 9:10 AM

As I said, it’s a book ONLY. You take it so literally yet it’s funny how you discount/discard the obviously wrongheaded and stupid verses like the ones I provided. Do your eyes just glaze over and you can’t see the obviously stupid parts of the bible?

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 8:51 AM

.
YES . . . . . I take it literally, and you’re never going to change that.

But don’t let that stop you from trying! : )

listens2glenn on March 22, 2012 at 9:19 AM

YES . . . . . I take it literally, and you’re never going to change that.

But don’t let that stop you from trying! : )

listens2glenn on March 22, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Then why do you discount, make excuses for, apologize for the more barbaric verses in the bible?

Why WOULD god care of one of his creations who had his nutz smashed or member cut off entered into his “assembly”?

REALLY!?

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Two points:

1) What about the celibate lifestyle of monks and nuns? Clearly, that behavior would destroy civilization in a generation, if everyone did it.

2) Millions of heterosexual artists, philosophers, politicians, scientists and average people have died of syphilis.

Gelsomina on March 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM

By the “What if Everyone Did It Test”, celibacy is not normative, as social contracts go. It’s no different in terms of a potential existential threat to civilization.

Incidently, for all the Christian posters here, one of the first commandments given by God in the Torah (the original Hebrew social contract) forbids celibacy except in times of war or famine. The Christian apostle Paul’s affirmation of celebacy, if not set in the context of the Jewish Wars with Rome (at the time the text was written) is, by Jewish law, quite mistaken (but I digress).

As for dying of STD’s, this makes the case for monogomous sexual relations within marriage only as the social contract norm. When the Torah says, ” A man shall leave is Father and Mother and cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh”, it simply means they shall become one flesh by their children and that sexual relationships that do not have the potential to create children are not commanded — there is no godliness revealed in such acts (which is what commandments are given for — to bring heaven to earth) and therefore extramarital sexual relations are to be avoided.

So, sexual relations that have the potential for procreating within monogomous marriage is the best social contract, for if everyone did it, there would be sufficient children to continue civilization and, additionally, killing each other by STD’s is diminished.

Rosey on March 22, 2012 at 10:06 AM

blink on March 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Ad hominem. Post hoc. Logical fallacies.

Any of this ringing any bells?

At least you haven’t stooped to the reducto ad Hitlerum yet.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

saurkraut, why do you deny the obvious???

blink on March 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

…I’m still waiting for my apology, Blink. :P

You really offended me. If this was two hundred years ago, and I was a man, my honor would demand that I challenge you to a duel. Thank heavens people don’t do that anymore, huh?

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 10:30 AM

@blink- In the words of the immortal Jayne Cobb-

You’re starting to damage my calm.

Logical fallacies are usually something to be avoided.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Ad hominem: The phrase ‘stupid monkey’ ringing any bells? As in ‘your argument’s invalid because you’re a stupid monkey?’

Post hoc: ‘You think that the government should punish rape as a crime; therefore, you want the government to push every detail of your morality on people’.

Bitter? LOL. LO-freakin’-L. You make me laugh, troll.

…Now smeg off.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I’m still waiting for mine. Save your indignation for sometime when you can actually justify being indignant.

Do you really want me to go back and quote you repeating calling me “sick” and much worse?

blink on March 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM

… … …
I apologized profusely for it, and I will do so again.

I am SORRY.

I thought you were advocating child molestation and bestiality. Both of which are hideously abusive, and, yes, SICK.

I will call ANYONE who advocates for these things the same. Deal with it.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Man, lest anyone doubt what truly obsesses the GOP base…1600 comments…zowz.
Keep at it, I guess.
I’m sure Tina will keep throwin’ ya bones…and you’ll keep fetching.

verbaluce on March 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM

verbaluce on March 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM

In Everyone Else’s defence, Verb, it’s mostly been Blink and I. We’ve been going at it hammer and tongs for three days now.

I know he’s trolling; I guess I’m a bit of a masochist. I can’t resist the argument, even though I know I can’t win.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 10:58 AM

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Maybe agree to disagree?
The Hunger Games is out – supposed to be really good.

verbaluce on March 22, 2012 at 11:01 AM

You consider brilliant, on-topic arguments to be trolling? Wow.

It’s difficult to win when you initiate from an irrationally hypocritical basis.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Nice to see you again, Professor Lockhart. I didn’t know you were interested in Muggle politics. How’s St. Mungo’s?

Maybe agree to disagree?
The Hunger Games is out – supposed to be really good.

verbaluce on March 22, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Thanks, Verb. On that note:

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s320x320/408842_355100777843774_266484180038768_1230938_603770143_n.jpg

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM

blink on March 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

First of all, your reading comprehension disorder is showing… I never denied that people try to persuade others to their way of thinking when it comes to morals. You have me confused with someone else, that was an argument that you were having with Gel or Luna I think.

But again, I’m not saying that MY morals are better than anyone else’s. I don’t decide for us what our morals are going to be. WE decide it. I have an opinion on them just like you do, but I don’t force my opinions on others, I only seek to persuade.

I made it clear that WE as a society today think that our morals are superior to those who think that stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking the sabbath, and death for homosexuals are good moral values.

A vast majority of people may agree that your OUR moral standards are superior to standards associated with these things

FIFY

Additionally, you claimed that, “These are all things which are religiously based absolute morality… these (for example), ” – which is you saying that you think that your moral standards are superior to moral standards which are religiously based.

Which is me saying pointing out a fact (that they’re religiously based morality that is just plain fallacious), and that WE as a society think that our modern morals are superior to those espoused by ancient people otherwise why don’t we stone people for adultery anymore? Why don’t we punish people for breaking the sabbath anymore? Why don’t we kill all homosexuals anymore?

saurkraut, why do you deny the obvious???

blink on March 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Blink, why are you such a inane #rick who tries to put words in everybody’s mouths all the time?

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Blink, why are you such a inane #rick who tries to put words in everybody’s mouths all the time?

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I’ve discovered Blink’s secret identity, Sauerkraut… He’s my old Defense against the Dark Arts teacher, Gilderoy Lockhart.

In other words: A narcissist, with a lousy memory.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 12:02 PM

@blink- In the words of the immortal Jayne Cobb-

You’re starting to damage my calm.

Logical fallacies are usually something to be avoided.

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I prefer Kevin Flynn on the subject.

“You’re messing with my zen thing, man.”

:)

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 12:03 PM

A vast majority of people may agree that your moral standards are superior to standards associated with these things, but this is still a clear example of you saying that YOUR moral standards are superior to anyone whose moral standards include these things.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I can’t believe I am going to bite on the topic, but here goes…

blink, let me first say that I understand the point you have been making. Your logic is not faulty on the point, but does seem very black and white in a world where there is almost nothing that is black and white. It appears to be an argument of extremes that comes from taking any topic of debate to it’s farthest logical conclusion. I will say though that you may want to work on your debate style… I read the entire 16 pages of comments, and it took me 10 pages to figure out where you were going with your point. The “monkey” and “stupid” attacks very much detract from the point you are trying to make… just constructive criticism.

The part I quoted above though, combined with a few of your other comments taken as a whole, lead to an odd natural conclusion though (at least as best I can tell).

I am left with the idea that your statement above that someone saying their moral standards are superior to others is an obvious one. Isn’t the reason any person has a set of moral standards (Im speaking for themselves personally now, nothing to do with imposing them on others) because they believe those moral standards are superior to other moral standards they could have? If a person sees a set of moral standards they believe superior to their own, would not that person naturally change their moral standards to the ones they believe are superior?

Aside from that, on the subject of imposition of whatever set of morals one holds…

While you have not advocated a particularly set of moral standards you would impose, the only logic conclusion I can draw from your extension of the argument to it’s farthest logical end point is that you are making a point that there are no morals except personal morals. While I would have to agree with that statement on it’s own, the only next logical step I can conclude is one of anarchy. Every man is his own god essentially (as an atheist, another point I wouldn’t disagree with in the black/white sense). The obvious result is that any government at all is an imposition of one set of moral standards on the people over whom that government claims dominion, preferably with the consent and general consensus of the governed on what those morals should be but sadly not always.

I am wondering then, do you advocate anarchy wherein every man lives by only his personal moral standards or do you believe in the need for a government which by it’s very nature must be an imposition of a set of moral standards by force (perferably a set agreed to by a majority)?

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Right, says death angel girl.

hawkdriver on March 21, 2012 at 5:20 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

saurkraut, why do you deny the obvious???

blink on March 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Give up on these turkeys if the only response they can muster is…

Blink, why are you such a inane #rick who tries to put words in everybody’s mouths all the time?

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM

..insults and misrepresentations.
Everyone else sees that you never put words in their mouths. You only showed them the results of their faulty arguments.

shick on March 22, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Even gravityman agrees that my claims are accurate (he only went wrong in trying to extrapolate what I was saying). It’s strange that the others can’t simply agree and move on.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I would be interested to know where you are going with the argument then. Note, I did not try to say you were advocating anarchy, since you really have not advocated any position at all. You’ve merely been making an argument of logical progression to it’s end point. My conclusion (by my own logic and extrapolation of your point, granted) is that the only way one can avoid an imposition of ones morals on others by force of government is to have anarchy (the black and white argument I was refering to). If you disagree with that conclusion, then I would like to hear the next step in your logic as to where you are attempting to take the argument.

I think it is important to note that the Founding Fathers made a consistent and distinct point repeatedly, one with which I (and I think most libertarians would agree) and seemingly one you would agree with if your point is properly taken. That point being that ALL government is a nessecary evil by the very fact that any government is an imposition of moral standards by one group upon another by force (or threat thereof). Hence their advocacy for a government as small as possible to ensure the “defense and common welfare”, so that as much liberty as was humanly possible could be maintained in an imperfect world of imperfect people.

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Ten Verses Never Preached On

SauerKraut537 on March 22, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Wrong. I’ve been in my current church for only four years and have heard expository preaching through 2 Kings, Genesis, 1 Samuel, Exodus and Judges. Now we are in Deuteronomy. Leaving only Mark and Ezekial off of your list. This doesn’t mean that he hasn’t preached on the others or that anyone else hasn’t either. My pastor never leaves the ‘difficult’ verses behind.

The false claim “Ten Verses Never Preached On” certainly sounds like an impressive list to laugh over with fellow skeptics. How impressive exactly? Well just type in “ten verses never preached on george costanza” in a Google search and you get the very same cut and pasted information that you posted. But you are not the first to cut and paste it because it is so popular that many have done the same thing over and over. How original you are! Perhaps instead of taking this list with any grain of seriousness you should consider hearing responses from Christians regarding them.

Since we have been graced with a display of your abundance of logic I think we can expect more of the same kind of avoidance and name calling we’ve come to expect.

LunaLovegood,

And you have been calling blink a troll over and over again?

shick on March 22, 2012 at 1:03 PM

why are you such a inane #rick

Dude, the namecalling isn’t cool. If you feel the need to censor, you’re probably out of line.

Let’s see if LunaLovegood is objective enough to call you out on this.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Just did. Would have earlier, but I had to go afk for a bit.

Wow, you really are a hypocrite.

blink on March 22, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Calling your own comment ‘brilliant’ isn’t a tad bit conceited? Just a thought?

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

… Short answer, no. It’s way more amusing to watch you squirm and not get my fangirly references. Next question.

This seems to be why LunaLovegood, saurkraut, and Gelsomina have become so nasty. It seems as if they’re upset that their hypocrisy and faulty arguments were exposed.

… By your own definition, anyone that wants the government to do ANYTHING to protect people, while still believing in personal freedom and the separation of church and state, is a hypocrite.

That, and the fact that I had to read your rambling inanities for 10 pages now is NOT helping my mood. =_=

*mutters something about needing brain bleach now*

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM

LunaLovegood,

And you have been calling blink a troll over and over again?

shick on March 22, 2012 at 1:03 PM

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

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

LunaLovegood on March 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Luna shows no love for the Kevin Flynn. LOL :)

hawkdriver, I did not find Luna’s post the least bit insulting honestly, but then I understood most of her references. Now that I understand blink’s point, or at least the logic he was trying to get at for 10+ pages, it is easier to discuss the point. I would say prior to that point, most of blink’s post were coming off very combative and the namecalling was not helping to make the point. I find it a bit unfair to accuse Luna of being insulting and calling names while blink is calling everyone he is attempting to debate “stupid” and a “monkey” or both together. It detracted from the logic of his arguments, which was already difficult to follow until he finally began expounding a bit more after 10+ pages.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. :)

gravityman on March 22, 2012 at 1:17 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

… Short answer, no. It’s way more amusing to watch you squirm and not get my fangirly references. Next question.

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

Comment pages: 1 14 15 16 17