Kirk Cameron’s Gay Friends Think It’s Great He Called Them Unnatural Destroyers of Civilization

March 6th, 2012 // 235 Comments
Kirk Cameron
'They're Unnatural'
Kirk Cameron
Kirk Cameron
On Gays Read More »

“Alright, on three everyone say, ‘Our butt sex is killing America!’”

After facing criticism for his remarks on homosexuality during an interview with Piers Morgan, Kirk Cameron has issued a statement to ABC News where he literally plays the “I have a black friend” card but for gays after wrapping himself in the American flag and pretending his freedom of speech has somehow been infringed upon:

“I spoke as honestly as I could, but some people believe my responses were not loving toward those in the gay community. That is not true. I can assuredly say that it’s my life’s mission to love all people.”
“I should be able to express moral views on social issues,” he said, “especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.”
He concluded, “I believe we need to learn how to debate these things with greater love and respect,” and added, “I’ve been encouraged by the support of many friends (including gay friends, incidentally).”

I’m pushing this below the cut because Jesus fucking Christ:

“Some people believe my responses were not loving toward those in the gay community. I should be able to express moral views on social issues … without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent.”

1. Kirk Cameron called homosexuals “unnatural” and “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” I’m pretty sure when I paint a whole swath of people as the goddamn destroyers of society as we know it, it’s usually not so much a “loving” response as a blatant attempt to incite others to fire that which I so clearly hate into the sun. For example: The Kardashians.

2. Let’s talk about freedom of speech because clearly Kirk Cameron, along with Sarah Palin and a couple of Constitutional scholars in the comments, don’t seem to understand how it works despite it being a very basic, elementary concept: Freedom of speech does not protect you from criticism. When Kirk Cameron went on television and publicly aired his opinions without the government putting a gun to his face and forcing him to be quiet, he fully exercised his freedom of speech and most of us would fight to defend his right to do so. So Kirk Cameron’s freedom of speech’s virginity was left intact, and more importantly to him, its ass virginity. Now, when I wrote my post yesterday, and others aired their opinions about Kirk’s comments, that was our right to freedom of speech which in no way trampled on Kirk Cameron’s own right. Unless our words traveled back in time, assumed the form of Barack Obama and punched Kirk in the dick before he went on Piers Morgan, his Constitutional rights were used to their fullest. It’s that fucking simple. So remember that the next time you want to burst into a comment thread with, “Whatever happened to freedom of speech in this country?!” We’re all allowed to say stupid shit whether in response to other stupid shit or just for the sake of saying stupid shit. Think of America as a stupid shit orgy open all stupid shit day.

Now, in the spirit of unity, let’s Christian and atheist alike join together in laughing at Kirk Cameron actually trying to say he has gay friends. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that Mike Seaver. What a stupid shit.

Photo: Getty


  1. Randal

    Kirk, buddy. There’s no reason for you to have to come out and explain yourself. You are who you are. Just be. The world is full of people and you shouldn’t concern yourself about what others think of you or try to make everyone like you. It’s not healthy.


    • Well, Let's See

      Tracy Morgan said he would kill his son if he was gay, and Tracy Morgan is worth $25 million with an annual salary of $2.5 million from NBC. Kirk Cameron said he would discuss the matter with his son if his son was gay and everyone hates him for it. The bias of the internet blogger is based on his wallet.

      • Pip pip cheery-o

        Agreed ^

      • …Well at least one thing can be said for Kirk– he really knows how to work a long skeeting hose.

      • Man

        Well, Let’s See: You have the best comment out of any site I’ve been to discussing this. Not even Fish could point it out

      • Tracy Morgan said something as a joke in his stand-up routine. Whether he meant it or was just being his normal “shocking,” unfunny self is open to interpretation. Kirk Cameron was making a serious statement about something he actually believes. You are comparing apples and oranges.

      • just

        kirk cameron is right. homosexuality is depraved behavior, unnatural and will destroy the family unit as we know it. only sick and depraved people think it is ok to be gay.

    • someguy

      I love how the people involved with the Gay Rights movement go around screaming “TOLERANCE! TOLERANCE” but the second anyone voices any criticism of their lifestyle whatsoever, they go off on a mouth-frothing rampage and will verbally and legally tear that person apart.

      • Actually, most of the human rights activists I know go around talking about equality, not tolerance…mostly I hear about tolerance from people who disagree with them and want to strawman their arguments to try and make it look like the oppressed minority is actually the oppressors…

        …not that you’d know anything about that…

      • Angie

        It’s obvious you didn’t read Fish’s post. Do us all a favor and try again? Reading comprehension is an awsome thing.

      • Rev

        Is an African-American “intolerant” for being upset when somebody calls them the N-word?

        Nice, diversion, Guy. Try your “tolerance” face to face with somebody and see how well that works out for ya..

      • Jake


      • Unashamed Christian

        Someguy: BRAVO! The backlash that Cameron has received for speaking out for what he believes in has been astounding and venomous! If the LGBT community actually read the Bible and several of the verses that speak about homosexuality I guess they’d have to turn their anger toward the author. Kirk Cameron did not write the Bible. Christians use the Bible as their guideline for appropriate living. Does this mean that all of us Christians are perfect? Heck no! All of us have committed sins, broken any one of or perhaps all of the Ten Commandments. The context in what Cameron was referring to is bibically sound..meaning he is speaking what the Bible speaks about this particular issue…not his fault that LGBTcommunity finds it offensive. I too have many gay and lesbian friends. If they were to ask me if I as a Christian think its okay they are gay I would give them an honest answer, which would probably shock them, considering what a great relationship I have with them otherwise. I don’t judge them, I’m not hateful of them at all…all of them are wonderful, warm people, some have adopted children and are wonderful parents (in most respects, better parents than some hetero couples I know). Their lifestyle is not for me to ultimately judge. As a Christian, judgement for sins is left strictly up to God Himself. Cameron should not have to back down or apologize for stating a Christian belief. Tolerance runs both ways folks. It seems to me that the LGBT community gets awfully hot under the collar when a Christian speaks from the Bible about homosexuality, which I find puzzling, since they claim to be 100% comfortable and okay with being gay…if you truly are, you wouldn’t even be posting on this board or lashing out at Cameron.

      • blahblahblah

        you’re a douche. like anyone has a right to criticize another’s lifestyle. i hate hunting and beating my wife, but i don’t go around telling you not to do it anymore.

    • OK, since it’s clear you can’t read – or didn’t bother to read – Fish’s post in its entirety and you’re still enraptured with the puerile “oooh, you people who preach tolerance are so intolerant when I promotre intolerance” argument and still think it’s really, really clever, let me clarify things for you.

      WE ARE BEING FUCKING TOLERANT. We are not suggesting that you be censored, muffled, or that your right to speak “in the public square” (Jesus, could he be any more in the Santorum train?) be taken away from you. We will defend unto death your right to make an ass of yourself and spew whatever hate-filled sewage your narrow mind comes up with. We are not calling for anyone to hunt you down or kill you, or advocating your imprisonment. We are not demanding your pouty whining ass be stripped of the rights you want to deny others (while still paying your share of taxes, natch) so that you have no right to teach, adopt children or marry, just because we don’t like how you roll. THIS IS WHAT TOLERANCE MEANS.

      What it does not mean is that we are now compelled to agree with you, or thank and bless you for your intolerance, bigotry, ignorance and outright stupidity, or otherwise refrain from criticism because it will upset your day.

      And if you still think that’s what it means, then you’re fucking infants.

      • CranAppleSnapple

        I felt it in allcaps.

      • Clearance Lemmings

        Hey Justifiable you’re an annoying fucking cunt and your ability to make decisions should be stripped from you before you hurt yourself. You’re the most indecent, vulgar and pathetic beast I’ve had the displeasure of finding online in the last 20 minutes. Your ability to reason and comprehend in no way makes you special. Your mommy gave you too much love and you now have too much free time, get a job.

      • Double

        justifiable You’re very passionate but you’re wrong. You cannot provoke, slander and antagonize someone while claiming innocence. You’re worse than him because you’re blinded by hatred He’s just ignorant, you have no excuse for you indecencies. Your worse than him.

      • Penis

        Quick poll: is Fish a pitcher or catcher? I see him with cum dribble on his chin more often than not. (you should swallow it all, you naughty twink).

      • someguy

        I’m actually an Atheist who’s tired of the gay rights movement trampling anyone who disagrees with them. Fuck the gay rights movement, right in the ass.

      • Unashamed Christian

        justifiable: Read your response again and then tell me who is spewing hate filled sewage? You are the one who resorted to insults and name calling. You are not compelled to agree with me on anything, just as I am not compelled to agree with you. I will not resort to insults and name calling because your beliefs and lifestyle are not in alignment with mine. If you read through the majority of these posts, Cameron is being subjected to hate filled, nasty, insulting replies simply because he stated a belief that is contained in the Bible, which Christians use as a guideline for living a Christian life. If you as a gay person are 100% at peace and okay with being gay, what is it about what Cameron said that launched you into outer space? If you don’t agree with what he says and you know for a fact that he is wrong, if you know without any shred of doubt that the Bible is no more authoratative or accurate than say a Dr. Seuss book, then you have nothing to be angry about….end of argument. By the way, many states have already allowed civil unions between same sex couples. Many health care institutions (such as the one I work in), allow insurance coverage for domestic partners (which covers same sex couples). While some people argue against allowing these kind of rights, I never once said that in any of my posts. Nobody is denying anybody their rights. We are talking about Kirk Cameron stating his beliefs as based on the Bible and his Christianity. Without pulling up the specific verses he is talking about, I will tell you that MOST of the New Testament speaks almost entirely about living in a new way, devoid of the Old Testatment laws and rituals. The most common theme contained in the New Testament is about love and tolerance; however, we are still held accountable for our sins.
        In the final analysis, if I as a Christian am wrong about the Bible being the inspired word of God, if God is just some fairy tale guy in the sky that I choose to believe in, then I’ve lost nothing….I’m just some poor slob who believed in something that doesn’t exist.

        The bottom line is: Kirk Cameron is a devout Christian who bases his beliefs on biblical principles. He didn’t call for death to the gays, public floggings…he simply stated what he believed in and look at all of the haters coming out of the woodwork…then you want to talk to me about tolerance? Really?
        Peace and Love to you justifiable….

      • Unashamed Christian, sorry to derail your little argument at the outset, but I’m not gay. I realize that you assume that because otherwise you couldn’t possibly comprehend that anyone who didn’t have a vested interest in the issue would give a shit, but there it is. I also don’t care that your lifestyle, beliefs and faith aren’t the same as mine, not do I care about Cameron’s, per se. The only topics I “attacked” him on was his lack of research on both the history of marriage (unchanging) and bananas (proof of God) – and I don’t apologize for either, because he’s ignorant on both topics. Sorry, but if you’re going to wave a piece of fruit about that’s been cultivated by man for almost a century and claim that the fact it fits in your hand and you can peel it is proof that God exists, you deserve whatever scorn you get. Likewise if you have no grasp of cultural anthropology and choose to air what you “know” about marriage to support a viewpoint that I consider discriminatory. The right that allows him to air that view and make the determination about who, or what, is “unnatural” and “detrimental” and what isn’t, also allows me to respond and apply the term “intolerant”. And I’m not being “intolerant” if I do so. Tolerance does not mean rolling over and allowing you to air your views without objection, which is a concept you apparently have a problem understanding.

        I am not interested in changing how your church, if you have one, conducts its business and chooses to worship whatever it wants to. Whether the Bible is “accurate” or not or is comparable to Suess, or not, is a non-argument because I truly don’t give a damn whether it is or not. It’s none of my business if you use it as a guide to your life all day long, you have that Constitutional right. But when you want to use its authority as a basis of civil law (which means marriage, as it’s a civil contract first and foremost in this country), insert it directly into the workings of government, schools, courts and “the public square”, or utilize it a moral primer to tell everyone else how to live their lives, then you DO have a problem with me.

        And don’t have the balls to state that “nobody is denying anyone their rights” and then attempt to prove that by showing that several magnanimous states have deigned to allow civil unions (which are really, um, almost just as good as marriage, but thankfully not on an equal footing with hetero unions, amirite?) and that several benevolent insurance companies are so good to grant benefits to domestic partners. Hey, we can all go home now! Certain people will still be paying the full whack of taxes and not getting the full benefits of actual marriage in terms of pensions, benefits, legal standing and inheritance, but second class citizenship is close enough…right?

        Sorry, but if you try to prevent anyone you deem “unnatural” from having the same rights you enjoy based on ANY religious scripture – I truly don’t give a ripe fuck how full of love you claim it is – you’re wrong for trying to curtail their rights based on YOUR personal religious beliefs. How dare you – really, I’m serious – how fucking DARE you and then claim that idea should be “tolerated” by not being questioned? This country is not a theocracy, and thankfully, wasn’t ever designed to be. End of story.

      • CranAppleSnapple

        “And don’t have the balls to state that “nobody is denying anyone their rights” and then attempt to prove that by showing that several magnanimous states have deigned to allow civil unions (which are really, um, almost just as good as marriage, but thankfully not on an equal footing with hetero unions, amirite?) and that several benevolent insurance companies are so good to grant benefits to domestic partners. Hey, we can all go home now! Certain people will still be paying the full whack of taxes and not getting the full benefits of actual marriage in terms of pensions, benefits, legal standing and inheritance, but second class citizenship is close enough…right?

        Sorry, but if you try to prevent anyone you deem “unnatural” from having the same rights you enjoy based on ANY religious scripture – I truly don’t give a ripe fuck how full of love you claim it is – you’re wrong for trying to curtail their rights based on YOUR personal religious beliefs. How dare you – really, I’m serious – how fucking DARE you and then claim that idea should be “tolerated” by not being questioned? This country is not a theocracy, and thankfully, wasn’t ever designed to be. End of story.”

        For everything else you said, also!
        I was trying to get through to that person, and they just wouldn’t get it!
        You rule, and I feel much better because you phrased everything just like wanted to.
        My anger is easing off now.

    • Clarence Lemmings, if you were a deliberate troll you could not have illustrated my point better than you have. While it’s clear that you’re raving moronic fuckwit, by no means should you not have the right to make the decision to post online and make a fucking idiot of yourself, or indeed have any other rights that you’re entitled to have abrogated just because I disagree with you.

      My ability to reason and comprehend does make me “special” in that I’m able to grasp, as can many other people, the basic concept of the First and post it. As much as you might have a screaming tantrum over that, it also enables me to refute any lame-o arguments that you might spew forth while you’re showing your true colors. It also allows me to figure out that the reason I’m the most umpleasant thing you’ve encountered online in 20 minutes is because that’s the full extent of your long-term memory capacity. And as much as I’d dearly love to see you have a full-on foaming stroke, let me state that those special abilities don’t grant me any extra rights over you.

    • Double, get a fucking clue. The “indecencies” that you accuse me of (“indecencies” for stating tolerance means not calling for you to be censored for stating your opinion, but not that I have to agree with you? srsly?) that are inherent in the First allows anyone to provoke and antagonize anyone else both verbally and in print if they’ve a mind to it. It does NOT protect them from someone provoking them right back, or criticizing them for what they wrote or said, not does it mean everyone has to dumbly agree with whatever the fuck they said because otherwise they’d be intolerant. Get a better argument because that one’s a big fat fail. That right cuts both ways – others have the same right to respond, regardless of your butthurt feeings when you find out to your dismay that whatever opinion you know in your heart should be approved of by the entire world isn’t meeting with approval from others. Get it?

      Slander is something that’s handled in civil court if it can be proved by the offended party that damage was done by your words, but in no way is that a block on the protection from censorship under the First.

      • commandohotdog

        i think that some of your follow up arguments sound good, but in this one you use several expletives and resort to name calling. this displays a lack of vocabulary and immaturity. talk in a more respectful way, and people will be more open to what you have to say. if all you want to do is build your self-esteem up by tearing the arguments of stupid people down, then you’re doing it right. but if you’re actually interested in opening up the minds of others to maybe consider your point of view, you’re doing it wrong.

      • commandohotdog

        oops meant the one with all the curse words and where you called people “fucking infants”

    • jezzer, I think CranApple Snapple has designs on me but I’m willing to cheat a little.

    • I have a live and let live policy, so long as it doesn’t impact my life. I have no problem with what Cameron said because it’s his opinion and not hurtful. As a Christian, he finds homosexuality offensive because he feels it goes against God’s wishes. Fine.

      If you’re gay, be gay. Be happy. No problem. Get married in a civil ceremony, but don’t expect a church to go against one of their major beliefs – that marriage is between a man and a woman.

      BUT – to all the hypocrites who say that sex between two guys doesn’t make them uncomfortable to think about (witness all the comments here that call actors gay when they are not) go fuck yourselves. At least Cameron was being honest, something that you idiots aren’t.

    • John

      Once again it’s just sex. There is no need to reward someone for sex.

    • byzant

      This may seem like pure arrogance and presumptuousness on my part, but I’m often uncomfortable around gay people. It is ultimately none of my business who gets married, who has an abortion,etc., as long as I don’t pay for it. Do I agree with it? No. Do I have the right to stop it? No. The point is that personal things should be personal. How is that accomplished? Get (at least) the federal government out of our lives altogether. Liberty, by definition, is freedom from government no matter what “modern liberals” tell you. That is how to depoliticize private matters that don’t necessarily need national debate by busybodies who like to control other people.

    • Richard

      Well said Randal.
      I think however the name of this page says it all, “The Superficial”
      Cameron is right though. Homosexuality IS unnatural. I know it is difficult for some to see that and want to rant about the truth but, the truth is the truth. Get over it!!
      P.S. Don’t force your poor decisions into my life under the guise of equality.

    • Angie

      Ray Comfort sure loves his banana. The way he was gripping it I thought Kirk was going to jump out of his seat! Come to think of it, there were a lot of gay rumors about those two a few years back.

    • max

      This video is hilarious because he has no idea of the significance of the banana he is holding. It contradicts his entire claim of god’s design. It is a sterile plant. It exists not because of god, but because humans love to consume them and farmers transplant the underground stems to grow them. Like seedless oranges they would quickly become instinct if left to god and not human intervention.

    • Non-cultivated bananas still do have seeds, and you need a knife to cut through the peel. You also can’t eat them raw.

  2. Paula Deen probably has black friends, too.

  3. TheHomelessNinja

    In terms of genetics, being gay is simply wrong and unnatural.

    • Kevin

      In terms of Biology being gay is natural and common.

      • Doctor Brenda

        Kevin that is an incorrect statement, the biological form of the human being consists of male and female genitalia. The human body is unable to reproduce with partners of the same sex. The human form has evolved to sexually reproduce using sex partners of the opposite sex.

        It is unnatural as an animal to display homosexual behavior to the extent that it prohibits proliferation of a species. In order for the human species to continue people must breed. Kevin you might have been taught that homosexuals can breed but unfortunately they cannot.

      • So what Brenda is trying to say is:

        Homosexuals are all born infertile
        No homosexual in the history of humanity has never had sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex.


      • … Yea??? Well how do you explain that hermaphrodite that got itself pregnant???

      • Kevin

        “Doctor” Brenda,
        I said nothing about reproducing. I am talking about homosexuality found in nature. You could take a course at a University called “The Evolution and Biology of Sex” by a real Dr. like Sehoya Cotner or take a class very similar which is offered at nearly any University. If you are not smart enough to go to a University try googling “books homosexuality found in nature.” I imagine you will find a great number of them because homosexuality is practiced my many different animals which would lead me to believe it is “normal” and “natural.”

      • Doctor Brenda

        No Georgio your summation of my statement is incorrect, human homosexuals are not born infertile nor do human homosexuals ONLY join with other homosexuals. While it is possible for a human homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex by definition this would make the intercourse heterosexual and not homosexual.
        Georgio when two people of the same gender engage in sexual activity it is described as homosexual sex. When people of opposite gender engage in sexual activity it is described as heterosexual sex. Two people of the same gender cannot reproduce, Georgio I’m sorry for your confusion on the matter you do seem very upset.

      • Marley

        @ Doctor Brenda

        Oh, I didn’t realize that the gay people are causing humans to become extinct?
        If half of the seven billion people in the world were gay, we would not have a population problem, and not as many orphans and abandoned children. Plus Earth would be prettier, and probably more eco-friendly.

        And do shut up about gay people reproducing. We are aware that they can’t together. …Not sure why you keep saying that like it proves a point.

      • …Dear Doctor Brenda, not to change the subject, however my balls have been itching for days. What suggestions may you have— it’s a rarity getting free advice from a doctor these day and since you’re here I thought I’d give it a shot.

      • jaxon

        As a matter of fact for the human species to continue people must learn to cut down on the breeding. At the present rate of growth we will be projected to be 160 billion in 8 generations. That’s 1 person for every square yard of dry land on the planet.

        Good luck with that.

      • BE

        Kevin- Go talk to the average physician about how natural and common their gay patients are. The life of a gay man is 40 percent shorter than that of a straight one and I am not even bringing HIV into this intentionally. The human body is not designed for anal sex between two men or a man and a woman. Of course you won’t hear about all the surgeries from damage and easy disease transmission from people who practice it. Natural has nothing to do with it. Where is nature do you see an animal using the anus?

        I am so weary of the hermaphrodites and “gay” animal as generally they’re an insignificant percentage of the whole – yet it gets waved about like it’s normal. Hare lips, club foots and other genetic mutations occur “naturally” too.
        Homosexuality cannot be that “normal” to a Darwinist – as it technically will be bred OUT of the population. The best you can get “naturally” is a bisexual, huh?

        And please don’t use Kinsey, that’s just muddying the waters of genetics. There’s no compelling reason for man “as an animal” to be homosexual, is there? A gene is a gene, a behavior is a behavior – and the inability to breed (without scientific intervention) means it eventually goes away.

    • Los Beaver

      Why is it that homosexuals continue to insist that their perversion is “natural”? That defies all logic. It is not natural (for obvious reasons)

      • Postbote

        My dog likes to eat cat turds and sometimes his own vomit. So I guess since that is “natural” we should do the same and impose the belief of doing so on others….

      • I dunno. Why do homophobes spend every waking hour worrying about what gay consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? That isn’t natural either (for obvious reasons).

      • gnarla

        You wrote:
        “Natural has nothing to do with it. Where is nature do you see an animal using the anus?”

        How much do you know about the American Bison? What about dolphins? Giraffes?

      • BE

        @Gnarla – Once again a MINOR percentage of the mammal kingdom being used as a platform for “normal.” I didn’t say it DOESN’T happen. And once again, those mammals that engage in specifically homosexual activity = their DNA being bred OUT of the population.

        At least someone came up with some mammals instead of insects…..

      • gnarla

        You asked specifically about anal. Homosexuality exist in more than just a “minor” percentage of the mammal kingdom. Sex itself doesn’t define your orientation. I knew before I had sex that I was attracted to males and not females. Intercourse had nothing to do with it. It’s not like with food – you don’t *have* to try it to know whether or not you like it.

        And about your question – you asked where [in] nature you could see animals using the anus, and I gave you an answer (although my list was far from “complete”). Now you’re trying to rephrase your original question by adding that you didn’t say it doesn’t happen?

        Why does it matter if someone mentioned insects? Do they not belong in nature?

      • BE

        @Gnarla – no I haven’t rephrased “the question” at all. The problem with it being “natural” is that natural selection breeds it out. My experience with this argument is that it is consistently shifted between the animal kingdom (as if the minority justifies the majority) or what you just did: it’s a feeling (hence I’m NOT an animal). Basically it’s vacillation between whatever point works for that ten minutes. And rationally, one cannot have it both ways.

        I know that this is an issue fraught with feelings however that is no justification. In the bigger picture, what makes your “feeling” more valid? For instance when other posters attack Christians faction for “feeling” their relationship with God that leads them to a conclusion different than yours.

        You simply cannot have it both ways, either is biology. I grant you the point that it happens, but it’s existence neither favors or disfavors societal acceptance. After all if I had a dog that liked to hump my leg and I enjoyed that, does that make bestiality “normal” and acceptable?

        Having spent a fair amount of time around gay men I do empathize with the pain they feel on such an identity crisis.

        One of the reasons sodomy was made illegal had nothing to do with “homophobia.” Until recently, damage from anal sex couldn’t be repaired. So someone who either participated in (or worse) was raped anally might have to live with fecal incontinence for the rest of their life IF they didn’t get a tear that didn’t heal, become septic and die.

        Bear in mind that even surgery is a stop gap – pun intended- as it will stop the behavior altogether because a repaired colon is never as “normal” again.

        Those facts NEVER come into play in this discussion. And how normal or natural is participating in something that damages your body?

        And before I hear the “consenting adults” argument, the negatives do affect society as a whole, similar to smoking.

        I have no idea, but I’m guessing that the animals you cite that

    • Doctor Brenda

      Kevin the human body is used to produce other humans, that is the biological function of the human form. The human body has naturally evolved to reproduce using members of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is a wonderful thing Kevin and I’m glad you’re happy to explore the wonderful sensations the human body is capable of. Unfortunately Kevin the human race would not continue naturally if everyone practiced homosexual sex.

      Kevin you should note that due to marvels of modern technology we can now breed humans in a laboratory. While this method of reproduction is astonishing and brings great hope to millions of families it is not in any way natural.

      • Richard McBeef, PhD

        in a sexually reproducing species with dimorphic individuals there will be a grey area between both gender and identity, it’s not as simply defined as you want it to be. A side effect of that system is same sex couplings that fail to result in reproductive success.

      • vekfan

        I’ve got a headache, where are the boobies?

      • Doctor Brenda, I think you just won for Most Boring Commenter on The Superficial. Never before have my eyes glazed over as much as they have trying to read your comments.

        Also, were you home sick from school the day they taught commas and how to use them properly?

      • walkinginothersshoes

        luckily doctor Brenda we have both homosexuals and heterosexuals in our population so human beings fate is for the time being and the foreseeable future going to be okay.

    • Laura

      TheHomelessNinja, I assume you’re referring to the fact that unless they have sex with straight people or use artificial insemination/IVF, gay people can’t reproduce? So does that mean that people who are infertile or choose not to have biological children are simply wrong and unnatural too?

      Also, homosexuality occurs naturally, both in humans and other animals. How does that not by definition make it natural?

      • Kevin

        I guess Brenda is a waste of time to talk to. It’s really sad she cannot read a book.

      • grobpilot

        I agree with Vekfan. Female boobies, please.

      • Teresa

        How stupid. A homosexual man can NEVER produce a child with another homosexual man. Whereas people who are infertile because of medical problems. It is “unnatural”, and I am glad Kirk spoke his mind, because NOT all Americans agree.

      • BE

        Laura – in the “natural” world, infertility is a mutation too. Can we at least agree that there are favorable mutations (increased resistance to a negative phenomena) and unfavorable mutations (decreased ability to survive, birth defect, etc.)

        And honestly, for homosexuality in nature, the best anyone can come up with is INSECTS. At what point don’t you see the folly in comparing insects to mammals. Not the same genus, class or species.

    • Doctor Brenda

      Kevin I am very sorry that you are unsatisfied with my statement. Kevin no matter what you do in life you will not reproduce through homosexual sex . Kevin these terms may frighten and anger you but please try to accept them as simple words used to define something.
      in the human race when two people of opposite gender engage in sexual activity we call this heterosexual When two people of the same sexual gender come together we call this homosexuality. Kevin homosexuality exists in the human race but is not a form of reproduction.
      The human species has evolved to reproduce heterosexually meaning that people of opposite sex will produce children. Kevin unfortunately two people of the same sex cannot reproduce, that is impossible currently. Based on these facts Kevin, it is safe to suggest that sex between two people of different genders is a natural course of their biological reproductive function.

      • Angie

        Doctor Brenda, I agree with you totally. Can I suck your cock?

      • Niki

        Who gives a fuck about biological reproductive function? It’s destroying the planet and it’s boring as shit.

      • Leon

        Doctor Brenda;
        I know I am a late “bloomer” as i am only commenting 4 months after all these discussions took place, but after reading your comments, I feel oblidged to do so.
        You continue talking about reproduction of the human race, and that is understandable, and I am quite sure that Kevin (and any other person on this forum) is aware of the fact that you can not reproduce in the act of homosexual sex. With that said, are you going on and on about this because somebody stated that they can reproduce by means of homosexual sex?
        The whole point of this discussion really should be about live and let live. I myself is a homosexual man who’s been in a homosexual relationship with my partner for nine years. On the flip side, both of us are Christians. Therefore, I am well aware of what the Bible preaches, and I live my life by that. Now, I can hear everybody ask, “who can you live by the Bible and be gay?” – For me, its got nothing to do with the act of my sexual orientation. I live my life honnestly, with respect for my partner, my parents, for God – I love my neighbour as I do myself. I mean no harm to anybody and by doing so, I have gained respect from people in my life.
        I am not saying that how I live my life is morally or Biblically correct, but what I am saying is that I live my life to the best of my ability.
        I am able to love – My partner, people AND God…

        So, the issue of being gay, to me, is not about reproducing. The issue facing society is accepting the fact that no matter what your orientation, no matter your preferrence (food, colour, cars) – we are all humans and we do not have the right to judge, but we’ve got the instruction to love!

        So, if loving thy neighbour, other human beings, your partner, God is unnatural, call me a freak of nature.

        As for reproducing – there are many people (woman) in this world falling pregnant, whether by accident or rape, who does not what the child… do you call that ‘reproduction’ when it is unwanted? – However, at least there are people (homosexuals / infertile couples) who would gladly adopt those unwanted reproduced humans and make people out of them. Give them love and raise them to the best of their ability….

        Now please – enough about reproduction and let all people worry about their own salvation…

    • Dr. STFU

      Homosexuality is perfectly natural, as ants and bees are perfectly natural. None of the “drones” reproduce, but they are all siblings of the queen, who does reproduce. Which means that all offspring are of an individual that is 25%-75% (depending on the species) genetically identical to them, and have a massive competitive advantage over non-collaborating species (which is clear if you ever go outside).

      Gay aunts and uncles contribute to the rearing of their neices and nephews, giving them a relative competitive advantage over other kids, because they do not dedicate resources to their own children. Thus, the overall family lineage is enhanced by homosexual genes, which is why they continue to exist and thrive. Read up on E.O. Wilson and some sociobiology.

      • Los Beaver

        I’m saying I don’t justify my behavior by what the animal kingdom does… But if that is where you get your measuring stick…. And why the tremendous effort to convince society that it is “normal”???

      • Postbote

        so.. by their yardstick, I guess we should relate to homosexuals as animals ?

      • Dr. STFU

        Sigh. As far as the “animal” responses go, I guess they are going to have to pry the stupid out of your cold, dead hands, huh?

    • Dan

      I think unnatural is completely incorrect.

      Is it normal that that people have a gene in their DNA that makes them not have the urge to reproduce, no.

      But unnatural is just a wrong – it is trying to say that they are some demon beast. They have homosexual urges that came very naturally to them…

      and it doesn’t hurt anyone. So for Christ’s sake… let’s just let them be.

      • John

        Well Dan it does hurt someone when I have to pay the government in the for of tax to provide for a gay couple. So yes it does hurt someone, Dan it hurts me. Marraige as understood by the law makers at the time was to be a very special union by two people that loved each-other. Two people that were going to start a family, the law would then provide them with certain benefits for their union.

        A legal marriage in the United States was granted to people as way to cherish the love they had and to insure the longevity of a country. The contestation does state that at no time can a state deny equal protection under the law but that amendment was intended for law abiding citizens. Indeed gay marriage was at that time illegal and of no consequence.

        When the local government asks me to pay tax in order to protect and provide for a married gay couple I’m bothered, in fact I’m offended. From what I’ve read gay couples today don’t want to get married out of love but instead they want the same financial benefits as other people. Heck, that’s not what love is about.

        If two people love each-other and they want to get married but they can’t because there’s a law that prevents them from doing so then they should live elsewhere. There is no need to disrupt an entire community just to please one person. People make these laws to protect them, there is no need to strip them of their protection just to suit your desires.

        Marraige is reserved for a man and a woman, the children they have also benefit from the union. Yes I’m bothered and offended to pay taxes in order to provide and protect for a gay married couple. The gay married couple is not going to produce a line of children that will benefit the community. It’s just sex, you don’t need to be rewarded for sex. Get a grip.

      • John – what the FUCK? Just what sort of tax to provide for a married couple do you pay now? Is it the same sort of tax that every gay person in the United States that can’t marry, yet still has to pay to support your straight married children-having ass? Say, if a lot of marriages don’t produce children, can we have them annuled so that our taxes won’t be going to prop up some sort of ripoff? I also hear a lot of hetero married couples don’t actually love each other, they’ve just gotten married for benefits like green cards or insurance – can we bail out of supporting them? Because, hey – the Constitution is nothing if not love-based!

        After all, that’s the reason that interracial marriage was also illegal and “of no consequence”, since no law-abiding citizen would have considered it as it would have brought down the country. After all, when it comes to disrupting entire communities, you should definitely not marry someone they disapprove of. Or buy a house where they disapprove. Or worship in a manner they don’t approve of. Or belong to an ethnicity they don’t approve of. Because if it’s one thing this country stands for, it’s making people who have dissenting opinions leave so as not to upset anyone else. Which is why John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others moved to Brazil in 1776 and we’re a fucking British Commonwealth today.

  4. Kevin

    This guy would not pass an 8th grade science class to save his life.

    • Doctor Brenda

      Kevin your 8th grade science glass was different from everyone else’s. Please try to understand the world is a big place and full of many different people.

      • Many of them gay. Many of them trolls. Which one are you, diversity-promoting Brenda?

      • Doctor Brenda

        Justifiable the many people of the world vary beyond my capacity to categorize. I am glad you and Kevin are eager to learn about how different we all are. Justifiable you should at some point in your life imagine how our differences, though at times difficult to tolerate make us all beautiful.

  5. Mandi

    Here’s another thing people forget about the 1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech only means that the government cannot make or enforce laws that limit your ability to speak freely. It does not mean you can spout off hateful rhetoric whenever you want and not expect consequences.

    • ..Yes it does. It even encourages it.

    • Actually, it doesn’t. If your rhetoric is directed at exhorting someone to commit murder, there are very direct consequences of the criminal prosecution type. But to insist that you get to speak freely and then start bleating about “intolerance” and how you’re being victimized when people avail themselves of the same rights and fire back (not in the 2nd amendment way – which doesn’t give you the right to commit murder, wiseass), means you have an extremely entitled viewpoint about things anyway.

    • Yes but No

      The government “should not”, does not at all equal “cannot”. Regarding law or rights in public domain you should notice there are many private loopholes. For example a company under contract by the United States Government may at any one time have more rights than you. As well you could at any time in your existence as a citizen of hire a foreign company in order to shield you from certain domestic laws.

    • Correcting Mistakes

      justifiable you miss the point, Artofwar stated that the constitution of the United States encourages people to speak freely even if it is unwelcome. The constitution allows anyone in this country to speak their mind and even provides security for that person to do so. This by common sense is understood as being protective of consequences that might harm or disrupt the speech of an individual.
      What this means is, you can go on your little protest and picket your little heart out and the government must provide for your protection from harm.

      So yes indeed you can speak freely even if it is hateful and derogatory someone will be there with a gun to protect you. Sometimes, justifiable you forget that the man with a gun protecting you is a citizen just like yourself.

      • Talk about missing the point. I pointed out that there are restrictions on using free speech to incite violence, and that the Second is not a stopgap for the First. With “hate speech” legislation there are even more restrictions to consider. Outside of that, the First protects you all by itself – there is no “gun” needed to back it up. Consider changing your name before you embarass yourself any further.

    • Correcting Mistakes

      Once again justifiable you are wrong on all arguments. The second amendment to the constitution allows citizens to bear arms. That’s arms meant to protect the citizen and arms meant to be used against a government should it be necessary. Arms used against a government, it’s a law they thought of long ago.

      So you see yes there are men with guns ready to protect you when you use free speech that is considered hateful, even against the government.

      You can continue to argue, incorrectly that free speech is regulated by the government but keep in mind while you’re making this error you have been taught to do so by the government you hate.
      I’m sure you prepared briefs all ready to go to make claim that a citizen does not have a right to use vulgarities against your clients. Your clients rights are also protected under the constitution of the United States.

      So yes, there are times when people misbehave and have to be handled like a child. I’m sure you’re familiar with this concept.

      • How’s this: You’re a fucking moron. Now try to take me to court.

        I did not say that “free speech is regulated by the government” – far from it. Nor have I been taught that “by the government [I] hate” – do you seriously think there’s some sort of secret civics class somewhere where we’re indoctrinated with an alternate Constitution?

        Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing, see if you can borrow someone’s. I pointed out that there are permissable limitations to the First Amendment when said free speech is directed to incite, or likely to incite, criminal and imminent lawless action – there’s a big fucking difference. The First has been challenged many times throughout history, and not once has anyone needed a gun to overturn Whitney v. California or Schenck v. US. So if you’ve never heard of Brandenburg v. Ohio, so I suggest you stop harping on the fact that you finally were able to read the 2nd Amendment and can grasp that we have the right to bear arms (not that anyone asked since it’s not germane to the discussion) and do a little outside reading. You’re truly too stupid to see how much of an ass you’re making of yourself.

  6. I never comment, I’m only a lurker, but I swear to all that is good and pure that one of the greatest lines I’ve read today is, “Unless our words traveled back in time, assumed the form of Barack Obama and punched Kirk in the dick before he went on Piers Morgan, his Constitutional rights were used to their fullest.”

    BRAVO Superficial. I fucking love you.

    • JC

      I must confess, I’m already working in my laboratory to figure out a way to make my words go back in time and/or dick-punch people.

  7. Cock Dr

    I’m not even sure this guy deserves to be titled “celebrity”. Why has this person’s blabbermouthings concerning consenting adult’s sexual activities attracted so much attention?

    • Schmidtler

      Because he calmly and rationally expressed his opinion after being badgered incessantly to do so, and his opinion, while it is shared by around 50% of the adult population, does not jibe with the opinion of the dick joke writer that runs this site, so screeching venom ensued.

      • Sorry, there’s nothing “rational” about the peelability and size of cultivated bananas proving that God exists.

      • BE

        You know, “justifiable,” the fact that you have the time, energy and will to out type others does not mean “You Win.” The intolerance vented by people such as you is exactly the reason the silent majority exists. We’ve been here before after all.

        So. Go ahead, keep trying to equate stating a personal religious opinion with hate speech. As 60 to 70 percent of the American population calls themselves Christians, Cameron’s religious stance neither new or controversial to the majority. And, they will be the determinant of any legislation you’d like passed that says religion that defines homosexuality as wrong is hate. Nice try. We’ll let you vent it out and vote as we see fit. Silence is not always consent – it weariness of the same argument in light of the fact there’s other and less tiresome ways of addressing the problem. Sorry, but your tactics are the reason so many are hanging in the middle. I’d rather be there than associated with the “screeching venom.”

        And FYI, your intolerant hate for our “lack of tolerance” is the very definition of an oxymoron. You’re not defending against violence inspiring speech, you’re attacking beliefs. So you’re going to string Cameron up because the biggest action he incites against having a potentially gay child would be to talk to them? Wow – what a horrible parent, huh?

        And Snot_Bubble, I’d revise that to “Because liberals get upset when someone expresses an opinion THAT’S NOT THEIRS.”

    • “Why has this person’s blabbermouthings concerning consenting adult’s sexual activities attracted so much attention?”

      Because liberals get upset when someone expresses an incorrect opinion.

    • Leigha

      He’s a “celebrity” because he used to be a famous actor (on Growing Pains, as referenced at the end of the post) and then became a televangelist. I’m not certain if his TV preaching show is still on or not, but it was a few years ago.

      I think he receives more attention than he would otherwise (if he were simply a televangelist) because it’s an attention-grabber for all those who grew up watching Growing Pains. It’s weird to see the carefree, fun-loving Mike Seaver all grown up and super-religious.

  8. Leila

    As always, I LOVE this response. As a lawyer, it is EXTREMELY annoying to me when people who supposedly adore the constitution are always whining about it. Freedom of speech means that you get to be show through words what a gigantic, ignorant hate-filled asshole as you are, and we in turn, get to call you on it. Just like protesters outside of planned parenthood have a right to protest, but DO NOT have the right to get in the patients faces, impede their path, or otherwise block their access to health care. Freedom of speech is not an asshat-shield that let’s you do or say anything with impunity. Aaaggghhh!!!

    • ..So Ms.Attorney Leila, I’m a little confused by your rant– are you in favor of butt sex or are you against it???

      Or are you BI on the issue??? I know attorneys like to give it up the butt, but do they also enjoy the occasional reciprocation???

      • God, but you’re a moron.

      • Leila

        @Artofwar [seriously, choosing a name like that, can your penis be any smaller?] am at a loss as to how to respond because your comment seems to just be a forum for you to say butt and sex a lot. I know it’s a shocker, but I don’t actually think buttsex has anything to do with the first amendment stuff I was discussing. But you have fun with that.

    • YagiSka

      As a lawyer, it annoys the hell out of me when someone starts a sentence with “as a lawyer.”

      P.S. Seeing another attorney post of these forums just made me feel like the Narrator in Fight Club when Marla Singer walks into his testicular cancer support group.

      • BE

        Hey, YagiSka, don’t knock Leila for posting. If we don’t occasionally get someone on here that actually knows what they’re talking about, justifiable will go on forever. But at least he gets to vent.

        Bear in mind, that justifiable may not even be an adult – so having an actual lawyer set him straight may be the only thing that keeps him out of an eventual county lockup (for clocking a Christian for uttering the phrase “Praise God!” – as befuddled as he comes across about the constitution. They may not have gotten to that in school yet. Think of it a Leila’s pro bono work for the month LOL

        In fact, I strongly suspect justifiable barely utters a sentence in the non virtual world, has few people he talks to and doesn’t go out much – typing as often and as much as he does. His action demonstrates that he motto – ” he who does the most typing wins…”

        Sorry justifiable, now I’m just poking fun…

  9. Johnny P!

    It’s Kirk Cameron, for Christ sakes.
    A has-been actor who played make-believe on a lame, utterly forgettable, formulaic sitcom.
    Who cares?
    I’d rather hear an opinion on Genetic Engineering by Saved By The Bell’s ‘Dustin ‘Screech’ Diamond.

  10. Bob The Gay Priest

    The guys religion tells him being gay is a sin, what the fuck do you want him to do? That’s his religion, what don’t you understand? Have you educated yourself on the subject of faith recently?

    • Realize that his religion is hollow and that it serves only to encourage certain behaviors and thoughts regardless of the facts. That’s what I want him to do. *shrugs* He’s probably not going to do it, but you didn’t ask what I thought he would do.

      • BE

        Matrim – That’s YOUR opinion – the 60 to 76 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Christians when asked have a different one. Why is that so hard to grasp?

      • Leigha

        BE–Yes, 3/4 of the country IDENTIFY as Christians. How many of them are actually RELIGIOUS, though? How many do you think actually attend church, read the Bible, or in any way really care about “the rules” of Christianity? Gallup Polls estimate that 40% claim to go to church every week, and a study in 1998 found that only about 20% did (I realize there’s a high probability that number has changed, but if anything it has probably gone down).

        The fact is, most people in the US aren’t overly religious, but they call themselves Christian because that’s what their families are, because they celebrate Christmas and Easter. But the great majority don’t much seem to care whether God approves of something or not.

    • Angie

      The problem is Kirk Cameron doesn’t just practice his faith, he also gets all his little buddys together and goes out and harrasses gays who are going about their own business in their own communities. Kirk doesn’t seem to mention that. I think it would put a little light on the situation.

      • BE

        You know Angie, if that were really true, the media would be all over Cameron like white on rice. Make sure it’s an accurate light, though.

        I am somewhat familiar with Ray Comfort’s writings (although I do not endorse or practice them). When they go out in their group, they tell EVERYONE that they sin and therefore need God -not just homosexuals.

    • DusktillDawn

      God is dead. He committed suicide a long time ago, ashamed how his creation turned out – a bunch of narrow-minded, hating simpletons who’d like nothing better than to turn back time ca. 2,000 years because everything was better back then. You should get on very well with the Muslim fundamentalists. They endorse the same thing.

  11. YoMamma

    I’m so bored with this shit Fish. He is no longer a celebrity, nor does this qualify as superficial gossip. Stop baiting us to get your number of hits up. Yawn.

  12. Neverborn

    Well said Fish. Sometimes I suspect there is quite the shrewd mind hiding somewhere behind the tits and dick jokes!

  13. Jerry Falwell

    Unlike Kirk Cameron, my life’s mission is to hate all people, Kirk Cameron included.

  14. El Jefe

    Kirk Cameron must be loving that people are actually taking about him and giving a shit about him after 20 years. I really think any post about him should have an accompanying photo of his sad Subway birthday party though.

  15. dinosaurland

    Sadly, Kirk Cameron’s remark about being loving to the gay community is as close as we’re going to get to him actually coming out of the closet.

  16. As a psychologist, I can confirm that Kirk Cameron’s opinions on gays originate from the trauma of years of portraying the best friend of a guy named “Boner” on a hit TV show.

    • …Buhahaha!!!

    • denny

      You’re suggestion that being gay is traumatic is disgusting. You are a disgusting pig of a human being. Being gay is neither truamatic nor is being exposed to a gay person. People like you should have no internet access. Georgio you are a sick hateful person and should be ashamed of yourself

      • John Carter of Mars

        Denny, since you’re so keen on loving gays, can you suck on my cock? I haven’t had anyone, male or female to slurp it up in a long time.

      • Joaquin ingles

        denny, stfu.

      • holdonasec

        to be fair, georgio didn’t say that being gay is traumatizing or that kirk cameron was traumatized by being exposed to a gay person. he said that kirk cameron was traumatized by a role he played, causing him to have the fucked up views that he does. its a joke that in no way suggests the things you are attacking him for. tone down your vitriol and get impassioned about actual bigotry.

  17. Your tongue, My balls.

    Here we have Kirk holding a fire hose attached to a hydrant of homemade santorum.

  18. El Jefe

    And I would like to add to all the people on here that are so upset about this and support Cameron, he probably would like you to STFU. The more exposure and sympathy he gets from this the more likely it is for him to get a show on Fox or become some wealthy mega pastor like Joel Osteen.

    Fish gets his page views, Cameron gets fame again and money too, everyone wins, and he can afford to go to a real restaurant for his birthday.

  19. Kirk Cameron has gay friends. Is there a gay version of the term “Uncle Tom”?

  20. Disgruntled Librarian

    What people need to do is read and maybe learn a thing or two about history before they pretend they know the roots, evils, and bests for society. If he had ever read a history book he would find out that in the past oh lets say the past 2,000 years (and yes in Western Society) that homosexuality existed openly and was not viewed as deviant. Ever heard of Romans? Or progressive attitudes for that matter, society can’t move on until we do.

    • Schmidtler

      so was polygamy. in fact, right now, in many parts of the world, polygamy is entirely acceptable. so are the gays not for extending the same ‘rights’ they seek to polygamists? if they’re not, then they’re just closed minded bigots. and please, by all means, enlighten us to where the fuck in 2000 years any society has recognized a valid legal union between 2 members of the same sex. not asking about recreational corn holing, so spare us that nonsense.

      • China, Greece, Rome, Melanesia, Spain, and Native American societies to name a few. Some were formalized arrangements (which would be more akin to civil unions), some involved a male taking on the gender identity of a female, and some were just flat out marriage.

      • No, what they want the married single-partner rights you have NOW. You know, the ones that exist NOW for everyone else, they’re being denied. If you want to make polygamy legal, that’s another issue and an entirely new sort of legislation. And your argument is just as ludicrous as some enraged white lunch-counter eater who’s irate that he might have to sit next to someone who’s black while eating his grilled cheese. Why, aren’t those negroes really all for eating lunch NAKED? Because you know that’s what will happen next if we end segregation!

        Get a fucking grip. No one is trying to take anything away from you, and gay marriage will not end civilization any more than overturning bans on interracial marriage or abolishing the rest of the Jim Crow laws did.

  21. dooood

    his friend’s name was boner!

  22. Ted Turner Laughs at You

    The way I see it CNN was the network that had this guy on their show spewing all this hate speech. Maybe CNN should be fined..

  23. Quiet You

    Just because some dudes were gay in 120 B.C doesn’t mean all dudes were gay in 120 B.C. Way to be offensive you ignorant slut.

    • Schmidtler

      as long as we all agree that all frenchmen are gay right now.

    • You really ought to read Greek and Roman mythology sometime, because how people worship and what their religion promotes is a key to who they are and what their society was like. Every god in the Greek and Roman pantheon had male lovers, and that went for demigods/warriors Hercules and Achilles, too.

      • You're Probably Gay

        Gays are all over the place aren’t they justifiable? It’s like everything you see is gay. Justifiable you’re infatuated with gay men maybe you should do something about that. Oh you are, you’re bashing kirk cameron.

      • BE

        Yeah and they had human sacrifice, orgies and vomitoriums too. That is not even a backwater eddy of the same stream in this discussion. They behaved differently from us? No, really?

    • Seriously, that’s all you got – you’re probably gay? You mean me and every social anthropologist, linguist and historian who bothered to actually learn something about the subject and didn’t run squealing under the bed? Wow, that means Edith Hamilton and Bulfinch both must’ve been queer – who knew?

      P.S. It appears that gays are all over the place for Kirk Cameron, too, so stop bogarting that corner under the dust ruffle.

  24. MRF

    There’s no constitutional rights in a private space. That is, at NBC studios, Kirk has no right to free speech. Those rights only pertain to the public domain – a domain increasingly shrinking.

  25. monkey

    Kirk’s opinion on gay people is in line with what scripture teaches. I don’t see the controversy here other than liberal society being intolerant of Christianity.

    • Dramatic Puddle

      Agreed. And most Christians cherry-pick what they do and don’t want to do or believe. The Bible says what it says, and no amount of spin is going to change that. I am not a Christian, but Cameron is, and he is allowed to express his thoughts just as the gay mafia is allowed to promote homosexuality as something to embrace. He did not preach hate, he expressed his disapproval of homosexuality. Those who have an issue with it are bullying idiots. I support his right to free speech even if I don’t agree with what he said.

      • And those of us who call him out for his attitudes also support his right to free speech. After all, without free speech we’d have no method by which to tell him we think he’s backward thinking.

        Free speech isn’t an Aegis, you are still accountable for what you say and people are free to respond to you. If his religion told him that black people are inherently sinful and wicked creatures, I highly doubt there’d be as many people crying foul about bashing him for his well-mannered bigotry.

      • CranAppleSnapple

        So if you retort to something hurtful that a person says about you, that makes YOU a bully? You are full of shit.

      • CranAppleSnapple

        And damn well said, Matrim!

    • Dan

      It also says three verses from don’t be gay to not eat Shellfish.

      Basically it is like the King who compiled the Bible (Constantine) wanted to have a large army (by having lots of kids) and didn’t want the soldiers getting sick with Red Tide from the Shellfish.

      • BE


        That is beyond an oversimplification – so I’ll try to sum it up. Of course actually reading the WHOLE book would be better. And other Christians bear with me, I’m painting with big strokes here. The OT deals with three basic things. How man offends God (hence the need for a savior). How to live (God’s love – really, not harming oneself or others if you really look at it). And finally, stories of how man behaved prior to Christ.

        After Christ, it boils down to TWO commandments. Love the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Look up John 13:34. Love does no harm to it’s neighbor – who’s your neighbor?


        And FYI – Constantine did not have anything to do with the bible, it would have been under the power of the fourth century popes.

    • Shows just what you know, BE. The NT Bible that you have now was a result of Constantine the Great calling the first ecumenical council, known as the First Council of Nicea, in 325 AD. Its purpose was to put an end to the divisiveness of the varying Christian sects, deal with doctrinal issues like reincarnation, and weed through various gospel and prophetic accounts and determine just which were divinely inspired, which were of questionable origin, and which were outright heresies. He IS given credit for its compilation for that reason. The original church of the Nazarene Christians had already split at least once over doctrinal issues, and this council was no different in terms of infighting as to which Christian sect would hold supremacy. Any texts that didn’t make the cut were burned, so we’ll never know what was destroyed in favor of the Paulist version of events, which is the version that won.

      • BE

        Well, Justifiable. Here is the essence of the divide. Christians believe God is quite capable of directing matters (and does).

        While non-Christians continue to point at man’s actions and naysay.

        That’s THE reason why it’s called FAITH and not PROOF.

        Until you have it, it’s unfathomable. I know that personally because I used to be on your side….here’s hoping you come to know the difference too…

      • BE

        And, FYI – Constantine called the council to get a Bible HE wanted. There were 50 some copies made (a lot back then, granted) but they did not necessarily receive the blessing of the Pope or the full Christian church. All the texts were not “burned” – they were hidden from the general public. Actual evidence that being the books that keep getting “found” even recently.

        FYI Wikipedia is rife with opinion and NOT fact – analysis has found that at least 15% of Wikipedia is wrong.

  26. The Pope

    So Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Baldwin are his gay friends and they’re volunteer firemen?

  27. Clark Kent

    Fish quotes Cameron as saying: “Some people believe my responses were not loving toward those in the gay community. I should be able to express moral views on social issues … without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent.”

    Fish goes on to associate this with freedom of speech, saying with emphasis that, “Freedom of speech does not protect you from criticism.”

    This is a non squitur, for Cameron, as Fish quotes him, did not say anything about anyone attempting to deprive him of freedom of speech, nor did he say that his publicly expressed views should be immune from criticism.

    Before I go on I want to say that I didn’t even know who Cameron was until his controversial comments about gays brought him into the news, and I do not share his religious beliefs or his views on gays and gay marriage.

    What Cameron is saying is akin to someone saying that they should be able to criticize US foreign policy without being accused of being unpatriotic or anti-American. Or it is like someone saying that they should be able to criticize the Israeli occupation without being accused of being anti-Semitic. Or, it is like someone who is against affirmative action being told that by virtue of their position on affirmative action, they are a racist. Or, it is like someone who supports abortion rights being told that they support murder.

    The issue isn’t freedom of speech, but instead has to do with the difference between fair and unfair criticism.

    • Doesnt matter

      Spot on Clark Kent. Making Cameron out to be a hater isn’t criticism, its slander. Learn the difference people.

    • Thankful for Clark Kent

      Thank you Clark Kent for typing this up; now I don’t have to. The stupid posts on here start with the blogger’s false premise.

  28. Your Argument Is Invalid

    Your belief that gays are born gay is an opinion, let’s go the next step. Let’s suggest that a scientist has determined that homosexuality in humans in determined at birth and not conditioned. Let’s suggest that the United States government decrees that homosexuality by law is not a choice.

    Having it be a law still does not make it so.

    How a homosexual becomes a homosexual is unique to the individual experience, as far as we know. Even if there is found to be a chemical reaction that encourages homosexual behavior there would be no sex if the individual were alone.

    The individual homosexual cannot conduct homosexual acts without a partner. The choice to have sex is still only a choice and nothing more.

    • The fuck? What “next step” do you think this drivel leads to? Are you seriously trying to make one of those “sin” vs “sinner” dissections and prove people who haven’t actually had gay sex can’t really be gay yet, or are you just suggesting there be little private gulags so that no one with that gay chemical prompter will be able to act on it?

      News flash, but having sex with a consenting adult, no matter what their gender, is not a “choice” that should have ANY impact on anyone’s civil rights – nor should it be anyone else’s fucking business except those who are involved in the act. .

      How about this – your “choice” of religion isn’t something you’re inherently born with, either, unlike your race, ethnicity or gender. But is anyone who exercises this freedom – or “choice” – prevented from exercising their civil rights to vote, adopt children, or marry? Or do you think that there would be no religion if we just isolated that person so they wouldn’t be prompted to pray?

    • mk

      You’re an idiot.

    • CranAppleSnapple

      No, there’s a special super gay way they hold their banana. You’ll know it next time you see it.

  29. mk

    Kirk Cameron can eat a bag of dicks.

  30. Janet

    I was totally against this guy when I saw his interview but now that I’ve seen the uproar I’ve noticed gay people are asshole. I really didn’t care one way or another but it seems that gays are dicks.

  31. Greg Suarez

    What Kirk doesn’t want you to know is that was only the second biggest hose he had his hands on that day,

  32. Correcting Mistakes

    Someone on this post named justifiable has made many false accusations and inflammatory remarks, probably best to just ignore them.

  33. The Chief

    If you’re gay, you’re born that way, which is to say that your being gay is rooted in your biology. Or so we are told.

    If a given human group generally underachieves socially and economically, this cannot possibly be rooted in biology. Instead, such a group must be the victim of prejudice, oppression and poverty. Or so we are told.

    If you’re gay, you cannot change, because you were born that way.

    If a group generally underachieves, it can change – if society eliminates prejudice, oppression and poverty – because the group’s general underachievement has nothing whatsoever to do with biology.

    And therefore it’s “hate speech” to say that gays choose to be gay, and it’s “hate speech” to suggest that group underachievement is a consequence of the laws of biology working on human populations.

    And once certain kinds of speech are labeled “hate speech,” rational, open-ended discussion of the issues in question becomes next to impossible. It’s politically incorrect to suggest that even some gays might have a gay lifestyle by choice rather than because they were “born that way.” And it is politically incorrect to suggest that general social and economic underachievement by a certain group might be to some degree rooted in biology.

  34. Clamy

    People aren’t born gay, that’s your opinion. Stating your opinion or even making your opinion law does not make your opinion factual. People aren’t born straight either, it’s difficult for you to see your error because you have an agenda to promote.

    Your argument is based on a theory, a theory that you hope gets accepted. It’s just a theory and nothing more, and if it were proved to be a viable condition there already is enough evidence in the other direction.

    Is homosexuality learned? Is heterosexuality learned?

    The questions are evident of a need in society for acceptance. You should not force the matter on anyone, it’s not life or death.

  35. There’s something thunderingly Freudian about calling homosexuality a sin and using a banana to refute Evolution in anything close to the same breath.

    • BE

      Or sometimes a banana is just a banana.

      Don’t get me wrong, Ray Comfort is not my personal cup of tea.

      He’s merely demonstrating that nature testifies to the fact that God exists. He has more, youtube posters just picked on the banana example for exactly the same reason you just posted.

      Got attention though, huh?

  36. Jay

    Fish? Justifiable? All the “normal/regular, poster’s/blogger’s?” Please, for the love of (insert your deity of choice here) STOP using logic to reason with these……..people who are obviously very anti-homophobic, anti-women’s rights, racist, and so on. Your wasting your breath/typing fingers. The only way I believe at this point, to fight this intolerance of people beliefs’/idea’s/teachings, is to fight them in the courts, where eventually there OPINION’S will be ignored. (My deity of choice) willing.

    • Unless you’re an attorney or can bring a viable lawsuit all on your own right this second, your attempt is misguided. Every format helps, and it takes years of voices being heard in arenas like this to get to court. And somewhere along the line, some people whose heads aren’t wedged up their ass will read something written in a thread like this one, take a second look at a banana and see the light. This is why Santorum labels Obama a “snob” for wanting people to have some college education – exposure to reason, logic, rationality and ideas in general are dangerous to the reactionary and ignorant, and they’re shit-scared to let anyone learn anything that might run counter to what their beliefs are. So don’t encourage Fish not to bother, and sit back and have faith that your deity of choice and the Supremes will take care of it. At least one deity out there is rumored to help those who do the heavy lifting themselves. So it’s never a waste of time – to assume that is just being fucking lazy. And btw, it’s “their OPINIONS”.

    • My pleasure, piranha. CranApple Snapple and jezzer are already fighting over me – how do you feel about plural marriage, multiple genders?

      • Random Visitor

        I have never commented here in the past but I just wanted to drop by and tell you, Justifiable, that your responses are concise, accurate and absolutely hysterical. You win the internet, my friend.

    • Oh goddammit, now I have to feed and clothe it and make sure it gets its daily dose of porn every day, like I don’t have enough to do already. Thanks a bunch.

      • Piranha345

        I’m cool with the multiple marriage and multiple gender, this way you’ll also have help with the internet care. That you have won. For kicking these idiots proverbial ass.

    • Much as I’d love to claim it, I don’t deserve it – that honor really goes to Fish.

  37. Jay

    P.S. Obama 2012!!!!!!

  38. Leila

    For some reason, having trouble replying to the comments left in response to my original post: @Artofwar [seriously, choosing a name like that, can your penis be any smaller?] am at a loss as to how to respond because your comment seems to just be a forum for you to say butt and sex a lot. Have fun with that.

  39. Butternuts

    Jesus, this post couldn’t have gotten more comments if there was a spelling error I. the thread header.

  40. HerboobsRperfect

    As big of a douche bag kirk cameron is….I do agree with him 100%
    People preach tolerance but at the same time if your views aren’t identical to theirs….your labeled something undesirable.
    Preach on Douche-Bag!

  41. Carla

    ‘Freedom of speech does not protect you from criticism’


    Whiny intolerant bitches like these hate to have the same bile they throw at others for their “lifestyle choices” flung back at them.

  42. Steelydan

    Oh for fuck’s sake, get a grip, all of you. I can’t understand why so many bible-bashers run amok at the mere mention of the word GAY. GAYGAYGAY. Isn’t there something in the bible about loving thy neighbour? I don’t remember it saying anything like …”unless they are homosexuals”.

    • Unashamed Christian

      Steelydan: Absolutely right! There is NOTHING in the Bible that says to make an exception about loving; it doesn’t say, love…except if your neighbor is gay, love except if your neighbor is an adulterer, love except is you neighbor covets….it simply says love…that pretty much covers it all. Cameron stated his beliefs about what the Bible says about being gay..he also has some bible based beliefs on adultery, an intelligent creator (i.e., God). We are focusing on his remarks about gay people and I’m waiting for the death threats to his family, his being banned from certain media sites, cancellation of his appearances…simply from the backlash from the gay community because he believes in God and the Bible.

  43. Politics is Gay

    The Democrats are getting fired up to re-elect Obama, nothing more.

  44. Larry The Cunning

    Marriage is the union of a man and woman, if the gay community is envious of that union then they should, as a community, create something similar. The gay community has made claims that they are being treated differently, well yes you are different and we all are different.
    If you’re so inclined create something special for yourselves, the Bible helped folks create marriage perhaps you should look to something similar for inspiration.

    • Unashamed Christian

      Larry: Gay people DO have rights for this…it’s called a civil union. Where they tend to become angry is because they want it called “marriage”. If you get recognized as a “legal” couple..what difference does it make? Go to a state where same sex civil unions are recognized…get civil union hitched and be done with it for cryin out loud…what’s the issue here?

      • Larry, change your name. “Envy” has nothing to do with it – it’s a fundamental wrong to try to deny someone a right that you enjoy because you think should be reserved for your group, and yours alone. No one needs or wants any “help” from the Bible to “create something special” as plenty of cultures that didn’t use it were able to figure out a concept of marriage without its guidance – the Romans, for one, sure as hell didn’t use it when they created the idea of the civil-contract, single-partner marriage, which is what western culture uses today. .

      • Unashamed, where “they” tend to become angry is when they’re denied the right to enter into a civil contract for no valid reason – THAT’S the issue. Why should ANYONE have to move to avail themselves of a right that everyone else has a matter of course? I think where YOU tend to make the mistake is by assuming that because marriage between a man and a woman is a sacrament in your religion it never has, and therefore can’t have, any existence outside of that institution, and even perhaps that your religion should determine what happens in a civic environment, outside of your church. .

        A civil union isn’t close to having the same rights and benefits that civil-contract licensed, legally-binding and recognized by the Fed marriage has. By claiming it does you put yourself on a par with the white south prior to the civil rights act, who claimed the educational facilities set aside for black children were perfectly equal to the schools their children attended – just separate. The gross hypocrisy of that sentiment was uncovered long ago, and when segregation ended a lot of white parents had to deal with the fact that other children who were different were now on a par with their own privileged offspring. It was uncomfortable. They didn’t like the fact that their notion of superiority or supremacy was threatened. Tough. If this is you, and you can’t stand to see same-sex couples on a par with your marriage, at least have the guts to say so.

  45. Hose in different area codes, know that!

  46. Jason

    Although I am a staunch Agnostic with Athiest tendecies, I do know quite a bit about the Bible. The books of Matthew through John (The Gospels) contain no comments by Jesus regarding homosexuality. Yes, I know other parts of the Bible do quite clearly, however, consider this. If Jesus was truly the Son of God and he truly knew all things for all of time, why wouldn’t he have made it more clear in the books describing his lifetime and teaching his direct views of homosexuality?
    It seems that it is a subject that did not have priority with him over his many teachings regarding how to treat one another and make the world a better place. Therefore, if Jesus, himself did not focus his ministry and subsequent written gospels on the issue of homosexuality, (which in the Roman world of his time btw, was a very relevant issue), why do so many of his followers today make it a prime concern? To me of course, it is just one more of a plethora of actions demonstrating Jesus’ followers know nothing of his teachings or in any way resemble the person he was presented by the Gospels to be, which is one of the many reasons I like many today are happily agnostic/athiest, and as such have very little concern about who is having sex with who in their bedrooms.

  47. Tennessee Ernie Chrysler

    When you can’t make any money doing anything else, you can always make a few bucks being a Jesus freak

  48. TheListener

    Whether you believe what Kirk Cameron believes or not, he said that those who preach tolerance have told him to “be silent when I’m in the public square.” That is, at least, an ATTEMPT by others to curtail his freedom of speech. Telling someone to keep quiet is a command to stop speaking (even if it is said as a respectful command unless it is asked as a request) which means that there are SOME people who are trying to prevent his freedom of speech which goes beyond simply criticizing the content of his message.
    A person doesn’t have to like the content of his message, but telling him to stop talking about it in public is unacceptable. If someone doesn’t like it, he/she shouldn’t read it, listen to it, or maybe he/she should comment on the content of the message, but don’t tell him to shut up about it. Again, telling someone to do that IS an attempt to curtail his/her freedom of speech.

    • BULL. SHIT.

      Who, exactly, is keeping Kirk Cameron from making an as…I mean, keeping him from speaking “in the public square”? He had a nice little venue on nationwide TV, he hasn’t been fired, his show hasn’t been cancelled, he hasn’t been arrested, attacked by a mob, tarred and feathered and run out of town, had a fatwa declared on him by any organization or been evicted from the country. So how, pray tell, HOW exactly has his piping little voice been silenced and his freedom to speak his tiny mind been curtailed?

      It hasn’t. He’s no more oppressed than he was the day before – in fact, he’s still a fuck of a lot less oppressed than anyone who’s gay since he was able to be legally married, so his attempt to play the victim here is pretty disgusting. What HAS happened is that he’s found out how vehement the backlash of people who disagree with what he said is – and yes, many of them weren’t nice about how they voiced their disapproval. Sorry, but the First Amendment does not have an Emily Post clause to protect the dainty from criticism. Any private citizen who does tell him to “shut up” is wrong, which no one should condone, but that carries no real weight in terms of curtailing his actual rights. As for the rest – how is he being “silenced”?

      You don’t get a special right to be immune from criticism, no matter how much you try to spin that to mean that if people don’t agree with your particular brand of batshit reasoning, then you’re somehow being oppressed.

  49. The Christian

    Some have commented that Christ did not directly address the matter of homosexuality. That’s correct. First, his ministry was only 3 1/2 years long. He couldn’t cover EVERY possible moral issue in that short span of time. Second, his followers who lived in his time DID directly address the issue. The apostle Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthian congregation listing several serious sins that some of Christ’s disciples formerly practiced, but they stopped practicing these sins once they became followers of the Christ. Included among such practices listed at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is homosexuality. According to this scripture, those who continued unrepentantly to have sexual intercourse with members of the same sex would not be allowed in God’s Kingdom just like those who practiced other sins listed there would not be allowed in God’s Kingdom.
    Third, Christ did state a man must leave his parents and stick to his wife and they must become as one. He did not state that a man should leave his parents and stick to another man or a woman should stick to another woman and become one.
    This is just one moral issue among many addressed in the scriptures, but today’s world has brought this matter to the forefront.

Leave A Comment