Members Lucky Posted March 3, 2012 Members Posted March 3, 2012 I don't, and I don't see why the news is carrying his opinions on it. He's a washed up actor- why would his opinions matter to anyone? That's why I am not quoting them! Quote
caeron Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 He's a crazy wingnut christian who made a big issue of the horrors of evolution not too long ago. Morons will do what morons will do. Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 He's been possessed by some evangelist. Very sad how misguided his views are. Quote
Guest lurkerspeaks Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 and to think I used to have a crush on him back in his "growing pains" years.. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 me too I had crush on him... I liked his sister in the show better though. I am not sure how Christians will be able to accept change in the definition of marriage. I don't think they can unless the Bible is rewritten.. I believe the best way to handle this is let government stay out of marriage. Let Christians define marriage as they like and gays have their own union. The problem is government. (Am I a tea party member? No). Marriage is important as much as religion because its most profound effect is stability. Because its so closely associated with the stability and continuity of society that government is deeply involved in it, IMO. and to think I used to have a crush on him back in his "growing pains" years.. Quote
AdamSmith Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 This idiot's bloviations are just one more thing to fill up what print media dignify as the "news hole" -- that pesky space between the ads. Cameron used to be a star; today he is a professional crank. Thus the media know enough viewers/readers will follow the story, whether they love or loathe him. As this thread shows. Quote
Members KYTOP Posted March 4, 2012 Members Posted March 4, 2012 I don't, and I don't see why the news is carrying his opinions on it. He's a washed up actor- why would his opinions matter to anyone? That's why I am not quoting them! Not really "washed up" as you say. He has been making religious movies, very successfully for several years. There is a huge market for that type of film that appeals to a select audience. Remember there is a large religious population in the USA and other countries. My mother actually has 2 of his DVD's about the end of the world as mentioned in the Book of Revelation of the bible. I never watched it but my mother seem to like it a lot to have actually bought the things. Quote
TotallyOz Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 I saw him being interviewed and was very disappointed in him. Quote
caeron Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 me too I had crush on him... I liked his sister in the show better though. I am not sure how Christians will be able to accept change in the definition of marriage. I don't think they can unless the Bible is rewritten.. I believe the best way to handle this is let government stay out of marriage. Let Christians define marriage as they like and gays have their own union. The problem is government. (Am I a tea party member? No). Marriage is important as much as religion because its most profound effect is stability. Because its so closely associated with the stability and continuity of society that government is deeply involved in it, IMO. The problem is that these kind of christians don't actually read and study the bible. They just have some vague idea of what they think is in it, and judge accordingly. Christ was pretty judgmental about divorce, but you never hear that these types because they're only interested in using the bible to judge sins they don't themselves have any interest in committing. They're the new pharisees in the temple. Quote
Members MsGuy Posted March 4, 2012 Members Posted March 4, 2012 They're the new pharisees in the temple. That would be the Sadducees. The Pharisees mostly hung out in the towns and villages. Quote
Members BigK Posted March 4, 2012 Members Posted March 4, 2012 me too I had crush on him... I liked his sister in the show better though. I am not sure how Christians will be able to accept change in the definition of marriage. I don't think they can unless the Bible is rewritten.. I believe the best way to handle this is let government stay out of marriage. Let Christians define marriage as they like and gays have their own union. The problem is government. (Am I a tea party member? No). Marriage is important as much as religion because its most profound effect is stability. Because its so closely associated with the stability and continuity of society that government is deeply involved in it, IMO. I largely agree with Hit. To the extent I would like to have the government involved is just to make civil unions the law of the land. Let individual religions handle same sex marriages as they'd like. Gays and Lesbians can patronize the religions that accept same sex marriages. Quote
AdamSmith Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Gays and Lesbians can patronize the religions that accept same sex marriages. Wouldn't lesbians "matronize" them? Seriously, one can agree with universal civil union in principle but is there any realistic hope of getting such a change accepted in our lifetimes? Meanwhile the social ground has proven remarkably ready for expanding civil marriage proper to same-sex couples. Again, note the general population appears majority to understand it is a question of legal rights (and respect) conferred by civil marriage, not primarily a quarrel with religious institutions. That quarrel of course may be and is being pursued, but a completely separate issue, pursued through different means. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Yes it is to gain rights and respect for gay couples but it doesn't look that way to Christians and Muslims. It's something challenging and against their belief system. Let them have their own definition of marriage and create a new term for gays like civil union. Quote
Members JKane Posted March 4, 2012 Members Posted March 4, 2012 Saw a couple relevant pictures, still looking for other one. Quote
Members JKane Posted March 4, 2012 Members Posted March 4, 2012 Thought this was the perfect description: Kirk Cameron joins former TV stars Victoria Jackson and Chuck Norris in desperately trying to remain in the public eye by using anti-LGBT rhetoric. From GLAAD press release via JMG. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Wow I didn't know Chuck Norris was anti-gay. Quote
Members JKane Posted March 4, 2012 Members Posted March 4, 2012 Wow I didn't know Chuck Norris was anti-gay. While I'm not surprised (any more than to learn this of any other right wingnut, such as Ted Nugent,) I wondered about the details. Here they are. Quote
Members JKane Posted March 4, 2012 Members Posted March 4, 2012 Then again... Signs Chuck Norris Is Gay Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 At the very least Chuck is definitely right wing republican. Quote
Members JKane Posted March 5, 2012 Members Posted March 5, 2012 Finally found the second pic I liked on the subject... Quote
Members Suckrates Posted March 6, 2012 Members Posted March 6, 2012 I only care what he says because spewing the kind of rhetoric that he does can only prove inflammatory and detrimental. Of course he has his followers or disciples, but what he doesnt realize is that his hatred is more dangerous than the homosexuality that he fears. Quote
Members JKane Posted March 7, 2012 Members Posted March 7, 2012 I only care what he says because spewing the kind of rhetoric that he does can only prove inflammatory and detrimental. Of course he has his followers or disciples, but what he doesnt realize is that his hatred is more dangerous than the homosexuality that he fears. Exactly! Came across this today, thought it's blood brilliant... Quote
Members JKane Posted March 7, 2012 Members Posted March 7, 2012 Poor baby--he can't take the heat when imposing his fairytale's morality on others doesn't go over well... Quote
AdamSmith Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Even Hasselbeck parted from him on the substance. Although she then picked up his line about free speech etc. Will be interesting to see how both Kirk and Rush fare with their First Amendment defense/excuse. Yeah, even hate speech is protected so long as it does not seek to incite violence (legal beagles, is that about right?). But gratifying to see them now having to take just as they gave, in the public discourse. Quote
