A couple of days ago, Sarah shared with you a lovely little quote that Kirk Cameron gave about gay marriage. Do you remember it? Here, let me refresh your memory and show you exactly what Kirk said:
“[Gay marriage is] detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization. … Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part.”
Sarah referred to Kirk’s homophobic words as “ass-hattery,” and I think that’s pretty accurate. A lot of other people thought the same thing, because Kirk had to go ahead and make a statement about what he said. Spoiler alert: it’s not an apology, and in typical Kirk Cameron style, it’s actually pretty absurd. Ready?
“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).”
Where to start? There are so many problems I have with this statement, I’ll just go ahead and make a list of thoughts, ok?
– Kirk thinks his original statement is loving towards those in the gay community. Right, because when people speak in a loving way to you, they tell you that you marrying the person you love is destructive to civilization as a whole. That’s so loving.
– Sure, his life mission is to love all people. That is, if his idea of love is calling someone’s basic rights detrimental to society. Yeah, everyone’s really feeling the warmth of your love here, Kirk.
– He should be able to express moral views on social issues, absolutely. He should be able to express whatever he wants. But if he does that, he should also be able to take the backlash. If he’s getting upset that people are upset over upsetting things that he said, then he should probably either stop saying those upsetting things to save his own tender feelings or just take it. If he wants to express his views on social issues, to make his own points, then he should be fine with people making counterpoints. Basically, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
– Likewise, if he wants to “debate these things with greater love and respect,” then ideally he should be able to actually debate things, and also use love and respect while making his own points.
Here’s the thing though: I don’t really think there’s any way to debate Kirk Cameron’s viewpoints with love and respect. Sure, he sounded perfectly nice, and I’m sure he’s a swell guy, and you know I loved me some Growing Pains, but I just don’t believe that there’s a way to respectfully say “hey, you know how you want to marry that person that you love? Sorry, according to my religion, that’s disgusting, and also, you’re destroying civilization.” I could put on my sweetest voice and a big ol’ smile, but if what I’m saying is full of hate and bigotry, then it’s still not all right, is it?
You can love and respect someone without agreeing with their lifestyle. I don’t think anything he said was hate speech. Why can’t he be entitled to his beliefs and express them in a respectful manner without being labeled a homophobe or bigot?
I agree…nothing wrong with stating an opinion. Honestly, I feel the same way about the whole thing. Nothing against the people personally, but I also believe marriage is one man/one woman. I shouldn’t have to defend myself for thinking that way, but I will….
I agree – I don’t share his views, but he is entitled to his opinion & he is being respectful. I dont understand why this site is bashing him so hard.
Saying that gay marriage is “detrimental and destructive to the foundation of civilization” is not being respectful. We are all entitled to our opinions, but when you espouse bigotry, no matter how earnestly you believe it to be true, it is not respectful.
Emily, you rule! LOVED the post. :)
My “favorite” part of that interview was at the end, when he said “no, I wouldn’t say to my kids that it was ok”, if they were gay.
what an asshole.
I don’t agree with Kirk’s feelings on gay marriage or on homosexuality in general, but I totally agree with him that he should be able to say what he feels on this matter. Free speech. Is “hate speech” covered under free speech? It should be. If we don’t like what someone is saying we can ignore them. Or we can listen and grow angry or maybe see a new perspective, disagree polititely, etc etc. I’m very tired of the movements and people who think everything needs to be PC And everyone has to apologize to everyone who might ever be offended by someone’s opinions. It’s bs. This ain’t recess in the school yard. It’s life. And, frankly, I would rather know who the bigots, hateful souls are rather than have him or her keep it on the DL. When I’m equipped with information such as, “so-and-so is a bigot.” then I can choose more intelligently where to do my business, who to interact with, etc. I think bigots and hateful people should be revealed not kept hidden… that, Kirk does not come off as hateful; misguided, (in my opinion) but not hateful.
…that being said, Kirk does not come off as hateful, misguided, (in my opinion) but not hateful.
Agree wholeheartedly that having to be politically correct is nonsense. Kirk has a right to his opinions – he’s not name calling or saying homosexuals should be abused.
But, Emily has a good point. He should expect a backlash (i.e. more speech) directed against his views. That’s the way it should work in this society. But being censored or abused because of his beliefs is just as repugnant as what his opponents are facing.
I definitely think anyone who speaks in the public forum on such a hot topic should, at the very least, expect healthy and hearty debate. And, yes, some backlash. People feel strongly about what they feel.
Emily, you should take your own advice. So I guess in today’s world you can state your opinions, but only if it’s said how you want it said is that what I gathered? Because he stands up for what he strongly believes he is getting slaundered simply because YOU dont agree with it. Don’t like what he says? dont post it, dont read it and move on with your life.
You’re exactly right. If someone comes out waving the rainbow flags and praising equal rights for gays I’m sure she’d be throwing them virtual kisses thru the computer screen…this is a whole other story. It’s not right.
The primary difference in your example is that if a hypothetical individual was to “wave the rainbow flags and praising equal rights” it would not be hateful or oppressive to heterosexuals, and would likely spawn less backlash. People who make controversial statements need to be prepared for someone to disagree. No one on this website was disrespectful, and certainly no one said anything as controversial as “you are destroying society” as Mr. Cameron himself said.
TL;DR – Marriage is not a solely a christian or religious institution, it’s a social institution. Saying hateful things under the guise of your “beliefs” doesn’t fly.
ABSOLUTELY!
I think that although some people are offended at what he said, we all have an opinion and are free to express them without having to retract and say an apology because it upset some people. We all have issues that someone could slam but it doesn’t matter if someone vents about it…It’s only one persons opinion and it doesn’t add up to much. It’s not like just because Kirk Cameron went public bashing gay marriage that suddenly there’s going to be a huge public outcry against it. It is what it is…he said what he said. We don’t expect folks to issue an apology when they come out IN FAVOR of gay marriage, so why should we expect him to do that?
It’s because the gay don’t have the same rights than hetero, that’s why. Like, what if someone would be IN FAVOR of racism? We expect folks to issue an apology when they come out AGAINST racism, right?
Anyway, it’s easy to put the free speech card to everything. Well, he is free to say whatever he wants without going in jail, that’s free speech. The backlash? It calls consequences. If he bashs someone publicly (or a whole community in that case), it’s also free speech to people to bash him in return. Ah, I love free speech, we can do everything with it! Free speech, free speech, free speech.
He’s entitled to his own opinion and to live his life the way he feels is right. He’s not trying to change anyone’s mind or shove his beliefs down your throat. Practice what you preach: tolerance
Perfectly said.
He does have a right to say what he believes. But what he did say was hateful. When you claim that a lifestyle is detrimental to the foundation of society, that is hateful. It’s not offensive or full of slurs, but it is still hateful.
If I say Christianity is detrimental to society because it encourages and supports misogyny, racism, elitism, and hypocrisy, many of you would tell me I was unfairly categorizing Christianity and being hateful toward Christians.
If you said that Christianity was “detrimental to society”, I would agree with you. But, my feelings about Christianity aside…
I don’t believe Kirk was attempting to arouse hate; I think he was stating his opinions/feelings. They’re are strong feelings, no doubt, but he did not incite hate or hatefulness. If he said, “Homosexuality is detrimental to society and homosexuals should be killed.” Or anything of the like, that is hateful.
He is entitled to his opinion. And everyone else has the same entitlement to react and reply any way they like. If he wants to say hurtful and offensive things in a public forum, then he needs to prepare himself for the fact that people aren’t going to like what he said, and are going to respond, rather than acting like a cry-ass who can dish it out but can’t take it.
I find it curious that he feels anyone who violates his definition of marriage, “one man one woman till death do you part” is destructive to civilization; so he must feel that divorcees are likewise destructive. Why is it okay for them to violate God’s law?
Going on a national show and making a statement “of fact” that a lifestyle one is living is detrimental to society – and in this case a homosexual life style – is not an acceptable action. Do you believe that since the senators who held the meeting regarding birth control with no woman present was acceptable because they did it respectfully? The most hurtful things ever said to me were delivered with saccharine and sweet and that’s because it was cold and calculated. His message is a message of hate, no matter the tone, no matter the delivery. When slavery was debated, I promise you those who were not part of the abolitionist movement gave very legitimate reasons why it should exist and in a most professional manner. The same with those that didn’t believe woman should vote (which by the way – was not that long ago). This lifestyle causes no harm to me as a neighbor and the gay community should be left in peace with the same civil liberties I have including the right to get married. Please, stop thinking this is a debate. This is an attack. On a final note, if he really did have gay friends encourage and support him after this – well that’s just messed up. Respectfully yours, GREYMAN.
Kirk Cameron DID NOT make a statement “of fact”. Reread his quote and statement above. Just because you don’t agree with his statements doesn’t allow you to become the PC police and declare his beliefs “a message of hate”. He has an absolute right to his beliefs, and to state them EXACTLY as he did, just as you do yours. Whether your beliefs are “correct” or Kirk’s are “correct” is what this whole debate is about. And it is a debate, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.
Sorry you think that since you’re “right”, everyone should bow down to your superior way of analysis and tolerance and the discussion is over.
So, it’s not okay to express opinions?
I didn’t police anyone’s comments and claim I was politically correct or anyone else isn’t. I think hatred comes out of this debate which is illustrated by what I interpreted as a very hostile post from you towards my comments. Thanks Chuck.
NobleGrey: You stated something as “fact” that wasn’t. Saying his speech was not acceptable was interpreted by me as saying he should be censored.
No hostility was meant. I get worked up when someone says someone else isn’t allowed to state their beliefs, no matter how repugnant, because someone else might be offended.
Making an argument that is based completely on your religious beliefs has no place in a debate about a SOCIAL issue. Marriage is not solely a religious or Christian institution, it is a social institution, and in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate, one cannot cite “Adam and Eve” as your source for argumentation. He may have not been particularly disrespectful, but he certainly made a flawed argument that had no business being televised.
Why did the interview have “no business being televised”? This is the U.S. — I hope there isn’t ever a point, from this point in history onward, where something isn’t televised because some people disagree with it. Actually, that already does happen (it’s called the Networks and the manipulative media) and that sucks! I’m not a child or weak-minded; I can change the channel or tune out what I decipher as garbage. We can’t make everyone think the same—not everyone is going to like homosexuals–hell, there are probably some people living still fuming over women’s right to vote—the fact is that if we try to censor or control people’s thoughts/feelings/opinions than we are doing damage to humanity. As much as we may not like “hate” or “disapproval’ it exists in every capacity. We can’t change that. We can, though, promote compassion and kindness and hope that wins out.
Even though I totally disagree with Kirk’s stance, I still believe he has the right to speak his mind. I also believe that whoever wants to interview him, or listen to him have their rights, and I believe further still that those of us who disagree with him have a right to state our beliefs.
I didn’t say that it shouldn’t be televised because it was disagreeable or controversial. I said it had not business being televised because it wasn’t a valid argument.
Cameron is using, and openly citing, religious texts to argue against a civil matter. He may as well be arguing against heterosexuals with no religious beliefs getting married, because his argument is completely based on the false premise that marriage is solely a religious institution, and therefore must abide by religious law. Obviously, even though his point is invalid in the debate of civil marriage, he still has the right to express it and broadcast it on television. I just don’t think we should waste time and airspace on it.
Make whatever controversial arguments you want – but at least make valid arguments.
There wouldn’t be ANY TV without invalid arguments. Prime example: any political debate!
There are no prerequisites for believing what you believe.
Everyone is entitled to have opinions on life in general.
But spreading hate by way of religion should not be tolerated not now not ever.
Wait a minute…do we care what Kirk Cameron thinks?!
Wait a minute…do we care what Kirk Cameron thinks?! He’s probably just afraid that if gay marriage is legalized, his boyfriend’s gonna expect him to put a ring in it! Go gay marriage!
I agree with the author of this 100%. You can’t say to a whole group of people that your religion states it’s an abomination to be who you are, and you shouldn’t be allowed to be married, and your lifestyle is destructive to civilization…if you are not prepared to take a backlash from people who are offended. He offended a lot of people with his outdated thinking. And he’s surprised his offensive views caused an uproar? If he wasn’t talking about gays, and say instead, you switch gays with blacks, or jews, or hispanics etc…, believe me there would be hell to pay! So why should we tolerate this type of backward thinking from Kirk and his fellow christian extremists? I don’t think anyone should be thinking like this in the year 2012. I don’t think it’s healthy for a society to put down an innocent group of people, deny them rights, and say they are ‘destructive’ I mean, am I wrong here? The real issue here is the religion itself and what it preaches. It should teach tolerance, acceptance, equality, love and peace, and should grow and change when society itself changes. It should evolve just like everything else. I think every human should just wake up, realize we are all the same. We all need love, oxygen, food, we are all equal, and most importantly, we’re all stuck on the same rock. Let’s be kinder to each other, let’s celebrate our similarities instead of fighting over our differences, let’s make life here on earth a little more bearable for each other, and live and let live. There’s no need for religious dogma, superstition, prejudices, hate, entitlement, all these negative qualities we inherit from the previous generation or even from our environment. When will we realize everyone deserves the same rights and opportunities, no matter who they love, what they are, or who they want to be?
i agree with Kirk Cameron.
It was definitely NOT hate speech.
lots of atheists go around saying how Christianity is suckish, so atheist people shudn’t be talking…..