Cameron may be as smart as a bag of lint, but O'Reilly is pandering (which indicates some measure of cunning). I don't think even he really believes the crap he's spewing on the air, but he's all-too-aware of Faux News' key demographic (the illiterate, uninformed viewer).
OH MY GAWD! Why, why, why do xtians continue to time & again to say that this country was based on xtian values!!! It was not, the government set this up as a secular nation.
@Danarchistic1 Because the Bible does not say divorce is not allowed. It says that divorce is not good, but doesn't say it is a sin. It states very clearly, though, that homosexuality is unnatural and a sin. marriage is for a man and women, it has been for thousands of years, and I don't see why it should not remain that way. Look at the way the US was going in the 20th century.
@geoa1990 But marriage has evolved along with society. Marriage used to be a legal contract to ensure the smooth transition of wealth and property, with the woman having little or no say. The idea of marrying someone for love because you want to is a fairly modern concept; the result of a more democratic world where individual rights and happiness are cherished. For good or bad, marriage is looking more like a legal contract these days. Couples can begin or end them on a whim.
yes, there were hard times, but most of the century was very prosperous. now that everyone thinks that they can change everything, such as morals, look at the where the US and the rest of the world is headed
I have to disagree with you. Like him or not, Bill O'Reilly is not stupid. Kirk Cameron, on the other hand, is about as smart as the banana featured in his most infamous video.
How disturbing is it when bill says that guy had no right to start yelling into the camera when they were simply trying to have a conversation with them??!! A mob of people going through your neighbourhood screaming and yelling chants against you is not a conversation. It's no wonder America is going down the toilet, republicans have so much in common with fascism it's just not funny.
He can stay married to his one wife all he wants, but he and people like him have no right to tell other people who are different, they can't marry another person of their choice because people like him don't approve
The support of gay marriage is growing by the year..soon enough..if not already..over 50% of the country will support gay marriage..I find it funny how O'Reilly believes in free speech here..but when it comes to Westboro Baptist Church, then free speech isn't allowed because he doesn't like their message. People like O'Reilly and Cameron only care about their own individual views, not the views of the majority, or what is right. Equality to all. Period.
Bottom line is if I am not a christian then your religious rules dont apply to me and if you want to say and believe that I am going to some mythological place of fire for that then you just go right ahead but most of the laws of this country arent based on your bible and keep preaching but no one has to do it your way so ha! Your so called majority is shrinking fast too btw, closer to 50/50 every day and mostly in concentrated areas.
5:03 "Healthy discussion," yeah, right. You don't have a healthy discussion by organizing a group of your religious thugs and waltzing straight into a neighborhood telling the residents their lives are evil.
awesome responses Mr. Cameron! it's sad that a lot of Christians profess they are but are not good examples. Thanks for being a great example to us Christians out there!
I think it's funny how an Evangelical Christian speaks on what marriage should be about, everyone goes on the attack saying he's anti-gay, he hates homosexuals, duddi, duddi duh.Kirk Cameron isn't the brightest Christian, but common now, does he really hate gays?
Servant means employee and besides that is over that was in the old testament. This was also one of the reasons why Jesus died on the cross. He changed everything.
Wow this guy is prickly prick. He actually called the protest a riot. When blacks, gays or progressives protest its a riot. When Tea Party protest its freedom of speech. What a joke. I'm glad this loser never had any other mainstream success other than that stupid 80s show.
@RightWingHunter666 he has had a lot of success and has been in many movies because he is an amazing actor. he is just saying that he believes that gay marriage is wrong and immoral and if you are a very strong christian and believe what is in the Bible then you would believe the same thing which is clearly the widespread idea throughout America.
@RightWingHunter666 this would be classified as a riot. They verbally attacked others, and the police had to show up. look how violent it is over there. are you that blind? that is more than a protest. that is insulting and attacking people with other beliefs. Everyone is allowed to speak their mind anywhere in the country. You can't tell someone that they can't come into a public community
@RightWingHunter666 He calls it a riot because that's what it was. At Tea Party events they protest, get the messege out, clean up there area and go home. Liberals steal, rape, use the restroom on public grounds in front of people EVEN KIDS and raise hell and injure Cops. Thats the difference and they only reason it doesn't get reported is because the media covers it up and instead highlights how mean, bigoted, and anti government the Tea Party is. WE will win in the end!!!
What a fucking dumbass. Funny enough there are so many rumors of him cruising in parks... why so many rumors? It certainly wouldn't be a shocker. All the homophobes are secretly gay. Otherwise, why in the world would you care? It would be more women for us.
because going to the place where the community who was wounded and heartbroken over the Prop 8 vote and further dehumanizing them by trying to tell them they are sinners going to Hell is such a constructive thing to do!
God loves all sinners yet not the sins, people need to understand that Christians need to preach to gay people so that they can be saved. May God Bless Kirk Cameron. It's not easy being him in this horrible world.
@DannyIgnite It's a matter of law is a matter for the federal government. You're free to believe what you want and I won't hold that against you but I would rather let a being that I know exists decide what's right than a being that may or may not exist. This is not solely an issue for the opponents of gay marriage. Democracy doesn't work that way. If two people love each other and it doesn't harm anyone (I can't see how it would hurt God in any real way) then what's the problem?
@swordhunter12 It doesn't matter what you believe when it comes to the Bible. The Bible is clear & concise when it comes to the subject of homosexuality, lying, stealing or murder. Sin is sin. That's it. If you want to go to a church where it's okay for people to do what they want & they can somehow go to Heaven, go for it. But it is not Biblical. It's an issue of the Constitution & separation of Church & State. Get the Federal Government out of Marriage. Leave it to the churches. Problem solved
@DannyIgnite what about atheits heterosexual couples that get married? or spouses from diffrent religons that choose to have a secular wedding in order to respect each others opinions?
@kefkapalazzo1 Call it what you want, but when it comes to Biblical marriages, leave it to the Church. Everything else is semantics. Let them call it whatever they want. If they decide to live together, or get married, or have a domestic union, let them. I'm a Christian, and I regularly share my beliefs, but I understand that I can't, and should not, force anyone to adhere to my beliefs if they wish not to. Especially in the United States, where it is not Constitutional to ban such partnerships.
Exactly. Having the government interfere with religion by defining what a marriage is and associating particular legal rights with a religious requirement is simply unconstitutional.
Not to mention, why are non-Christians allowed to marry? For instance, the Bible explicitly forbids divorce (in most instances) significantly more often than it even mentions homosexuality, but you don't hear anyone trying to illegalize divorce.
Ron Paul's stance on this issue is no better, for he still gives (state) government the power to legislate and define what a religious union is or is not, a role which does not belong to the government (as shown in the Constitution). Marriage in general should be abolished and left to the church, with the legal rights (via a civil union) given to all who wish.
@cmadison93 Ron Paul's stance on this issue is not his stance. It is Constitutional. The Constitution clearly states that anything NOT stated in the Constitution regarding the federal government's abilities is to be given to the States and to the People. So, while Ron Paul has a stance, his stance is completely maintained within the structure of the Constitution. With that said, If the States were to vote on these social issues, they'd have a FAR greater chance to pass something "controversial".
The state government does not have the right to override the Constitution. Having the government (of any form - including the states) define what a marriage is or putting a religious requirement on a legal right, is simply unconstitutional, meaning that this definition is left up to the church - and ONLY the church - to decide (i.e. marriage shouldn't be a legal issue in the first place).
@cmadison93 you have that backwards marriage is a civil institution, if you get married in a church with out the civil marriage documents your marriage is not legal. There are many different religious that can marry people to say the church has control of it is actually unconstitutional and violates the separation of church and state. marriage is not defined by the church but defined by society, so it is very much up to the government to decide what a civil marriage is.
Remember, the government's role (this also extends to the states via the Constitution) is to generally stay out of church affairs (including defining the word 'marriage') and to not promote one particular view of religion over the other.
Understanding how the first amendment came about, what it entails, why America was founded and the 14th amendment would do you well and provide great insight into the American Constitution.
@cmadison93 What about my religious freedom to define the word marriage, if its up to religion to decide this which religious definition do we use. As a pagan my definition would include same sex marriage, dose the government then have the right to say that my religious freedom is not as impotent as Christians religious freedom? This is why the government must stay out of religion and focus on the civil definition of marriage which is what we are talking about.
What I said was that marriage should be abolished completely, and the religious aspects of marriage left up to each individual church (or whatever religious institution) to decide. The government doesn't have the right to determine what this religious institution is or is not.
Have all individuals seeking the legal rights go get a civil union instead. So you have 2 distinct things: the religious aspect (marriage) and the legal one (civil union).
@cmadison93 "The government doesn't have the right to determine what this religious institution is or is not." its not a religious institution its a civil one, just because religious have adopted it and put there own twist on it dose not make it a religious institution. They also sing in church but it dose not make singing religious in nature. People just need to understand that there is a difference between civil and religious marriage.
Actually, the marriage in America has its roots in the religious union known as marriage, particular that of the Judeo-Christian faith. Just because legal rights were then added onto to this doesn't mean it's solely a legal union.
@cmadison93 The idea of marriage is a universal concept found in every culture around the world. Also participating in a marriage is about the union of two people and has no religious significance, just because there is a religious ceremony was created for it dose not make union itself religious.
@cmadison93 you realize that there would be huge legal problems if they abolished marriage and replaced it with civil unions, first they would have to rewrite ever law that mentions marriage to say civil union and the courts have not found that people have the right to civil unions but they have to marriage. This idea would cause more problems then it would solve. this is yet another idea form Ron Paul that sounds good but in reality is a bad idea.
They wouldn't have to 'rewrite' every law. They could come up with a new law that says the legal rights associated with marriage are now associated with civil unions instead.
How ironic of you to bring up Ron Paul's stance, especially considering my earlier comments on this issue. Ron Paul does not support the abolition of marriage, but rather having the states decide whether gay marriage should be legalized or illegalized.
@cmadison93 no if they do not rewrite every law associated with marriage or the mentions marriage, people that had a religious marriage could claim rights over people with civil unions, this is the reason why civil unions are not acceptable for gays. If you tried to just write a new law it would span to many legal codes and would be a hugely complected bill that would create all sorts of legal loop holes, its not a very viable option.
The problem is that legal rights should have never been associated so directly with marriage in the first place. Similar to how the pledge of allegiance should have never been changed to include the religious aspect.
@cmadison93 I do not believe that is the case or the problem, like i said just because a religious ceremony was created for it dose not make the union a religious practice. A marriage is actually a secular practice, meaning not necessarily tied to any specific region or any religion at all. secular dose not mean without religion its means religiously neutral.
@cmadison93 The concept of Separation of Church & State is not in the Constitution, although you can argue the Founding Fathers would support the concept. I definitely understand that the government tends to make things a whole lot more complicated than they should be. As for me, being a Christian, I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I do not believe, as a Christian, that I should impose my beliefs on others. I love America, not because of our military or economy, because of the Constitution:)
@USMCNIM5 #1 4:35 "Do you respect other people um... these people, the gay people who are *peacefully*... I don't have any use -- and you know this -- for the people invading the churches, and screaming into the cameras and threatening people...."
Since no church is in sight, it seems fairly clear the issue has come up. Gays have invaded the churchs. Both O'Reilly and Cameron are agreed it'd be unacceptable, despite agreeing it's okay to harrass gays on a peaceful protest march.
@USMCNIM5 #2 The truely sad thing is, they see no problems or inconsistancies in their statements. If gays are sinning, then why not WELCOME them into their churches, in order to provide these dirty sinners with a moral compass they so clearly need?
If they are, in fact, normal every day people who happen to be gay, then why not WELCOME them into their churches to... um... make it so they don't have to invade churches, in order to be spared eternal hell fire and Growing Pains reruns?
"I certainly don't define marriage, and neither does anyone else."
So are you or are you not married? Somehow I doubt the IRS or the state of California accept marriage licences issued by god.
"None of us have the opportunity to redefine [marriage] without... unraveling society."
China and India, the two longest lasting continious societies on earth, are unraveled? Thousands of years of civilization disagree. Both allowed polygamous and/or homosexual unions.
@USMCNIM5 I purposefully left it out, since the Roman society DID unravel, though it had nothing to do with changing marriage laws. Mind you, their marriage laws were based on a god who raped a swan, but whatever. I stuck with China and India, because their societies have NEVER unraveled, something argueably no other society on earth can claim. The fact they did it all without the guidance of the Judeo-Christian god, or the moral guidance of Christ, makes it all the less remarkable.
@JMC9884 so.. i guess you also agree with stoning people and absolutley no woman rights. not to mention owning slaves, murder, rape and incest. not to mention that the divorce rate in America is around 50%. but its so sacred right? you also didn't answer my question. when was life sacred and what is "the fabric of morality." you know what that sounds like to me? emotionally charged words. religion is good for using Fallacies.
@oJKBo The ones who became filthy rich almost always did so on the backs of those who are constantly being asked to tighten their belts some more...and smile as they do it.
Letting millionaires work for minimum wage would give them a taste of how rotten the life of those they are currently exploting can be. Rather than actully see this picture (it might be amusing), most Middle and Working Class Americans would settle for millionaires at least paying a fairer share in taxes. NOW!
@nalani005 if you believe its ok to be gay? mayber its ok to be a drunkard or lier, or to love a person more than God, or to just love God for what he can do for you or to be a womanizer,
@faithcomesby "Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. These lines are for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:Romans 2:1: Etc.
Everyone talks about a the scriptures. Look I believe in God. But NO where in the bible does it say that being gay is a sin. Look up your scripture. The translation couldn't be more off. I thought it was understood that the main scripture everyone spew out was badly misinterpreted. Or misinterpreted on purpose. It happens a lot.
@lorigonzo1 "Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. These lines are for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:Romans 2:1: Etc.
@lorigonzo1 The Leviticus scripture you refer to is the single most blatant misinterpretation from King James to new King James in the whole book.It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It does however have every thing to do with relations out of wedlock.
@nalani005 I'm not sure that the Bible doesn't say anything about it : the letter of St Paul to the Romans 1:26-32, homosexuality is considered as something anormal, homosexuals 'committing indecent acts'
@bogu91 "Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. These lines are for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:Romans 2:1: Etc.
Morals come from evolution - there are advantages to co-operative behavior on a survival basis. And religious people are the least moral people on the planet so I really don't understand why they keep using the term.
@veganslayer1 Morals should not come from evolution. They should be strong principles which ensure sane life. I noticed that you consider religious people as the least moral people ? Why do you think so ? If you watch the movie 'fireproof' they are talking about in the video, the moral elements presented in this film are really good for our nowadays society I think... In my opinion, in the society, there really is the most morality in religious communities...Your opinion interests me
@isaguy53 . you do know that slippery slope is a logic fallacy. not to mention life certainly is not held as sacred. all throughout history there has been countless slaughter of life. and what exactly is the fabric of morality?
kirk cameron is a douche bag, that was hardly a riot. dont mince words you stupid wanker. and the founding fathers were smart enough to reject the invisible man in the sky. fuck you cameron
kirk cameron need cock up his arse, he'll soon change his attitudes towards god and gay rights. Man is a moron and giving him and that moron billo'fuckturd any credence, air time is really waste of time.
@micoforion very well said. I assume you went to school to speak such eloquent language. I also admire how you used a fallacy several times. You must really feel confident in your point because hey... who wouldn't refrain from slander if they had a valid point that would sustain itself?
@ JMC9884. you are free to burn the American flag. it is your right as an American, a right that I and many others have "served" to protect. Marriage is in no way shape or form threatened by homosexual marriage. nor is it sacred. it is far from sacred. also it seems that freedom is for some and not all.
@Finleyfrank1 "Marriage is not sacred." Really? This, of course, only leads to the question, is there anything sacred in society any more? We slaughter innocent children in cold blood and excuse it by calling it abortion. We murder the sick and the elderly through euthanasia and excuse it by saying it was "necessary". We're on a very slippery and dangerous slope here, where does it end? Is anything sacred if we don't save the moral integrity of what used to be the fabric of society?
@isaguy53 morals come not from scripture but from rational thought. or else wed still be killing people for working on the sabbath. according to the scripture. religion picks and chooses what we still follow... so therefore morality exists in everyone regardless of religion
@Finleyfrank1 you have to be kidding me. Marriage is not only considered sacred to Christians but it is considered sacred to all religions as well. Please look that up. Is the sanctity of marriage threatened by same-sex marriage? Yes. Marriage is sacred institution and covenant that is established by the God of the bible. The bible clearly talks about the sanctity of marriage and how man shall not lie down with a man nor a woman with a woman.
@Finleyfrank1 there are various passages that state that homesexuality is unacceptable in the eyes of God. I will continue this conversation this weekend. I have to to church right now.
I would like to know what slippery slope there is on gay marriage? I am not trying to be rude or controversial just how would gay marriage effect me as a straight male with 13 yr’s with my wife, because I don’t see it.
Gays are notorious loose this is crazy to even want to have gays marry they can't procreate it's confusion just be gay all day but don't march int the streets half naked lewd and expect people to be ok w/that and don't make it a civil rights issue cause its NOT it is a choice and to bring this depraved behavior to r classrooms & teach it kids as normal they r clueless hormones racing ok you like your friend you might be gay? Little boys tend to think girls are yucky so you see how it is a agenda
@utubehound69 "gay are notoriously loose"??? that is so insulting, so condescending!! knowing about gays doesnt turn you gay, i knew what being gay was when i was 10 and im straight. if its a choice did you choose to be straight? no you just are. you cant choose to like men and you cant choose to like women, you just do.
teaching kids that homosexuality is normal is far better than teaching kids it's not; maybe the gay kids wont kill themselves anymore for not being "normal"
"some would say im unqualified [to go down there and talk to gays] because for the last 17 years i've been married to only 1 person"
yeah because gays are just having sex with everybody meet. also, kirk, maybe gays would be able to say that too if they were allowed to marry, but oh yeah they can't.
"marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman for life"
so why do we allow people to get divorced; the divorce rate is 50% but thats not illegal. typical picking and choosing only the laws that work for them
The courts actually supported the rights of the slave-owner to retain his slaves so the courts were wrong and it was a large majority of the population taking up arms in support of our presidents decision to abolish slavery because it was contrary to the principles of the foundation of our country i.e. the DOI that resulted in slavery being abolished. This included my white great grandfather. The courts should not go against public opinion if they do not want to promote civil war.
@JMC9884 You can start with "The age of reason" by Thomas Paine, one of the signers of The Declaration of Indepedence. The founding fathers were deists not christians. You can look this up.
@Finleyfrank1 not exactly. he stated that but his reasoning to uphold traditional marriage was based on the fact that he believes that there certain truths and moral standards that must be fought for. Yes this country is free, however, not free enough to ruin a sacred institution such as marriage. if we lived according to that logic, I would be free to burn the american flag because it is a free country.
@jonasgrant Please forgive our stupidity. Television has mind fucked us from the early 60's on. Children should never see a television until the age of about 8 or 9.
Randy Phillips, who has been a YouTube sensation with his phone call to his dad video, has made a fun film on just this very topic. Do not miss the YouTube video:
"Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal" by AreYouSuprised
Marriage is defined by the legal system. If it was just defined in a religious sense then you wouldn't need a divorce to leave your spouse, you would need permission from a religious institution.
@mattdd05 - Is that so? So should I just take your word for it or are you gonna prove it? Don't post your opinions as facts without any back-up, this is the age of the internet- even an idiot can prove his point, yet you have failed to even do that--so what does that make you?
No, marriage is not a "theological" issue you stupid dumb fuck!!! Marriage is an issue of "right" that one MAY or MAY NOT choose to get married. Plus, Kirk Cameron seem to be incapable of distinguishing "marriage" and "family". We can have a family without marriage as much as we can develop marriage relation without building a family. Marriage is legalistic institutional issue and that's what gays who defend their RIGHT to marry are voicing. They want the same legal rights as heterosexuals!
"Jealous" is not the right term if not quite weak one. Any democratic civil society should guarantee basic rights and equality. If heterosexuals can get married so should gays. That's what they are demanding. Ten Commandmant is irrelevant reference to those who doesn't follow that particular religion. That only belong to personal domain of those who follow that religion. Marriage is legal issue within public domain and it should be relevant to everyone.
@Casshyr ur so silly for that statement, God is the way of life nd if u don't believe in God and u call US that believe in God moron then ur are not worth living on this planet
@Casshyr not against homosexuals, just homosexuality. God doesn't want any one to go to hell. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Christianity is an exclusionist cult and just another outlet for facists. I hope noone is censored. I want Kirk and others like him to keep talking so we never forget how gullible they are or how destructive their ideas can be to personal liberty when they are allowed to take root in government. Deus ex machina! Now concerning the christian activists in the footage, I don't shit in other people's yards unless I want trouble. They just wanted to see some gay lovin'.Thank you. I yield the soapbox.
Is it really just a fight over the name? Because that seems to be the diverting statement made. Call it any damn thing u want then. But don't deny people these same rights.
marriage was defined by God? Guess he created divorce to after condemning it what a moron!
marriage is a brand new term! gay marriage was a part of ancient greece, Rome n mainly china (from 1000BC). Marriage was never conclusively defined as between a man and a woman. Even God said that that in Heb 13:4. But guess these christians would rather find some poor souls to torture than to find the true meaning of the verses.
Santorum said it best, Where does it end? Men marrying 2, 3, 4 other men, or polygamy of any type. If that person or persons see it as their civil right where does it end? There has to be a clear definition.
@SeedsOfHatred Because this is my community as well as yours, and if you want to change the nature of our beliefs you need to look at the aspects of change this will cause. Instead you want to be hateful and illogical, just as your name applies.
@MrJgkeeling This is our community, yes, but men marrying multiple men (or men marrying multiple women, for that matter) does not harm or impede us or our freedoms in any way. None whatsoever. The ONLY issue that it raises is that it goes against YOUR religious beliefs. That is simply idiotic.
As for my hatred, I'm not sure how my support of others' happiness shows any measure of hatred. Care to elaborate?
Am I the only one here who agrees with Kirk?
LucasMidkiff 9 hours ago
Good point.
Cameron may be as smart as a bag of lint, but O'Reilly is pandering (which indicates some measure of cunning). I don't think even he really believes the crap he's spewing on the air, but he's all-too-aware of Faux News' key demographic (the illiterate, uninformed viewer).
sebulia1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For an insightful look at the traditional, biblical marriage that the supporters of Propostion 8 are trying to protect, be sure to see:
"Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else" by MrsBettyBowers
And for a two great takes on the Mormon support of Prop 8, do not miss:
"Mormon Church Defends Prop 8 and Marriage(s)" by lezazacomedy
-and-
"'Home Invasion': No on Prop 8 ad directed toward Mormon Church" by jonahtrainer
RCSVirginia 1 day ago
OH MY GAWD! Why, why, why do xtians continue to time & again to say that this country was based on xtian values!!! It was not, the government set this up as a secular nation.
GrayLotus 1 day ago
Why don't christian fundamentalists protest divorce?
Danarchistic1 1 day ago
@Danarchistic1 Because the Bible does not say divorce is not allowed. It says that divorce is not good, but doesn't say it is a sin. It states very clearly, though, that homosexuality is unnatural and a sin. marriage is for a man and women, it has been for thousands of years, and I don't see why it should not remain that way. Look at the way the US was going in the 20th century.
geoa1990 1 day ago
@geoa1990 But marriage has evolved along with society. Marriage used to be a legal contract to ensure the smooth transition of wealth and property, with the woman having little or no say. The idea of marrying someone for love because you want to is a fairly modern concept; the result of a more democratic world where individual rights and happiness are cherished. For good or bad, marriage is looking more like a legal contract these days. Couples can begin or end them on a whim.
Danarchistic1 1 day ago
yes, there were hard times, but most of the century was very prosperous. now that everyone thinks that they can change everything, such as morals, look at the where the US and the rest of the world is headed
geoa1990 1 day ago
Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron.... a combined IQ that can still be tallied on one hand (even if a finger or two are missing).
sebulia1 2 days ago 5
@sebulia1
LOL Indeed...
MrGuerra90 2 days ago
@sebulia1
I have to disagree with you. Like him or not, Bill O'Reilly is not stupid. Kirk Cameron, on the other hand, is about as smart as the banana featured in his most infamous video.
RCSVirginia 1 day ago
How disturbing is it when bill says that guy had no right to start yelling into the camera when they were simply trying to have a conversation with them??!! A mob of people going through your neighbourhood screaming and yelling chants against you is not a conversation. It's no wonder America is going down the toilet, republicans have so much in common with fascism it's just not funny.
molfie 2 days ago
Do I approve of these tactics? Do you approve of John Brown's tactics?
hexum7 3 days ago
"Now, would you go down in the Castro yourself?"---- you can't write this stuff
hexum7 3 days ago
"The values this country was based on"? Where in the constitution does it say anything about homosexuality?
megamarsvin 4 days ago
@megamarsvin The constitution said nothing about black people, or women, or other minority's. I guess your values are people like you only!
texanrob 4 days ago
@texanrob What do you think "we the people" means? "We, white, straight men"?
megamarsvin 4 days ago
He can stay married to his one wife all he wants, but he and people like him have no right to tell other people who are different, they can't marry another person of their choice because people like him don't approve
texanrob 6 days ago
@texanrob I personally don't agree with gays marrying, but it is their decision.
star99springhill 4 days ago
This guy hates every gay guy he watches in his massive gay porn collection
roguemtber 6 days ago
The support of gay marriage is growing by the year..soon enough..if not already..over 50% of the country will support gay marriage..I find it funny how O'Reilly believes in free speech here..but when it comes to Westboro Baptist Church, then free speech isn't allowed because he doesn't like their message. People like O'Reilly and Cameron only care about their own individual views, not the views of the majority, or what is right. Equality to all. Period.
smulligan2 6 days ago
Bottom line is if I am not a christian then your religious rules dont apply to me and if you want to say and believe that I am going to some mythological place of fire for that then you just go right ahead but most of the laws of this country arent based on your bible and keep preaching but no one has to do it your way so ha! Your so called majority is shrinking fast too btw, closer to 50/50 every day and mostly in concentrated areas.
gooderinhail22 6 days ago
"Marriage has been around for thousands of years, if not longer"
How is that possible if the earth is 6000 years old, moron?!?
Lolmeistercom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Newt Gingrich obviously didn't get the memo on the one man ONE WOMAN thing...
DJ100101 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Newt Gingrich obviously didn't get the memo on the one man ONE WOMAN thing...
DJ100101 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Newt Gingrich obviously didn't get the memo on the one man ONE WOMAN thing...
DJ100101 1 week ago
Newt Gingrich obviously didn't get the memo on the one man ONE WOMAN thing...
DJ100101 1 week ago
5:03 "Healthy discussion," yeah, right. You don't have a healthy discussion by organizing a group of your religious thugs and waltzing straight into a neighborhood telling the residents their lives are evil.
SmallGreenPlanetoid 1 week ago
Go Kirk!!!! Love you
kb24crazylaker 1 week ago
Is this the same Kirk that supposedly cruises the gay parks for sex? Hypocrite hypocrite
moosebuddyarnie 1 week ago
awesome responses Mr. Cameron! it's sad that a lot of Christians profess they are but are not good examples. Thanks for being a great example to us Christians out there!
Msemigrace23 1 week ago
I agree, though, that Crocoduck boy is a fµcking idiot.
Haarez1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it's funny how an Evangelical Christian speaks on what marriage should be about, everyone goes on the attack saying he's anti-gay, he hates homosexuals, duddi, duddi duh.Kirk Cameron isn't the brightest Christian, but common now, does he really hate gays?
4IDHero 1 week ago
This guy is a fucking idiot. Actually he seems kind of gay to me... not that there is anything wrong with being gay.
Diablo112687 1 week ago
@Diablo112687 He's just moderately good-looking. Not every single handsome man is gay, you know...
Haarez1 1 week ago
@Haarez1 It has nothing to do with his good looks... he comes off as gay... he seems feminine. To me at least. Maybe I am wrong.
Diablo112687 1 week ago
Servant means employee and besides that is over that was in the old testament. This was also one of the reasons why Jesus died on the cross. He changed everything.
isabelle2436 1 week ago
Bone heads
KennyHBCA1 1 week ago
If there are 50 gay men gathered there will be 10 whistles blowing
OctoBox 1 week ago
Wow this guy is prickly prick. He actually called the protest a riot. When blacks, gays or progressives protest its a riot. When Tea Party protest its freedom of speech. What a joke. I'm glad this loser never had any other mainstream success other than that stupid 80s show.
RightWingHunter666 1 week ago 5
@RightWingHunter666 Great way to get people to listen to your opinion. Name calling? Grow up
star99springhill 4 days ago
@RightWingHunter666 he has had a lot of success and has been in many movies because he is an amazing actor. he is just saying that he believes that gay marriage is wrong and immoral and if you are a very strong christian and believe what is in the Bible then you would believe the same thing which is clearly the widespread idea throughout America.
caseyrenee69 1 day ago
@RightWingHunter666 this would be classified as a riot. They verbally attacked others, and the police had to show up. look how violent it is over there. are you that blind? that is more than a protest. that is insulting and attacking people with other beliefs. Everyone is allowed to speak their mind anywhere in the country. You can't tell someone that they can't come into a public community
geoa1990 1 day ago
@RightWingHunter666 He calls it a riot because that's what it was. At Tea Party events they protest, get the messege out, clean up there area and go home. Liberals steal, rape, use the restroom on public grounds in front of people EVEN KIDS and raise hell and injure Cops. Thats the difference and they only reason it doesn't get reported is because the media covers it up and instead highlights how mean, bigoted, and anti government the Tea Party is. WE will win in the end!!!
4lifeReagan 19 hours ago
What a fucking dumbass. Funny enough there are so many rumors of him cruising in parks... why so many rumors? It certainly wouldn't be a shocker. All the homophobes are secretly gay. Otherwise, why in the world would you care? It would be more women for us.
MRBBJC 1 week ago
Kirk Cameron is stupid and brain washed!
Equality4ya 1 week ago
@Equality4ya Kirk Cameron is a total closet case.
bethiscool08 1 week ago
because going to the place where the community who was wounded and heartbroken over the Prop 8 vote and further dehumanizing them by trying to tell them they are sinners going to Hell is such a constructive thing to do!
DouginMountVernon 2 weeks ago
the Bible also says working on Sunday is a sin. So, the Bible is a piece of shit. both from a literary standpoint and a moral one.
theyforcedmetosignup 2 weeks ago
God loves all sinners yet not the sins, people need to understand that Christians need to preach to gay people so that they can be saved. May God Bless Kirk Cameron. It's not easy being him in this horrible world.
isabelle2436 2 weeks ago
@isabelle2436 What about that stuff in the Bible that says you can sell your daughter as a sex slave? Exodus 21:7
ThePhantom135 1 week ago
@ThePhantom135 Yea! Cool! :D
Anousenka 1 week ago
THIS COUNTRY AND THE ENTIRE EARTH WAS FOUNDED BY GOD.
isabelle2436 2 weeks ago
I agree with Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul, who, like myself, is a Christian.
The Federal Government should have no say in the institution of marriage.
It is a religious institution. Call it what you want. Debate all you want.
But homosexual domestic partnerships cannot be Constitutionally prohibited.
Their right to marry must remain the Church's issue.
Regardless of the status of their partnerships, the Bible declares homosexuality a sin.
That is not up to debate. Why fight? It is what it is
DannyIgnite 2 weeks ago
@DannyIgnite It's a matter of law is a matter for the federal government. You're free to believe what you want and I won't hold that against you but I would rather let a being that I know exists decide what's right than a being that may or may not exist. This is not solely an issue for the opponents of gay marriage. Democracy doesn't work that way. If two people love each other and it doesn't harm anyone (I can't see how it would hurt God in any real way) then what's the problem?
swordhunter12 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
DannyIgnite 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@swordhunter12 It doesn't matter what you believe when it comes to the Bible. The Bible is clear & concise when it comes to the subject of homosexuality, lying, stealing or murder. Sin is sin. That's it. If you want to go to a church where it's okay for people to do what they want & they can somehow go to Heaven, go for it. But it is not Biblical. It's an issue of the Constitution & separation of Church & State. Get the Federal Government out of Marriage. Leave it to the churches. Problem solved
DannyIgnite 2 weeks ago
@DannyIgnite what about atheits heterosexual couples that get married? or spouses from diffrent religons that choose to have a secular wedding in order to respect each others opinions?
kefkapalazzo1 1 week ago
@kefkapalazzo1 Call it what you want, but when it comes to Biblical marriages, leave it to the Church. Everything else is semantics. Let them call it whatever they want. If they decide to live together, or get married, or have a domestic union, let them. I'm a Christian, and I regularly share my beliefs, but I understand that I can't, and should not, force anyone to adhere to my beliefs if they wish not to. Especially in the United States, where it is not Constitutional to ban such partnerships.
DannyIgnite 1 week ago
@DannyIgnite
Exactly. Having the government interfere with religion by defining what a marriage is and associating particular legal rights with a religious requirement is simply unconstitutional.
Not to mention, why are non-Christians allowed to marry? For instance, the Bible explicitly forbids divorce (in most instances) significantly more often than it even mentions homosexuality, but you don't hear anyone trying to illegalize divorce.
The hypocrisy is too much..
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Yes! That's why I love Ron Paul so much. He's the only one making any sense!
DannyIgnite 1 week ago
@DannyIgnite
Ron Paul's stance on this issue is no better, for he still gives (state) government the power to legislate and define what a religious union is or is not, a role which does not belong to the government (as shown in the Constitution). Marriage in general should be abolished and left to the church, with the legal rights (via a civil union) given to all who wish.
cmadison93 6 days ago
@cmadison93 Ron Paul's stance on this issue is not his stance. It is Constitutional. The Constitution clearly states that anything NOT stated in the Constitution regarding the federal government's abilities is to be given to the States and to the People. So, while Ron Paul has a stance, his stance is completely maintained within the structure of the Constitution. With that said, If the States were to vote on these social issues, they'd have a FAR greater chance to pass something "controversial".
DannyIgnite 6 days ago
@DannyIgnite
The state government does not have the right to override the Constitution. Having the government (of any form - including the states) define what a marriage is or putting a religious requirement on a legal right, is simply unconstitutional, meaning that this definition is left up to the church - and ONLY the church - to decide (i.e. marriage shouldn't be a legal issue in the first place).
cmadison93 6 days ago
@cmadison93 you have that backwards marriage is a civil institution, if you get married in a church with out the civil marriage documents your marriage is not legal. There are many different religious that can marry people to say the church has control of it is actually unconstitutional and violates the separation of church and state. marriage is not defined by the church but defined by society, so it is very much up to the government to decide what a civil marriage is.
Fireflygamer 5 days ago
@DannyIgnite
Remember, the government's role (this also extends to the states via the Constitution) is to generally stay out of church affairs (including defining the word 'marriage') and to not promote one particular view of religion over the other.
Understanding how the first amendment came about, what it entails, why America was founded and the 14th amendment would do you well and provide great insight into the American Constitution.
cmadison93 6 days ago
@cmadison93 What about my religious freedom to define the word marriage, if its up to religion to decide this which religious definition do we use. As a pagan my definition would include same sex marriage, dose the government then have the right to say that my religious freedom is not as impotent as Christians religious freedom? This is why the government must stay out of religion and focus on the civil definition of marriage which is what we are talking about.
Fireflygamer 5 days ago
@Fireflygamer
What I said was that marriage should be abolished completely, and the religious aspects of marriage left up to each individual church (or whatever religious institution) to decide. The government doesn't have the right to determine what this religious institution is or is not.
Have all individuals seeking the legal rights go get a civil union instead. So you have 2 distinct things: the religious aspect (marriage) and the legal one (civil union).
cmadison93 4 days ago
@cmadison93 "The government doesn't have the right to determine what this religious institution is or is not." its not a religious institution its a civil one, just because religious have adopted it and put there own twist on it dose not make it a religious institution. They also sing in church but it dose not make singing religious in nature. People just need to understand that there is a difference between civil and religious marriage.
Fireflygamer 4 days ago
@Fireflygamer
Actually, the marriage in America has its roots in the religious union known as marriage, particular that of the Judeo-Christian faith. Just because legal rights were then added onto to this doesn't mean it's solely a legal union.
cmadison93 4 days ago
@cmadison93 The idea of marriage is a universal concept found in every culture around the world. Also participating in a marriage is about the union of two people and has no religious significance, just because there is a religious ceremony was created for it dose not make union itself religious.
Fireflygamer 4 days ago
@cmadison93 you realize that there would be huge legal problems if they abolished marriage and replaced it with civil unions, first they would have to rewrite ever law that mentions marriage to say civil union and the courts have not found that people have the right to civil unions but they have to marriage. This idea would cause more problems then it would solve. this is yet another idea form Ron Paul that sounds good but in reality is a bad idea.
Fireflygamer 4 days ago
@Fireflygamer
They wouldn't have to 'rewrite' every law. They could come up with a new law that says the legal rights associated with marriage are now associated with civil unions instead.
How ironic of you to bring up Ron Paul's stance, especially considering my earlier comments on this issue. Ron Paul does not support the abolition of marriage, but rather having the states decide whether gay marriage should be legalized or illegalized.
cmadison93 4 days ago
@cmadison93 no if they do not rewrite every law associated with marriage or the mentions marriage, people that had a religious marriage could claim rights over people with civil unions, this is the reason why civil unions are not acceptable for gays. If you tried to just write a new law it would span to many legal codes and would be a hugely complected bill that would create all sorts of legal loop holes, its not a very viable option.
Fireflygamer 4 days ago
@Fireflygamer
The problem is that legal rights should have never been associated so directly with marriage in the first place. Similar to how the pledge of allegiance should have never been changed to include the religious aspect.
cmadison93 4 days ago
@cmadison93 I do not believe that is the case or the problem, like i said just because a religious ceremony was created for it dose not make the union a religious practice. A marriage is actually a secular practice, meaning not necessarily tied to any specific region or any religion at all. secular dose not mean without religion its means religiously neutral.
Fireflygamer 4 days ago
@cmadison93 The concept of Separation of Church & State is not in the Constitution, although you can argue the Founding Fathers would support the concept. I definitely understand that the government tends to make things a whole lot more complicated than they should be. As for me, being a Christian, I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I do not believe, as a Christian, that I should impose my beliefs on others. I love America, not because of our military or economy, because of the Constitution:)
DannyIgnite 4 days ago
@DannyIgnite
This isn't about the concept of 'separation of church and state'
This is about the establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment.
cmadison93 4 days ago
lol "its healthy discussion which is good" (proceeds to tune out any opposing arguments)
realitities2 2 weeks ago
gay religion...christian religion...same thing. they both hate logic and people that dont agree with them.
GabrielMynd 2 weeks ago
What if a bunch of gays went into a christian neighborhood or a church protesting? wouldnt you be pissed kirk
USMCNIM5 2 weeks ago
@USMCNIM5 #1 4:35 "Do you respect other people um... these people, the gay people who are *peacefully*... I don't have any use -- and you know this -- for the people invading the churches, and screaming into the cameras and threatening people...."
Since no church is in sight, it seems fairly clear the issue has come up. Gays have invaded the churchs. Both O'Reilly and Cameron are agreed it'd be unacceptable, despite agreeing it's okay to harrass gays on a peaceful protest march.
MrRoguetech 2 weeks ago
@USMCNIM5 #2 The truely sad thing is, they see no problems or inconsistancies in their statements. If gays are sinning, then why not WELCOME them into their churches, in order to provide these dirty sinners with a moral compass they so clearly need?
If they are, in fact, normal every day people who happen to be gay, then why not WELCOME them into their churches to... um... make it so they don't have to invade churches, in order to be spared eternal hell fire and Growing Pains reruns?
MrRoguetech 2 weeks ago
"I certainly don't define marriage, and neither does anyone else."
So are you or are you not married? Somehow I doubt the IRS or the state of California accept marriage licences issued by god.
"None of us have the opportunity to redefine [marriage] without... unraveling society."
China and India, the two longest lasting continious societies on earth, are unraveled? Thousands of years of civilization disagree. Both allowed polygamous and/or homosexual unions.
MrRoguetech 2 weeks ago
@MrRoguetech As did the roman empire. Possibly the most powerful civilization of all time.
USMCNIM5 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrRoguetech 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USMCNIM5 I purposefully left it out, since the Roman society DID unravel, though it had nothing to do with changing marriage laws. Mind you, their marriage laws were based on a god who raped a swan, but whatever. I stuck with China and India, because their societies have NEVER unraveled, something argueably no other society on earth can claim. The fact they did it all without the guidance of the Judeo-Christian god, or the moral guidance of Christ, makes it all the less remarkable.
MrRoguetech 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JMC9884 so.. i guess you also agree with stoning people and absolutley no woman rights. not to mention owning slaves, murder, rape and incest. not to mention that the divorce rate in America is around 50%. but its so sacred right? you also didn't answer my question. when was life sacred and what is "the fabric of morality." you know what that sounds like to me? emotionally charged words. religion is good for using Fallacies.
Finleyfrank1 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Finleyfrank1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oJKBo The ones who became filthy rich almost always did so on the backs of those who are constantly being asked to tighten their belts some more...and smile as they do it.
Letting millionaires work for minimum wage would give them a taste of how rotten the life of those they are currently exploting can be. Rather than actully see this picture (it might be amusing), most Middle and Working Class Americans would settle for millionaires at least paying a fairer share in taxes. NOW!
zerogullibility 2 weeks ago
@nalani005 if you believe its ok to be gay? mayber its ok to be a drunkard or lier, or to love a person more than God, or to just love God for what he can do for you or to be a womanizer,
faithcomesby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@faithcomesby "Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. These lines are for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:Romans 2:1: Etc.
nalani005 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
Everyone talks about a the scriptures. Look I believe in God. But NO where in the bible does it say that being gay is a sin. Look up your scripture. The translation couldn't be more off. I thought it was understood that the main scripture everyone spew out was badly misinterpreted. Or misinterpreted on purpose. It happens a lot.
nalani005 2 weeks ago
@nalani005 Read Leviticus, Romans 1, Matthew, & Acts. It's all there.
lorigonzo1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lorigonzo1 "Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. These lines are for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:Romans 2:1: Etc.
nalani005 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@lorigonzo1 The Leviticus scripture you refer to is the single most blatant misinterpretation from King James to new King James in the whole book.It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It does however have every thing to do with relations out of wedlock.
nalani005 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@nalani005 I'm not sure that the Bible doesn't say anything about it : the letter of St Paul to the Romans 1:26-32, homosexuality is considered as something anormal, homosexuals 'committing indecent acts'
bogu91 2 weeks ago
@bogu91 "Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. These lines are for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:Romans 2:1: Etc.
nalani005 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
Comment removed
Finleyfrank1 2 weeks ago
you would have to be so sexually insecure to be anti gay
RES1ST0R 2 weeks ago
Morals come from evolution - there are advantages to co-operative behavior on a survival basis. And religious people are the least moral people on the planet so I really don't understand why they keep using the term.
veganslayer1 2 weeks ago
@veganslayer1 Meanwhile laws against murder, stealing, etc were in the Bible long before they were laws.
rc100692 2 weeks ago
@veganslayer1 Morals should not come from evolution. They should be strong principles which ensure sane life. I noticed that you consider religious people as the least moral people ? Why do you think so ? If you watch the movie 'fireproof' they are talking about in the video, the moral elements presented in this film are really good for our nowadays society I think... In my opinion, in the society, there really is the most morality in religious communities...Your opinion interests me
bogu91 2 weeks ago
That movie sucked, theist will give their money to anything blindly.
RipMcHuge 3 weeks ago
marriage is for two people. be it gay straight or interracial .
sin is still sin so what difference does it make?
wherethatat 3 weeks ago
@wherethatat So, marriage is for gay people?
Haukman66 1 week ago
@wherethatat So, marriage is for gay people?
Haukman66 1 week ago
@Haukman66 sure why not? does it change anything?
how about divorced people ? should they not be allowed to remarry as well?
wherethatat 1 week ago
@isaguy53 . you do know that slippery slope is a logic fallacy. not to mention life certainly is not held as sacred. all throughout history there has been countless slaughter of life. and what exactly is the fabric of morality?
Finleyfrank1 3 weeks ago
kirk cameron is a douche bag, that was hardly a riot. dont mince words you stupid wanker. and the founding fathers were smart enough to reject the invisible man in the sky. fuck you cameron
superlou2012 3 weeks ago
@superlou2012 fuck your stupid movie too
superlou2012 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
rc100692 2 weeks ago
Kirk Camron Broke his foot off is your secular humanist anuses!!!
hummbug1 3 weeks ago
kirk cameron need cock up his arse, he'll soon change his attitudes towards god and gay rights. Man is a moron and giving him and that moron billo'fuckturd any credence, air time is really waste of time.
micoforion 3 weeks ago
@micoforion very well said. I assume you went to school to speak such eloquent language. I also admire how you used a fallacy several times. You must really feel confident in your point because hey... who wouldn't refrain from slander if they had a valid point that would sustain itself?
JMC9884 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
jihanqueen 3 weeks ago
@ JMC9884. you are free to burn the American flag. it is your right as an American, a right that I and many others have "served" to protect. Marriage is in no way shape or form threatened by homosexual marriage. nor is it sacred. it is far from sacred. also it seems that freedom is for some and not all.
Finleyfrank1 3 weeks ago
@Finleyfrank1 "Marriage is not sacred." Really? This, of course, only leads to the question, is there anything sacred in society any more? We slaughter innocent children in cold blood and excuse it by calling it abortion. We murder the sick and the elderly through euthanasia and excuse it by saying it was "necessary". We're on a very slippery and dangerous slope here, where does it end? Is anything sacred if we don't save the moral integrity of what used to be the fabric of society?
isaguy53 3 weeks ago
@isaguy53 morals come not from scripture but from rational thought. or else wed still be killing people for working on the sabbath. according to the scripture. religion picks and chooses what we still follow... so therefore morality exists in everyone regardless of religion
superlou2012 3 weeks ago
@Finleyfrank1 you have to be kidding me. Marriage is not only considered sacred to Christians but it is considered sacred to all religions as well. Please look that up. Is the sanctity of marriage threatened by same-sex marriage? Yes. Marriage is sacred institution and covenant that is established by the God of the bible. The bible clearly talks about the sanctity of marriage and how man shall not lie down with a man nor a woman with a woman.
JMC9884 2 weeks ago
@Finleyfrank1 there are various passages that state that homesexuality is unacceptable in the eyes of God. I will continue this conversation this weekend. I have to to church right now.
JMC9884 2 weeks ago
I would like to know what slippery slope there is on gay marriage? I am not trying to be rude or controversial just how would gay marriage effect me as a straight male with 13 yr’s with my wife, because I don’t see it.
opinion01001 3 weeks ago
Gays are notorious loose this is crazy to even want to have gays marry they can't procreate it's confusion just be gay all day but don't march int the streets half naked lewd and expect people to be ok w/that and don't make it a civil rights issue cause its NOT it is a choice and to bring this depraved behavior to r classrooms & teach it kids as normal they r clueless hormones racing ok you like your friend you might be gay? Little boys tend to think girls are yucky so you see how it is a agenda
utubehound69 3 weeks ago
@utubehound69 "gay are notoriously loose"??? that is so insulting, so condescending!! knowing about gays doesnt turn you gay, i knew what being gay was when i was 10 and im straight. if its a choice did you choose to be straight? no you just are. you cant choose to like men and you cant choose to like women, you just do.
teaching kids that homosexuality is normal is far better than teaching kids it's not; maybe the gay kids wont kill themselves anymore for not being "normal"
gat0rgirl13 3 weeks ago
@gat0rgirl13 Cripes! My head almost exploded from trying to read utubehound's comment.
KNOXIOUSFUME 3 weeks ago
"some would say im unqualified [to go down there and talk to gays] because for the last 17 years i've been married to only 1 person"
yeah because gays are just having sex with everybody meet. also, kirk, maybe gays would be able to say that too if they were allowed to marry, but oh yeah they can't.
"marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman for life"
so why do we allow people to get divorced; the divorce rate is 50% but thats not illegal. typical picking and choosing only the laws that work for them
gat0rgirl13 3 weeks ago
The courts actually supported the rights of the slave-owner to retain his slaves so the courts were wrong and it was a large majority of the population taking up arms in support of our presidents decision to abolish slavery because it was contrary to the principles of the foundation of our country i.e. the DOI that resulted in slavery being abolished. This included my white great grandfather. The courts should not go against public opinion if they do not want to promote civil war.
cogit8able 4 weeks ago
abolish marriage. its the purest form of church and state combined that exists. This country was not based on christian values, read a book.
gooderinhail22 4 weeks ago
@gooderinhail22 Really? this country was not based on christian values? you need to read many books.
JMC9884 3 weeks ago
@JMC9884 You can start with "The age of reason" by Thomas Paine, one of the signers of The Declaration of Indepedence. The founding fathers were deists not christians. You can look this up.
gooderinhail22 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Hornadayfan 4 weeks ago
@Hornadayfan real mature. that speaks volumes about your character. you are no better than the activists.
JMC9884 3 weeks ago
Kurt is the man!
curtsfarm 4 weeks ago
Lol so people are insecure.
Antdog5 1 month ago
he contradicted himself........"its a free country" then "marriage is for a man and woman"........tool
Finleyfrank1 1 month ago 2
@Finleyfrank1 not exactly. he stated that but his reasoning to uphold traditional marriage was based on the fact that he believes that there certain truths and moral standards that must be fought for. Yes this country is free, however, not free enough to ruin a sacred institution such as marriage. if we lived according to that logic, I would be free to burn the american flag because it is a free country.
JMC9884 3 weeks ago
I'm appalled by the people you americans allow on the air. Freedom of speech goes only so far when all you got to say is supersticious bullshit.
jonasgrant 1 month ago
@jonasgrant Please forgive our stupidity. Television has mind fucked us from the early 60's on. Children should never see a television until the age of about 8 or 9.
MrBeautifulba1 4 weeks ago
@MrBeautifulba1 Indeed, I believe mind fucking children should be considered child abuse :S
jonasgrant 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Randy Phillips, who has been a YouTube sensation with his phone call to his dad video, has made a fun film on just this very topic. Do not miss the YouTube video:
"Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal" by AreYouSuprised
RCSVirginia 1 month ago
Marriage is defined by the legal system. If it was just defined in a religious sense then you wouldn't need a divorce to leave your spouse, you would need permission from a religious institution.
msbunglexx 1 month ago
@mattdd05 - Is that so? So should I just take your word for it or are you gonna prove it? Don't post your opinions as facts without any back-up, this is the age of the internet- even an idiot can prove his point, yet you have failed to even do that--so what does that make you?
stuckatwoody33 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ACTUALLY ITS DEFINED BY MEN CUS RELIGION IS MAN MADE. GOD DOESNT CARE WHO YOU MARRY. MARRIAGE IS BOUT LOVE NOT GENDER. YOU CANT USE RELIGION IN THIS
UMANEDAKIDD19 1 month ago
No, marriage is not a "theological" issue you stupid dumb fuck!!! Marriage is an issue of "right" that one MAY or MAY NOT choose to get married. Plus, Kirk Cameron seem to be incapable of distinguishing "marriage" and "family". We can have a family without marriage as much as we can develop marriage relation without building a family. Marriage is legalistic institutional issue and that's what gays who defend their RIGHT to marry are voicing. They want the same legal rights as heterosexuals!
unorthodoxtrotsky 1 month ago
@unorthodoxtrotsky So basically their jealous and they want the benefits of someone else? I think the tenth commandment is "You shall not covet".
Shoots1978 1 month ago
@Shoots1978
"Jealous" is not the right term if not quite weak one. Any democratic civil society should guarantee basic rights and equality. If heterosexuals can get married so should gays. That's what they are demanding. Ten Commandmant is irrelevant reference to those who doesn't follow that particular religion. That only belong to personal domain of those who follow that religion. Marriage is legal issue within public domain and it should be relevant to everyone.
unorthodoxtrotsky 1 month ago
What a fool believes,he sees.
KNOXIOUSFUME 1 month ago
Gawd dunit
kraqore79 1 month ago
People who are against homosexuals because God said so == morons who don't deserve to live on this planet.
Casshyr 1 month ago
Comment removed
tremilya 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr ur so silly for that statement, God is the way of life nd if u don't believe in God and u call US that believe in God moron then ur are not worth living on this planet
tremilya 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr not against homosexuals, just homosexuality. God doesn't want any one to go to hell. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
sharlyates40 1 month ago
Christianity is an exclusionist cult and just another outlet for facists. I hope noone is censored. I want Kirk and others like him to keep talking so we never forget how gullible they are or how destructive their ideas can be to personal liberty when they are allowed to take root in government. Deus ex machina! Now concerning the christian activists in the footage, I don't shit in other people's yards unless I want trouble. They just wanted to see some gay lovin'.Thank you. I yield the soapbox.
KNOXIOUSFUME 1 month ago
@KNOXIOUSFUME YOU ARE SOOOO STUPID
tremilya 1 month ago
@tremilya Thank you.
KNOXIOUSFUME 1 month ago
Kirk is entilted to his beliefs and should be able to express them its called free speech sadly militant atheists and lefties want censorship.
lv4ev5 1 month ago 2
ugh. one of the big reasons religion is fucking dumb
sydandtaytum 1 month ago
Is it really just a fight over the name? Because that seems to be the diverting statement made. Call it any damn thing u want then. But don't deny people these same rights.
Shad3251 1 month ago
marriage was defined by God? Guess he created divorce to after condemning it what a moron!
marriage is a brand new term! gay marriage was a part of ancient greece, Rome n mainly china (from 1000BC). Marriage was never conclusively defined as between a man and a woman. Even God said that that in Heb 13:4. But guess these christians would rather find some poor souls to torture than to find the true meaning of the verses.
subhankarzac 1 month ago
would comment some logic, but instead I would rather say... KIRK CAMERON Can suck my dick n lick my ass!
subhankarzac 1 month ago
I always thought that Kirk Cameron would look better on the end of my DICK!
KNOXIOUSFUME 1 month ago
Santorum said it best, Where does it end? Men marrying 2, 3, 4 other men, or polygamy of any type. If that person or persons see it as their civil right where does it end? There has to be a clear definition.
MrJgkeeling 1 month ago
@MrJgkeeling "Where does it end?"
Whereever the individuals in question see fit for it to end. What concern is it of yours - or anyone else's, for that matter?
Aside from that, your logic is completely fallacious because you're only applying it to gays when the EXACT same can be said of straight marriages.
"Men marrying 2, 3, 4 other women; where does it end?"
In short, you're a moron. This is not intended as an insult, but rather a simple observation of fact.
Grow up.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@SeedsOfHatred Because this is my community as well as yours, and if you want to change the nature of our beliefs you need to look at the aspects of change this will cause. Instead you want to be hateful and illogical, just as your name applies.
MrJgkeeling 1 month ago
@MrJgkeeling This is our community, yes, but men marrying multiple men (or men marrying multiple women, for that matter) does not harm or impede us or our freedoms in any way. None whatsoever. The ONLY issue that it raises is that it goes against YOUR religious beliefs. That is simply idiotic.
As for my hatred, I'm not sure how my support of others' happiness shows any measure of hatred. Care to elaborate?
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago