NOM BLOG

Piers Morgan Praises Kirk Cameron's Defense of Marriage and Morality as "Brave"

 

Piers Morgan has been asking every social conservative who comes on his CNN program about their views on gay marriage and homosexuality.

Kirk Cameron, the star of Growing Pains, does an excellent job of reminding Piers that he's imposing his own value judgement when he asks his leading questions.

In fact, when asked about the interview later, Piers praised Kirk for being "honest to what he believed" and "brave" for sticking to his beliefs.

Here's one of their exchanges in the interview:

Morgan: "Some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin or getting [gay] married is a sin, that in itself is incredibly destructive and damaging in a country where seven states have legalized it..."

Cameron: "You have to also understand that you yourself are using a standard of morality to say that telling people such-and-such of a behavior is sinful. You're using a standard of morality to make that statement and say that is terribly destructive. So everyone is going to have a standard against..."

Cameron's views are his own and he defends them admirably. Watch the full exchange for yourself:

Cameron defended his comments in a statement to ABC Tuesday:

I should be able to express moral views on social issues, 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. -- The Daily Caller

32 Comments

  1. Randy E King
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Kirk is my new hero. I look forward to seeing his documentary on the true intent of the founding fathers - to create a Christian nation.

    Marriage corruption supporters are desperate to disassociate are society from the source of our freedom; to enslave this nation to the morally corrupt ideology of secularism - an ideology with transitory standards fully dependent upon who corrently holds political sway.

  2. Bryce K.
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    brave != correct;

    as one would write in java coding...

  3. Louis E.
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    No argument there,Bryce,but those who oppose SSM are correct.

  4. Adam Eve Stevens
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Wow! What he said in the last paragraph of this post puts it so perfectly!

  5. John
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    You go Kirk. Couldn't have said it better.

  6. Good news
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Great news!

    We also need to hear the same thing with out any religion involved. The opposition just loves to close the door with, “oh but that's bassed in your faith not in reality” bla, bla.
    I am not Christian nor religious. Marriage is only between man and woman. I'll get a 5 year old to explain it to you if you need help wrapping that concept around your brain. That is if the kindergarten teacher did not get to the child first, and started erasing common-sens from the American mind. All in the name of love of course; how sweat. You want a different and new union, come up with a different and new word to name it.
    And you can educate a growing child to find physical pleasure from anybody; don't need be a scientist, a psychologist, or a marketing specialist looking for a new niche, in order to know that either.
    1) A fight for one word to name the man woman union 'marriage'.
    2) An effort to stop educating our kids toward unhelpful and confusing habits. And this will not effect those of you naturally born that way.

  7. Good news
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Great news!

  8. Fee
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    While he should never be told to remain silent, those 'slandering' him have as much of a right to do so as he has to say what he's saying. Freedom of speech works both ways.

  9. Ash
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Excellent statement from Kirk in the Daily Caller!

  10. John Noe
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    He did a great job defending himself. The Piers guy is always cutting him off. Notice they always use the same old trap line.

    What would you do if one of your children was gay?

  11. Bruce
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Since Kirk Cameron has gone on national television to express his opinion about same sex marriage, it's hard to argue that he's being silenced. He was also obviously completely free to express his view that Mr. Morgan's questioning amounted to an effort to impose his own views on Mr. Cameron. That said, I happen to be one of the people who, according to Mr. Cameron, are "ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." I'm pretty sure the First Amendment still applies to those of us who believe Mr. Cameron is simply wrong, and yes, out of step with most of the American public.

  12. Jose De Jesus
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    I was very impressed with Kirk. He expressed his views so clearly and they made perfect sense! Christians today are being persecuted to give up their beliefs ---same old same old, just a different form.

  13. Stefan
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuality is just as much a part of nature as heterosexuality and has been around a lot longer than 2000 years. If Cameron think 's it's immoral, so be it. Many do and many don't. As an ardent ssm supporter (straight married), I personally wouldn't slander him, accuse him of hate speech, nor tell him he needs to either bend his beliefs to other's moral standards or be silent when he's in the public square. But, how would ssm have anything to do with him? He lives his life. Others live theirs. For him to say homosexuality is unnatural though, is just ignorant.

  14. Debra
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    Excellent responses, Kirk!

  15. Son of Adam
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    There is absolutely no scientific evidence that homosexuality is "natural." No one has ever proved the existence of a gay gene. Nor has anyone proved that the human anus has been designed for sexual intercourse. Saying it is natural is an article of faith.

    And before you point out how many animals engage in homosexual activity, might I point out that many have sex with their young and their siblings too. So is it ignorant to say that pedophilia and inscest is unnatural as well?

    The last census showed that a maximum of 3% of the nation identified themselves as homosexuals. There are fringe elements to any type of behavior.

  16. ChuckGG
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Cameron stated that we all have to pick (define) our own morality and he certainly is entitled to his views on same-sex marriage (and other issues). I would hope he extends that same courtesy to others who think differently.

    Where the sticking point is for most of us is that just as we do not wish to have religious Sharia law imposed on us, we also do not want Christian law changing our secular laws, especially if we are not part of the conservative Christian movement.

    The USA is a multi-cultural melting pot and our diversity is our strength. When it comes to secular law that applies to all citizens (vs. religious law that applies only to those parishioners), we must be accommodating to all especially as SSM has no adverse impact on society or those persons in a SSM relationship. A simple look at states and countries where SSM has been in place for many years indicates this.

    Based upon the number of states who recently passed SSM, the resounding success of the demise of DADT (with no fallout), the Prop-8 findings in Court, the polls taken across the country, the poll taken in NH where a significant majority of NH citizens wish to retain SSM, and the recent retreat in Maine by Bishop Malone, I believe we can see a tipping point in the passage of SSM at the Federal level, probably in SCOTUS.

    To me, the handwriting is on the wall. I cannot imagine those States repealing secular, state-sponsored, same-sex marriage.

  17. AM
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    'we also do not want Christian law changing our secular laws, especially if we are not part of the conservative Christian movement."

    Change? You are the one seeking change, not us.

    ChuckGG is twisting the truth- that somehow this is about people imposing a *new* and never before heard of *morality* instead of what is actually happening -we seek to maintain the status quo of marriage- ssm activists are the aggressors.

  18. AM
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Another thing, despite ChuckGG's smug statements to the contrary; wherever ssm or anything close to it has been adopted, marriage rates have been falling.

  19. Son of Adam
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    "Some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin or getting [gay] married is a sin, that in itself is incredibly destructive and damaging in a country where seven states have legalized it..."

    The door swings both ways. Telling people who believe in the values that support the natural family that they are wrong and bigoted in a country in which most states define marriage between a man and a woman can be considered incredibly damaging and destructive as well. Just look at all the stories on the Marriage Anti-Defamanation Alliance webpage.

  20. JS
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Same sex marriage has got nothing to do with sharia law or Christianity. It has to do with God. In the beginning was God....It's just that Christian people are the largest body of believers on the earth who will courageously stand before the world and speak what our Heavenly Father says. Jesus says that He always say what his Father says: Genesis 2:21-25, Matthew 19:3-6, Mark 10:6-9. Jesus is in us so we also say what our Father says. Christian people don't back down when we are under fire from the world. Fear does not belong to us. Kudos to our Brother, Kirk Cameron!

    We are called Christians, not because we are religious, but because we have received God's Saving Grace, Jesus, His Son, who brought everyone salvation and engrafted us back into God's Family. So therefore the Spirit of Truth is in us. But in this earth Christianity has been viewed as a religion, hence the different denominations. But we are all of One Faith. God's inerrant Word is for all humans to live by, not just Christian people.

    Therefore, KNOWING that marriage is between one man and one woman is not a religious belief, BUT clearly THE TRUTH.

    Same sex marriage will not become the law of the land in the United States of America in the Name of Jesus!

  21. ChuckGG
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    AM: I didn't realize my statements were smug. Actually, marriage rates are falling all over the country and now are at 51%, a 20% drop from 1960. This hardly can be attributed to the relatively recent legalization of same-sex marriage in certain states. This according to a Pew Research Center, reported back in December. This trend has been linked to the economy, changing social mores, and people waiting until later in life to marry.

  22. ChuckGG
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    AM: With regard to your comment about me seeking a change to the laws, that is true. I am not, however, interested in changing your church laws or restricting your freedoms in any way.

    If anything it is to remove a restriction in the law against same-gendered participants just as in 1967 the "different race" restriction was removed, and in other times when divorced people were prohibited from marrying. Marriage has been "redefined," if you wish to use those words, many, many times over history.

    And, we are talking about legal, secular marriage having nothing to do with religious organizations who remain free to marry, or not, whomever they wish. No one intends to, or could, force a church to marry someone they do not wish to marry. The First Amendment goes both ways. Your definition of "morality" stems from a religious belief, not from a legal one. I should not more be subject to your version of morality than you should be subject to wearing a burka because an Imam at a Mosque thinks it appropriate.

    There is no attempt to be smug. I simply am stating facts and logic. From a legal standpoint, there is no logical reason to prevent SSM and deprive my family of the rights your family enjoys.

  23. ChuckGG
    Posted March 8, 2012 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    I find it odd that sometime I post a comment and it immediately is displayed and at other times, nothing happens. I don't think there are any words in my text that would be offensive. Odd how this system works. I posted comment 20, and then did another one, and it disappeared.

    But, in response to AM, yes, we are trying to remove the same-gender restriction in the legal, secular laws, just as the legal restrictions on marriage have been changed throughout the years. A good example was inter-racial marriage in 1967 (another SCOTUS decision - Loving v. Virginia).

    I would mention more here but I do not want to type the whole thing and find it evaporating into the bit bucket.

  24. Little man
    Posted March 8, 2012 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    Mr. Piers is asking all the Conservatives who are in the public light whether homosexuality is a sin. The answer would be: 'please define sin, and i'll answer your question for sure.' Is anything a sin? The point is everyone has a morality. It is the standard by which people judge, as Mr. Cameron put it nicely. The question should be: 'Do we adopt the value system of people of homosexual persuasion, as the secular morality?' Why?

  25. Little man
    Posted March 8, 2012 at 2:09 am | Permalink

    ChuckGG: You say 'we are talking about legal, secular marriage having nothing to do with religious organizations'. Yes, legal secular, and you have an education coming your way. Religious organizations have a right to vote their value system, and they voted to end slavery in England, then in the USA, and they have a right to organize, and exercise their religion - all of that in just the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Don't like it? Try to change it, and you'll have a war on your hands.

  26. Son of Adam
    Posted March 8, 2012 at 2:22 am | Permalink

    The legalization of SS"M" is a symptom of a declining marriage culture, ChuckGG. SS"M" is more easily legalized when our moral standards decline as is heralded by no fault divorce and the drop in the number of marriages. All these things are mutually reinforcing to one another.

    And marriage has always been about putting men and women together, not setting the races apart. You are comparing apples and oranges here. If you favor removing "gender restricitons" to marriage, why not remove numerical restrictions to marriage as well and make it between any number of people? After all, if gender and procreation are no longer relevant, what could possibly compel you to favor couples to any other grouping, or even single people, other than arbitrary discrimination?

    Eagerly look forward to your reply.

  27. David Argue
    Posted March 8, 2012 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    'From a legal standpoint, there is no logical reason to prevent SSM and deprive my family of the rights your family enjoys.'

    You enjoy the same rights now that everyone else does - you are free to marry whomever of the opposite sex can tolerate you. What you are asking for is SPECIAL rights for your group. Once these are granted, it opens the door for other fringe groups to protest for their rights. It is already happing in some states with the polygamy issue. Once you start basing marriage definition on behavior, you open up a pandoras box for others to abuse the law.

  28. Randy E King
    Posted March 8, 2012 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    ChuckGG,

    The United States is not a "Secular" nation. The word “secularism" was coined in 1851 by a single man in reference to an idea he, and he alone, had.

    At no time did the man who coined the word "Secular" state that his new descriptive included an ability to change the meaning of words in order to afford a decadent horde of miscreants the ability to lend an appearance of acceptability to their depravity.

    If you truly believed your proclivity to be moral you would not be working this hard to mandate it be declared something it could never be.

  29. AM
    Posted March 8, 2012 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    ChuckGG
    Throughout history and across cultures marriage is the union of male and female.
    Marriage is a social institution with a biological foundation. No religion is imposing this fact of nature.

    As for your claim that ssm activists will not use state power to punish religious institutions or individuals for following their faith...well, you need to update your talking points, as that horse has left the barn, so to speak.

    Comparing interracial marriage to ssm is a straw man.
    Anti-miscegenation laws were imposed to keep the white race pure. That is not a legitimate goal for marriage. The purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to the children they create. Men and women from all races form natural, intact families; something two people of the same sex can never do.

  30. Stefan
    Posted March 8, 2012 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam,

    "Nor has anyone proved that the human anus has been designed for sexual intercourse. Saying it is natural is an article of faith"
    So heterosexual couples should not practice anal intercourse?

    "And before you point out how many animals engage in homosexual activity, (which I didn't) might I point out that many have sex with their young and their siblings too. So is it ignorant to say that pedophilia and inscest is unnatural as well"
    (I didn't say that).

  31. Louis E.
    Posted March 8, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    ChuckGG,
    Loving vs. Virginia struck down racial barriers because they interfered with the fundamental purpose of marriage being to unite male to female.In reinforcing that purpose,it is in no way a precedent for the removal of that purpose.Unions that fail to unite male to female therefore serve no public purpose and merit no public recognition.

  32. Son of Adam
    Posted March 8, 2012 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    "So heterosexual couples should not practice anal intercourse?"

    Of course not! Two wrongs do not make a right.