Dear Marriage Supporter,
You probably know him as Mike Seaver from the 1980s hit TV series Growing Pains. Or perhaps you were inspired by his performance in Fireproof, the top independent film of 2008.
Made famous as a child actor, today Kirk Cameron is one of America's most important marriage champions. Kirk stands fearlessly in defense of God's truth about marriage despite frequent and merciless harassment by the mainstream media for his outspoken Biblical views.
Our Marriage ADA video team caught up with Kirk recently. I hope you'll take a moment to watch the video and learn more about his latest efforts to strengthen and defend marriage, one couple at a time.
The National Organization for Marriage Education Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization, gifts to which are deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes.
30 Comments
When the opposition asks what NOM is doing to strengthen marriage, here's their answer.
Great video and great man!
I see all the big stars are on your side!
All the relevant stars are.
He is always brillant in what he has to say. I love the way he has stood up to the leftist hatefull bullys like Rosanne and Rosie and others.
I bright shining beacon of light in this dark corrupt word.
If Kirk Cameron is "one of America's most important marriage champions", NOM has bigger problems than I'd previously thought.
There can be only one core unit of society. There can be only one axiom from which come all social algorithms. Same-sex unions, by definition, are impotent and internally-contradictory, like a south-south ‘joining’ of two magnets. Of course, if such ‘joining’ of magnets is thought genuinely to be a joining, then so can any random association of magnets be thought.
Now, the substance of the entirely natural man-woman socio-sexual unit has the primary value within itself: it’s principle value stands in its dynamic relation to itself. But, ‘incredibly’, part of that dynamic, in its normal full functioning, is the production of the ‘wider society’ of additional persons. This is why some say that the principle value of that man-woman unit to anything which stands outside that unit is that it produces, and cares for, additional persons.
But, in reality, the full dynamic of marriage is like the Mandelbrot recursion: it is the act of reproducing itself. In other words, marriage is not for the reproduction of individuals, but for the reproduction of marriages.
If life is its own justification, then marriage is that form of life which extends its own justification into all the cosmos. There is only one natural joining of magnets. There is only one spin of a galaxy. There is only one direction for a train.
C-list celebrities for marriage?
Cameron is a mythology-based moron.
Who else ya got, Tina Yothers? Rodney Allen Rippy? Willie Aames? Certainly not Kristy McNichol!
Always excited to hear what non-cognitive elites have to say on marriage. Thanks Kirk.
More "sour grapes" from the peanut gallery....
@Barb
Sour grapes implies that we're whining because we couldn't get what we wanted. I highly doubt that marriage-equality supporters lose too much sleep about lacking the voices of the world's David Camerons when we have the support of its Brad Pitts and Lady Gagas.
"I highly doubt that marriage-equality supporters lose too much sleep about lacking the voices of the world's David Camerons when we have the support of its Brad Pitts and Lady Gagas."
Yeah, great examples of morality and virtue they are. LOL!
Gaga's manager Troy Carter referred to her as a "200-pound toddler."
You can have her...
But really, if Jesus Christ came down from the Heaven and told you personally the gays should be allowed to marry, you'd still say:
"great examples of morality and virtue you are, LOL!"
Brad Pitt, Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, Coretta Scott King, Michael Bloomberg, Meghan McCain, George Clooney, Desmond Tutu, David Blankenhorn, Barack Obama, Clint Eastwood, Julian Bond...
all champions of immorality and vice!
Scott Wooledge, thank you. A lot of people like to harp on MLK's -niece- being a proponent of exclusively opposite-sex marriage, but find it convenient to forget that his own wife had a strong record of supporting it.
But come on, it would be too much to expect that MLK was looking for moral virtue in a wife, wouldn't it?
MLK never supported SS"M", as you well know. And his family is pretty much split on the issue. And I wouldn't hold my breath on Jesus supporting SS"M" either. LOL!
Besides, how much credibility do Hollywood figures have supporting SS"M" considering that their values are characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant drug use, extramarital sex leading to the spread of sexually-transmitted disease, and abortion? A recent poll by MSNBC said that 60% of Americans agree that Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America. The lack of morals and values in Hollywood culture has been destroying the fabric of American culture, particularly the family.
Numerous US politicians, both Democrat and Republican, are not much better, either.
Ok, so Hollywood is invalid.
Except Kirk Cameron, of course. He's a Hollywood celebrity you like.
You didn't address the non-Hollywood names I dropped, which actually is most of them:
Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, Coretta Scott King, Michael Bloomberg, Meghan McCain, Desmond Tutu, David Blankenhorn, Julian Bond...
Heathens all. I imagine, like the Hollywood people they also are rampant drug users having extramarital affairs, and carrying sexually-transmitted diseases?
There is no question about it--"gay" people ARE allowed to get married, and NOM supports that right.
There's a lot of money in supporting SS"M", Scott. It doesn't surprise me that those other names you've "dropped" allowed themselves to be bought.
And not all Hollywood celebs are corrupt.
As much as I appreciate Kirk addressing this important subject, I wish he more clean shaven and made himself more presentable. Best not to look non chalent on a very important subject.
Oh, now we're "gay" people? Where is this idea that gay people don't actually exist coming from? And saying we're already allowed to get married--to the opposite sex--is ridiculous. It's like telling someone who is lactose intolerant that they can have all they want to drink. . .as long as it's milk. WHY would a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex? Why would people who allegedly want to "defend" marriage, encourage fraudulent ones? How would that be better than allowing people to marry the person they love? Such strange reasoning.
We need a system of movie rating which classifies sodomy under 'Rated S'. Each State has its own rating system. What is the purpose of a rating system if it is not to help the potential viewer know it is NOT a movie he/she wants to view, rent, or buy. Often, i find movies who take for granted sodomy as a perfectly legitimate way of sexual intimacy (as opposed to friendly intimacy of all kinds) rating the movie a "N" - that is 'Not Rated'. That's a stupid rating scheme. Obviously, if we don't find an R or PG or G or X, any of the system's ratings, we already know it is Not Rated, duh. Movie rating is not censorship. It merely helps the user know, not which movies he/she wants to see, but alerts as to which are not of the type she/he would be interested in. I find people thinking the rating scheme's are to suggest which movies to view. No, it serves a negative purpose - which categories one might not want to view - without giving away the plot of the story. Same goes with the topic of marriage in movies, how it is treated. Perhaps we could have a GM Rating, meaning good marriage, where the partners are not knocking each other down, or competing, but uplift each other for the better, and understand about complementarity. (Haven't seen any movies like that for a long time).
Scott Wooledge: You say: 'But really, if Jesus..." Big 'if'
James L. Greenlee: The point is 'glads' are indeed allowed to get married, just like most other adults. That's true equality. If you are lactose intolerant you don't have to drink milk. There's no contradiction there either. Your analogy fails.
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what any man or woman thinks about same sex marriage. God's opinion is the only one that counts. And if you don't know what God's opinion is, check the Book of Leviticus. When He calls something an abomination, He is making Himself perfectly clear.
Of course, if you don't believe in God, or only believe in a god who fits in your little box, you will start calling me all kinds of names for believing in a God of love AND justice.
Really enjoyed this newsletter and the clips and the opportunity given to hear the words from the speakers mouths which helps me to identify who they are and appreciate their message and them.
If gay is the moral and legal equivalent of a racial identity, then, what does it say of James L. Greenlee's remarks that purity of identity supersedes the meaning of marriage?
Look at the absurdities on display:
He said: "Where is this idea that gay people don't actually exist coming from?"
The gay identity exists. As do people who adhere to that group identity. Where is this idea that gay is something akin to race coming from? Those who imagine that purity of gay identity is a big deal.
Reminds one of certain groups who insist that purity of racial identity is an over-riding concern. We are reminded because SSMers keep on insisting that gay identity is closely analogous with racial identity. Segregative notions lead to the emphasis on purity.
Also he said: "And saying we're already allowed to get married--to the opposite sex--is ridiculous."
Marriage is the type of relationship that integrates the sexes and provides for responsible procreation. There is no identity group criterion for ineligibility. Again, see the repudiation of the racist identity politics that had been pressed into marriage view the anti-miscegenation system. SSMers propose reviving what has already been repudiated.
He also said: "It's like telling someone who is lactose intolerant that they can have all they want to drink. . .as long as it's milk. WHY would a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex?"
The choice to form a nonmarital arrangement is a liberty exercised and not a right denied. Chew on that a bit before proceeding further.
If the union of husband and wife is toxic for some, as you proposed, due to an over-riding concern with racist-like purity, as per your own remarks, then, the individual may partake of his liberty to choose accordingly. Society need not gut marriage of its core meaning just to elevate such a choice to a special status over and above the rest of nonmarriage.
He also said: "Why would people who allegedly want to "defend" marriage, encourage fraudulent ones?"
Why would such a question be asked of people who are here to defend the marriage idea rather than a specious substitution for marriage (aka SSM)? He should answer his own question. Why encourage governmental fraud? Why promote purity of identity over the marriage idea? Why his gay emphasis?
And then he asked: "How would that be better than allowing people to marry the person they love? Such strange reasoning."
He imagined that people here are encouraging bad choices. The liberty to make bad choices is something he thinks that the government can eliminate by gutting marriage of its core meaning.
If he thinks that it is a bad choice for someone who identifies as gay to form a union of husband and wife, then, how is that relevant to his pro-SSM complaint, in reality?
His gay emphasis is irrelevant to marriage and marriage law. It is central to the SSM campaign's attack on marriage and on marriage law. Why? Because it is the only lever he has to try to push the core meaning of marriage off of its preferential status and down into a barely tolerative status.
That is closely analogous with the racist politics of past that have been repudiated.
Thanks to Kirk and anyone else standing up for traditional marriage. God and His word are the only standard by which we should go by, and He is clear on this issue. People are free to do what they want but I think they should leave the religious God given institution of marriage alone. God meant it to be between a man and a woman.
I have followed this battle since 1972. I have been frustrated because Christians just did not seem to understand what was happening. But we are finally getting it. In the midst of the aparent defeats I am finding hope. We have tolerance and love, they are the hate mongers. We speak truth while they use deceit. We are the persecuted, they are the persecuters. We have God's power, they have political power and financial power. We can win this.