NOM BLOG

NOM to GLAAD: Kirk Cameron Has a Right to Speak Up for Marriage

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 16, 2012
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)

NOM's President Brian Brown Calls Out GLAAD For Hypocrisy


National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C.—In response to Kirk Cameron's pro-marriage video for the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance (which has been viewed over 40,000 times on YouTube), GLAAD President Herndon Graddick in a statement claimed Cameron's comments were "designed specifically to hurt [LGBT] families." GLAAD went on to label Cameron an "anti-gay extremist."

"Graddick and GLAAD clearly cannot appreciate the hypocrisy of attacking Kirk Cameron for his positive comments about marriage and family," Brian Brown, President of NOM, commented. "GLAAD is happy to recruit celebrities who favor redefining marriage as their spokespeople but is outraged when pro-marriage celebrities speak up for the sanctity of marriage."

Brown continued: "I encourage all fair-minded Americans to watch the Cameron video for themselves to see the real face of the pro-marriage movement. GLAAD has no right to bully good people who oppose redefining marriage by labeling them ‘extremists' and accusing them of seeking to harm others. If GLAAD truly cared about decency and respect they would let both sides of the marriage debate have their full say."

You can watch the Kirk Cameron interview at www.MarriageADA.org.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], or Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

75 Comments

  1. John Colgan
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Earth to NOM:

    Just like Cameron has a right to make whatever comments he wants denigrating his LGBT fellow citizens, GLAAD has a right to comment on Cameron's comments. And with this post, we have NOM exercising their right to comment on GLAAD's comment about Cameron's comment.

    Just as you disagree with GLAAD's characterization of Cameron as an extremist, thinking folks will disagree with NOM's absurd characterization of GLAAD as bullies.

  2. Bruce
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Contrary to NOM's claim, GLAAD doesn't question Kirk Cameron's right to speak out, but they've certainly used their own right to speak to challenge what Mr. Cameron said. To call this bullying is hyperbole which trivializes actual bullying.

  3. John Colgan
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    " which trivializes actual bullying"

    I believe that is the intent. Much the same way some claim that anti-gay people are subjected to "systematic oppression" , while ignoring the very real oppression of LGBT people. You see, Bruce, the important thing to remember is that people with anti-gay views are the real victims here.

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    Indeed, Mr. Cameron has the right to calmly express his views.

    And the opposition has the right to call him names and make themselves look foolish.

    Welcome to the great country the opposition wants to dismantle.

  5. Karl
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 12:37 am | Permalink

    "To call this bullying is hyperbole which trivializes actual bullying."

    Yet the gays continue to compare themselves to the blacks of the civil rights era despite repeated protests by the black community itself. If your lot were truly concerned about "hyperbole which trivializes" actual events, then you would stop styling your media and celebrity supported movement to reformat a right you already have to your advantage as similar to the black's very real fight against hostility from all quarters to attain existing rights denied them. It trivializes their struggle.

    As to bullying itself, you've no right to point fingers. I've watched plenty of gay and liberal kids try to bully dissenters into submission, all the while claiming that they stand for tolerance and freedom and compassion. Your movement attacks "bullying," but turns a blind eye towards it's own. It makes me sick to see people like you run interference for them.

  6. John Colgan
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    Quite melodramatic, Barb.

    Of course, the views that Cameron so calmly expressed were vicious attacks on LGBT people (and, yes, calling someone "detrimental to the very foundations of society" is an attack) .

    I can't help but notice that you, yourself, closed with a vicious anti-gay attack. Your opposition has no desire to dismantle this great country, that is just bearing false witness.

  7. RC
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 3:22 am | Permalink

    1] I don't see anything where GLAAD claimed Cameron didn't have the right the speak up. Were Cameron's civil rights being violated somehow? I don't understand what NOM is attempting to say to GLAAD...

    2] Please get a dictionary for the NOM offices; there is no hypocrisy here. I suppose it would be hypocrisy if an organization said "no one should ask celebrities to speak out for their cause" and then had celebrities speak out for their cause. But that's not what's happening here. Kirk Cameron says what he says, GLAAD points out how mean-spirited it is, and that's that. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

  8. Son of Adam
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 3:26 am | Permalink

    @ John Colgan

    It is the intolerance towards opposing views that you display is the reason why SS"M" supporters fail to win any referendums.

    This country was built on the right of free speech, freedom of religion, and Judeo-Christian values. These are things that you and other SS"M" supporters attack on a daily basis by calling them "hate" and "bigotry". So Barb's statement is not such a stretch.

  9. Son of Adam
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 3:29 am | Permalink

    @ RC

    To SS"M" supporters, any opposing point of view is "mean spirited." That just goes to show how loving and tolerant they really are.

  10. RC
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 4:01 am | Permalink

    @ Son of Adam

    When folks like Kirk Cameron, and apparently you as well, endorse inherently un-American values, extracted from a subset of Judeo-Christian mythology, based on a selective adaption of history, and then put forth your contrivance at the expense of your fellow citizens, yes, I call that mean-spirited.

    For the record, there are plenty of people who have views on any number of things that are in opposition to mine which I do not consider mean spirited.

    Also for the record, I do love you.

  11. Posted July 17, 2012 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    We are stopping the gay agenda and they know it. We will stop them in all three states this November!

  12. Randy E King
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    @RC,

    Your blatant Christian bigotry is offensive in that your motivation is transparent. Nobody is asking you to change, yet here you are demanding everyone else change in order to accommodate your depravity. You are not demanding a right denied; you are demanding a new right based solely on your desire to pursue vice sans public disapproval.

    You do not have a constitutional right to be free of a sense of guilt.

  13. Posted July 17, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    When people call us gay folk, who are in simple, legal committed relationships "ultimately destructive to society" (Cameron's words, and what many of you "think")...of course we're gonna get pissed!

  14. Son of Adam
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    @ RC

    This country is based on Judeo-Christian "mythology" as you put it, and we have done well by them. And marriage as we have known it for thousands of years is a crucial cornerstone for any stable civilization. These values are as American as apple pie. The rejection of them has always led to higher illigitimacy rates, higher taxes, rising medical insurance premiums, more intrusive governments, and the restriction of civil and religious liberties. Just look at Scandinavia and the Netherlands who have had SS"M" the longest if you don't believe me.

    I don't hate you, RC, but there is nothing American about the deconstructive views.you hold.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    @Davey,

    ""ultimately destructive to society" (Cameron's words, and what many of you "think")...of course we're gonna get pissed!"

    If Cameron's understanding had no merit you would not be "pissed" at all; you would just dismiss it as the ratings of a lunatic. The fact that you lash out at Cameron for speaking to these truths we hold to be self evident shows that you know all too well that what Cameron speaks is the truth.

    You shine the light on the Devil and the Devil screams.

  16. Posted July 17, 2012 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Oh Randy, Randy...."truths to be self evident"??? Exactely what "evidence" are you talking about?

  17. Posted July 17, 2012 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    We're pissed because things you say DON'T have merit. You constantely misjudge and lie and about who we are.

  18. Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    If you're pissed, then YOU have to live with it. We don't.

    We misjudge nothing. We are not lying about who/what you people say you think you choose to to be.

    You people are pissed because you can't get us to goose-step along with you people.

  19. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Read the comments directed at Mr. Cameron under the GLAAD piece. They are written to shut him up, to shut out any dissenting opinion.

    When free speech is suppressed that is the deconstruction of 1A, which is the deconstruction of this country.

    It's not a stretch at all.

  20. Posted July 17, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Look Mr. Incredible...All I'm saying is that I have been married for 4 years now, we live in the burbs where my straight neighbors and us get along great...life is NORMAL, and stable. This is our life. It's OUR business.Claiming we're gonna cause rivers of blood, and fire and ash to rainon YOU because of US is completely insane.

  21. Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    I never said that you people are "gonna cause rivers of blood, and fire and ash to rainon" us."

    In 30+ states, you are not married. That number is growing.

  22. Jon
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    @Randy, I have a hypothetical situation for you. If Christians were a minority in America trying to achieve equal treatment under the law for themselves, and a group dedicated itself to denying them that equal treatment, and someone made the claims that all Christians are complete idiots and choose to believe in unproven nonsense, and that Christians trying to convert others is immoral and reprehensible, what would be your response? If you got angry about the claims, would this be evidence of their self-evident truth?

  23. Posted July 17, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    @Jon

    AMEN!

  24. AM
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    What Karl wrote up-thread about the false analogy comparing ssm to the black civil rights struggle is exactly right. AA's were denied existing rights. Gays are not being denied marriage under the *existing* definition.
    So it is a change in definition they seek.

  25. Randy E King
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    @Jon,

    It is due to the fact that Christians are the majority of this country - and have been since this nation’s founding - that you are allowed to propose the radical redefinition of an institution that is considered to be a pillar of society and core to its existence and survival.

    If the shoe were on the other foot marriage corruption supporters would never have allowed this debate to have happen in the first place.

    You folks defame Christians all day long in this blog; yet we turn the other cheek - for the most part – and refute blatant falsehoods as the conscience dictates. After all, we cannot sit idly by while you seek to mislead the unsuspecting - which is what this war is all about really.

    (The ultimate goal of the sociopath is to create willing victims)

  26. Son of Adam
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    That's a false analogy, Jon, because gays already have equal rights under the law.

  27. Son of Adam
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    In fact, Jon, your hypothetical situation is not so hypothetical at all. More and more often over time, Christians are being treated like an oppressed minority group while SS"M" advocates attempt to establish the general attitude that Christians "are complete idiots and choose to believe in unproven nonsense." You see it on this blog every day.

    How's that for a self-evident truth?

  28. Chairm
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan, Bruce, RC, Davey,

    In this video Cameron spoke positively of marriage. You object to that?

    In the blogpost above, Brian said that is is wrong to label Cameron as an extremist and accusing him of seeking to harm others."

    Cameron did not make an extreme case for his view of marriage; he did not seek harm to others. Quite the contrary on both points.

    In the blogpost Brian also noted that if their stated concern for decency and respect was sincere, then, GLAAD would let both sides of the debate have their full say without the misrepresentations and namecalling.

    If your full say amounts to misrepresentations and namecalling, then, okay, sayso now and be done with it.

  29. Chairm
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan do you agree or disagree that immoral sexual behavior is detrimental to the foundations of society?

    If not, why not?

    Put aside the morality of same-sex sexual behavior for a moment (because you probably believe such behavior is the moral equivalent of coital relations anyways).

    If you think it is a fact that immoral sexual behavior is neutral to the foundations of society, please elaborate.

  30. John Colgan
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    @Chairm,

    While Cameron kept things civil in this specific video, the ONLY reason he's on NOM's radar is the backlash over his previous vicious attack on LGBT people, which I cited. I don't object to Cameron making whatever videos he wishes. What I do object to are the attempts by NOM and Cameron to portray himself as a victim of those mean homosexual bullies, which is patently false. He said some vicious, nasty things about a group of people, and they voiced their opinion about it.

    I guess it's all a matter of perspective, because from where I sit, it is NOM, Cameron and yourself, who are putting out misrepresentations and name calling. LGBT people are regularly referred to as deviants, perverts, immoral, marriage corrupters etc. etc. NOMies seem to be laboring under the delusion saying nasty things in a calm manner makes them civil.

    As for your question in the other post, I don't concern myself with morality or immorality of other people's consensual sexual activity.

  31. Bruce
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Chairm:
    "In the blogpost Brian also noted that if their stated concern for decency and respect was sincere, then, GLAAD would let both sides of the debate have their full say without the misrepresentations and namecalling."

    What misrepresentations has GLAAD engaged in? What name-calling? GLAAD has done absolutely NOTHING to silence Kirk Cameron; he remains entirely free to continue to defame GLBT people all he wants, and GLAAD will continue to call him out on it.

  32. dn
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Show me where an agent of the government (any agent, I mean it) tried to get Mr. Cameron to not speak his mind, and then I'll believe free speech is an issue here. Until then, this is just yet more transparent whining from Brian Brown. Give it a rest.

  33. Jon
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    @Randy, Son of Adam
    You are missing the point of the hypothetical. I was raising it because Randy assumed that if someone reacts with anger towards denigrating statement, that they are therefore implicitly implying that the statements are true. The question was this: when people insult Christians, can Christians respond with anger without confirming the insults as true? I would argue that the answer is an obvious yes they can. Randy, perhaps you think otherwise, and if so I would like an explanation.

    @Son of Adam
    Christians are quite far away from a minority (75% of the U.S. population as of 2008). A few angry atheists making anti-Christian comments on this blog does not make my hypothetical situation at all close to true. Children aren't relentlessly bullied for being Christian. Children aren't disowned by their families for coming out as Christian. Do you really believe Christians are treated as an oppressed minority?

    @Chairm
    I agree, immoral sexual behavior is detrimental to society. I don't think people are going to argue that immoral behavior is not bad. Where we will disagree is on your definition of what constitutes "immoral sexual behavior". Things I would classify as immoral sexual behavior that harm society would be child molestation and bestiality. In both cases, one of the two parties engaged in the sexual behavior does not have the ability to consent to it, and will likely be irreparably damaged by the behavior.

    What leads you to classify same-sex behavior as immoral?

  34. Randy E King
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    @Jon,

    "can Christians respond with anger without confirming the insults as true?"

    In the Case of Kurt Cameron; nothing he said in this offering can be construed as hate. It is possible for a person to disagree with another out of love for his fellow man.

    Cameron responded without malice reliant on the doctrines of his faith; whereas those who disagreed with what Cameron had to say responded out of obvious contempt for Kurt’s faith sans the five-thousand-years of history and tradition Cameron used as his rational.

    Kind of like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

  35. Son of Adam
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    @ Jon

    Around 80% of the population of South Africa is black, yet they were oppressed and ostracized by the wealthy and influential white minority who enforced Aparthied. It is not too far fetched that if homosexuals, who make up a wealthy and influential elite in this country, persuade the government to rewrite laws that favor their ideology, then Christians could very well find themselves in the same disadvantaged position.

  36. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 5:26 am | Permalink

    John Colgan, please state the criteria you used for assessing whether or not something said is a "vicious attack".

    Then we can use that criteria to assess your own remarks. Fair is fair.

    Reader will note that you cited something that you have not shown to be vicious, much less an attack, much less a "vicious attack on LGBT people".

    Meanwhile you wave away the basis for Cameron's remarks about the foundations of society. That is, you do not concern yourself with sexual morality. You simply insist that your moralism prevail over all other considerations.

    You said: "I don't concern myself with morality or immorality of other people's consensual sexual activity."

    Consent is not a trump card. And your handwaving did not answer the question as asked.

    I had asked: "John Colgan do you agree or disagree that immoral sexual behavior is detrimental to the foundations of society? If not, why not?"

    Your reply did not even contain within it the moral courage -- nor the will to be held morally accountable for you own remarks -- by plainly stating whether or not "you think it is a fact that immoral sexual behavior is neutral to the foundations of society".

    Some people who take the pose of a moralist, such as yourself perhaps, may feel entitled to indulge in that pose without providing the sound moral argumentation to back it up. But that would leave your moralism hollow and rather self-incriminating.

  37. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 5:35 am | Permalink

    Bruce, there was the misrepresentation of accusing Cameron of seeking to harm others. There was the namecalling, too: "anti-gay extremist".

    Do you think that sexual immorality is detrimental to the foundations of society? Or do you think it is neutral?

    I am not asking if you choose neutrality. Nope. The query is about the influence on society.

  38. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 5:37 am | Permalink

    dn, it is nto about free speach but about the moralism of those who pose as being in favor of both sides have their full say without the misrepresentations and namecalling.

    Do you agree that misrepresentations and namecalling are not conducive to a full hearing of all sides of the disputed issue? If not, please explain your disagreement.

  39. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 5:38 am | Permalink

    Bruce you have added another misrepresentation when you accused Cameron of defaming your favored identity group.

    Your excuse-making is a clear pattern in your advocacy of the SSM idea.

  40. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    Jon, please specify the denigrating statement you would attribute to Cameron. Please specify the insult you would attribute to Cameron.

    if you did not mean to make such attributions to Cameron, please plainly state that. Thanks.

    _ _ _ _

    Jon said: "I agree, immoral sexual behavior is detrimental to society."

    You are more than half-way to agreeing with Cameron on his remarks.

    You said: "Things I would classify as immoral sexual behavior that harm society would be child molestation and bestiality. In both cases, one of the two parties engaged in the sexual behavior does not have the ability to consent to it, and will likely be irreparably damaged by the behavior."

    1. The likelihood of irreparable damage to the individual(s) directly involved is a criterion for your assessment of sexual behavior that is immoral AND detrimental to the foundations of society.

    Yes?

    The measure is not certainty of damage in each and every instance of the behavior, but rather the likelihood -- whether or not the individuals are aware (partially or fully) of that likelihood.

    This is considered in the societal assessment of the morality of sexual behavior rather than in some atomized context were the individual acts as if fully autonomous from society. Yes?

    2. Consent is another criterion of sexual behavior that is both immoral and detrimental to the foundations of society.

    Yes?

    You referred to lack of ability to give consent. So the complete absence of consent is your measure. Yes?

    Did you intend to offer each as a standalone criterion or must both apply at once?

    I ask because individuals can consent to sexual behavior that might cause irreparable damage (not just to each other);; and irreparable damage to individuals can occur unintentionally or with greatly diminished intentionality or as a sort of undesired by-product.

    Indeed, it is that latter point which many have used as a wedge against traditional moral standards of sexual behavior. That has taken its toll on the foundations of society -- and here you and I as men of the world would need not touch upon same-sex sexual behavior to understand the point.

    Jon asked: "What leads you to classify same-sex behavior as immoral?"

    Sexual behavior among human beings is moral when it is within a comprehensive union; such a union necessarily entails bodily union as we are not disembodied personalities; there is no same-sex sexual behavior that manifests bodily union.

    Diminished culpability can be taken into account, of course, however, the starting place is the good and the means to strive for the good.

    Not a list of do-not's but a clear sight of what best to do.

  41. Posted July 18, 2012 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    What hogwash to claim that "immoral sexual behavior" is a basis to deny gays from marrying each other! For one, those entering into that legal commitment are more likely to be less promiscuous (yes, even gay men!) and another is that the SCOTUS has already stricken down the illegal-ness of what many think is "immoral sexual behavior". Come on, man!

  42. Bruce
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Chairm:
    Kirk Cameron has said that homosexuality is "detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." I consider this defamation. GLAAD didn't call Mr. Cameron an "anti-gay extremist," they called him an "anti-gay activist," which seems completely apt.

    As long as Mr. Cameron and others who oppose LGBT equality make overblown, derogatory statements about us which have no basis in fact, you can count on us to push back.

  43. Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    41

    What's legal isn't necessarily right.

  44. Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    42

    YOU "consider this defamation."

    Did he defame you? File a lawsuit. Let's see what happens.

  45. Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    42

    What is the defamation re: you. personally?

  46. Bruce
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Chairm:
    "Sexual behavior among human beings is moral when it is within a comprehensive union; such a union necessarily entails bodily union as we are not disembodied personalities; there is no same-sex sexual behavior that manifests bodily union."

    If this is where your conscience leads you, fine. With all respect, It sounds like nonsense to me. Like others, I believe consent deremines the morality of a given sexual act. If you believe certain sexual behaviors are wrong, don't engage in them, but leave me free to do the same.

  47. Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    No.

    Now what?

  48. Amy
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Kirk is an awesome man of God and it shows!!! I'm proud to see a man speak up for what God instituted (not man).... GREAT JOB KIRK!!!!!

  49. John Colgan
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Chairm

    No, I don't think I will play your games. I've stated my opinion and cited Mr. Cameron's words in support of that opinion. As it is an opinion and not some scientific determination, I did not apply some sort of rigid criteria to arrive at it.

    Here's a simple test. Replace gays and lesbians with "Christians" Cameron's words. If someone said that they felt that "Christianity is is unnatural, detrimental and ultimately destructive to foundations of civilization," wouldn't you find that to be a vicious attack on Christianity? Sauce for the goose, darling.

    You may not have liked the answer I have to your question, but it is the only one you're going to get. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that this is some sort of interrogation with everyone having to bow and scrape at your command. Get over yourself!

  50. OvercameSSA
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Sodomy is pretty dangerous behavior and is no doubt one of the reasons that since Biblical times it has been deemed sinful, immoral, and an aberration; indeed, God was saidto have destroyed two cities because of it.

    Since society has normalized the behavior, we see the fruits of this dangerous behavior in the overwhelming high percentage of STDs in homosexual populations relative to heterosexual populations (which are less likely to participate in sodomy).

    Sodomy is not a good reason to prevent ss"m," but it's a good reason to put homosexuality back in the closet to minimize the number of recruits to the homosexual lifestyle.

  51. Bruce
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    Sodomy is not intrinsically unhealthy, and is practiced by straight people and gay people alike. At the same time, many people, including gay ones, choose not to practice it. I'm no Bible scholar, but many who are say that God destroyed two cities not because of sexual immorality, but because of inhospitable behavior to strangers.

    Even if one chooses to have sex with more than one person, STDs can still be avoided if the individuals involved inform themselves.

    You should know that people simply aren't "recruited" into a sexual orientaion. And we're not about to go back in the closet.

  52. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Davey, you are off-target.

    The question arises from the claim that there was something wrong with Cameron's concern regarding immoral sexual behavior as detrimental to the foundations of society.

    The basis for the truthful observation that the basis for marriage is two-sexed and not one-sexed nor sex-neutral.

    The basis for marriage law is the core meaning of marriage. Gayness is irrelevant to both marriage and the marriage law. But it is central to the SSM idea. If you want to emhasize gayness in discussion of the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea, fine, but don't flee your own moral assumptions by failing to provide the sound moral argumentation to back them up.

    To flee in that way is to flee moral accountability. That, in this context, would leave you wallowing in hogwash of your own.

    For example: You referred to promiscuity as something undesirable and you said that in the context of the moral question. So, go ahead, explain the criteria for assessing the morality of sexual promiscuity. Then apply those criteria to your notion of SSM and the proposed influence on the foundations of society.

  53. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Bruce you said:

    "I believe consent deremines the morality of a given sexual act."

    That to which consent is given is the key, Bruce, not the mere nod of the head. Do you truly believe that it is impossible to consent to immoral behavior -- sexual or otherwise?

    I doubt that you truly believe that. Please clarify.

  54. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan admonished me thusly:

    "You seem to be laboring under the delusion that this is some sort of interrogation with everyone having to bow and scrape at your command."

    No, just the give and take of all sides having their full say. You chose to do yet another hit-and-run rather that willingly stand there like a grown-up and be held accountable for your own remarks.

    State the criteria for assessing Cameron's remarks.

    You have now compounded your problem by restating your opinion without providing the criteria for your having come to that opinion.

  55. Bruce
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Chairm:
    "Do you truly believe that it is impossible to consent to immoral behavior -- sexual or otherwise?"

    You're twisting my words. Of course, it's possible to consent to immoral behavior. But when it comes to private, consensual behavior between adults, I have no judgement to make, peronsally. That doesn't mean I believe that all behavior that fits that category is healthy, but the government has no business regulating it.

  56. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    Bruce, what is the basis upon which you claim that sodomy is not intrinsically unhealthy?

    Here are the dots your comment included:

    That it does not necessarily do damage each and every time it is done.

    That sometimes some non-gay people partake of it.

    That gay people might do other stuff (in addition or in place of) it.

    You might want to try to connect those dots.

    Note that no scenario lacking the other sex can partake of two-sexed sexual behavior. So the limitation here is on same-sex sexual behavior. If you would rather rely on 100% certainty of damage or ill-health, then, you have just moved the goal posts way beyond your own attempted moralism. If so, then, your moralism is not a sincere pose on this matter.

    Best to back-up the truck and start with the basics.

  57. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Bruce said:

    "Of course, it's possible to consent to immoral behavior. But when it comes to private, consensual behavior between adults, I have no judgement to make, peronsally."

    So to clarify. Consent is not the guarantee of moral sexual behavior.

    Is privacy? I would expect you would say, no. That, yes, it is possible for adults to consent to immoral sexual behavior in a private setting.

    But here you are making a different moral claim. One that is hard to support. You may not have intended this claim so please clarify.

    Your remark strongly suggests that adult consent to private sexual behavior is beyond moral assessment.

    Note that we are not here discussing this or that particular instance of this or that behavior of this or that particular individual(s). We are discussing the morality of a given type of behavior. Not the conditions surrounding it per se. You have already acknowledged that such conditions do not transform immoral sexual behavior into moral sexual behavior. Yes?

    The problem is that you acknowledge that it is possible for adults to consent immoral sexual behavior, but you'd remove the basis for making a moral assessment of sexual behavior. Not just from yourself but from everyone. Including the participants. Including society.

    The query is about detriment to the foundations of society. Do you agree that immoral sexual behavior is detrimental to the foundations of society?

    Perhaps yes, if public rather than private. Again, we are not discussing government peering into the private bedrooms but we are talking about treating publicly a sexual behavior as moral or as morally neutral to the foundations of civil society.

  58. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan said:

    " If someone said that they felt that "Christianity is is unnatural, detrimental and ultimately destructive to foundations of civilization," wouldn't you find that to be a vicious attack on Christianity?"

    Nope. [See footnote]

    But it would present the opportunity to forthrightly explore that challenge and to ask what criteria the person used to reach such a view.

    Your attempted analogy ends-up reflecting how you would rather flee being held accountable for your remarks. And you would rest your view on misrepresentation and name-calling nonetheless.

    You are clearly contending that same-sex sexual behavior is natural. That it is not detrimental to the foundations of society. Or perhaps you are merely contending that whether or not it is any of that, well, is just irrelevant to your moralistic pose here.

    If the latter, then, for you this is about gay identity pollitics rather than a reasonable assessment of the morality and immorality of same-sex sexual behavior. Identity politics tends to empty the public discourse of morality while cloaking itself in the sheepskin of public moralism. So no big surprise there, John Colgan.

    You were invited to do better. You declined. Noted.

    ______

    Footnote:

    For the record, generally, I have found that people who say that about Christianity do not truly believe it, given what standards they eventually propose. They rely instead on double-standards or not standards at all and in that way they do not hold themselves to accountability as their moralism would hold others to accountability.

    Note what Cameron said at the close of the video clip here:

    http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/02/kirk-cameron-on-homosexuality-its-detrimental-and-ultimately-destructive/

  59. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    I've a few comments in the que.

  60. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    In the first comment upthread, John Colgan plainly stated that he understood that GLAAD characterized "Cameron as an extremist".

    Bruce now objects to that characterization of Cameron's remarks.

    Bruce, did you raise your objection when first you read that characterization in John Colgan's opening comment? If not, why not?

    Meanwhile, according to the GLAAD website, their president Herndon oversaw GLAAD's "Commentator Accountability Project" and claimed that it was aimed at challenging "extreme rhetoric of anti-LGBT activists who currently appear in national news outlets."

    But, according to Bruce, that would not include Cameron nor his remarks because, well, GLAAD does not indulge in calling the public voices of NOM names such as "anti-gay extremist".

    Yeh, Bruce is claiming a difference without, you know, a difference, according to GLAAD's own pronouncements.

    But at the same time Bruce is now presenting a disagreement with John Colgan and with GLAAD: Bruce's remarks strongly suggest that Cameron's remarks are not extreme and that Cameron is not an "anti-gay extremist".

    Or perhaps Bruce can elaborate for the sake of defending John Colgan and GLAAD's stated positions.

  61. Bruce
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Chairm,
    The most disturbing aspect of your diatribe is it's disconnection with reality. We obviously have vastly different ideas about marriage, and, probably, just about everything. That fact alone wouldn't stop me from trying to continue a conversation with you, but you're more interested in playing the Grand Inquisitor than having a civil debate. While details can sometimes be vital, you've twisted my words out of recognition on a matter that just isn't worth pursuing. I will say two things: (1) I think John Coglan's posts are well written and thought out. (2) If you believe all those on your side are laser beams of reason and logic, perhaps you should look again.

  62. John Colgan
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    @Chairm,

    Odd idea of the "give and take" of conversation you've got there. What's your criteria for defining "give and take" vs "interrogation"?

    In my experience the "give and take" doesn't involve insisting multiple times that those conversing with you show their work. You fancy yourself the schoolmarm, insisting we show our work so that you can pass judgement on our thought processes.

    Call it hit and run, fleeing, avoiding accountability or what ever insulting personal attack you chose, but the simple fact is I am not going to explain my criteria to you. You have my opinion, take it or leave it, I could't give a rat's rear either way.

    You may think I've "compounded my problem" by not answering your interrogations in precisely the manner you desire, but frankly, I think that your repeated insistence that people do so compounds your problem of looking like an immature jerk.

  63. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Bruce,

    You said:

    "We obviously have vastly different ideas about marriage"

    Right, we agree that the SSM idea and the marriage idea are in conflict.

    As for your accusation that I have twisted your words. Just clear things up for the readership.

    Show that you are ready to be held accountable here.

  64. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan,

    You have again made clear that you are,

    "not going to explain my criteria to you. You have my opinion, take it or leave it, I could't give a rat's rear either way."

    If you say you could not, then, you limit yourself unnecessarily.

    On the other hand ...

    You decided to blurt out your opinion without being prepared to back it up with substance.

    If that is all you came equipped to do, okay, but do not blame me for your lack of preparedness.

    Readers can take your latest comment as an admission of sorts.

    You now have demonstrated that GLAAD's "Commentator Accountability Project" is, in your view, ill-conceived for it is supposed to endorse challenging people to be accountable for their remarks.

    Just not you. You are above that, you say.

  65. Chairm
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    Bruce, do you agree with John Colgan's characterization of Cameron's remarks?

    In my previous comment to you I did leave room for such agreement between the two of you. And between you and GLAAD, as well.

    Meanwhile you also said:

    "I will say two things: (1) I think John Coglan's posts are well written and thought out."

    Okay, you'd give him a passing grade.

    But note that he does not like to hear from "schoolmarms".

    You also said:

    "(2) If you believe all those on your side are laser beams of reason and logic, perhaps you should look again."

    Huh?

    This is how you responded to a query that invites you to demonstrate your willingness to be held accountable for your own remarks.

    Privacy and consent, you said, shield sexual behavior from your personal moral assessment.

    Well, I did not ask you to peer into someone else's bedroom. You can still state the basis for a moral assessment of sexual behavior.

    I mean, do you really think that you need to witness the sexual behavior in order to assess its moral content? I doubt that you do.

    Is private immoral sexual behavior of adults detrimental to the foundations of society? It seems you would say, nope, but I asked because it is not all that clear what you really think about that.

  66. bman
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Bruce->If you believe certain sexual behaviors are wrong, don't engage in them...

    We must also vote against those behaviors if they are publicly promoted.

    The corruption of public morality is ultimately the same as corrupting the morals of children.

    If gays want to ruin their own lives with queer sex that is one thing, but when they attempt to bias public society (hence developing youth) toward the behavior, that should not be tolerated.

  67. John Colgan
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    @Chairm,

    As a gay man, I've dealt with bullies my whole life. If you think some anonymous jerk on the internet is going to successfully bully me, you're stupid as well as delusional.

    I not only stated my opinion, but provided supporting evidence, namely Cameron's words themselves. I need provide no further evidence, each reader is free to read the source material and judge for themselves.

    I have done EXACTLY what GLAAD's cap's project has done, expose anti-gay extremists by highlighting their very own words! Apparently you don't understand the intent of the project. They are not seeking further explanation of the "thought" process behind the highlighted commentators' ravings. Glaad is exposing those vicious anti-gay attacks to a wider audience, so that when these commentators go on TV and play the calm, polite, caring deeply concerned anti-gay person, who really cares about and loves everyone, more people will realize this for the pathetic charade it is. Because more people will be familiar with the anti-gay rhetoric these folks spew when they are soft-selling their animus to a mainstream audience.

    Far from "running away" from my statements and views, I post them here under my own real name, rather than hide behind an alias.

  68. John Colgan
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    @bman,

    So you are opposed to those, who don't share your views, having First Amendment rights. Good to know.

  69. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 19, 2012 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    I have yet to see anyone ever win a debate with Chairm. ;) their arguments just break down, or they retreat to defensiveness in high dudgeon.

    Glad you're here, Chairm.

    Homosexual behavior is immoral and degrading, whether a person claims to be "gay" or "straight', whether they have SSA or not. The only moral sexual behavior there is, is between a married man & woman, who practice monogamy.

  70. Chairm
    Posted July 19, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan, you need not have commented if your goal was to point out that readers can look at the original source and decide for themselves.

    You've added nothing more than your asserted opinion without backing it up with sound argumentation. Or even with an explanation of the criteria you used (how you assessed the original source) so as to contribute some means of discussing your complaint.

    Challenging you to be accountable is hardly bullying. But it is instructive that you think that is so -- not just for me but for GLAAD's project to promote accountability.

    Bruce will note that you have made it clear that you believe your comment (well written and thought out, no doubt) that has done "EXACTLY what GLAAD's cap's project has done" and have resorted to calling Cameron an "anti-gay extremist".

    But the unsupported assertions -- the claim that what Cameron said is a "vicious anti-gay attack" --does not expose anything more than your own bias, your own agenda, your own deeply disturbed view of public discourse.

    You do need to back up your assertions with more than misrepresentation of people you disagree with and misrepresenting their arguments.

    Others could quote you and make the very same sort of assertions about you and your rhetoric.

    You might think to back up your rhetoric with sound argumentation so as to respond to the challenge. But nope. You refused. You folded your arms and stamped your foot and repeated the misrepresentations.

    So you are about making your assertions but not about exposing much else than that. It is a smear campaign all of your own -- and with, you imagine, the full backing of the intent behind the GLAAD campaign.

    Thank you for exposes that much. Readers can now be forewarned.

  71. Chairm
    Posted July 19, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    By the by, John Colgan, my name is Chairm Ohn.

    If the content of our remarks are to be assessed on their merits, then, neither your name nor my name determine the outcome.

  72. Chairm
    Posted July 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Daughter of Eve, I'm glad you and other marriage defenders are here to challenge, and to support challenges of, the opponents of the marriage idea.

    Their arguments do tend to break down when examined by use of their own stated standards. It does not take a good debater to get that across. The reader needs only to focus on the content and to not become distracted by the emotional hyperbole that is infused in the presentation. Emotion certainly has its place but not in opposition to reason; rather in tweaking us to reconsider the source of the emotion and to support the outcome that reason, rightly pursued, leads.

    Most soft supporters of the SSM idea (and that would mean the majority of SSMers) tend to feel uncomfortable with some of the pro-SSM assertions made. They ought to question those assertions forthrightly and test those assertions by the stated standards of those making those assertions. Very often we come to an impasse because, like John Colgan, there is a refusal thrown-up to even state the criteria for making certain aggressively made assertions. That is where the soft supporters of the SSM idea will meet the fork in the road.

  73. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 19, 2012 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    The promotion of SSM seems to be dependent on who can throw the biggest tantrum. That would be amusing, if our Constitutional freedoms weren't hanging in the balance.

  74. bman
    Posted July 19, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan->@bman, So you are opposed to those, who don't share your views, having First Amendment rights. Good to know.

    Rather, you could only resort to a strawman to answer my post. Good to know you don't have a real argument to offer.

  75. leehawks
    Posted July 20, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Fascinating discussion but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept @10 of sodomy being an "american value". The World is upside down....