Oh gawd, Kirk Cameron feels oppressed! Poor little guy doesn’t feel that he can say what’s on his mind without getting backlash.
He’s only telling people what his lord told him to tell you.
Isn’t he?
I mean, no one is telling him to shut up. His god also wrote into the book to expect such fallout for expressing these views. So why the ruckus?
Why in the world is Kirk Cameron whining like a little baby?
Because he wants everyone to think like him? Because he doesn’t like that his ratings have plummeted since his stint on that dumb 80s show?
How quaint.
World Net Daily is reporting Kirk Cameron’s befuddlement over the issue. You can read the article here. It’s called “Kirk Cameron fires back” by Drew Zahn. You can read how Zahn helps Cameron “fire back” for yourselves, but I want to comment on one part of the article, and it’s this one (emphasis mine):
When Morgan asked Cameron his views, the actor told the host, “I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt. And it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve – one man, one woman for life, till death do you part. So I would never attempt to redefine marriage and I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of ‘gay’ marriage, no I don’t.”
Do you know that the story of Adam and Eve doesn’t mention marriage one time?
And do you understand the ramifications of believing that Adam and Eve are responsible for the earth’s population of humanity and what that means about the sexuality of our supposed first humans? Adam and Eve had kids, and ostensibly they had kids. But who did their kids have sex with? Each other, right? Maybe with their mom and dad?
How dare anyone, especially Kirk Cameron, declare the Genesis couple as THE DEFINITION of PROPER, DIRT OLD “Godly” marriage.
Because if I used Adam and Eve as a model for marriage, I would likely go to jail or get committed for improper sexual relations with family.
What in the world are Christians doing by citing Adam and Eve as the role models for relationships?
If Kirk Cameron is hoping to dispel the rumor that Christians aren’t a bunch of in-bred idiots, he’s clearly barking up the wrong goddamn tree.
Hey Kirk, when you’re done defining marriage using the dumbest part of the bible, could you help me out with where the bible writes anywhere that god defined it in the way you are being persecuted for?
I don’t want you to shut up. I love when you talk. It gives me fodder for the blog.
Thanks. Bye.
If you’re gona bash a major religion, it’s adherents, and it’s sacred text, you should at least have the decency to do intelligently. This post is equally as asinine as Kirk Cameron’s haircut.
If you just had to respond to the part about genesis not including the word “marriage” what would you say?
Would you mind specifying what you found so unintelligent about this article? Could you refute the points brought up, or are you going to cop out by labelling the whole thing “unintelligent” without providing specifics?
Oh, and since you brought up the topic of responding intelligently: it’s “its”, not “it’s”. Food for thought.
“No, you.”
Sounds like Kirk has never read the story of David (g0d’s chosen king for the Israelites) who had multiple wives (as well as many concubines) and nowhere in the story of David does g0d bitch about traditional marriage!
In fact there are many an example of non-traditional marriages within the Bible that seemingly meet with the approval of the almighty.
Oh, and let’s not forget all the instances of g0d-approved rape and incest that are in the Bible. We don’t need to bash the “sacred text” of this particular major religion. The text itself does a wonderful job of bashing itself!
First of all, Genesis does mention Adam and Eve as husband and wife. Gen 4:1, “Now Adam knew Eve his wife…”.
Second, of course Cain and Abel married their sisters or mother or at least had children by them. There were like 5 people on the planet. If you and your sister/mother were the last people on Earth, you would just say screw the human race cuz that’s icky? Come on.
Third, many times in the Old Testament the bible is simply describing the practices of ancient people. You have to remember that the infant mortality rate was through the roof and having heirs, especially males, meant the survival of your family and the community. Having multiple wives/concubines helped to insure that. However, even in the Old Testament, rape and incest (such as in the case of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38) are condemned.
4. We don’t cite Adam and Eve as the role-model for relationships. We have sin and suffering in the world, in part, because Adam failed to lead his wife and guide her into obeying God’s command. They are, however, the first example, and the prime originator, and so thereby a mold, for the marriage relationship.
I think that part of what Kirk (who does not speak for all Christians by the way. I think he is as campy as the next person) is reacting to the culture we live in that sees marriage as a joke. We want to disregard it and marry and divorce who we want, and redefine it by our own lusts as if that were our prerogative.
God created marriage to be a beautiful and fruitful partnership between male and female (in the OT, multiple wives were permitted while in the NT, monogamy was the new standard both culturally and scripturally). As sinful and depraved humans, we have messed that up (especially King David). We’ve abused it, trampled it, and spit on it.
I am all for a debate, and I know that it is likely that when all is said, we will still not agree. Just don’t be hateful. It makes everyone look bad when we just attack each other.
Oh, no one would attack you for what you wrote.
It’s easily picked apart, starting with the idea that your translation for Gen: 4:1 includes a word that translated for you is that … but you really can’t be serious bringing that to the table.
Really.
What ridiculous assertions.
The bible is full of ‘sins of the flesh’ type parables, yet you excused the incest the bible promoted because they were “the only 5 people on Earth.” That actually speaks loads about your own moral character. You dream and lust about fucking your Mom much, Brad?
Wait, don’t answer that. Most of us prefer to not know, just as we can do without the lectures on marriage that are based in a belief from a book of fairy tales.
At the end of your drivel, you were going on about how us “depraved” humans were “trampling” the institution of god’s marriage. But just a couple of paragraphs before that, you were excusing the bible’s promotion of multiple partners for a married man. Isn’t it convenient that just the men were the only ones allowed multiple partners? If a woman took another partner while married, she was stoned to death. Nice bit of double standards from the pages of the hypocrite’s guide to religion (aka the bible).
Actually, Brad, it’s none of your god damned business who married who. Nobody needs YOUR permission to marry, and nobody needs a church’s permission to marry. I don’t need to be black to know that denying equal rights to black people is wrong, just as I don’t need to be gay to know that denying equal rights to gay people is just as wrong. Gay people pay their taxes just like everyone else, and until they’re allowed to share the same laws we all live by, then Cameron’s statements are every bit as discriminatory as your willingness to dig for excuses that condones it.
Thanks, BigLib, for stepping in on this.
I didn’t see the comment when it posted. It probably got lost in a slew of emails. I appreciate you taking Brad to task.
Cheers,
JW