home
RSS
Kirk Cameron defends views on gay marriage
March 7th, 2012
02:16 PM ET

Kirk Cameron defends views on gay marriage

By Breeanna Hare, CNN

(CNN)–Kirk Cameron lost at least one fan with his remarks about homosexuality and gay marriage last week, but the former "Growing Pains" actor is standing his ground.

He explains in a statement that he "spoke as honestly" as he could when asked about his views on "homosexuality, gay marriage and abortion" while being interviewed for his film, "Monumental," "but some people believe my responses were not loving toward those in the gay community."

Cameron continued, "That is not true. I can assuredly say that it's my life's mission to love all people."

On Friday, Cameron appeared on "Piers Morgan Tonight" to discuss his film, among other topics.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

When Piers Morgan asked the actor what he'd tell his kids regarding gay marriage, Cameron responded, "I'd tell my children what I believe myself...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. I would never attempt to try 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."

Read the full story from CNN's Marquee Blog

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Homosexuality

« Previous entry
soundoff (660 Responses)
  1. Nii Croffie

    DOC CEREMONIAL LAWS ARE WHAT U CITED. THEY ARE BINDING ON JEWISH CHRISTIANS NOT ON MOST CHRISTIANS WHO ARE GENTILE CHRISTIANS!!

    March 8, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
  2. Colin

    For those who have not seen it, here is a commonly posted list of 10 reasons why gay marriage is wrong:

    01) Gay marriage will encourage straight people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make short people tall.

    02) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets, because gays marrying will alter the fundamental $ex drive of others.

    03) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, black people still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

    04) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. My parents in Texas ran screaming to the court to get a divorce, the minute they heard that a gay couple married in Vermont.

    05) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

    06) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

    07) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. We really want people who, in the 21st Century, still believe in sky-gods and evil ground-devils, based on 2,000 year old Palestinian mythology, setting social policy.

    08) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

    09) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the internet, or modern medecine.

    10) It will lead to social disorder. I constantly hear of large groups of gays violently protesting against the rights of Christians to marry and committing acts of violence against Christians.

    March 8, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Nicely done.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
  3. D

    Sorry gay haters, marriage is not defined as a union of a man and a woman. Machine parts can be married. Marriage merely means:
    "any close or intimate association or union: i.e. the marriage of words and music in a hit song"

    March 8, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
  4. Nii Croffie

    Look at marriage well! It existed from primeval times. The rights are guaranteed FOR procreation not BY procreation as some have misunderstood me to have said. I really do not see how we can guarantee that to gays. IT WILL BE LEGAL BUT NOT NATURAL!!!

    March 8, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • MarkinFL

      Just as it is unnatural for all infertile couples to marry?

      March 8, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • Nii Croffie

      MarkinFL I said the rights are guaranteed for procreation. A simple test. If gays get married, use in vitro to have kids, train those kids to be as loving and accepting as cud be and they r a Christian family wud that make it natural? I'm sorry sir but leglislating this is like legislating war.

      March 8, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • MarkinFL

      So allowing infertile couples to marry and have kids through in vitro is unnatural and thus akin to war?

      March 8, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, they weren't. Marriage was primarily a means of preserving and amassing wealth and power.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
  5. Nii Croffie

    Ok! I'm not American. I'm an Akan Prince from Ghana. Our marriage laws can b traced 2 ancient Egypt. In both instances de rights of marriage r manifest in procreation. A couple who have not enjoy only rights which pertain 2 their situation. Ur President has special rights, doesn't he?

    March 8, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • MarkinFL

      Special rights? No. Special privileges? A few, most will go away when he is no longer president. A few will remain. Nothing spectacular.
      And as for marriage in the U.S.. Their is nothing about procreation in our marriage laws and it is a civil matter. Any religious aspect is completely optional and not relevant to the law.

      March 8, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • cmxsmitty

      Yeah – and I'm the king of Cashmere.

      March 8, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Nii Croffie

      Once again if the Republic decides to leglislate marriage it is not that the Republic insti.tuted it. Marriage preceded her. Therefore as in Common Law and Natural Law marriage is assumed by the framers of civil marriage to mean man and wife. To leglislate gay marriage will go against both.

      March 8, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • MarkinFL

      It does not go against civil law. It merely changes it. Rights for blacks and women required changes. By your definition they went against it and were therefore unworthy.
      In this country we change our laws to align with the U.S. Consti.tution. That is the highest law of our land.

      March 8, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Nii Croffie

      Civil law appeals to natural and/or common law to be just. Leglislating gay marriage has no such justification. Women were rulers so it was natural to give them those same rights in ur society. Same with blacks. Gays without le sb ians have had no such natural right nor common law right.

      March 8, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • MarkinFL

      Ahhh, a classic conservative. There is no such thing as progress. We can't do anything our ancestors did not do.( As interpreted by you.) My question is by what authority were those things approved of in the past? Everything has a first time.
      By your logic pederasty should be acceptable since the ancient Greeks practiced it as part of their society.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Says who?

      March 8, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Nii Croffie
      For a relationship to be considered a common law marriage, the couple must merely hold themselves out to the world as spouses regardless ofgender

      March 8, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • Observer

      Interesting point, Doc, but not quite right in my state here in the U.S. Common law marriage holds only if the couple has a "present intent to be presently married" which basically only covers cases where people believe they are legally married, but through some unknown or unforeseen problem they are not.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
  6. cmxsmitty

    Why does anyone care what a former child actor has to say anyway?

    March 8, 2012 at 11:41 am |
  7. Awesome

    Good for him.

    March 8, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • YeahRight

      "Good for him."

      It's sad that prejudice bigots support each other without knowing the facts. No wonder the humanity is going into the toilet.

      March 8, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Awesome

      Knowing what facts?

      March 8, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Yee haw

      Yeah! That's awesome Awesome! I say we reverse women's right to vote and bring back segregation too. Where is my Gestapo hat? Let's go find some gays.

      March 8, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Awesome

      I never said anything about hating anyone. I love all.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      According to my understanding of love, you most certainly do not.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • Awesome

      I don't hate people I hate the wrong that we are doing against a Holy God. Thank goodness we a no longer under the Law that requires so much when it has all been done for us since Christ died.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Yo!

      "I don't hate people I hate the wrong that we are doing against a Holy God. "

      That's why you are continuing to spread hatred toward this minority group that is not based on real facts.

      March 8, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
  8. MarkinFL

    Who the heck is Kirk Cameron and why does anyone care what he thinks.?

    March 8, 2012 at 10:43 am |
  9. False Dichotomy

    Kirk Cameron along with other "Christians" does indeed have the right to speak out against gay people, just as a Klan leader has the right to speak out against black people. But that doesn't make either of those views acceptable, and good people will stand up and rightfully criticize your view. Just because you have the right to voice bigotry doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to criticize you for it. I get so tired of hearing Christians cry about being victims whenever someone calls them out on the ugliness of some of their views.

    March 8, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • Awesome

      Being black and being gay are two different sides of the story. One deals with race the other deals with love.

      March 8, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • cmxsmitty

      Awesome – they both have to do with civil rights and who you are.

      March 8, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Keith

      False Dichotomy,Kirk Cameron along with other "Christians" does indeed have the right to speak out against gay people, just as a Klan leader has the right to speak out against black people.
      Unless you're an atheist mocking the so called prophet Mohammed and you're attacked by a muslim and the judge in your case is a muslim and your case is in Mechanicsburg, PA. But everywhere else, you're probably good.

      March 8, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Awesome

      So what if people want to start marring animals, are we going to use civil rights for that too? Where do we draw the line?

      March 8, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      ...and if we let non-white people sit near the front of the bus, will we have to start letting parakeets sit up front too? Where do we draw the line? Ridiculous.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • TING

      Awesome,

      You are as ignorant as your religion.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Awesome

      It's not ignorance it is wondering how far as a society will we let things go. As for me I believe in God and his moral standards not what the world has given us.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • LinCA

      @Awesome

      You said, "It's not ignorance it is wondering how far as a society will we let things go."
      No, it really is ignorance (willful, or otherwise). Marriage is a civil contract, entered into by consenting adults. Animals can't give consent. They are therefor excluded from marriage. So are children.

      The age at which children change into consenting adults is based on a determination that is made by almost every society that ever existed. This age varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and for various reasons. They are sometimes different for different activities (such as smoking, drinking, driving, sex, marriage, etc.). Almost all children will grow up to be consenting adults. There can, for that reason, be exceptions to the rule of the age at which they can marry (or engage in other age-restricted activities), if the child is deemed sufficiently mature for that activity.

      You said, "As for me I believe in God and his moral standards not what the world has given us."
      And you are free to do so. You don't have the right to expect anyone else to do the same. You certainly don't have the right to force them on anyone else.

      March 8, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  10. mrklrsn

    Mr. Cameron seems to have the same incomprehensible definition of love that all Christians I know seem to hold (my mother, brothers and sisters included). Love to them means a pathological necessity to judge you, belittle you, deny your rights, and stifle your joy.

    I also want to know whether Mr. Cameron has read his own holy text. I'd really like him to point out where it states that marriage is between one man and one woman. It's been a while since I've read that manual for genocide but i seem to remember that it specifically states that if your brother dies you are required to marry your sister-in-law and treat her as an equal to your own wife.

    March 8, 2012 at 10:40 am |
  11. Nii Croffie

    JQ marriage offers legal protection 4 a couple as they set out to procreate which is natural. In gays where is that procreation function 2 protect? If procurement contracts r essentially different from construction contracts y shud marriage(a procreation contract) b open 2 everyone?

    March 8, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • BRC

      @Nii,
      I thin kyou have made a rather large cognitive leap here, that is not actually supported. Marriage was not designed as a "procreation contract". Fromo a contractual sense, it is a joining of the assets and obligations of two (in our country, several in some others), consenting adults. A child is a common product of a loving marriage, but it is not garuanteed, nor is it always required, expected, or even desired.

      More importantly, Marriage is a social construct, where two individuals commit themselves to one another in view of their society, so that everyone recognizes adn understands that commitment. It existed long before the Abrahamic religions, it existed in places of the world where those religions would be known for hundreds of years after their existence, and it exists completely outside of their control.

      March 8, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • mrklrsn

      so that is why the state of MI stopped my wife and I from getting married despite the fact that we decided even before we were engaged that neither of us wanted to have children? And that is why post menopausal women are banned from getting married in the USA. Your problem is that you are attempting to state your subjective opinions as fact and failing miserably.

      March 8, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • JohnQuest

      Nii Croffie, even if what you said is true (i personally don't think it is) how does it effect my marriage or yours?

      March 8, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Al

      I guess I missed that law. When did we start requiring couples to have babies? Is contraception illegal too?

      March 8, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • cmxsmitty

      So if a straight couple adopts children they shouldn't be protected because they didn't procreate naturally?

      March 8, 2012 at 11:43 am |
  12. Nii Croffie

    DOC de Xtian is actually a Judaeo-Christian. For a Gentile the moral injunctions r binding n 4 a Jewish Xtian(though Rabbinic Jews swear there is no such thing) de ritual laws n ceremonial laws r also binding. Christ says his disciples who r Torah experts have double treasure both from de OT n NT.

    March 8, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Nii Croffie
      So by that logic, Christians who cut the hair at the sides of their head or clip off the edges of their beards are disobeying God. Not to mention those who have a garden with more than 1 type of plant, wear clothing woven of more than 1 material, have tattoos, women who are on their meunstral cycle who still live in their homes, those who eat cheeseburgers, pepperoni pizza, or surf and turf at a restaurant (especially if their steak is medium rare).
      God will kill the children of anyone who disobeys, and then make you eat them – "I will send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children", "ye shall eat the flesh of your sons and daughters." (Lev 26:16-41) not to mention the assorted plagues and burning fevers that will consume the eyes.

      March 8, 2012 at 10:09 am |
  13. Nonimus

    Does this mean that Kirk will have to break up with Ray Comfort?

    March 8, 2012 at 9:37 am |
  14. BRC

    Still waiting for one single person to explain why same gender marriages are harmful to this nation. And no religion doesn't count. people doing something that dissagrees with one groups belief set doesn't necessarilly hurt the nation as a whole. I want one practical real world reason that these marriages are damaging to society. Anyone have one?

    March 8, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • MarkinFL

      That'll be the day.

      March 8, 2012 at 10:47 am |
  15. JohnQuest

    Nii Croffie, you stated that "The same s.ex marriage isnt harmful is a fallacy" but you neglected to state how it is harmful to society. Please explain to the rest of us how a same s-ex couple can damage a heteros-exual family, I might be slow but I don't see how?

    March 8, 2012 at 9:18 am |
  16. Doc Vestibule

    The polygamous King David was called "a man after God's own heart".
    Martin Luther, the great Protestant reformer, said he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture."
    Irish Celtic Christians practiced multiple marriages for centuries.
    Happy Christian families take many forms.
    Furthermore, ho/mose.xuals aren't explicitly condemned in the Bible.
    In the original Greek, the terms used that are sometimes translated as "hom-ose.xual" are 'malakoi' and 'ar.senkoitai'.
    Different translations of the Bible have given different flavours to passages like Corinthians 6:9 that Christians use to justify their bigotry – however 'Ar.senokoitai' referred to male prosti.tutes for the Apostle Paul and indeed all Christians until the 4th century. Until the Reformation in the 16th century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th century, malakoi was thought to mean "mas.turb.ators." Only in the 20th century has it been understood as a reference to hom.ose.xuality.
    So if God does NOT condemn hom/ose/xuals and is OK with alternative family structures, there is no Christian argument left to deny same se.x couples the right to marry.
    So long as all adults are content and consenting and all children are well cared for, what is the problem?
    Is it not better for a child to have two supporting, loving parents of the same s.ex than it is to have one harried care-giver?

    March 8, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      DOC sorry to burst your bubble. I don't know what Bible u have been reading but the injunctions against s.exual sin were in Hebrew not Greek. The Torah contains the binding moral commands not the NT which is a philosophy on how to follow the Torah. So get down to the bookstore n buy a Bible.

      March 8, 2012 at 9:06 am |
    • Lauren

      I think Kirk handled his words a lot better than I would have. It's so funny how it's not offensive when anyone, but Christians share their beliefs but put a Christian in the pulpit to share what he stands for and it gets shot down and makes the worldwide news!

      March 8, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      I learnt about s.ex from my parents. I don't see how a child won't wonder what dad n dad r doing in their bedroom.What if he chances upon them? An orphan who is emotionally abused is no better than one who is neglected. It is also likely the dads can attack the child just as heteros.exual men do.

      March 8, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Nii Croffie
      As a Christian, I thought the New Testament was your primary guidebook, not the ancient Hebrew Torah.
      So, do you follow all the Old Testament laws, or do you just pick and choose those that suit you?
      You and I both know that the OT is full of absurdities, contradictions and downright evil!

      March 8, 2012 at 9:26 am |
    • BRC

      @Lauren,
      The Christian views are bigoted, that offends those of us who are not. WHen you are in a room full of Christians who all believe that same gender marriage is wrong, you can discuss it to your hearts content. And thanks to the First Ammendment, you also have teh right to speak it loudly in public if you wish, but no one else has to respect the backwards and rpejudiced view that two people aho are committed to each other shouldn't be allowed to marry because a 2000 year old book says so.

      March 8, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Lauren
      I attacked neither Mr. Cameron nor Christianity in my argument here.
      I don't see how your comment is relevant.
      And really, are you saying that Fundamentalist Mormons who speak their beliefs aren't attacked by Christians?
      How about polygamist Muslims?
      As the dominant religion in your country, Christians can hardly claim to be downtrodden or voiceless

      March 8, 2012 at 9:30 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      There is no hatred in me. Why do we have an age limit 4 marriage or a mental health injunction in there? It doesn't mean mentally ill or underaged people don't have s.ex but they cant perform de marital functions. If we have two husbands there is no wife n vice versa. Marriage is natural not legal.

      March 8, 2012 at 9:35 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Nii
      Age limits and mental health injunctions are to protect those who are not capable of giving informed consent.
      Gay people are capable of informed consent. Hom/ose/xuality is not a mental disorder according to the DSM IV.

      March 8, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      DOC informed consent to do what? Perform the functions of marriage! If u reread my post u will notice that being underage is not a mental illness either. Marriage gives legal protection to a couple as they set out to raise families. This is natural as a man sleeps with a woman to get her pregnant.

      March 8, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Nii croffie
      Are you denying the ability of two people of the same se/x to raise a child?

      March 8, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • Yo!

      "I learnt about s.ex from my parents. I don't see how a child won't wonder what dad n dad r doing in their bedroom.What if he chances upon them? An orphan who is emotionally abused is no better than one who is neglected. "

      Your opinions on gays are not based on facts idiot. Social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.

      March 8, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Keith

      Yo!, Jerry Sandusky would probably make an excellent candidate for a gay parent, wouldn't he?

      March 8, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Keith, if that is your view of ho.mos.exuality then you are an ignorant toad. Jerry Sandusky is no more representative of the g.ay community than Ted Bundy is of the straight community.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Keith

      Oh really? Lots of people spent lots of time defending the ho-mo pedophile on this blog.

      March 8, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
    • Yo!

      "Lots of people spent lots of time defending the ho-mo pedophile on this blog."

      The fact you would write it like that proves your prejudice what is pathetic is that it's not founded in real facts. People like you are what is wrong with our society.

      March 9, 2012 at 8:41 am |
  17. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    March 8, 2012 at 8:32 am |
    • Jesus

      ~The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!~~"`

      March 8, 2012 at 8:35 am |
    • just sayin

      Sadly the studies quoted by it that takes the Lords name in vain have been proven false but it cannot accept the fact that it has been duped. Poor thing, hope it continues to study God in Prayer for honest results. God bless cousin it wherever you are.

      March 8, 2012 at 8:41 am |
    • Jesus

      "Sadly the studies quoted by it that takes the Lords name in vain have been proven false but it cannot accept the fact that it has been duped. "

      You've been proven to be a LIAR on this blog site over and over again even under all your various names you use. Thanks for proving your lying opinion again.

      March 8, 2012 at 8:44 am |
    • Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      Prayer changes things
      Proven.

      March 8, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Jesus

      "Prayer changes things
      Proven."

      You've been prove a LIAR regardless of what names you use on this blog. If you have actual proof you would have cited it by now but you don't you just keep on lying.

      March 8, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • just sayin

      It that takes the Lords name in vain has
      1. no credibility
      2. no authority
      3. no substance
      4. no moral value
      God bless

      March 8, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      How can you refer to someone as an "it" followed by that derogatory list and then say "God bless?" What a slimy little hypocrite.

      March 8, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
  18. K.M.

    Good for you Kirk! You stood up for what you believe in and answered honestly, without being disrespectful. Why does it appear that everyone else is allowed freedom of speech, EXCEPT Christians? You don't have to agree with Christian beliefs, but we are allowed to voice our opinion like anyone else. I definitely see a double-standard going on regarding this issue of freedom of speech!

    March 8, 2012 at 8:17 am |
    • Yo!

      "You don't have to agree with Christian beliefs, but we are allowed to voice our opinion like anyone else. I definitely see a double-standard going on regarding this issue of freedom of speech!"

      Yeah I am sure the people who were against women and African Americans getting their civil rights felt the same prejudice way you do.

      March 8, 2012 at 8:19 am |
    • K.M.

      @Yo!

      I am not prejudiced against anyone. Any true Christian that actually believes in and follows the true Word of God is not either. However, we do not try to bend and compromise the Word of God to appease people. That's not how faith works. We all are to love one another, as we all have sinned and no one can boast because Jesus came to give us all a chance for salvation.

      I do agree that people who were and still are against Women's and African-American's rights were/are prejudiced. There are people STILL mad because we have a Black President! But to say that is equal to Christians maintaining their beliefs and, when asked, honestly responding according to the Word of God......is unfounded and ignorant. So in regards to the prejudices against Women and African-Americans, you support that they should have their civil rights.....just as long as they're not Christians right? Like I said, double-standard.

      March 8, 2012 at 8:37 am |
    • Yo!

      "unfounded and ignorant. So in regards to the prejudices against Women and African-Americans, you support that they should have their civil rights.....just as long as they're not Christians right? Like I said, double-standard."

      Gays deserve the same equal civil rights as everyone else and yes back then they also used the bible to block the civil rights of blacks and women. So yes you are a prejudice person who is using snippets of text of the bible to justify your prejudice. By the way not all Christians believe as you do there are many churches that now state being gay as we know and understand it today is NOT a sin. Pastors have actually started apologizing to the gay community., but prejudice people like you are too blind to see it.

      March 8, 2012 at 8:41 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      KM u don't expect someone who picks out a verse of all u had to say to respond intelligently, do u? He doesn't understand and wont make an effort to. I hope we all come to a point where there is no need to shove things down any ones throat either way. However it will be a long time coming.

      March 8, 2012 at 8:58 am |
    • K.M.

      @Nii Croffie

      Agreed!

      March 8, 2012 at 9:12 am |
    • Yo!

      "KM u don't expect someone who picks out a verse of all u had to say to respond intelligently, do u?"

      What a hypocrites you're just another prejudice bigoted Christian that can't back yourself you with facts either so you have to use insults. What a joke.

      March 8, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • LinCA

      @K.M.

      You said, "Why does it appear that everyone else is allowed freedom of speech, EXCEPT Christians? You don't have to agree with Christian beliefs, but we are allowed to voice our opinion like anyone else. I definitely see a double-standard going on regarding this issue of freedom of speech!"
      You are free to show the world that you support discrimination against a disfavored group, and so is every christian. You are free to voice your opinion, just as I am free to voice my disagreement with it. There is no double standard when it comes to speech.

      A line is crossed when christians are trying to enforce their views on others. It is crossed when they are trying to legislate their harmful views on society. It is crossed when they tear at the fabric of civilized society.

      In the US, you are free to believe the nonsense you so obviously believe. Ignorance isn't illegal. You are free to live your life as you see fit, as long as it is only your life that you are trying to live. While you are free to not like same sex marriage, and are free not to enter into one, you have no business telling anyone else that they can't.

      Your marriage is not affected by that of anyone else, just as you don't get fat when someone else eats a doughnut.

      March 8, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • mrklrsn

      LinCA

      Well said! I hope that you don't mind if I quote you on your donut line, that is beautiful!

      March 8, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
  19. Nii Croffie

    The same s.ex marriage isnt harmful is a fallacy. Every society is 2 define its norms n morals. If u go against them u destroy de society, period. In America de pursuit of happiness n other selfish desires must b counter-balanced by social interest. Marriage is a social issue. S.ex is not.

    March 8, 2012 at 8:16 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      Segregation is not de same as gay marriage my friend! NEITHER is it women's right. In both cases these people were pursuing rights open to the rest of the population not special privileges. Tell me how will gay couples marrying is natural? If it was leglislation rights it rather than introduces it.

      March 8, 2012 at 8:42 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      Seg.reg.ation isnt de same as gay marriage my friend! NEITHER is it womens' rights. In both cases these people were pursuing rights open 2 de rest of de population not spe.cial p.riv.ileges. Tell me how gay cou.ples marrying is natural? If it was, leglislation rights it rather than introduces it.

      March 8, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • tallulah13

      They love each other, Nii. Like hetero couples, they want to share a life and have the benefits and rights of a marriage. I'm sorry that your religion blinds you to human decency. It must be difficult to live with all that hatred and fear choking you.

      March 8, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • WASP

      @nii: "marriage" is controlled by the state. not the church. you can have a ceremony in a church but you still have to file your marriage lisence with the state. so the state aka federal governement has a duty to up hold the founding docu.ment of this nation regardless of individual complaints. here is what i see being the two major argueing points of the nay sayers.
      1) "marriage" is betwen male and female.
      1a) solution change law to a specific term of no religious affiliation.........meaning for everyone. law should read as such" marriage is between two of legal age consenting adults; where as both assume the duties of being joined under a legal contract and agree to share responcibility for any and all matters pertaining to their new joined status." that would cover children, alimony, etc etc etc.
      2) religious views.
      2a) not important because in the government religion isn't a desiding factor.

      March 8, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • WASP

      @nii: "marriage" is controlled by the state. not the church. you can have a ceremony in a church but you still have to file your marriage lisence with the state. so the state aka federal governement has a duty to up hold the founding docu.ment of this nation regardless of individual complaints. here is what i see being the two major argueing points of the nay sayers.
      1) "marriage" is betwen male and female.
      1a) solution change law to a specific term of no religious affiliation.........meaning for everyone. law should read as such" marriage is between two of legal age consenting adults; where as both as.sume the duties of being joined under a legal contract and agree to share responcibility for any and all matters pertaining to their new joined status." that would cover children, alimony, etc etc etc.
      2) religious views.
      2a) not important because not a government matter of a persons beliefs.

      March 8, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • J.W

      But why does this need to be the norm? Are societies in which legal gay marriage is a norm okay then, since it is widely accepted?

      March 8, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • WASP

      @j.w.: it needs to be the "norm" because it is backed up by america's founding docu.ment. if we are all created equal then it is hypocrosy to deny anyone their rights as being human. we had to add admentments to make people of different ancestory and gender equal to males in the eyes of the law; the same should be done for same gender couples. everyone deserves being happy.....not just certain types of people. america as a whole has worse problems to worry about then if their neighbor is marrying a man or woman.

      March 8, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • J.W

      I believe that gay marriage should be legal wasp. Nii's argument was that since it is not currently the norm that if we change that it would cause a breakdown of society. But the places where it is legal, at one time it was illegal. So why did those societies not bread down?

      March 8, 2012 at 11:53 am |
  20. WASP

    kirk is allowed his views on things as everyone else.....even if others don't agree with his idea on things. if individuals would do a little studying they would find that same gender marriage protected under the declaration of independance. "we find the truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." " all men have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." if the founding docu.ment of this nation saids all humans have the right to be happy, then who are we to segregate them from opposite gender couples.

    March 8, 2012 at 8:07 am |
    • tallulah13

      I agree that Mr. Cameron can believe whatever he wants. What he can't do, is legislate unconst.itutional bigotry based on his religious beliefs.

      March 8, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • SPA Knight

      Why does the State care whether or not people are married or not? Look around and you'll see that the majority are opting out or choosing to dissolve their marriages. So why is everyone fighting so hard to have it as a right?

      March 8, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • WASP

      @spa: people are fighting for a right that others are denying them.

      March 9, 2012 at 8:37 am |
    • SPA Knight

      WASP – Why is marriage a right?

      March 9, 2012 at 9:46 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
« Previous entry
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.