Kirk Cameron & GLAAD

In an amazing twist, it turns out freedom of speech is only acceptable if you dislike Christianity and it's principles.  (Sarcasm definitely intended)


Kirk Cameron ruffled some feathers over at GLAAD (The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) when he made the following comments regarding homosexuality and gay marriage on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight (Click here to read the article containing backlash to Kirk Cameron's comments ) :  "I think that it's unnatural."  I think that it's detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.  I believe marriage was defined by God, 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 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."

These comments were respected and valued of course, by fellow actors and GLAAD. 

Just kidding.  Of course they weren't, as the "tolerant" once again showed how truly "tolerant" they are. 

Herndon Graddick, Senior Director of Progams at GLAAD, came back with this amazing display of rhetoric and logical reasoning ability:  "In this interview, Kirk Cameron sounds even mroe dated than his 1980's TV character.  Cameron is out of step with a growing majority of Americans...with an increasing number of states recognizing marriage equality, Americans are seeing that marriage is about committed couples who want to make a lifelong promise to take care of and be responsible for each other and that gay and lesbian couples need equal security and legal protections.  That's not 'redefining' anything."

THAT, is Graddick's argument?  That Cameron sounds 'dated'?  Please.  This is the same group that wants equality for gay and lesbian couples (supposedly) based on the constitution?  How old is that document anyway?  Trying to be funny and clever is one thing, but Graddick just sounds like some kid pushed him around on the playground.  Cameron is "out of step" with a growing majority of Americans?  Okay, and what's the problem with that?  A growing majority of Americans think it's okay to murder babies.  Guess I'm out of step with them too.  As if what the majority of Americans think really determines morality.  "Out of step"? We aren't talking about hairstyles or clothes or what the latest new fad is here. We are talking about principles that Cameron holds, and believes come from Christianity. But I guess because he is a Christian, his viewpoint isn't as valid as those who want to smatter him with mud. I'm willing to bet that if the "majority of Americans" decided on a whim that it was okay to murder Graddick's wife, or steal his money, that he would be okay with that, since afterall, what's important here is what modern-individualistic-have it your way-Americans think is "in step". Oh, and guess what Graddick?  When you have a definition for something, and you change that definition, then you ARE redefining it.  If in fact these "increasing number of states" thought that gay marriage was inherit in the American way and Constitution all along, they wouldn't have to CHANGE THE LAWS, ... would they?  That's like saying Italians are defined as people from Italy, and then claiming, no, actually, Italians are people from Italy, and people from Poland.  States ARE redefining marriage if they have to change the law to accomodate these "life long promises". 

But the brilliance doesn't end there, as a bunch of former actors with twitter accounts furiously used their thumbs to dismantle Kirk Cameron.  Let's take a look at the wisdom of the stars, shall we?

Alan Thicke: "i'm getting him some new books.  The Old Testament simply can't be expected to explain everything."  - Really Alan?  Kirk never claimed it did.  But, by the way, have you read the NEW Testament?  It has something to say about homosexuality as well.  What is there to explain sir?  That when God formed Adam and Eve, and they became MAN and WIFE, that it didn't really mean Adam and Eve, and that it needs to be explained that it really meant, "well, just any two people under any circumstances that just promise to take care of each other =marriage?" I want to know which of these "new" books will explain "everything".

Martha Plimpton: "The word 'Equality' shows up too much in our founding documents for anyone to pretend it's not the American way."  - Of course Martha, and I'm sure that when our founding father's forged those documents, they had in mind women sleeping with women and men sleeping with men.  Gotcha.  I'm sure that's EXACTLY what they meant. 

Jesse Tyler Ferguson (Modern Family 'star'):  "The only unnatural thing about me being gay is that I had a crush on Kirk Cameron until about 24 hours ago." Who is Jesse Tyler Ferguson, and who gave him a twitter account?

But I want to bring you one more quote from Graddick, that gets to what I think the real issue is. 
"Cameron is out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation."

Here is the real issue.  Graddick, (along with those "growing majority of Americans") has no concept of what God has declared in His word.  That shouldn't be surprising.  However, let's set the record straight from a biblical perspective.  It is not BEING homosexual that "condemns" people according to the Bible.  Being homosexual, or lying, or committing adultery, or gossiping or whatever other sin you want to bring up, is a result of ALREADY being condemned due to what happened in the Garden of Eden at the fall.  These things are a natural outflowing of sin that is already present.  As someone once said, we are not sinners because we sin, but rather, we sin because we are sinners.  Listen to what Paul, (inspired by the Holy Spirit) wrote in Romans... "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.  So they are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.  And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.  They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice.  They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.  They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (Romans 1:18-31)

Now, do I hate homosexuals?  Absolutely not.  Do I think they live in sin?  yes I do.  But then again, I think ALL of us live in sin - INCLUDING homosexuals.  That's simply what the Bible says. I think it's a sin.  Kirk Cameron thinks it's a sin.  We both think that because our conscience is held captive to the Word of God. All people are sinners who need the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.   We have every right to express that view as much as GLAAD or actors want to express their dislike of the morality and Christianity found in Scripture. Again, I don't hate homosexuals, but I've also never been fond of the kind of irrational emotionalism that reared it's ugly head in the backlast against Kirk's comments.

Thanks Kirk, I think you're right on.  It takes a brave person to proclaim their stance when they are "out of step with the majority of Americans".  Then again, truth never has been popular.... perhaps this is why the Lord exhorts us to spend so much time thinking about it.

The Hunger Games

I picked up the “Hunger Games” for about 6 dollars at a Walmart around Christmas time.  I’ve never been a fan of reading something because it’s a fad, but for the price, and the fact I had heard nothing but good things about it from friends of mine, I was compelled to read it.

That’s the key word for this review.  Compelling.  “having a powerful and irresistible effect; requiring acute admiration, attention, or respect.”

I found “The Hunger Games” compelling.  Let me just say that I have a distaste for things that become fads.  However, it has to be noted that sometimes there is a good reason it becomes a fad.  Agree or not, I believe this is what has happened with the Hunger Games. Is Suzanne Collins the best author I’ve ever read?  No.   Is this the best fiction book I’ve ever read?  No.  However, Collin’s can tell a story, and tell it with suspense, there’s no question about that.  For me, this was a page turner.  I love a good story, and this is a good story.  Although I had an idea of how it would end, how Collins arrived there was, in a word, again, compelling.  She did a masterful job ending every chapter in such a way that I really wanted to know what was going to happen next. 

The three main Characters, Katniss, Peeta & Haymitch are crafted well, and it’s a proven fact that if no investment is made in character, then it doesn’t matter how good the story is, you simply won’t care.  Inner turmoil and character clashes abound in this book and thus makes this what I would call a heavy – not hard, but heavy – read.  Especially for young adult fiction, which this book classifies itself as.  Be forewarned, there is a lot of death, but that’s to be expected based on the premise of the book.  Set in what the perhaps not-so distant future,  the Capitol, or controlling city, selects one boy and one girl from the surrounding towns, or “districts” as they are called, to compete for their lives and their district.  This happens in the book’s namesake, the Hunger Games.  Where only one competitor, or “tribute” can survive.

The story keeps moving, and as I mentioned, it’s quite a ride to the end, with unexpected twists and the theme of desperation carrying you along.  I think what makes part of it so compelling, is that while the premise is crazy – it’s not THAT crazy.  Knowing the depravity of man and just how fallen this world is, the world of the “Hunger Games” is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Overall, I enjoyed reading the “Hunger Games”, and recommend it.  What didn’t I like about it?  I will only tell you if you’ve read the book, I don’t want to ruin it for anyone.

****SPOILER ALERT****  Do NOT scroll down if you have yet to read this book and plan on doing so.  I reveal the ending and don’t want to ruin it.  I’m serious.  Don’t scroll if you don’t want to know.  I won’t be held responsible for it.  I’m not kidding.  Oh no no no, you aren’t going to blame me buddy, it’s on your head if you scroll down and ruin it for yourself.

















Okay, so what didn’t I like about it?  The ending.  Oy vey!  The ending!!  After this compelling story, after reading chapter after chapter as a race to the end, I get to the end and I think… WHAT?!?  Now, before I continue, I will say the ending is most likely a setup for the next book in the series, “Catching Fire”, so I’m hoping that book cleans up the mess that this book left.  After all the build-up of the idea that only 1 out of 24 can win.  After all the time built into the suspense on who will it be, Katniss or Peeta, …  the book ends with BOTH of them winning?  It makes no sense and really takes away from the rest of the book if you ask me.  Especially because of WHY they both ended up surviving.  Because if they both died, the Capitol would be embarrassed??  Really?  Since when would the Capitol care?  All the audience wanted was a show, they got one, and because the two last survivors would have rather died together than decide who would live, then the Capitol decides to develop a conscience?  I mean, this is the same Capitol that CONTROLS the districts right?  The same Capitol that FORCES the tributes to compete in the games right?  The ending just didn’t make sense after all the buildup and suspense.  The Capitol really shouldn’t have cared and changed the rule like that if they weren’t going to go through with it.  If they said only one can win, then only one should have won.
But, overall, great book.