"I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years -- without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach 'tolerance' that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square. I believe we need to learn how to debate these things with greater love and respect. I've been encouraged by the support of many friends (including gay friends, incidentally)."
So what is it that Kirk Cameron wants? With statements like: homosexuality is "unnatural...detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." As for marriage equality, he noted, "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."
He claims he has the right to use freedom of speech to deny equal civil rights to a group of people based on their sexual orientation. But when his statements are attacked for their content he feels people don’t have the right to freedom of speech to call him an ass hole. I don’t understand it. Is this just an example of the religious moral high ground or the monopoly of all things moral in the eyes of believers? Or is Kirk just retarded?
And a final question. I don’t know if Kirk (or others like him) support gay unions but not marriages but how is speech that denies civil rights not hate speech?
I hope I live to see the day when all of this is looked upon as immoral, evil, and oppressive. Perhaps similar to women's rights or racial equality. Maybe Kirk and those like him can be viewed as histories villains.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/kirk-cameron-homosexuality-piers-morgan-controversy_n_1324195.html
oops sorry here is a link