Shared publicly  - 
This is awesome. via +Leah Christian
Adventures in Babysitting's Keith Coogan, Step by Step's Christine Lakin, Charles in Charge's Josie Davis, and other former child stars take a decisive stand against fellow junior thespian Kirk Camero...
Kevin Stanchfield's profile photoMatt Silverthorn's profile photoMUHAMMAD IQBAL's profile photoScott (RocketWolf)'s profile photo
Why did it take so long for everybody to figure out that Kirk Cameron is a douchebag? Back in the last few seasons of his show, he would get an off-screen romance going with whatever actress was playing his love interest on the show. As soon as they showed the slightest bit of ambition and try to use that exposure from the show as a springboard to further their career, not only did he dump them like last week's leftovers, but got them fired from the show as well. He's real stand up guy, and you couldn't ask for a better role model as a Christian. (Hard to tell if you don't know me, but the last sentence should be interpreted as dripping with sarcasm.)
Calling out someone for being an asshole does not make one an asshole.
No one said they hated him. In fact, they said he's generally a nice guy.
The story isnt even verified so it could be just raunchy satire and hate speeches.Where are the sources?
Why do people care what Kirk Cameron says? Is not like he is a position of power or in government.... Or anything.... I bet you could find millions of people who hate gays or Christians or Muslims,or pretty much any group you can think of.... Spending all the time and energy calling out one single guy seems like a waste... There are countries that have laws that put to death gay people or other minorities ...wouldn't be more productive to speak on that rather then some guy who won't harm anyone,regardless of his ideology? Seems to me lime these people just want attention ,rather then help anything or anyone......
I'm glad they are calling him out for being like that.
Calling Cameron a bigot because of his religious beliefs is insultingly stupid but somehow what I would expect from these people. 
They are not calling him a bigot because of his religious beliefs. They are calling him a bigot because he is a bigot. Religion is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for bigotry.
But the whole story is about the fact he is following his religious beliefs which happens to coincide with 85% of the population who follow a christian belief. Not to mention that in Christianity, homosexuality is a sin, and one of many pestilent reasons Noah had to build a boat. Watch the video, the child stars are saying that because they had homosexual hair dressers all thru their career, that Cameron should denounce his religion and accept there is nothing wrong with being gay. Talk about stupid causes.
That is not what they are saying at all. Kirk Cameron has the right to believe whatever he wants. Nobody has a problem with that, and no one cares. What they (and I) have a problem with is that Cameron actively campaigns for the government to enforce his particular set of religious beliefs on the rest of the population, be they Christian or not. The government of this country is, by design, irreligious. All people in this country have the right to equal treatment under the law. Kirk Cameron actively campaigns for certain subsets of the United States population to be denied this equal treatment. That is what these people have a problem with, and that is why Kirk Cameron is an asshole.
Well it seems you have a problem on your hands then and the other 15% of the country that has no religious belief because even though there is separation of church and state as far as the governments rule goes, this does not mean our common law is somehow not based on religious laws. You are fighting a battle against religion and a vast majorities of religions around the world believe that homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean they be burned at the stake or executed or anything else. In fact they are human beings who are still "guaranteed certain inalienable rights" one of which is their freedom to choose to be gay. This does not mean that just because they have a right to choose their sexual preferences that they can now have special rights assigned to them based on their personal preferences. That would be the same as saying, you get to have special rights like entering into wedlock with your dog because you can prove you "love" your dog. No one is telling you that you cant love your dog, or have a pet that you love and care for and dress them up like human babies, or have meaningful conversations with, but you will find that the law draws a line based on common law and religious law and you can not have sex with your pet under penalty of our common law. BTW, our common law is based on a majority vote and a judge. In our government the Executive branch has limited power and designed to be weaker than congress, and congress is a representation of the peoples voice and is appointed based on majority vote by the people who govern them self through representation (congress). Cameron has the right to campaign as you do. Cameron has 85% of the religious population behind him, you don't. You can rest assured that God wiped the face of the earth clean of pestilence and corruption once before and promised never to do it again so you are safe to campaign for homosexuality all you want without retribution until after death at which point it's only between you and God.
Oh, where to start? I guess we'll take this line by line.

1) Our laws are not based on any religious text.

2) You do not speak for all Christians. MANY Christians support equal rights for the LGBT community, including many I know personally. Stop making up statistics and do some research.

3) Marriage ceased to be a "special" right (as you put it) as soon as it was sanctioned by the government, and married couples were given certain privileges (tax breaks, etc). No church should be under any obligation to recognize a marriage, but the government should be required to acknowledge and grant the same benefits to two concenting adults who enter into a marriage under civil law.

4) I'm tired of this "argument" about people marrying dogs or cats or whatever. This is both a logical fallacy (look up slippery slope) as well as being a completely different set of circumstances. A dog or cat or any other animal is incapable of giving concent to a sexual relationship or a marriage. That is why these things are not permitted.

5) I'm well aware of how our government works, thank you. The founding fathers were keenly aware that "tyranny of the majority" was a possibility in a democratic republic. That is why there are so many checks and balances in place; it's to prevent this as much as possible. Sometimes it happens anyway. That doesn't make it right.

6) Yes, Cameron does have the right to campaign and say whatever he wants. He has the right to be an asshole. Everyone else has the right to call him on it. Again, you pull the 85% number out of nowhere, so allow me to educate you. More than half the population supports gay marriage. Based on our conversation, I'm assuming that you don't. You are now in the minority.

7) Based on your final statement, I assume you subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't want to derail this thread, so I won't respond to any comments you make on the following, but here are some points for you to research: a) there is no geological evidence for a flood that destroyed the earth; it never happend, b) it is impossible for Noah to have fit two of each kind of animal, plus provisions for 40 days for all, on a boat the size of the dimensions listed in the Bible, and c) it is impossible for Noah to have even built a boat this size; it would have collapsed under its own weight. People have tried to reconstruct the ark based on the dimensions in the Bible, but they can't do it without modern materials. Feel free to use Google to find out more information.

I have enjoyed our conversation thus far, but I must now bow out. I believe I've stated my case as well as I can for you and for anyone else who may still be reading this thread. It is perfectly within your rights for you to believe that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. I fully support your right to hold these beliefs. I cannot, however, support the government continuing to deny the rights of these people based on your religious beliefs.
you are entitled to assume anything, lucky for us all it doesn't make anything fact. Good luck with your fight because you have a right to, however if you want us to live and let live, how about you do the same and leave Cameron to do whatever he wants. P.S I never stated which side of any debate I was on, I stated facts that can be verified by anyone that cares enough to validate them. I am glad to hear you have ceased to argue something which can not be argued.
I was going to respond to Juan, but he didnt say would be off topic anyway :)
+Juan Schwartz you are blocked "Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Jesus, learn how to construct a valid argument, already." and trolling
Add a comment...