Kirk Cameron's Statements Simply Don't Hold Water

Kirk Cameron's recent statements on homosexuality and gay marriage has primarily two claims: 1) Homosexuality is unnatural and, 2) That it will destroy the foundations of civilization. These two claims cannot simply hold merit just because he is Kirk Cameron, child star and now Christian soldier. You need more than just zealot martyrdom to explain why such claims are in fact true and can be proven as such. Otherwise these claims are just opinions of a man who has negative views of homosexuality and gay people in general who is willing to hide behind the Bible and Jesus even though both do not condemn homosexuality or gay people.

In the first claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural' one has to come to know what 'unnatural' means. The term means that X,Y or Z does not occur in nature and that such things or happenings are in fact against the laws of nature or, in essence, the laws of the universe. If tomorrow the sun does not come up then one can presume that such event is pretty 'unnatural' since this does not and cannot happen in nature or in the universe so therefore it will not happen. Planets revolve around their suns and they cannot deviate from their orbits over night on their own. Planets do not function as such and these kinds of movements would indeed go against the laws of nature and are hence 'unnatural.'

Homosexuality however does occur, not only in humans, but in other species as well. It has been proven that hundreds of species of animals engage in homosexuality. The fact of the matter is that Kirk is using the wrong word to express his 'disapproval' of homosexuality. Simply by saying it is 'unnatural' you are therefore saying that it does not exist, or that it cannot exist in nature or the universe when in fact that is not the case. What Kirk is really saying is that he does not want it to exist so then he latches on the 'unnatural' meme to look smart or show a secular opposition to homosexuality when, of course, there is none. But by saying that he doesn't want it to exist just simply wont make it so.

His second claim is even more cynical. The claim that homosexuality will "destroy the foundations of civilizations" needs more substance than just simply stating it for its own sake. For the statement to be convincing it needs to be proven true or at least reasonably true. But Kirk offers no background,  no evidence, no explanation on why this is true to him, rather he touts he has the right to say it and those that disagree with him are 'bigots.' Right away such notion that he proposes as a response to all the criticism should raise some red flags. What Kirk is saying that he needs no evidence or explanation for what he said, only that he has the right to say it. Nobody is arguing whether he has a right to say such comments, we are arguing whether or not such comments are indeed correct. The ultimate goal of free speech is to reach some forgone truthful conclusion. He then attacks those of us who questions his claims as bigoted, because his answer to our criticism is that he has no answer due to the fact that his stance has no substance and is not built on credible reasoning.

The claim that certain people can destroy civilization is a very bold statement. If he says that civilization is about to be doomed then he has a responsibility to tell us how. Not doing so is very immoral because he will be a part of the destruction of our civilization as he withheld certain important information from the rest of humanity. If indeed Kirk knows something that the rest of us don't then he has a moral responsibility to let everyone know of when, and exactly how the process of said destruction is going to play out. Either he is refusing to say or most likely he is full of it himself. I say he's full of it.

Tweet