Archive | March, 2012

4 Reasons Why GLAAD is Dead Wrong About Kirk Cameron’s Comments

5 Mar Kirk Cameron on CNN

If you want to start a fire, making public comments about homosexuality or gay marriage ought to do the trick.

Consider Kirk Cameron an arsonist.

The actor, who actually played a firefighter in the evangelical Christian film Fireproof, ignited quite a spark when he spoke on CNN’s Piers Morgan Show on Friday.

Kirk Cameron on CNN

KirkCameron on CNN

Cameron said the following about homosexuality:

“I think that it’s unnatural. I think that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

He also commented on gay marriage:

“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,” Cameron said. “So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t.”

The gay activist group Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) fired back in a statement issued by senior director of programs Herndon Graddick:

“In this interview, Kirk Cameron sounds even more dated than his 1980s TV character. 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.”

GLAAD also had this to say about Cameron’s gay marriage remarks:

“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.”

However, GLAAD’s rebuttal contains four logical fallacies.

1. The truth of something does not depend on whether “a growing majority” of anybody agrees with it.

To think otherwise smacks of postmodernism, which claims that there is no absolute truth. However, that claim in itelf is an absolute statement. So postmodernism is a self-refuting concept.

Truth can be truth, even when nobody believes it. If nobody believed that 2+2=4, would that lack of support make 2+2=4 no longer true?

Of course not.

Whether or not it is true that homosexuality is “unnatural”, “detrimental” or “destructive” has nothing to do with public opinion polls.

If homosexuality can be demonstrated to be “unnatural” biologically or, in Cameron’s case, through the Bible, which itself can be objectively evaluated for archaeological and historical accuracy, then it doesn’t matter how many people agree with the statement or not.

2. The “growing majority of Americans” argument utilizes selective evidence.

There’s an additional problem with GLAAD’s use of the “growing majority of Americans” argument to support homosexuality and gay marriage: it’s not even true.

While some surveys do show an increase in the number of people who support homosexuality and gay marriage compared to a selected time period in the past, this argument overlooks the fact that whenever constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman were put on the ballot in a voter referendum, it has passed every single time.

In other words, gay marriage bans were put to voters in 28 states—and all 28 of them passed them. That includes the infamously liberal state of California, which passed Proposition 8 by voters only to have it struck down by a single judge—Judge Vaughn Walker—who happened to be gay.

GLAAD references the “increasing number of states recognizing marriage equality” but fails to note that legalization of same-sex marriage has been achieved entirely by court rulings and legislative action, but never through voter referendums. That is, the actions of a few, rather than the will of the many.

As I mentioned in Point #1, numbers in support of a cause don’t validate the cause’s truth. But since GLAAD is the one trying to promote such numbers, I’m going to hold them accountable for ignoring contrary evidence when making such claims and providing deceptive data.

3. “People of faith” who consider gays and lesbians to be “brothers and sisters” do so for ideological reasons, not theological reasons.

GLAAD makes the misleading statement that, unlike Cameron, there are “people of faith” accept gays and lesbians as “brothers and sisters.”

What GLAAD didn’t bother to point out is that theological orthodoxy—whether Jew, Christian or Muslim—unequivocally declares homosexuality to be a sin.

Any “people of faith” who think otherwise are simply imposing their liberal worldview upon their religion, rather than being true to their sacred texts.

GLAAD put up a straw man argument about gay-loving “people of faith”, which is in reality an oxymoron.

4. The “gay marriage isn’t re-defining anything” argument is self-defeating.

GLAAD said that “marriage is about committed couples who want to make a lifelong promise to take care of and be responsible for each other” and concluded that “gay marriage isn’t re-defining anything”.

The gay activist group apparently doesn’t see that the two statements contradict each other.

Using GLAAD’s own definition, incestuous couples should be allowed to marry also, as would predatory adult-child relationships, and polygamous relationships.

American law currently does not allow any of those relationships as marriages. So changing marriage laws to allow them would, by definition, re-define marriage.

What’s more, every time a gay rights organization trots out the “marriage is simply for loving couples” line, it’s proper to trot out the “what about incest, polygamy, etc.” response. Yet gay activists inevitably would squawk at such comparisons, arguing there isn’t a demand for such other marriage relationships.

Yet such arguments evade the point: what if there was?

Some liberals are now seeing that the previous response that “there’s no demand for those” is indeed inadequate. So they are starting to argue that such relationships should be legalized also.

The “slippery slope” that liberals used to mock as simply an absurd anti-gay scare tactic is no longer absurd because it is slowly starting to become embraced.

The slippery slope prediction is coming true.

And those new types of marriages wouldn’t re-define anything?


The bottom line

GLAAD could be an acronym for “Generic Logical Arguments Are Deficient” when it comes to its response to Cameron’s comments. It’s self-defeating at best and outright deceitful at worst.