Can You Spot The Porn Star In This Kirk Cameron Christian Video About Homosexuality?

Kirk Cameron came to San Francisco to make a video about being a good Christian and helping homosexuals get saved. And he managed to get a retired porn star on camera talking about getting laid. Can you guess who it is?!?!

I’ll give you a hint: He hasn’t been in porn since the late ’80s.

Still stumped!?!

Take a look.

 

Anyway, it’s Kevin Glover. He was in Catalina Video’s The Big One in 1988, and maybe a couple other things. And he shows up at the 11-second mark in the cut-up video above — this is actually a comedic edit of Cameron’s original video by some YouTube artistes that go by the name Deeper Understanding.

And keep watching for one angry trans woman who they confront at a mall.

61 thoughts on “Can You Spot The Porn Star In This Kirk Cameron Christian Video About Homosexuality?”

  1. My point in this debate is not the validity of the bible, it is to know your subject matter and do some research yourself so you may be able to counter the arguments of those who would use certain arguments against you. The bible and religion should be something of a personal nature to learn and grow from. What you get out of it will not EVER be what another gets out of it. It was never meant to be anything but a personal guide to living a civilized life.

    These myths or stories, whether true or not, are meant to help us grow as people, not, as a means to hurt one another as is oft the case.

    Everyone knows in many cultures there is the virgin birth, (Hera & Hephaestus, Mary & Jesus, Isis & Horus, etc) The flood myth, (Epic of Gilgamesh, Noah, Deucalion & Phyrra), Halos (on Saints are the sun disks associated with RA or the crown of Helios) Christmas is Saturnalia etc. Parallels exist across cultures and can even repeat within the same culture.

    Homosexuality exists in all cultures and in these ancient stories as well Zeus and Ganymede, David and Jonathan, the list goes on.

    If I believe in Jesus, Yahweh, Elohim, Vishnu, Horus, Zeus, Baal, Allah, Buddha, or whomever does not matter, for all I know they are one in the same entity, or all nothing but a cosmic joke. The point gentlemen is we all have the right to be happy, to live our lives free of the harm from others, to share our knowledge and experiences so we may all live in peace, to believe or not believe whatever we choose as long as in these pursuits we are not causing harm to or infringing upon someone else’s right to do the same.

    1. This particular forum is about an anti – homosexuality video that just happens to gave an ex porn performer in it for 5 seconds. They even tell you the answer to the proposed question so I’m guessing this is exactly what they wanted. You have the choice to read or not read the comments. Besides, the fact is obviously several people are interested. Grow up.

  2. como=as
    ¿Como? = How
    se = from the verb ser = to be
    llama= from the verb llamar= to call

    ¿Como se llama? = How are you called? NOT, “as it is called”
    como se llama= as it is called

    You have translated it incorrectly for how you wanted to make it. The same as the NIV translators did. The “¿” at the beginning and “?” at the end make it a question which in Spanish changes “as” to “how”.

    1. No. As I replied elsewhere, I didn’t do the translation. I simply copied it.

      But even with your correction, the example demonstrates that a literal translation is not always the best translation. That was the purpose of the example.

      1. I like you Reynard … You voice your arguments intelligently. We could go around in circles all day at this I see. It’s nice to see someone challenge my arguments with something more profound than name calling, vulgarity, or just plain ignorant lunacy. Though you may not have swayed my line of thinking or me to your argument you have certainly won my respect.

  3. It is interesting to see just how many people still hang on to the religious myths that they were taught as children. The books of the Bible are as little grounded in reality as are the writings of Homer.

  4. @Ulf Raynor

    You people don’t even know the meaning of the word “deceive.” It means to deliberately try to make someone believe something that the purported deceiver knows or believes is not true. The NIV translators believe they are providing faithful translations. (See http://www.biblica.com) Just because you don’t agree with a NIV translation doesn’t mean that the translation is deceptive.

    As for “we’re talking about a group of men that inserted the word homosexual into the New Testament, where it didn’t exist before…” Are you claiming that ancient Hebrew had an equivalent word or expression for “homosexual”? Did ancient Hebrew have an equivalent word or expression for the modern concept of “sexual orientation”? The word “homosexual” didn’t even exist when the KJV was issued; the word didn’t enter the English language until the late 19th century!

    You people seem to think that the more literal a translation, the more accurate it will be. The foolishness of that notion is easily demonstrated. Which is the more accurate translation of the Spanish “¿Cómo se llama?”: (1) “As it is called?” or (2) “What is your name?” Option 1 is an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Spanish, but it doesn’t make any sense in English. Option 2 is not at all literal, but it does capture precisely what the original communicates to a Spanish speaker.

    Wake up and smell the coffee. The Bible IS antigay because the people that wrote it belonged to an antigay culture. Moreover, the Bible is NOT the word of any gods or goddesses. It’s the word of MEN of particular ancient culture and reflects the history and beliefs of THAT culture–a culture of primitive savages that believed in putting people to death for extra-marital sex or for working on a Saturday.

    In the final analysis, it doesn’t matter what the Bible says, because it is nothing but a collection of ancient myths that reflect the history, culture and beliefs of primitive savages. And you’re only deluding yourself if you think the Bible is the word of a god or goddess, or that it embodies absolute moral truths.

    1. You translated ¿Como se llama? incorrectly … como se llama = as it is called (bad Spanish) … ¿Como se llama? = How are you called (correct Spanish) English = What is your name? you translated the words but not the punctuation. The ¿&? turn as into how.

      1. No. I didn’t do the translation. I’ve never studied Spanish, though I have studied Latin and German, and I did hesitate when I copied “as it is called,” as it seemed to me from my knowledge of Latin that “how is it called,” or even “how are you called,” would be more apt.

        But the point is that a literal translation is not always the best translation.

    2. Seriously? Yup, it would be a real stretch of the imagination to believe that men would want to make scripture say what they want it too, just as you are accusing both Chad and I of?
      Thanx for making my point entirely by acknowledging the fact the word homosexual didn’t even exist until the late 19th century.
      There was no Hebrew or Latin word for homosexual and these well meaning men just trying to give an accurate translation of the scripture just had some divine revelation and decided it needed to be added?
      The Bible is just a collection of ancient stories meant to frighten people into following a set of rules to regulate behaviors,
      just like any other religion.
      Peter Minnen made this observation:
      “The KJV was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England.
      There were (and still are) no original texts to translate.
      The oldest manuscripts were written hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts, with no two alike.
      The KJV translators used none of these anyway.
      They edited previous translations.
      So, 21st century Christians believe the ” infallible word of God” is a book edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.
      That’s not faith. That’s insanity.”

      1. I like you too Ulf … It’s great to see commentators with an actual thought, or opinion based in intelligence and knowledge rather than the usual grammar school rhetoric usually offered.

      2. “Thanx for making my point entirely by acknowledging the fact the word homosexual didn’t even exist until the late 19th century.”

        How naive.

        You just hoisted yourself be your own petard.

        Just because the word “homosexual” wasn’t invented until the late 19th century doesn’t mean that there were no homosexual acts or homosexuals long before that time.

        You and Chad don’t seem to have any difficulty inferring the existence of a homosexual relationship between Jonathan and David when you read the KJV translation that was written at a time when the word “homosexual” didn’t exist.

        If you want to argue that the absence of an equivalent word or expression for “homosexual” in the ancient Hebrew language of a Bible text invalidates the use of the word “homosexual” in a modern English translation of that text, then how can you infer that there was a homosexual relationship between Jonathan and David? It seems to seem that you are doing precisely what you accuse the NIV translators of doing: making “scripture say what they want it to.”

    3. The Bible wasnt and never be as antigay men. Those leader in the past whose to blame. In fact the modern priests of the Catholic Church slowly correcting what’s really mean.

  5. chad hunt, you are not gay but bisexual right ? im 100 % gay, and if i were a bisexual i would chose and end up the rest of my life with a girl and id build a happy family. its simple as that and all happy :)

    1. Yes, I am bisexual. People always seem to think that that means I’m equally attracted to both men and women. It does not. I enjoy sex with women but have found relationship wise I am more compatible with men. I was married for just over 5 years to a woman and I do have a son so there is no pressing need for me to find a woman to settle down with and start a family. I’m perfectly happy with the gentleman currently considered to be my husband for the past 10 years and we may adopt at some point in the future or find a surrogate for him.

      1. you look like another michael brandon, mr hunt. and i never have a thought that every bi guys is equally love men and women, im ok with bi guys around me, as long as i dont date and have serious relationship with them, i dont want to share my man with women. for me bisexuals are just greedy, confusing and liar. and oh God thanks i was born like this “GAY”

  6. @Chad Hunt

    As for my “theory,” it’s not a theory. It’s an argument based on the semantics of the term “son-in-law.” An educated person should understand that you cannot become a son IN LAW except by LAWFUL marriage. Nothing in the text even remotely suggests that the “covenant” that Jonathan made with David was a marriage–lawful or otherwise. You pointed out that a marriage is a “holy” covenant; I countered that a covenant need not be a marriage. A covenant is simply an agreement, a promise, or an understanding.

    The text doesn’t mention the terms of the “covenant,” and nothing about Jonathan giving David his robe, tunic, sword, bow and belt even remotely suggests a wedding. For all we are told, it could have been a covenant of brotherhood. Such covenants are common in Middle Eastern cultures and are even ratified by ceremonies or rituals.

    But judging from the plain language of the text, David was given just two opportunities to become Saul’s son IN LAW: (1) by offer of marriage to Saul’s older daughter and (2) by offer of marriage to his younger daughter. The older daughter was given in marriage someone else, and David ended up marrying the younger daughter. Therefore, David was Saul’s son IN LAW only ONCE, and it was by an actual marriage to the younger daughter.

    You come up with some rather bizarre interpretations of the text. It seems to me that you began with the premise that Jonathan “wed” David, thereby becoming Saul’s son “in law,” while completely ignoring the semantic implications of “in law.” And then you proceeded to coerce the meaning of rest of the text to fit your premise.

    I also wanted to mention that your theory seems to revolve around the notion that homosexuality was considered wrong in Davids day. What ever gave you that idea. If you are quoting Leviticus as your basis for sexual legality I’m happy to point out the mistranslations of those verses as well.

    1. You are running under the assumption that the relationship was not lawful. I’m assuming you are using Leviticus as your basis for law but as I already said the law that supposedly outlaws a man with a man in Leviticus has been translated incorrectly as well if you go and read them properly what is being outlawed is laying with a male prostitute in your wifes bed.

      1. You are running under the assumption that the relationship was not lawful. I’m assuming you are using Leviticus as your basis for law but as I already said the law that supposedly outlaws a man with a man in Leviticus has been translated incorrectly as well if you go and read them properly what is being outlawed is laying with a male prostitute in your wifes be

        No. My argument is not that the “covenant” that Jonathan made with David was unlawful. My argument is that is was not a lawful marriage. My exact words were: “An educated person should understand that you cannot become a son IN LAW except by LAWFUL marriage. Nothing in the text even remotely suggests that the “covenant” that Jonathan made with David was a marriage–lawful or otherwise.”

        Your premise is that the covenant Jonathan made with David made David a son IN LAW of Saul and that Saul even recognized David as a son IN LAW as a result the covenant. I don’t find any textual support for your premise. Your premise even contradicts 20-21.

    1. People like this are truly disturbing. Just like a cat chasing a laser pointer, certain types of people fixate on things that don’t matter. I don’t know if it’s people with low IQs, or people who have lived through traumatic life events, or are developmentally stunted. It doesn’t matter to me actually what the cause is. This guy needs to stop it with the fiction and find motivation somewhere else. I actually feel bad for him.

  7. Why is this an issue? Basically these people spout the same stuff that does Paddy O’Brian. I don’t understand why homos get offended by ‘ex-gay’ movements which is basically the same thing as gay-for-pay. Ya’ll lap it up when these straight men get into gay porn. Jesus -no pun intended, haha- in gay pornography, gay men are second class citizens, and pretty much reviled, which is ironic, straight men, just about everyone on the MEN.com set swears up and down that they are 100% straight. You all come out in their defense claiming that sexuality is complex -meanwhile, so complex is sexuality that the same cookie cut out look is pushed by gay porn- and yet, when the Ann Coulters of the world, when the Marcus Bachmanns of the world, when Kirk Camerons of the world endorse pretty much the same view as the gay-for-payers, this is offensive to you people? Seriously?

    If the Cody Cummings, the Rocco Reeds, the Connor MacGuires, and the cast over at MEN.com can retain their sexuality as legit straight in spite of getting a boner and spunking all over the place with a guy’s cock up an asshole, then so too, is heterosexuality and salvation just a prayer away from reality. Can’t have it both ways folks. Either you accept the fact that sexuality is so fluid that Kirk Cameron and those that endorse ex-gay therapy are in fact correct, and thereby legitimizing gay-for-pay identity, or you vilify gay-for-pay as much as homophobic as the diatribe spoken by people like Kirk Cameron.

    But ya’ll like to play favourites. And because none of you would fuck Marcus Bachmann then it serves no purpose for him to be sexuality fluid, therefore he is vilified as homophobe, when he actually mirrors everything Paddy O’Brian and Rocco Reed stand for and have expressed.

  8. I give kudos to Chad Hunt. Mr. Hunt, you are a wise and caring man! Your comments are well thought and well articulated.

  9. Do we really need to put THE BIBLE in here. Please all of us are loved by God no matter who we are. That’s why I love Pope Francis very much.

    1. The existence of a personal god who created the universe/multi-verse and is looking after we humans, on this 3rd rock from our star, is the greatest myth of all. People arguing over the tales of Jonathan and David is just as silly as arguing over events in the life of Hercules.

  10. What can I say- another example of “Chad Hunt” to offer a thoughtful, well presented viewpoint, and reply. I like him even more now! Brilliant! No wonder that he is a teacher.

    As for Kirk, I am sorry this issue is a concern for him. There has been a HUGE change in the past 5-10 years or so regarding public perception of GLBT issues, and people. Times have changed.

    “Chad” is a CHAMPION!

    1. Except that Chad’s conclusion that “first Jonathan and David are wed then David marries Saul’s daughter Michal. He is Saul’s son in law twice” is incorrect.

      Jonathan and David were not wed. David could never have become Saul’s son “in law” via any relationship with Jonathan because such a relationship would not have been recognized under Jewish law.

      David’s first opportunity to become Saul’s son-in-law was when Saul offered his daughter Merab to David. But they were never wed: But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my family or my clan in Israel, that I should become the king’s son-in-law?” So when the time came for Merab, Saul’s daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.

      David’s 2nd opportunity to become Saul’s son-in-law was when Saul offered his daughter Michal: I will give [Michal] to [David],” [Saul] thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.”

      David did marry Michal, thereby becoming Saul’s son-in-law for the first time.

        1. There’s no mention of the terms of the “covenant,” and nothing about the “ceremony” (giving over one’s robe, tunic, sword, bow and belt) even remotely suggests a “modern wedding.”

      1. 1 Samuel 18:20-21

        “Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. ‘I will give her to him’, he thought, ‘so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him’. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law” (NIV)

        In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

        “Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain.” (KJV)

        Saul’s belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David’s first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul’s son-in-law through “one of the twain.” “Twain” means “two”, so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul’s two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase “the one of” does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

        “Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain.”

        In modern English, this might be written: “Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children” That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan’s homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal’s heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

        1. “Twain” means two, but does not refer to any people.

          Under Jewish LAW, the only way David could have become a son IN LAW to Saul was through a LAWFUL marriage to one of his daughters. Under Jewish LAW, same-sex marriage was not LAWFUL. Therefore, David could not have become a son IN LAW to Saul as a result of a “covenant” with Saul’s son Jonathan. This point about Jewish LAW and the semantics of the term “son IN LAW” cannot be disputed.

          According to the text, Saul was fearful of David’s popularity with the people and the army and therefore wanted him dead. Saul’s marriage offer of the older daughter required that David agree to continue to do battle the Philistines. Saul’s marriage offer of the younger daughter required that David first bring back 100 Philistine foreskins. The king reasoned that David would eventually be killed in battle, not because of the distraction of a wife, but because the odds of surviving every battle were against him.

          See http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-21.htm for 19 translations the passage in question. Most of them are consistent with NIV.

          The claim that the NIV translation is “clearly deceptive” is implausible because the NIV editors have no plausible motive to deceive.

          1. Actually they do have a reason to deceive. The reason is to make the bible conform to their ideals instead of what is actually written in the text. Again if you translate it from an original Hebrew text then I am right. Your ascertain is the NIV translators new what the author was trying to say better than they did them self.

          2. @Chad Hunt

            To “deceive” means to try to make someone believe something that the deceiver knows is not true. You have no evidence that the NIV translators are trying to “deceive.” And besides, the entire “bible” is not a chronicle of actual events. It’s a blend of a little history with a lot of fiction. The Bible is a collection of myths.

            You keep insinuating that NIV was not translated from the original languages. Just what do you suppose it was translated from, if not the original languages?

            According http://www.biblica.com:

            Fidelity to Scripture is the first priority of the New International Version (NIV). The NIV translators bring a wealth of experience in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages of the Bible. The result? An accurate, reliable translation of God’s Word you can read and understand.

            When it comes to Bible translation, accuracy means getting as close to the original text as is possible in natural, contemporary English. It means translating with precision and clarity. Which is exactly what the NIV Bible does.

            The 15 members of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) don’t just translate the Bible. They believe the Bible. They’re united by the conviction that what they translate isn’t just any book; it’s the inspired Word of God.

            Every NIV translator affirms this confession of faith from the original CBT charter: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written.”

            Together, the NIV translators have hundreds of years’ experience studying, teaching, and translating the ancient languages of the Bible. Their advanced knowledge of biblical languages and linguistics helps them to bring as much meaning as possible from the original into English.

            In our world, speed is king. But not so for Bible translation. Accuracy means taking the time to get it right, because every word counts. The first edition of the NIV Bible took more than a decade to translate. And even though the current edition is 95% the same as it was before, the NIV translators spent six years going over every revision.

            The NIV translation process is one of rigorous checks and balances. The translation team is a self-governing body, which means no publisher or commercial entity can tell them how to translate Scripture. Committee members represent a number of denominations, helping to ensure a translation free from theological bias.

            It’s tempting to think that the more literal a translation is, the more accurate it will be. But that’s not always the case. Consider one example from Spanish: ¿Cómo se llama?

            Which is a better translation:

            Option 1: “As it is called?”
            Option 2: “What is your name?”

            Option 1 is a literal, word-for-word rendering of the original Spanish. But it’s not a very good translation, because it doesn’t make any sense in English. Option 2 is a far better translation, because it captures for you precisely what the original communicates to a Spanish speaker.

            According to the translation philosophy of the NIV, accuracy means paying careful attention to the words of the original, then finding the best possible way to capture their meaning in natural, readable English.

          3. I also wanted to mention that your theory seems to revolve around the notion that homosexuality was considered wrong in Davids day. What ever gave you that idea. If you are quoting Leviticus as your basis for sexual legality I’m happy to point out the mistranslations of those verses as well.

          4. “The claim that the NIV translation is “clearly deceptive” is implausible because the NIV editors have no plausible motive to deceive.”

            No plausible reason? We’re talking about a group of men that inserted the word homosexual into the New Testament, where it didn’t exist before…
            As for Chad’s point…scripture on face value, seems ambiguous in the NIV, however, when read in Hebrew Jonathon’s description of his love for David was the same words used by David’s wives to describe their love for David “ahabah” meaning a romantic love.
            David uses the word “ach” which means the “ahabah” was reciprocal.
            All in all, the same wording describing the love between a man and a woman, is the same wording used in defining the love between David and Jonathon.
            Clearly, the translators of the NIV saw this and made a conscious decision too ignore it.

      1. Dear Chad Hunt, if you read this: I have been a fan of yours since I was in my 20’s. One of the awesome things I first noticed in your videos was a tattoo at your forearm of the male symbols interlinked. When I was a young man coming out, this was really difficult for me. I came from a very strict catholic home, where being gay was bad. When I was in my teens my parents took me to an exorcist. I was told that the problem was being ‘uprooted’. I went through my teens years trying to expel my homosexuality. I TRIED. Made pacts with God and everything. I think however, he was busier in Bosnia than with the conflicts of a teenager. It wouldn’t be until my 20’s that I could finally admit to my homosexuality. There are so many positive gay role models lacking, and you became one of them. It’s good to know that you also exist outside just the porn and contribute intellectually. That you haven’t taken the cliched downfall as many in the industry have, is refreshing. Anyway, kudos man. In my 30’s now, it’s also a bit trippy to be able to say this to someone who took the same role as Sinead O’Connor, or Tori Amos, or Courtney Love in my youth. Also, thanks for the input here. Food for thought.

        1. HornyToro666,

          Stories like yours are exactly why I try to speak out on certain issues and I thank you so much for your kind words. I myself went through a strict catholic childhood including CCD classes, baptismal classes, and confirmation classes. I had a very anti-gay family (aside from my mother), and lived in a very anti-gay area of small town Ohio. Ive had similar experiences with, as you said, “Trying to expel the gay”, and also made promises or deals with God.

          What I found was, the more I tried not to have homosexual experiences the more I ended up having them. Every time I asked God’s for help to make me not be this way it seemed the more the real me shown through. I sometimes reflect back on this and wonder if that was God’s way of showing me it was o.k. to be who I was. ( I use the term God here loosely, that term means so many things to varying degrees. It could be Allah, Yahweh, Elohim, Buddha, Vishnu, etc.)So, he may have been busy in Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia at the time but he may have been answering you in his own way.

          It wasnt until I started reading/researching these anti-gay passages in their original Hebrew or Aramaic that I began to see how things were either misinterpreted or worse interpreted to reflect a certain point of view. Thats why I always tell people and students to not take my word for it research it yourself. To many times on these blogs etc people give a knee-jerk reaction before they are even sure what is being said. It’s the same with politics. People just listen to what either a democrat or republican says with no knowledge of an issue themselves.

          I see you have the 666 in your username … Which, can I assume, is the mark of the beast? I too went through a very anti religious stage of my life as is evidenced by the Angel getting head from a Demon tattoo on my back, and the cross just above my ass. What I’ve found is I can have my own spirituality and relationship with a Spiritual Entity which is all my own, and does not need to be based in some religion. I call it having a personal experience and walking in the light that I know. Spirituality like sexuality is fluid in nature and everyone’s experience is just that. Their own. It’s what we learn from these experiences that mold and mature us into the beings we choose to be.

          Now after saying all of this I do want you to think on one thing having read your other comment as well. You seem to be very anti-gay-4-pay. To be sure there are many who fall into that category who end up saying nasty things about gay men in general but there are also many who end up coming out as bi or even gay themselves, or may maintain there heterosexuality but are respectful to homosexuality. Consider this … I’m sure you don’t think gay actors should never be given str8 roles in the mainstream but many show hypocrisy by being furious when a str8 actor is given the role of a gay man, lesbian, or transsexual. Porn is the same way, these guys or girls are portraying porn characters and may not be who and what they are or believe just as Tobey McGuire is not really Spider-Man.

          As in the case of Gay-4-Pay porn, Some actors who are given gay roles are assholes about it later. I loved, “To Wong Fu: Thanks for everything, Julie Neumar”, and loved Wesley Snipes portrayal of Nozema Jackson but Wesley Snipes ruined it for me with a lot of his homophobic rhetoric. However, if we consider “Brokeback Mountain”, Heath Ledger was nothing but respectful of his character Ennis Del Mar and a friend to the gay community.

          So what we have to reflect on is this … If we as the gay community say Str8 actors should not be given roles that fall within the LGBTQ community then gay actors must also then never be given Str8 roles and I’m sorry, Neil Patrick Harris was awesome as Barney Stinson (a very str8 womanizer)in, “How I met your mother.”

          The problem with the Ex-Gay movement is that they are denying Who they Are … U can’t choose to be Gay, Bi, or hetero you just are that from birth. Now, you can choose to ACT on who and what you are or you can choose to NOT ACT on it but that doesn’t change the fact of what you are inside. The problem with denying who and what we are is what it leads to: resentment, regret, infidelity, being on the DL, serious mental issues such as self-hatred, acting in a self destructive manner, misogyny, suicide, and even rape.

          Let’s take the opposite of the ex-gay movement and look at people who are forced into being gay such as people in prison, children forced into sexual acts, sometimes hookers, and drug addicts, etc. They generally experience the same type of issues that I mentioned ex-gay’s have … resentment, etc.

          Food for thought …

  11. Kirk Cameron is just another has been who never was trying to dictate morality. The sad part is the million FB followers who are duped into believing everything that spews from his hellish mouth. Someone needs to tie a knot in his ass!!

  12. Let me give a rebuttle to that …

    From the KJV version of the Holy Bible:

    I Samuel 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 
    18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.
    18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
    18:21 … Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in lawn the one of the twain.

    (First Jonathan and David are wed then David marries Saul’s daughter Michal. He is Saul’s son in law twice.)

    At the news of Jonathan’s death:

    II Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

    (David loved Jonathan more than he did women.)

    1. A rebuttal to your “rebuttle”:

      I’m not a Bible thumper, but it seemed to me that you’d taken these quotes out of context and misinterpreted them, so I checked the New International Version (NIV).

      (The modern NIV translation is surely a more accurate than the one published in the early 17th century under the authority of King James. The NIV version is also in today’s modern English, rather than the early modern English of Shakespeare’s time. And one would hope that Bible scholarship has made some progress in the last 400 years.)

      1 After David had finished talking with [King] Saul, Jonathan [the eldest son of the king] became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
      2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family.
      3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.
      4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.
      5 Whatever mission Saul sent him on, David was so successful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the troops, and Saul’s officers as well.
      6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with timbrels and lyres.
      7 As they danced, they sang: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”
      8 Saul was very angry; this refrain displeased him greatly. “They have credited David with tens of thousands,” he thought, “but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?”
      9 And from that time on Saul kept a close eye on David.
      10 The next day an evil [harmful] spirit from God came forcefully on Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand
      11 and he hurled it, saying to himself, “I’ll pin David to the wall.” But David eluded him twice.
      12 Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with David but had departed from Saul.
      13 So he sent David away from him and gave him command over a thousand men, and David led the troops in their campaigns.
      14 In everything he did he had great success, because the Lord was with him.
      15 When Saul saw how successful he was, he was afraid of him.
      16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he led them in their campaigns.
      17 Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the Lord.” For Saul said to himself, “I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!”
      18 But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my family or my clan in Israel, that I should become the king’s son-in-law?”
      19 So [However,] when the time came for Merab, Saul’s daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.
      20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased.
      21 “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.”
      22 Then Saul ordered his attendants: “Speak to David privately and say, ‘Look, the king likes you, and his attendants all love you; now become his son-in-law.’”
      23 They repeated these words to David. But David said, “Do you think it is a small matter to become the king’s son-in-law? I’m only a poor man and little known.”
      24 When Saul’s servants told him what David had said,
      25 Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.
      26 When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed,
      27 David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.
      28 When Saul realized that the Lord was with David and that his daughter Michal loved David,
      29 Saul became still more afraid of him, and he remained his enemy the rest of his days.
      30 The Philistine commanders continued to go out to battle, and as often as they did, David met with more success than the rest of Saul’s officers, and his name became well known.

      There’s no mention in this quaint, moralizing bible fairy tale of any wedding between Jonathan and David. No, a “covenant” is not a wedding. Nor would Jewish law have recognized a son “in law” from such a wedding, because such a wedding would not be lawful. Didn’t these primitive savages put people to death for engaging in homosexual acts? David and Jonathan were merely close friends. Or maybe they were fucking each other, too. But they were never wed. Gotta love those 200 foreskins, though.

      1. The NIV would certainly not be more accurate the further in time you are away from a language the less you understand it.
        Marriage is a Holy covenant. For this cause shall a woman leave her farther and mother and cling unto her husband. Much as David was not permitted to go home to his fathers house. Next Jonathan presents David with gifts much like today we give rings or a wedding gift or in this case a dowry. Jonathan and Davids souls are knit together much as we say today what god has joined together let no man put asunder or two becoming one. If you read the text in the Hebrew the Hebrew words used when describing the love between Jonathan and David are of a sexual nature. (sounds like a wedding to me) You failed to address in II Samuel where David specifically says his love for Jonathan surpassed the love of woman. Biblically when you wed you are to love nothing more than your spouse save God. So if David loved Jonathan more than he loved Michal than David would be in sin, However if David was married to both of them, and Jonathan being the first he wed than loving his first spouse the most would be what was expected. Now Saul surely did not like the love between Jonathan and David as we see in I Samuel 20:30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness? (Jonathan was the bottom subservient to David) verse 31: For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom … Jonathan was the son of the King so why was Saul afraid Jonathan would never be king? Answer: Since Jonathan took on the female role he would be considered as a woman and women could not rule therefore David would be King. And let’s not also forget that when Saul gave Michal to David to wife it was so Michal would be a “snare”. (cause problems between Jonathan and David)

        1. The NIV would certainly be at least as accurate as the KJV, if not more so, because of the advances in scholarship over the last 400 years. Linguists today know more about the ancient languages of the sources than did the translators of KJV. And today’s scholars have access to more sources than did the KJV translators. Furthermore, the meanings of English words and expressions have changed in the last 400 years, rendering the KJV version, with its archaic Jacobean English, obsolete. There’s no reason to doubt that the NIV translators read the sources in the original languages and rendered appropriate translations into modern English.

          Marriage may be a covenant, but a covenant need not be a marriage. A “covenant” is simply an agreement, promise, or understanding.

          The covenant that Jonathan made with David “because he loved him as himself” was a covenant of brotherhood. Such covenants are common in the Middle East and are even ratified by ceremonies or rituals.

          Nothing in the text suggests that Jonathan was a bottom. Saul feared that David (the son of Jesse) would become king because of his popularity with the people and the army.

          The “snare” does not refer to causing problems between Jonathan and David. It refers to Saul’s plan to get David killed by the Philistines by making the offer of marriage conditioned upon David’s continuing to do battle with the Philistines.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 50 MB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Scroll to Top