ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on March 3, 2012

Morgan deserved it.

Piers Morgan of CNN had himself in trouble the other night, when he interviewed Kirk Cameron, the famous "Growing Pains" actor, in a tense and lengthy interview.

He might have thought that he had caught Cameron unawares of his religious beliefs and moral standards; but instead, he got himself an earful of advice he would never get anywhere else. (I prefer writing in the past tense).

The younger man, Cameron, was teaching the older person, Morgan Piers, so many lessons in life; and however, one would think that Morgan was a crafty professional in his trade, he was completely out performed by Cameron.

Morgan had portrayed himself as a homosexual (which he should not have), and asked Cameron whether that was a "sin". Cameron said that it was "unnatural", meaning that he had answered the question indirectly; but straight to the point.

Then Morgan came out saying, "If I was, so what?" (paraphrasing).

"You would be setting your own moral standards, and another person would have another set of standards; and that would be chaotic and rule out society as we all knew it," (paraphrasing, of course).

Before then, Morgan has been told how God had created a relationship and defined it as one between a man and a woman, which was "marriage". Therefore to redefine it by anyone else would be "detrimental".

Then Morgan said that seven states in the United States have "legalized homosexual marriage", and what did he (Cameron) think of that? Cameron said, it was not a premise on which society could be formed. Marriage was the only relationship that has a purpose, and that was for the use to create a family.

Cameron then said that, as a Christian, the states could do whatever they wanted; that did not change or alter the moral standards he knew to be right.

Besides, he (Morgan) should take a look at society without moral laws in addition to those itself (society) has set up or formulated. There would only be chaos, as civil laws alone would never be enough to keep its (society's) members under control.

The essential part was that if homosexuality was the plan for man, then there would be no births, and humanity would die out. Though, there would be animals, with only their natural and mental preoccupation to occupy the earth, and no humans.

In other words, you and I would not be here.

Cameron has taught the limey some good, mature and serious lessons, about how and why man was created, which he would and should never forget.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      owurakwasip 5 years ago

      Whatever or whoever (God, nature, etc.) created the human body did it with chemicals crisscrossing each other in such a method that the human body has to go out of its way to mess up that system.

      Like parents taking drugs of some sorts, medically or otherwise (illegal drugs included) would produce a baby, but something must have gone wrong with the health of that baby. The baby grows up without the correct system, but somehow it (baby or person) is accepted as "normal".

      In the adulthood stage (adolescence), the person discovers that his or her mannerisms, features (including the mind or psyche and/or other organs) do not resemble, line up or follow a general pattern.

      It is not nature that is responsible. Its (nature's) basic organism is always the same or systematically correct.

      Therefore, the fault lies with the people or couple bringing the baby, now an adult, to birth.

      One can only blame oneself for being in that situation, under any circumstance; although, one may not know the cause of the change or the alteration in one.

      So, never accept the statement that everything is normal. In other words, an abnormality can occur, but it does so never through nature's basic system. That abnormality emphatically happens outside of it (basic system).

      This might not have anything to do with Kirk Cameron's beliefs; it did have a whole lot to say about "Whatever or whoever".

    • Julie Mossad profile image

      Julie Mossad 5 years ago from Chesapeake, Virginia

      Piers Morgan actually defended Kirk Cameron in an interview with TMZ...that being said, whether I or whomever agrees with Mr. Cameron's views, he is 100% entitled to them and should definitely not be attacked. I like Bruce's comment...we are not animals, and to say that something that is natural in the animal kingdom is also natural for humans, we would find ourselves marking our territory not by buying land, but by peeing on trees.

    • profile image

      owurakwasip 5 years ago

      There is no comparison here. Name just one of the natural species in the animal kingdom that practices "homosexuality", apart from human beings?

      Besides, there was a man, who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life...." and he must be the one that Cameron followed; and not some mumbo-jumbo religious cult concocted by someone else many years ago, like Islam or Hinduism.

      Put two male dogs in a pound, and they would never have sex; or two gold fish of the same gender in a bowl and they would die after a while. However, different genders of the same gold fish would produce offspring.

      Cameron's thoughts made more sense in the interview with Piers Morgan than anyone could imagine.

    • Bruce A. Beaudet profile image

      Bruce A. Beaudet 5 years ago from Canada

      Animals eating their young is also quite natural in the animal kingdom. ;)

    • profile image

      Mtbailz 5 years ago

      There are too many problems with Cameron's logic to spell out here in a comment box, but I'll start with two. First of all, homosexulatiy is quite natural in the animal kingdom. All sorts of mammals participate in homosexual acts. Secondly, Cameron puts himself in a pickle when he claims there is one true moral code. How does he knows his is right? Could it not be the case Islam or Hindiusm is right? If so then Cameron is a piece of the chaotic strand of thought he preaches against?