Pin It

20 Favorite Child TV Actors: Would You Recognize Them Today?

Photo credit: Gettyimages

Photo credit: Gettyimages

20. Erik Per Sullivan

Erik Per Sullivan’s first foray into show business was at the age of six, when he played an un-credited role in 1998’s action thriller “Armageddon,” after which he landed the part of Fuzzy in 1999’s hit “The Cider House Rules.”

He is best known for his portrayal of the adorable, big-eared child prodigy Dewey on “Malcolm in the Middle.”

Sullivan wowed audiences on that Emmy award winning show from its start in 2000 until it ended in 2006, winning a Young Star Award for best young ensemble cast in 2000 and a Young Artist Award for the same in 2003.

In 2007, he won the James Joyce Award from Trinity College in Dublin, which is given to those who exceed in their field.

During the six-year run of “Malcolm in the Middle,” Sullivan, an only child, appeared in a number of movies, including 2002’s “Unfaithful” and 2003’s “Finding Nemo,” in which he played the voice of Sheldon the Seahorse.

In 2009, three years after “Malcolm” ended, Sullivan graduated from the University of Southern California and appeared a year later in Joel Schumacher’s gritty thriller “Twelve,” alongside Emma Roberts and Chace Crawford. He’s not as adorable at 22 as he was as an impish little boy, but we’re still glad to see his grown-up face on the screen every now and then.

  • gordon_wagner

    Get sensational year-end savings! See offers, promotions, rebates and clearance prices!

    The Internet has become a late-night infomercial for pure crap.

  • andres herrera

    Lark Voorhies has Lupus, give the woman a break.

  • Marco Boyter

    Candace Cameron didn’t play the sister on “Growing Pains.”

    • The Incredible Mister E.

      nope she was D.J. on full house

    • SweetDaddyPatty

      yes she did

    • SonofLiberty

      Tracy Gold played the sister Carol Seaver on Growing Pain

    • Dale Burden

      It never said she did

      • Dan Violette

        It does where the article talks about Jeremy Miller’s girlfriends.

  • Chris

    You’re right. I did not recognize any of those people from their current photos. But then neither did I recognize any of those people from their older photos. Never watched any of those shows.

  • juliabliss

    FWIW you might want to read up on Kirk Cameron’s preaching and his biblical interpretation before calling his side the moral one in that argument. Naming what he preaches as “moral” leads to the conclusion that those of who disagree as immoral.

    Making us think is not a problem, that’s what free speech is all about. Calling out homosexuality and gay marriage as “destructive to the foundations of society” … and considering that the moral side of the argument … I’m going to call that out as prejudiced, immoral and un-American. Please note that the majority of the nation is in favor of gay marriage, which wouldn’t be the case if all Christians followed Kirk Cameron’s message.

    • Cindy

      I will defend Kirk by saying that not all people who call themselves “christian” are christian. Not all churches preach the true Word of God either. Kirk is only preaching the truth of God’s Word, and it steps on toes who want their sins to be called okay. That said, You are either on one side of the fence or the other.

      • Dale Burden

        My side of the fence does not include judging others according to a book I never actually read. Tell me Cindy with your God as your witness how many times have you read your sacred book cover to cover?

    • TheTruthBurns

      @juliabliss:disqus Wrong! With all due respect. The state of California, a very blue state, voted against gay marriage in mass. It was the same precentage polled in NY state. Then why is there gay marriage? Judges and Governors, the few elites going against the will of the majority, forcing it down everybody’s throat. Personally, I’m against gay marriage, but as a Rightest, government should not be involved in marriage at all. So that being said, a church can marry and not marry whomever they want. Just because a guy like Cameron is against something you believe in, doesn’t mean he is a bigot. I think the point people like Cameron and others make is that once society starts to redefine traditional concepts that have a certain purpose, there is no stopping the “perception” slippery slope journey. What do I mean? 3-4 people that are in love with each other and want to get married should now be allowed, because who are you julia to go against their love? They are consenting adults, the same argument you made in favor of gay ,marriage. Next that will come is age disparity and animals. Where does it end and begin? How does it affect children that struggle with enough things at a young age? I’m not bringing up these things a straw men, because I am not a bible thumper. History has proven that when societies start going down these avenues(Rome,Africa,Northern Europe), major break downs begin to occur. I know that mos tpeople are in between Cameron’s position, and yours. The lack of balance leads to capsizing every time.

      • juliabliss

        I was taught (in a private Christian school BTW) that humans that claim to speak for God were sinners. There are many interpretations of the Bible, it has been translated many, many times. Have you ever watched a film that was subtitled? The subtitles are a poor substitute for actually understanding the language spoken by the actors. Nuances go away, little details get lost.
        Also, if you have read any of the Old Testament, Kirk should not be clean-shaven or wearing any poly-cotton blended clothing. If his sister-in-law dies, Kirk’s wife is obligated to bear his brother’s child.
        Cherry-picking which verses count and which ones don’t is the very definition of blasphemy, which is a mortal sin.
        Admitting that we are human and thus fallible is the first step to enlightenment.

        • TheTruthBurns

          Exactly, and by your accord, you are cherry picking the themes of evolution. Homosexuality and science do not mix, or else we would have a dead species, along with major diseases due to the sexual impulse of the male makeup (why Aids grew drastically in the gay community). You are preaching to the choir (pun intended) when it comes to people directly quoting and trying to force their interpretations of a book written thousands of years ago. However, that does not mean fire wasn’t hot back then, just as it is today. THERE ARE REASONS, why we have traditional concepts of society. Why do we have age limits on marriage and sexual conduct? Same with incest? Beastiality? Admitting humans are flawed and we are not God is a first step of enlightenment, but not to address our flaws, or challenge our thinking is what leads to stagnant social mobility. There are “Bible Thumpers” and “Nothing Thumpers”, becareful your animosity toward one doesn’t make you the other.

          • juliabliss

            Science is about nature. It’s not about putting all of us in a perfect box and saying anything that doesn’t meet up to our requirements isn’t real. While it may seem odd to you, people are born gay just like they are born straight, or blind, or with epilepsy, or with artistic talent, or perfect pitch, etc. I had a cat that was clearly gay (at least he didn’t care for female cats and was always rubbing up on our other male cats) and it had nothing to do with cultural pressure.

            Why does gay always lead to beastiality? They are not the same thing, or even close. Two consenting adults are an extremely far cry from a child and and an adult, or a person in power over someone under his/her control.

            I know I won’t be able to change your mind but it’s really hard not to try (I’m sure you feel the same way). Frankly, there is a whole lot more in the Bible about feeding the poor and treating other people with dignity than there is about homosexuality. I’d like to see people strive to match Jesus’ acts in that regard, but that takes more work and less talk.

          • TheTruthBurns

            “Science is about nature” Dead on! So by NATURE, it is an abnormality for people or animals to be born gay. If it was the norm, follow me, there would be no cats or people. And I agree with you people and animals are born gay, so if God made them that way, how could they not go to heaven if they live a peaceful and lovely life? So let’s get that out of the way, I am total agreement with you. The problem people(predominantly the Left) runs into, is the fact that calling gay an abnormality is hateful, IT IS NOT. A lot of Christians, like myself, think abnormalities are beautiful and are what makes a person human. That is why in my previous comments I have emphasized societal mores and norms, not just religious. I think your just focusing on one over the other.

            Why does gay lead to beastiality? Because there are many people out there that use the SAME notions you use with homosexuality and love, with their perceived love with animals. Look up how many people have tried to institute marriage with their pets, it is shocking, and if it was allowed, more people would come out of the woodwork. Then we have incest, which it would be two consenting adults, but you squash it why? The sake of society? The sake of their children? But when people made that rationalization with gay marriage and open homosexuality, you got upset or called them ignorant. When it comes to underage marriages, they already happen around the world, as well as the fact that organizations like NAMBLA and numerous scholars of academia have made pushes to change the age of consent much lower. On top of the fact that consent for marriage is around 17-18 in general, yet scientists have concluded that the human brain doesn’t fully develop until 21-25, so can’t the case be made that people are already marrying, according to Science, without the total ability to consent as a fully thinking rational adult? These are the grey areas that now open up, think in terms of 50 years to 100 years from now, not just 2014(Gay marriage in 1950 would have been seen as the end of the world as an example)

            What is the point of these examples? Just like you get frustrated with people of the Bible trying to dictate society based on a book and their beliefs, that’s the same exact thing you are doing when you go after people questioning gay marriage or open homosexuality. YOU can’t say gay marriage or homosexuality should be allowed, and then not take flack on the issues previously stated, because they use the same reasonable concepts you provide. As a civil society, the conversation we are having is what is necessary, without name calling, in order to make a malleable civilization in which people of different beliefs can thrive, but also sustain the society to begin with. I believe Jesus is a great start, like you pointed out, but as Jesus recapitulated, first change must come from self reflection. So I hope you you can see where many people of both faith and science are coming from.

          • juliabliss

            I’m going to come out and say I really like having a back-and-forth on this issue.
            I have a lot of abnormalities, being gay isn’t one of them thank goodness. I say that not because I would hate being gay but there is an awful lot of crap to be put up as opposed the fact that I wear glasses or have some severe health problems.
            An animal cannot give consent to be in a relationship. A child cannot give consent to be in a relationship. This is why every state in the US has named an age of consent … some younger than others. Most states it’s 16, some 17 or 18.
            NAMBLA has tried to be allowed in gay pride parades for years and not one city has allowed them to participate. Why? Because being gay and being a pedophile are not related. In fact, most pedophiles don’t really care what gender the kid is, because what they are attracted to is children. Not little boys or little girls but children.
            Marriage isn’t just about having sex, it’s about creating a life together. That life may or may not include children, just like straight couples. My husband and I don’t have children, does that mean our marriage doesn’t “count”? My mother married my stepfather in her 40s and they didn’t have kids together, does that mean their marriage “counted” less than that between her and my natural father?
            Being allowed to visit your partner in a hospital shouldn’t be conditional on sexual preference. These are the sort of issues that giving gay people the freedom to marry would allow. There are all sorts of things that are legal and yet not moral. The United States was founded on the idea of keeping the church out of the state’s business … if you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t marry a gay person.

          • TheTruthBurns

            I pretty much agree with at least half, if not more of your post. And I also like the back and forth. The devil is always in the details lol. First off, I agree with you on the animals, the problem is that the concept of 2 consenting people comes from “conservative” US mentality. Recently in China, and other countries, people have married in medical comas, which blows open the doors of 2, or more, party consent. Why is this a factor? Because many supporters of gay marriage pointed to other countries and statistics in order to make the case here. “You don’t believe in Gay marriage, look at Europe, ect…. America is ass backwards!” PLEASE do not neglect the amount of influence this has, and will have. Once again, 100 years from now if people are allowed to marry their pets(as it’s already being pushed), you now become the bigot.

            Next is age relations. This is where I believe you are a little misguided, with all due respect. A child CAN consent on a relationship. Children are used everyday to determine whether they would rather live (relationship) with their mother or father in civil court procedures, and this is a MAJOR determent on where the child spends their adolescence. Ergo, a child can make a significant decision on kin, but not sexual relationships? This, and other examples, has rationally opened the door on this rough issue. So the question becomes, what age can a person rationally decide whom they want to have relations with? In other countries, once again, the age is much younger. In the US, consent was low teens up until the 20th century. This is exactly why i brought up the development of the human brain as well, age of consent fro 16-18 was based on decades old data that now has changed. These citations blast holes into the ship of age consent, and gay marriage is the spear many of them use.

            You are right, marriage isn’t about sex, and in fact, I think personally that is why we have enormous problems with long term relationships in youth in America. Sex has become the Sun of the human existence, when it should only be just another satellite of making us happy. The problem we run into is government, which in my opinion is the problem 90% of the time. Government is what stops the rights of gay couples you previously mentioned. This is why marriage, a traditional/spiritual concept, should not be merged with government. We agree here I feel.

            As for the children aspect of marriage, it is not the only factor as you say, but it IS still a significant factor. I feel the the nuclear family is the backbone of civil society, which is why I am still traditional in my views. I wish people could separate their societal qualms with their government beliefs. I hope if there is one thing you can get out of this discourse, it’s not my opposition of gay marriage, but to OPEN YOUR EYES to the tactics used by the gay community and Left to allow the things we have butt heads on. Those same tactics, like the use of “Love” and outside countries’ influence, WILL be used to propagate and push other undeniable detriments on American civil society. It has been done in the past, and is happening again before our eyes. Much love and respect to you as another rational thinking Christian.

          • pepjrp

            You’re sick!

          • calboy147

            So what label would you give to the dozens of men when i was 11 through early teens who were constantly trying to get me to have sex with them? Since they were hanging around the various venues that boys frequented and not the venues the girls frequented ; i assumed they were “gay pedophiles”.

          • FUKUnUpUrs

            “Because being gay and being a pedophile are not related. In fact, most
            pedophiles don’t really care what gender the kid is, because what they
            are attracted to is children. Not little boys or little girls but

            That is a totally false statement. Homosexual pedophiles have garnered major headlines for their actions within the Catholic Church hierarchy and in other organizations. Protecting young boys is the exact reason that the Boy Scouts will not allow gay leaders. Sure some may claim that a male abusing a male child is not a homosexual unless he also has a same sex attraction to adult males. That is just nonsense. Homosexuality does not mean that you are attracted to all males. In fact it really means that you are attracted to at least one male (adult or child) while not being attracted to females. Some pedophiles are ‘equal opportunity’ pedophiles, but many are attracted solely to male children or solely to female children. Pretending that “most pedophiles” don’t care about gender is just willful ignorance.

          • wymck

            Regardless, I withdraw any support for the Boy Scouts of America because they will not expel a Scout who is openly gay. There is much room for difference of opinion, no room for teenage boys whistling junk. Hm. I never heard that expression before. But just in case, it’s my creation (c) 2014.

          • Dale Burden

            Someone has been drinking the cool aid

          • Nick

            Having some members of a population be gay is not detrimental to that population unless the number of the population is so small that every individual needs to reproduce. That is not the case. Just because you don’t understand science, nature, or evolution doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t.

          • Doe

            Homosexuality has been observed my many species of animals. In fact, it is not considered unusual at all. It is thing of nature and as such should not be banned or criticized.

          • wymck

            Ah, but human civilization is an improvement on nature. In nature, there is no such thing as “rape.” There is no such thing as “property,” “rights,” “justice,” or “murder.” As animals go, monkeys are highly developed, and it’s natural for them to fling their waste at others — but in any civilized place, it’s a crime if you do it. Accepting homosexual conduct — or any vice — is “no virtue,” and it is most certainly a crime against all mankind to stifle criticism of homosexuality.

          • Nick

            homosexuality isn’t a vice however, you’ve just been convinced that it is, for no reason whatsoever.

          • Eagle2758

            It is science that says incest is harmful to practice. Why? Because of the changes in DNA, and what it does to the organs of the body, and of course, the mental illness and abnormalities it cause in the brain. Why do you think most civil cultures have had it outlawed for centuries,eh.

          • tobyspeeks

            Get an education before you spout off your drivel. Homosexuality is widely known through out the animal kingdom and no, it will not wipe out any species as all of one species or another are not homosexual. Just like illegal drugs are not wiping out society, many people use them, but not nearly a majority. Get off your pedestal of hate ind intolerance and begin practicing what you preach from your book of fables.

          • Eagle2758

            Yeah, my dog humped his toy truck the other day.

        • John Slocum

          so EVERY prophet in the Bible is a sinner? I guess Jesus is a sinner too, because he spoke for God. your early teachings have warped your viewpoint.

          • Dale Burden

            According to the Bible all men are born into sin so yes Jesus was a sinner by definition

          • Pooua

            According to the Bible, Jesus was the only sinless person who has ever been born, a requirement for Him to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. A sinner is not capable of taking away the sin of the world.

          • pepjrp

            Thanks for the good laugh of the day!

          • prnitz

            Wow, you should maybe read a little of what the Bible says about Jesus before making such a goofy statement. Hebrews 7:26 or 5:15 for example among many others. The whole point of emphasis on the virgin birth of Jesus in the Gospel accounts is that He was conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and so did not inherit a sin nature. If this were not so, he could not be the perfect sacrifice for sin that God required. This is basic Christian theology.

          • Nick

            Except that the story of the virgin birth was added long after his death.

          • Eagle2758

            What sin did Jesus commit, oh great prophet.

          • Asmodeus1971

            Not a Christian and don’t believe in Jesus but just to smack you with a stupid stick Jesus was the only man not born into sin because he was not created through sex.

          • Richard Sandoval

            And on dying bed you cry out for Jesus to have him forgive your sin s because you are afraid to go to hell. Progressives like you make me sick

          • Asmodeus1971

            You are one deeply confused person. First, I’ve already died once when I was nine and never made any reference to Jesus. I came pretty close to dying 23 years ago when I was 20 in a car accident. I was in University of Maryland Shock Trauma for over two weeks and did not pray or plead to any deity period. I will never be afraid to go to hell because it only exist here in life on Earth when people try forcing their beliefs on others. I’m glad your narrow mind from my few comments on here can give a title to my thoughts. If calling me Progressive makes you feel better, then good for you. There is not one single negative meaning to the word.





            Word Origin



            favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
            a progressive mayor.


            making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
            a progressive community.


            characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.


            (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.


            going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.


            noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.


            of or pertaining to progressive education :
            progressive schools.



            a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, especially in political matters.


            (initial capital letter) a member of a Progressive party.


            the progressive aspect.
            a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it.

          • JohnL1313

            Just because you didn’t pray doesn’t mean God didn’t save you. God created the scientists and doctors whose skill and knowledge helped you; He created the entrepreneur who developed the equipment and software that helped you and the freedom allowed him to thrive. He created the physical universe and the electricity used by scientists, doctors and the entrepreneur…it’s all Him.

            The Progressives – and this is common factual knowledge not up for debate because they were open about this in the beginning – borrowed the political administrative concept from the German universities in the late 19th century. The Prussian Model. They said the founders were wrong and the ideas in the Declaration of Independence were outdated because man had evolved and it was now safe for governments to have more control over people. Never mind the fact that man being fallen was recognized from the beginning of time and written about by everyone from Aristotle and Plato, to Rousseu and Locke and Madison.

            Woodrow Wilson for example, said that to really understand the Declaration, one must not read the preamble/introduction – you know, the part where our rights are granted by God, not man – and he rejected the founders notion that the precepts of the Declaration and Constitution being “Newtonian” (fixed law, such as the universe) and instead called for a “Darwinian” view of government. One that changes with the times.

            The most frightening aspect of the Progressive movement is the rejection that man’s rights are inalienable and granted to us by God (creator). They believe our rights are granted to us by other men, by governments, thus, the living constitution ideal. This is enslavement.

            Further, because Progressives are for the most part Darwinists, they go hand in hand with the idea that a superior or elite man should be able to rule another, they are responsible for the horrors of the 20th century as their experiments in government were tried in Nazi Germany, the USSR, Red China, North Korea, Cambodia, and Cuba. 100’s of millions killed for the Progressive agenda.

          • calboy147

            Number one he was not just a man. And that is the reason for the virgin birth.

          • Asmodeus1971

            Jesus was not sexually conceived, so he was not born into sin because Christians according to their belief that all men are born into sin are talking about the sex a natural act that is required for conception. That is one reason Christians and bigots and idiots. They attack homosexuals for their sexual choices yet according to the bible all sex is a sin. Yet at the same time “God” tell man to live prosper and multiply; so God has ordered us to sin according to these beliefs. Christians are idiots…

          • JohnL1313

            Not true. According to the bible, only sex outside of marriage is a sin; since God created man to be with woman in order to procreate, any sex outside of this paradigm is wrong.

          • Eagle2758

            What sin did Jesus commit,eh.

          • Nick

            Not according to jesus in the earliest drafts, all that other stuff was added after is supposed life.

          • Eagle2758

            What sin did Jesus commit,eh. Inquiring minds want to know.

        • Don McLaughlin

          Christians take lessons from the old testament, but do not live by it, your thinking Judaism. So, no, Kirk’s wife would not be obligated to bare his brother’s children, or any of the other crap you claim to have knowledge of. As far as the translations of the bible, no, unless your reading something more obscure than a King James bible, your going to get an accurate account of the truth in the language of the bible. God expects us to witness for him, not speak for him. If you see someone doing wrong, you should let them know, if they don’t listen or believe, find another believer to go with you and tell them again, if they still choose not to listen, it’s in God’s hands.
          On the same token that I can’t tell you what homosexuality is all about, or what a member of any group that I’m not a part of is about, you can’t tell anyone what Christianity is all about. If you truly want to know what it’s about, then learn it, don’t pretend to already know, and try to ‘school” others on it.

        • Eagle2758

          You didn’t learn much,eh.

      • Dale Burden

        There was a time that blacks did not have rights nor could they marry whites and women could not vote and that was the “will of the people” too. Was that moral? just because something is the will of the people does not mean it is the right choice

        • pepjrp

          Apples to oranges…you can’t marry your goat, does not mean it is the right choice?

          • tobyspeeks

            In your tiny mind human rights and equality for all equates to fruit? You must be one of those regressive old white guys who’s desperately trying to keep his woman barefoot and in the kitchen while using all his might to knock the rest of us back to the stone age.

          • pepjrp

            And you are one of those progressive pervert racists, who has no morals or values and dreams of humping his neighbors doberman. Your racism against people of European ancestry is rather humorous on the other hand as the percentage of Blacks who are disgusted by your sick ways outnumbers the percentage of Whites whose stomachs are turned. Whites are the most diverse people in the world.

          • coniljw

            Women have a choice; YOU want to take away that choice to stay in the kitchen. Libs/dems are all in lock-step mind-numbed mode to destroy ALL choice. Remember: Once the gov’t runs everything – you have NO choice AND gov’t take away anything they want of yours & they WILL.

          • Nick

            you are a crazy person.

          • Eagle2758

            YOU have no clue. When are you and your poodle gonna get hitched,eh.

        • wolfman79

          The notion that race and gender are equal is flawed. There is no difference between a white human and a black human. There are immense differences between the two sexes. If you believe that except for body parts we are identical then it doesn’t matter what you marry; but if you believe that a woman can offer a child something no two men can offer (and vise versa) then you want to keep marriage male/female. Equality is the wrong word entirely – men and women aren’t the same.

        • Keep Honkin, I’m Reloading

          Why then is something only “moral” when it’s the never ending, intolerant, incessant whining “will” of the minority?

          Homos make up barely 2% of the population.

          • coniljw

            1.6% to be precise. Msmedia & dems would have you think it is over 40%. Msm & dems/libs are liars. It trickles down from the top – O’s ofc>

        • Ronald

          ~The Truth of Life in 3 Pages~
          google “TruthContest” And click on “The Present”._+_+_+_+_+_+_

      • Hal Barbour

        First of all the rights of the citizens of this Country, their human rights are not set by popular vote. Secondly, Kirk Cameron certainly has a right to voice his opinion, and be a bigot because his religion says so, but he and his ilk do not have the right to set law in this secular Nation. Biblical verse concerning marriage is polygamist, example Solomon’s wives, do you support that kind of marriage? Any position that denies the rights of a certain portion of the populace because of who, what and how they are, and grants this right to others is a position of bigotry, period. Nearly half of the states in the Country have allowed gay marriage, it’s just a matter of time before the rest do, or face economic and societial difficulties. Marriage is a religious event but also a secular one, and always between consenting adults, so your absurd example of animals is obtuse. Animals cannot consent, if this wasn’t already obvious to you. There is NO example of a societies homosexual citizens contributing to any downfall of that society, none. And to assert there is is simply profoundly dishonest.

        • prnitz

          I agree with you that homosexual marriage is unavoidable in our culture which has turned its back on its Judeo-Christian roots. But if you think of this as “progress”, you are badly badly mistaken. You probably are not old enough to remember America of the 1950’s, but by 95% of the criteria imaginable that would mark a healthy society, we were far better off then when norms were still determined on a moral basis that had its ultimate roots in the Bible. The fact you do not associate immorality and the decay and eventual collapse of cultures that God has raised up and blessed just shows you are ignorant of history. Try reading a little while in the major prophets section of the Old Testament and listen to the warnings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others to a nation that once honored God, but decided that pleasure, immorality, and material excess was what really deserved to be worshipped. Then consider what happened in 720 and 586 BC. This is the parallel that Christians allude to. God brought this nation into existence and has blessed it like no other since Israel in the days of David and Solomon, but we have thumbed our noses at Him and decided pleasure, money, and immorality should be our gods. Judgment is coming. Get yourself ready.

          • Hal Barbour

            When you say, culture are you referring to the overall majority of people and their religious affiliations or the founders religious affliations? If the former is what you’re talking about, yes the majority of people here, now are christian. About 74% of Americans who self-indentify as christians, down from 86% in 1990, and dropping every year. If you are talking about the men who founded the country and their religious affilations then you are wrong. Of the core men who composed and wrote the Declaration of Independence and the first 10 Amendments or the Bill of Rights of the Constitution only one, John Jay was christian, the rest were diests. Jefferson and Madison were the primary architects of the Constitution and there isn’t a single reference to any god, jesus or any religion anywhere in the document. Only a single stipulation as to the appling of a religious test for public office and that shall not be the case. I have read the bible in it’s entirety, and found it to be repeditive, self-refutting and violent. It sanctions slavery, genocide, infanticide, misogyny, rape and incest, and that’s just the OT.
            During the Civil War a group of people got together and owing to their religion, thought the war was a punishment from god because of the lack of religion or christianity in particlar in the Constitution, sought to amend the Constitution to include christian statements. This group was called the National Reform Association and was founded in Feb.1863. They tried again in 1874, 1896, and 1910. All failed. “It is striking and solemn fact that our present National Constitution is so devoid of any distinctive christian feature, that one of our chief Magistrates (Jefferson) once refused to appoint a day of fasting and prayer in an hour of public calamity, because the Nation and it’s Constitution recognized NO god; and another (John Adams) in contracting a treaty(Treaty of Tripoli, 1798)with a Mohammedan power, hesitated not to declare that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the christian religion” it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws and religious of the muslims” This is the proceeding statement of the National Reform Association in Feb. of 1863. So your assertion of a Judeo-Christian origin is wrong, and consequentially your view of the history from that point to now.
            Your more than subtle bent for the sadistic gratification of your fantasy of judgement betrays you to a less than standard of morality than you seem to want to project. The utter lack of compassion and empathy this statement employs is for all who read this to see. If this is your moral standard then just about any non-believer has more compassion and empathy for his fellow citizen and human beings than any hundred of any believers, including you.

          • prnitz

            interesting diatribe but if you think the overwhelming majority of the founders of this country weren’t influenced heavily by Judeo Christian biblical ideals you are absolutely ignorant of history. But why not turn your mind in a different direction explain to me exactly how many relief organizations, charitable organizations–you know organizations born out of compassion– have been founded by atheists? Was the civil rights movement initiated by Christians or atheists? Was the antislavery movement driven by Christians or atheists? do I need to go on? Haha

          • Hal Barbour

            I can see why you would divert the conversation away from this topic of the religious convictions of the founders. I gave concrete references that anyone reading this conversation can access and make up their own mind. You, platitudes and posturing and a specious statement seemingly designed to reaffirm your flimsey belief while calling into question my grasp of history, when it is you who’s grasp is tenuous
            Charitable organizations with a secular origin are everywhere and are regularly on sites where disasters strike.They compose organizations from nineteen countries and run the gambit from legal services to relief, these organizations are easily found, again by just a click.
            The civil rights movement was a focus of certain faith based communties true, but to say that it was exclusively from that position is untrue. Langston Hughes was in the forefront of the civil rights movement and was an atheists. Also WEB Dubois was a black atheists and a holder of a PHD from Harvard and one of the most revered black intellectuals of the 20th century. Others include A. Phillip Randolph, Zora Neal Hurston. The slavery movement was supported by white southern christian slaveholders, and their rationale? the bible. Abraham possessed slaves, the old testament is full of rules and standards for not only hebrew slaves but the slaves from other tribes. Jesus never spoke a single word against it. Paul returned a slave, Philemon to his master. It was argued by christians that slavery raised up the black man to embrace civilization. So any religious reasoning against slavery is well to late by the 1850’s and should have come much earlier if not just because of the weight of morality bearing down upon it. Do I need to go on?

          • calboy147

            Because slavery was not the problem. The inhumanity of some slave owners toward slaves was the problem. The Bible clearly spoke of fair treatment of slaves as well as their release at Jubilee. It is made obvious that not all slaves were abused, or there would not be the rules for a slave that chooses to stay with his master.

          • Hal Barbour

            The point has to be made, is it or is it not immoral to own another human being and do with them and to them as you please? Christians often talk about moral relativism, and that the bible and god is a sourse of objective morality, is this an example of god’s objective morality? If the excuse is made that slavery was part of the world then, and standards change, well then why the big deal about gay marriage? To say that slavery was not the problem and that the inhumanity of slaveholders was, then that same feeble excuse could have been made in the mid 1800’s in the southern United States. The evil of slavery lends inself to it’s own abuses such as the inhumanity you speak. Slaves from conquered tribes in Canaan were not treated the same as the Hebrew slaves that served a term of servatude of six years, and your reference to slaves that “choose” to stay with their masters(Exodus 21;2-6) These slaves tended to be young women who were gathered up as spoils of war, and they were virgins, whereas the other women who were married were put to the sword.(Deuteronomy 21:10-14) And that if a master beats his slave and the slave dies, the master is to be punished but if the slave lingers for a few days before dying, he is property and the master will NOT be punished(Exodus 21:20-21) It was expected that escaped slaves be returned and the masters could “oppress” them(Deuteronomy 23:15-16) Additionally jesus never spoke a single word against the practice of slavery, not one, and this inhuman trade was still going on at this time. Your seperating of Old and New Testaments is wrong by the words of Jesus whereas he states that every “jot and tittle” will be fullfilled.(Matthew 5:18) so as it was then it shall be now.

          • Nick

            Slavery is inherently inhumane. Owning another human being is an abomination, that the bible clearly supports it, is just one reason the bible is terrible place to look for moral authority.

          • Nick

            Really, the 1950’s, that’s yuor supposed halcyon days? The 1950’s sucked. America is in every metric superior to the 1950’s, literacy is higher, teen pregnancy is lower, abortion rates are lower, violence is down, life span is up, infant mortality is down, there’s no polio. and oh yeah, we’re not lynching black people for marrying white people. That you think the 1950’s were a better time is madness.

          • Pooua

            The American middle class is poorer after adjusting for inflation…

            Several of your other claimed advances can’t be substantiated with certainty, as no one has definitive numbers to back up such claims. Whites might not be lynching Blacks in the US these days, but Blacks are murdering Blacks in staggeringly high numbers. More Blacks are murdered by other Blacks in a single year than all the Blacks who were ever lynched by Whites.

        • calboy147

          You need to keep reading and get past all the sexual titillation you seem to have got hung up on. There is a whole other testament that is primarily the teachings of Jesus Christ.

          • Hal Barbour

            Your attempt to cast a sexual perversion my way was lame, just as your reasoning pertaining to this subject is. You have, in my opinion traded your sense of compassion and morality for the barbarity of a Iron age book and it’s equally barbaric narrative. It is percisely this kind of thinking and belief that contributed to events and acts of horror like the inquisition and the crusades, both of which are offspring of your religion and your bible. Perhaps you should read your own book and the verse Matthew 5:18 and the words of jesus and see that ALL of the bible is to be observed, for the believer and not the cherry picking so prevelent among your flock.

      • Spencer Brown

        A lot of people have liberalized their viewpoints on gay marriage in the past few years. Polls today show majority support for gay marriage in CA.

      • Ken Scaletta

        “History has proven that when societies start going down these
        avenues(Rome,Africa,Northern Europe), major break downs begin to occur.”

        This is completely made up out your ass.

      • coniljw

        Liberal activist judges are over ruling the voice of the people. Why do you think Obama/dems are out to replace judges in our entire nation w/liberal/activist ones. To further their agenda. Folks please wake up; you have been duped yet again only to be thrown under the bus all for a vote. You WILL become powerless against the dem pol machine that destroys EVERYthing it touches. Dems/libs touch everything. They are liars & hypocrites. VOTE out EVERY democrat!

      • Anthony Benson

        Great post, it deserves +10

      • Biff Stokely

        traditional concepts have been wrong throughout history and change all the time it takes some doing because idiots adhere to those traditions because…well they’re traditions and if you change them it leads to the down fall of the society apparently or some other dumb assery that’s always blathered about tradition…also the vote in california was pretty close and if you look at the maps of where it passed and where it didn’t you can see that mostly rural and smaller towns fell for the “Oh my god we’re all going to die if tom marries fred!” hammering leading up to the vote.

    • Jeffrey Coley

      OK, so you disagree with his religion. Doesn’t that make you a bigot?

      • juliabliss

        Nope. It means we have a difference of opinion. He tells me I’m going to hell, I tell him I disagree. Free speech at its finest. I didn’t call him anything, I said his opinions are not what I (or the majority of the country) believes.

        This is just a time-killer, look at these kids and how they grew up. Honestly I doubt the writer even read anything Kirk Cameron said, just knows that he’s done the talk show circuit as a conservative Christian.

    • Francis Vetter

      how many states voted against gay marriage vs those who voted for it? only because of activist liberal judges are states allowing gay marriage, it is against the will of the people.

      • juliabliss

        That was the case only 50 years ago with regard to inter-racial marriages in most states. The Supreme Court then decided a case that said hey, you all are bigots but it’s gotta change. We allowed it to happen with previous decisions but times change, society has grown up a bit since then and our Constitution demands that all people be treated equally.

        • pepjrp

          And you’re a perv, so we are even.

      • Dale Burden

        What people are you talking about. Pretty much everyone I know except the die hard judges of men are good with it.

      • It’s not as simple as you put it. Twenty or even ten years ago, the will of the people would have over-ruled judges by amending the U.S. constitution to ban gay marriage. There is zero chance of that now because most people don’t care if gays marry. Even people who poll against gay marriage don’t feel that strongly about it — they care more about immigration, guns, and taxes. That is why judges can now safely enforce the Equal Protection clause.

        A rapidly dwindling minority of hysterical anti-gays are being abandoned by the majority of Americans, including conservatives, and especially in the Millenial generation. But we understand, for some it is a big change. We will try to help them adapt and rejoin the new America — just like Reconstruction.

        Secondly, the “liberal activist judge” myth is baloney. FACT: Most of the judges who voted for Roe v. Wade were Republican appointees, including the conservative/strict constructionist Chief Justice Warren Burger. FACT: Judge Shelby, who struck down the Utah ban on gay marriage, was approved for the federal bench by arch-conservative Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee.

    • BigR2

      Why in most states did gay marriage fail in voting process then?

      • Dale Burden

        Please show your proof it failed.

    • Gray Liddell

      Is gay marriage the equivalent of Civil Rights? I don’t understand,
      isn’t it partially a choice? If it is only at most .40 genetic than doesn’t that make it a choice for the other 60 per cent?

      Wikipedia says under Biology and Sexual Orientation

      “A 2010 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[9]
      found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and
      individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal
      environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer
      groups,and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment
      variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a
      weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically
      non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while
      men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all
      adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer
      studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results; Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious
      interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily
      genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the
      nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[9]

      • juliabliss

        Do you recall choosing to be straight? That day when you thought, that guy is kinda hot, but society tells me I should like girls so I’ll ignore that feeling? I doubt it.
        I’m just skimming through your post … and you might want to read that more carefully before using it to justify your point. A person doesn’t choose their pre-natal environment, for example, and shared-environment such as society’s attitudes towards non-straight people had a weak effect.

        • Gray Liddell

          “genetic effects explained .34-39 of the variance(of sexual orientation)

          • Dale Burden

            Wikipedia huh? Yeah thats a great source. Not like any idiot can just put anything on there they like. I’m still looking for this study to read it myself but it has plum evaded me. Link? Or fake?

          • Gray Liddell

            This is the one they reference in the article.

            Långström N, Rahman Q, Carlström E, Lichtenstein P (February 2010). “Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden”. Arch Sex Behav 39 (1): 75–80. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1. PMID 18536986.

    • mohammed epstein

      Funny, but your notion of “majority” must be a little skewed.

    • John Slocum

      I’m not in favor of gay marriage, but only the two people getting married should have a say in it. Everyone else should butt out.. no pun intended

    • Pooua

      ” I’m going to call that out as prejudiced, immoral and un-American.” On what basis? What is your standard? Some vague notion of “equality”? The only way that people are equal is when being judged by the law.

      You either have an objective moral standard or you don’t. If you don’t, then you cannot say with certainty what is moral, as that would change constantly. The theory behind Western law is that an objective legal standard exists, deriving its justification from an objective moral standard. Immoral laws are not considered just, and arbitrary laws are not considered moral.

      The Bible repeatedly condemns homosexuality throughout the Old and New Testaments. Virtually all societies, up to modern times, have at least marginalized homosexuality as a defect. All societies until present base their existence on a heterosexual family model. Nothing about homosexuality makes humanity better, only exposing it to greater hazards.

      • Nick

        the bible is no better an objective moral standard than the the NFL rulebook. at least Lord of the Rings had a consistent moral standard.

        • Pooua

          So, which of those is your moral standard? Your vague and unsubstantiated claims don’t address what the Bible says about homosexuality. Furthermore, homosexuality is a public health menace far out of proportion for the number of people who actually are homosexual. The US CDC estimates that less than 4% of the general population is homosexual, but men who have sex with men account for 61% of all HIV cases in the US. Homosexuality is such a public health menace that even the UN WHO advises that all homosexual men start taking anti-HIV drugs, whether or not they have been diagnosed with the disease. That’s acknowledgment that homosexual behavior is itself a primary risk factor for HIV. Nor is the risk limited to HIV; homosexuals are at disproportionately increased risk of contracting hepatitis A, B and C, and drug-resistant gonorrhea, syphilis and TB. Homosexuality is a sick and depraved behavior that puts the general public at risk of several deadly diseases.

    • prnitz

      Christians aren’t supposed to follow Kirk Cameron. By definition we are supposed to be followers of Jesus Christ. It was Jesus Christ who claimed to be the Truth and have come here to explain to us the Truth. And it was Jesus Christ who said the Word (Bible) was the Truth and that the Holy Spirit would lead his Apostles into all Truth. The Bible and the Apostles are the ones who define homosexuality as aberrant. Your beef is with Jesus Christ and his claims, not Kirk Cameron. And btw, what is moral is not determined by 51% of Americans in the decadent 21st century. Its eternally determined by the God who created us and placed us on this planet.

    • “Please note that the majority of the nation is in favor of gay marriage”

      Please note that the majority of the nation is not in favor of “gay” marriage. In fact, whenever the vote was put to the American people, they unanimously voted against it, from NY to CA, where it was voted down twice.

      You have no more idea of whether or not homosexual marriage is “destructive to the foundations of society” than Cameron does. History, however, is on his side.

      Clearly, you’re not in a position to criticize anyone regarding free speech, what is or isn’t “un-American,” or what is or isn’t the “moral side” of an argument, since you’ve just proven yourself to know little about any of those things.

      • Nick

        You’re confusing the small number of people, primarily elderly, who actually vote with the majority of americans. That elderly people are bigoted and don’t want equal rights for all Americans is a problem, I agree.

    • 4BlueStars

      “Naming [sic] what he preaches as “moral” leads to the conclusion that those of who disagree as [sic] immoral.”

      Kind of like what Liberals and Democrats do on a daily basis. You can’t simply disagree on the best way to achieve the common good. No, conservatives and Republicans are “racist, bigot homophobes who want to starve children and poison the air and water.”

    • Chuck Monroe

      I’m an American and I think homosexuality is immoral. Actually it’s a mental deficiency manifested in sexual perversion and yes quite immoral.

      • Nick

        Then you’re wrong. That you have no idea what you’re talking about is obvious. But as an american you have the right to express your wrongness, even vote for your wrong, wrong, wrong, idiotic, wrong beliefs.

    • Jack

      Gay marriage, abortion, and promiscuity led to every depravity known to man according to the ancient authors of Rome.

    • bigjet

      Hey take it up with the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Cameron is just the messenger.

      • Nick

        I thought jesus was supposed to be the messenger.

    • coniljw

      New research findings: 1.6% of the population is homosexual. .07% is trans. So WHY would you think it was much higher? Because liberalism/dems rule the media. They are radical/extremists who want to convert us all into lock-stepping, mind-numbed liberals. But I will NOT be brainwashed nor propagandized to. I stand with Christian teaching that marriage was created by GOD for one man/one woman. I stand with tradition family unit.
      Those who think destroying those two institutions is a good thing should look to the Black communities where Fatherlessness & GODlessness has led to the breakdown of that race of people. It is horrific destruction of lives. Blacks have voted dem/lib for over 50 years & by doing so have voted for their OWN demise. theres no place like utopia. c o m to see the truth
      run away slave movie .c om to see the plantation
      Numbers USA . co m to fight amnesty.

    • Richard Sandoval

      It is immoral, you must be one of the progressive that assume anything goes in this country. Well it doesn’t, LBGT will destroy the morality for the 90 percenters who are not a lesbian, bi, gay or tranny. Who in their right mind would be one of these. Go figure this, the majority of all the LBGT are democrats, liberals, communist, progressives, what ever you want to call them. Am I a Christian yes, am I a consesrvative yes, Do I beleive in big government no, So call me what you want, they are only words, And you are wrong that the majority of americans beleive or are in favor of gay marriage, another downfall, To bring up a family one must have a mother and a father, not two mothers, or two fathers.t a grip and get real, look into your crystal ball and see what the future has for you and you kids if you have any.

      • Nick

        Not immoral. you’re just a hateful bigot. But it’s ok, this is america, where you have every right to be a hateful bigot.

    • Lujan

      I don’t know what Kirk has to say about his beliefs, but if hes trying to live by bible principles he’d probably consider promiscuis behavior of any kind destructive to the foundations of society. In addition to behavior specifically mentioned in the bible such as men who lie w/ men.
      Matthew 7:21-23 is where Jesus says that at the end of days many claiming to have done christian acts would actually be found to be not approved by him. Deductive reasoning at the very least suggests that the morality of the majority should not be based on conventional wisdom, if even many so called christians would be rejected by Jesus. That would include those who “actively” try to fix a world God intends to destroy. But christians were not to force it on others, but they were to give people of all sorts the opportunity to know the truth of things. The bibles message is that God’s Kingdom is the only hope for all of mankind, including those who thru ignorance, circumstance, or just never knew God & his promise of a new world. That in addition to a few who would serve in heaven with Christ, but that the rest resurrected would have the prospect to live, according to God’s original purpose, on a restored paradise earth.The bible references for any of this, I’d be happy to provide.

    • Eagle2758

      When are you gonna marry your goat,eh, or perhaps your German Shephard,eh. I don’t care what you do in your frikkin bedroom, but don’t try to force it on me, or you will see how unchristian I can become,eh.

  • I didn’t recognize any of the child actors

  • old_salty_dawg99

    Both of them are highly recognizable.

  • old_salty_dawg99

    There is no not knowing the beauty that is Candice or her brother.

  • Not Falling For It

    Kirk Cameron’s so-called “Christian” viewpoints are so far from the truth, it’s as if he’s made up his own religion.

  • KC Trapp Scott

    That is NOT Ben Savage

  • Sand_Cat

    The “Left Behind” franchise is “goody-two-shoes”?
    to be fair, I haven’t seen the movies/shows, so maybe they’re unlike the books, which appear to be largely self-righteous violence porn.

  • justavenger

    Great movies, watched an awful lot of them, family friendly, wholesome entertainment

  • Ken Shreve

    You people over are over thinking. It is simple. It is wrong. God said so in His Word and it even goes against nature itself. Period. Nuf said!

    • Dale Burden

      Homosexuality was mentioned once. The sin of divorce is mentioned multiple time but Jesus himself who never once mentioned gays. Why do you Christians leave that out?

      • Ken Shreve

        4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

        5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

        6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matt.19:4-6.

        Dale it looks as though YOU have not read the Bible therefore YOU have no say. Please if you are going to respond with what Jesus said, have some proof to back it up. And again I say… IT IS SIN AND GOD AND JESUS SAID SO! NUFF SAID AGAIN!
        Yes I am a Christian.

        • pepjrp

          That sad sound you hear in the background is Dale crashing and burning.

        • steve

          its a sin

        • Jennifer Strang

          4 – says nothing about homosexuality, just the words male and female. Let me explain, a male is attracted to and has sexual intercourse (gasp) with another male in homosexuality. There is nothing here speaking against that. It is only saying there are two genders (though I have to see, many Native American religions, ones that actually aren’t used to exploit people or the earth, have multiple genders, as in more than two)

          5 – okay — it is saying that a man and a woman are one as flesh. what’s the point? nothing against homosexuality

          6 – once again, nothing against homosexuality.

          Not sure where “Dale is crashing in the background” as proposed by pepjrp. I swear so many of you get erections from posting idiotic one-liners that make no sense.

          • Ken Shreve

            That’s why we take God’s Word for what it says, not what it doesn’t say. It says male and female because there is no other way. In Genisis chapter one verses 27 and 28:
            27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

            28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

            God created male and female to MULTIPLY. This cannot be done any other way. Two men cannot multiply, nor can two women.
            And again in verse 5, man and woman. You see there is no other way. You cannot change God’s Word. It is impossible.
            Verse 6, Not once or twice, but three times you have been told there is no other way. And yet you refuse to give in to the truth. You know it is true. It is a sin and it will be delt with according to His Word. We will all face the judgement and this is where the truth will determine your fate. Before it is too late accept Christ as your personal Saviour. He gave His life that we might have eternal Life. Read the Bible and learn the truth for yourself. Please feel free to ask more questions and I will do my best to answer them.

        • Jennifer Strang

          Romans 68 would be stronger for your case as Jesus does promote killing homosexuals and those who perform acts on homosexuals (along with braggarts, disobedient children, and gossipers). But, maybe the person who wrote down Romans 68 (and presumably others) was just an angry male who hated people.

          • Ken Shreve

            Jennifer, I’m sorry, but there is no Romans 68, at least not in my Bible. Not sure what you are refering to. As I told Dale, please make sure you have absolute proof before you attempt to refute what I have stated. I challenge you to find a King James Bible and read it for yourself. You just might learn about what is right and what is wrong.

      • steve

        you believe what you wanna believe,but when judgement day comes it will be to late to change

        • Jennifer Strang

          Nope. Pretty sure us pervs will be sodomizing your dead body and comeing in your eye socket. Do I have consent to do that? I heard yes.

      • EddieGin12

        YOU FULL of *CHIT Man, you have NO F’ing Idea WTF you are talking about you closet Q. PUKE

      • risingphoenix

        Leviticus is the ONLY place anything even RESEMBLING homosexuality is mentioned and it is given no more “importance” than eating shellfish, getting a tattoo, wearing long hair, or wearing blended fabric. FAUX “XTIANS” intentionally cherrypicked that verse in order to substantiate their disgusting bigotry and hatred. These self-righteous assmonkey zealots also then need to treat everyone who does the above mentioned “sins” with the same contempt they do the LGBT community. Remember it’s ASSHOLES like you that penned that nonsense… not some imaginary fairygodfather.

    • risingphoenix

      GOD didn’t say anything because #1… MEN made up the Bible, #2.. MEN created ‘god’ just as they did the thousands of ‘gods’ that this one was plagerized from and #3… you know JACK SHIT about nature. Homesexuality is perfectly NATURAL and is evidenced in almost every species. Do you think they “chose” to be gay ? What a bunch of dumbasses.

      • Ken Shreve

        Believe what you will, but God said it is wrong, therefore it is. It doesn’t matter what you think or say. It is a done deal. And there is no changing it. Now, what name will you call me this time?

  • Foreign Service

    juliabliss, the article did not call Kirk Cameron’s side moral or immoral. It simply said that he made people “think about stuff like our marriages, our morals and the end of the world”.

  • webbie7

    What I like about the Kirk is that he stands for what he believes in and it caused most in the field that he worked him to shun him. So, he still stayed true to what he believes in and has continued a successful career and marriage and family. Whatever he believes, that is what I like. His parents and that family are important and his new family is important. We wouldn’t have a lot of the problems in this country is more people lived their lives that way! Sometimes you have to tell your children that what they are doing is wrong (not talking about gay here). Otherwise they will justify it by saying – “everybody else does it”. Unless you tell your kids that they are not behaving correctly, or that using drugs is wrong, they may not realize that it is wrong. At least if you have told them, and they love you, they will hear it and think about it.

  • Demonicego

    Pathetic that the picture you use to lure people in for this story is of a beautiful and healthy Amanda Bynes, yet then you use a picture of the past she has overcome. Great job idiots.

  • Hal Barbour

    I can assure you nothing Kirk Cameron ever said concerning anything he believes made any person with an IQ above 60 think………

  • luapwerdna

    Hmmmmm — didn’t recognize any picture or any name in this ‘celebrity’ list.

  • squanky

    Candace Cameron was on Full House not Growing Pains. Tracey Gold was the sister on Growing Pains.

  • Serena Tyme

    Umm Candice cameran played on full house not growing pains. But She is the sister of his tv brother

  • DaniHass

    I like wholesome Christian based movies, partly because I am a Christian, and because there is no reason for cussing, killing, and sex to sell a movie. All you need is a good story and I’m sold. Mom’s Night Out was a great movie( No Kirk, but GREAT!)

  • Laura Finley Diaz

    This is why we separate church and state. I am a christian who supports same sex marriages. Not because I do not think it is a sin but because I don’t believe that all people have to believe as I do. It is the right of everyone to live as THEY believe. I am not God, I do not speak for God. My relationship with God is personal and my own. I live by my beliefs that I was taught as a child. I have 3 family members who are gay. I know these people intimately. They feel like it wasn’t a choice. That is hard for me because the Bible clearly states that to be a sin. Fortunately I AM not God so I leave that to Him to judge. It would be impossible for any government to make their laws to any one religion. Which one? That is why laws need to protect the rights of everyone.

    • EddieGin12

      There is NO SUCH thing as Separate church & state Moron. Did they teach you that in that Gum-mint Pisant school your parents sent you to. Show me where in the Constitution that it says it. YOU are Badly missing the POINT of our Constitution.
      By the by, NO one Gives a *Chit what YOU believe or not believe. That’s for you, and you closet ‘Q friends and family to worry about. I live BY our LAWS OK. Do you self a favor, Don’t quote the BIBLE again, YOU have no F’ing IDEA WTF you are talking about. YOU never READ the BIBLE, you saw a line or two somewhere, and now you quote it. PUKE BEACH.

      • PoiBall

        Although you sound very stupid, I can’t tell if you are, or are just trolling. Several treaties, supreme court decisions, founding fathers, etc. state there is separation of church and state. If there were no separation, having Catholics as president would be bad, evolution would not be taught in schools, and most “racy things” like women’s rights would not exist in this country. Furthermore, many things not in the constitution (income tax, road and highway building and maintenance, etc.) are still law. Lastly, I really hope you’re not a Christian. Not sure I’ve ever heard a sermon from any denomination stating calling someone a “PUKE BEACH” was ok.

        • EddieGin12

          U are FULL of *CHIT I don’t care WTF the supreme courts says or don’t say, like slavery was upheld by the F’ing court too. SHOW ME IN THE F’ing Constitution PUNK SHOW ME SHOW ME SHOW ME. OK. By the by I’m an Asian Female and YES a CHRISTIAN.
          Let me educate U OK. ALL the Constitution says is that the Gum-Mint will not make a FEDERAL RELIGION, YOU PUNK, HOME-mos and DUMBORATS have tried to change it to say what it doesn’t say. Some day a new FIGHT WILL happen. It’s not if, it’s when.

      • Hal Barbour

        If you are referring to the wording of the Constitution, no it does not mention the words”Separation of Church and State”…..but the men and particularly one man who wrote that Amendment (Jefferson and Madison) did address this subject later in a letter to a group of pastors in Danbury, Conn. in 1802 and this letter has been sited as the guts of the First Amendment. So much so that court cases involving the exclusionary cause have used Jefferson’s letter to decide the cases.
        There is no doubt as to the intent of this Amendment, the protecting of belief and no-belief from Government influence and the prohibiting of Government endorsing of any and all religions.

        • EddieGin12

          That’s what Gum-mint PUKE Public schools teach about that stupid letter, which means a*Hail of Beans. OUR Constitution is Very, very,very clear written for scholars & farmers. The Gum-mint Won’t make a national religion That’s it. Simple and clear. Why is that so hard to understand?

          • Hal Barbour

            Well, I could respond to this but I don’t think I will, I think it pretty much speaks fot itself.

        • calboy147

          If you really dig into the communication leading up to that amendment it becomes clear that the intent was not to keep religious belief out of government; but to keep the government out of religion.

      • risingphoenix

        EddieGin12… pull your head out of your ass and look up ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. While you’re at it look up the NO RELIGIOUS TEST CLAUSE for any political or gov’t office. BTW it was MY Great Grandfather who came up w/the concept of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and it is INDEED a part of the Constitution and the MAIN BASIS for our entire form of Gov’t.

        Oh… and don’t forget to look up the Treaty of Tripoli which CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY states that THE UNITED STATES IS IN NO WAY FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

        • EddieGin12

          YOUR FULL of CACA that’s what they TEACH in those GUM-MINT Home-moe Classes you take. You’re Brainwashed as usual have no idea how it happen. Read the Federal list papers and what the Founding fathers wanted, not want the home-moes are saying now. Go Away Troll. FOR THE LAST F’ing TIME, ALL that means is that the “STATE” shall make NO LAW to establish a Religion as the ONE everyone has to join. GET it NOW.

    • calboy147

      You cannot be a Christian and “support” same sex marriage. You may be supportive of your gay family members as i am of my daughter. But you must be clear that it is sin. And that you will pray for them because you do not want them to spend an eternity in hell. . And be there for them if they should be willing to put aside their false pride and submit their heart and lives to Christ.

  • Ace Brando

    I can’t believe how poor the grammar and punctuation are in this article. I actually had to stop reading it. Did Harry Knowles from Aint it Cool write this?

  • Brian Ormonde

    Candice Cameron did not play Miller’s sister on Growing Pains. She is Kirk Cameron’s sister, who was on Full House. Please correct that, thanks

  • Bamaman

    No Blossom?
    And, that chick from Full House still looks good.

  • Sarah

    You spelled Roseanne wrong….

  • averagejoeusername .

    where the white women at? Seriously, I have no desire to look at dudes.

  • Spencer Brown

    Lark Vorhies had a mixture of white and black features that made her sexy. And she looks more typically black now. Candace Cameron was cute and has grown up equally sexy. Her brother Kirk looks like a typical middle age guy and his religious views are pretty out there too.

    • risingphoenix

      “Out there” is putting it mildly. He’s so far removed from reality he’s slowly turning into a myth like the one he promotes.

  • Jimmy Fry

    Unfortunately, Amanda please starting sucking black sausage, and that was the end of her career.

  • watchemoket

    Really? >> This is Hollywood, Kirk, how dare you have morals and make us think! << "Morals" has nothing to do with KC – he is a zealot iintent on pushing his version of religion on anyone he can reach, and conveniently make money off the process. "Make us think" – right, make us think that he is a moron.

  • monkeychimp3000

    Candace looks great!

  • Ken Scaletta

    Kirk Cameron has never made anybody think. Thinking is anathema to Kirk Cameron. His morality is in his ass as well. Homophobia, for instance, is not a moral virtue

  • Mickey

    “How do they make money”? Perhaps they have jobs?

  • BruddahNui

    I don’t know who played who but I did think it was easy to recognize almost everyone of them as they got older.

  • Blackhorse69

    Looks Like Zachery Ty Bryan ate his two brothers.

  • BalancedBudgetsOrBust

    They all look mostly the same. I could easily recognize most of them. Dumb list.

  • Other than Amanda Bynes’ picture, which was taken during the depths of her mental illness (and is thus more of a costume than her “look”), they all look almost comically the same.

  • Daniel Gurka

    Yeah it’s hard to recognize Amanda bynes with a wig and glasses on , stupid yahoo, all the other ones were pretty recognizable

  • Graham Esender

    Google Amanda Bynes, could’ve chosen a much better Then-Now photo to complement this article. Kel, Ben Savage and a few others are still easily recognizable.

  • Robert E. Dudley

    I must be showing my age, but I have never heard of any of them!

  • Joe

    I think she ate her

  • keys1234

    Marco is correct….and Kirk is a great guy.

    • risingphoenix

      Kirk is a self-righteous, deluded DOUCHE.

  • Zman25

    I wouldn’t recognize them today because every person listed was on a horrible show that I never watched back then. Awful article!

  • Keep Honkin, I’m Reloading



  • Douglas Meyer

    20 Favorite Child TV Actors: Would You Recognize Them Today?

    Would I care ?

  • Douglas Meyer

    Btw, the ads on this site SUCK.

  • Trollio

    So far I would recognize almost all of them.

  • ra44mr2

    I miss Beakmans World. That was an awesome show.

  • TimeRanger

    Ok, I am familiar with 4 of them, the rest – I’ve never heard of