Kirk said to stone gays to death
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
The claim that Kirk said to stone gays to death is largely disputed by multiple sources [1] [2] [3] [4], which state that Charlie Kirk did not directly advocate for stoning gay people to death. Instead, some sources suggest that Kirk was quoting the Bible to demonstrate how others selectively choose quotations [5] [2]. However, one source supports the idea that Charlie Kirk made comments that could be perceived as advocating for violence against the LGBTQ+ community, including referencing stoning gay people to death as 'God's perfect law' in a 2024 podcast episode [6]. The majority of the sources do not support the claim that Kirk said to stone gays to death, with many rating the claim as false [2].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
Key omitted facts include the context of Charlie Kirk's statements, which are often polarizing and criticized by the LGBTQ+ community [1] [3] [4]. Alternative viewpoints suggest that Kirk's comments were taken out of context or misinterpreted [5] [2], while others argue that his comments were harmful and discriminatory [4] [6]. It is also important to consider the source of the claim, as one source mentions that Stephen King claimed Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays, but King later apologized for the statement [5]. The dates of the statements are also relevant, as one source mentions a 2024 podcast episode [6], while others do not provide specific dates [1] [2] [3] [4].
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original statement may be misleading or false, as the majority of the sources do not support the claim that Kirk said to stone gays to death [1] [2] [3] [4]. The statement may benefit those who oppose Charlie Kirk's views, as it portrays him in a negative light [4] [6]. However, it is also possible that the statement is taken out of context or misinterpreted, which could benefit those who support Charlie Kirk's views [5] [2]. Ultimately, the original statement lacks context and clarity, which can lead to misinformation and bias [1] [2] [3] [4] [6].