My 83 year old mother informed me of the debate between Sims and Hutcherson. I will tape it because I will be gone on Sunday. Maybe she saw an announcement for it on the news.

I am writing as a physician because of the issue of "DNA" and "genetic predisposition" that apparently came up. Just because someone is well-known or something is repeated many times does not mean it is true.
Quite a few years ago a researcher in the San Francisco area claimed he found a tissue marker for homosexuality and it made the news. His research was debunked and he had to retract his claim, but that hardly made the news and ever since then the rumor of a physical and immutable cause of homosexuality has continued.

Confirming a physical identifier requires one of a variety of methods. Following are the questions to ask:
1. Is there a tissue characteristic identified microscopically, even on autopsy?
2. Is there a biochemical, say protein or neurotransmitter, which is different in type or quantity in tissue or blood or cerebrospinal fluid? Is it a cause or a result of the practice of homosexuality?
3. Are there identifiable DNA regions on one or more chromosomes which alone or in combination can be used to identify individuals who practice homosexuality? (Cystic fibrosis is caused by a defect in a specific gene, but the actual error in the DNA code is highly variable.)
4. Is there any combination of DNA and biochemical findings that identifies such individuals?
5. Are there any imaging studies (Xray, MRI, etc.) which find features unique in that population? (MRI identifies patients with multiple sclerosis when previously the diagnosis was difficult and required a spinal tap.)
6. Some traits or diseases have had a genetic cause theorized long before it has been confirmed by a laboratory test. This is usually based on identifying a pattern of inheritance, such as dominant or recessive. Allowance is made for variable expression of traits (reduced penetrance of the gene). Has any scientifically sound model for inheritance been developed?

The answer to the above questions is "NO." A good investigative reporter would pursue these questions by contacting UW genetics, for example. There may be some in genetics who desperately want the answer to the question of genetic predisposition to be yes, but I have not heard of any solid scientific evidence supporting that view. I am sure that those of us who believe homosexual practice to be behavioral would hear no end of it if the "proof" showed us to be wrong.

Ken Hutcherson and Ron Sims are not scientists and it would be a disservice to viewers to allow mis-statements of theirs to stand. From what I gathered, Ken Hutcherson is right--I have never heard of someone changing the color of their skin, but there are even organized groups of people who previously practiced homosexuality but no longer do so.
Feel free to forward this to Rev. Hutcherson and Executive Sims and whoever else you feel is appropriate.

Thank you.
Susan Rutherford, M.D.
Board Certified, Obstetrics and Gynecology
Board Certified, Maternal-Fetal Medicine
(The latter means I am involved in prenatal genetics.)

at first i wanted to look at both sides of this the same, but seeing how mr.hutcherson took this debate makes me fully side ith mr.sims.

Put these issues before the voters YOU("gay rights") will lose.

Their debate did not change my mind at all. If anything, it was pointless. Wasn't it only 60 years ago that black people had very little rights? People are people are people; we're all equal.

If your against gays ,you are are biggots! maybe we should starts hanging blacks and jews like the bible tells us to.

Its so hard to tell the truth in a society that thinks if it feels good do it; that there is no right and wrong. I applaud Pastor Hutcherson for trying and I will pray for him that he continues to stand up for what God has put in writing, a blueprint for a life that will work if we do what he says.

I found it interesting that one man kept wrapping himself inside the protection of the Bible. The two men are discussing civil rights and whether it extends to gay people. They are not discussing the existence of God. And they are not discussing the role of religion in government.
When it comes down to it, both have asserted that they can prove discrimination through personal involvement. One man wishes to include all minorities in being protected from this kind of hurt, the other clings to the notion that gay people are gay by choice. He cannot prove this any more than he can prove the existence of God. But he can prove the existence of discrimination. So, why is he bringing God into it? Why did neither of these men bring up the fact that black people tend to line up with conservative Republicans on the issue of homosexuality? And why won't Ron Sims agree that God, if God exists, is in fact a complete bigot? If one takes the Old Testament to heart and disavows most of the New.
But why was God involved? This I find dumbfounding. If the state Supreme Court is not supreme and only God is, then we should be living in a theocracy (and the Baptist pastor claimed the first half of this sentence to be true). And Bush would be the mouthpiece of God. Of course, he'd probably need to be a Baptist.

Classic if I don't agree with your views I am a "biggot". So where your tolerance? You don't know my color via this posting. Who is the real racist?

The Greatest thing the Lord gave us is freedom of "CHOICE" He wants us to choose Him freely and Desire to live a life pleasing to Him. We know what's sinfull and we ALL sin daily. Thank goodness for GRACE and MERCY. It is for each of us to decide for ourselves what our choices will be and not have anything forced upon us to be able to do or not to do. When you are walking in the light of the Lord you do it with Love, it is up to everyone to decide what is right for themselves, the choice to walk in the light or in the darkness.

I wish Ron Sims had remembered to say that slavery and Jim Crow were both supported by Southern Baptists because of Bible scriptures- Curse of Ham...
Also, the Bible says you should kill your children if they rise up against you--why don't fundamentalists Christians support that one??

Interesting. The theofascist right rejects science unless they feel it supports their position.

I am just an amature science buff but I cannot imagine any respected scientist claiming that genetic markers for homosexuality are even likely.

That has nothing to do with the concept that gay people are not gay by way of lifestyle choice.

Do you consider Spokane Mayor West to be one of those ex-gays? Keeping it in the closet is not the same as becoming a "recovering homosexual".

I am glad you used your real name so I can make sure no one I know has to deal with you in a professional capacity. Alas, Google tells me no one I know can afford to see you anyway.

A very learned man once said if you want to know if it is a sin or that something is definately wrong with an idea or action, apply this statement to it. If you can't make it universal without serious repercussions than it's wrong.
So, lets see, if all mankind chose homosexuality, what would be the results? How long would it take for man to cease to exist? Get the point. God's plan calls for a male and a female to procreate to continue life as we know it. To change this fact would be to pervert God's plan for our own plan. We, Christians attack the behavior not the homosexual. People who hate truth will be angered because they do not want God's truth but their own truth. Those who have ears, let them hear.

A very learned man once said if you want to know if it is a sin or that something is definitely wrong with an idea or action, apply this statement to it. If you can't make it universal without serious repercussions than it's wrong.
So, lets see, if all mankind chose homosexuality, what would be the results? How long would it take for man to cease to exist? Get the point. God's plan calls for a male and a female to procreate to continue life as we know it. To change this fact would be to pervert God's plan for our own plan. We Christians attack the behavior not the homosexual. People who hate truth will be angered because they do not want God's truth but their own truth. Those who have ears, let them hear.

As the son of a lesbian couple, I obviously have my biases. I was raised a liberal christian and I refuse to worthship an all-powerful diety who chooses one group over the other. My opinion is that the bible is a code for living, the interpreted word of god and it therefore effected by the biases of its writers. Where the two debaters differ is whether homosexuality is a choice. Hutcherson brought up the many "ex-gays" he has encountered, but neither of them considered the fact that those "ex-gays" are classified in the realm of bi-sexual, and have the further will power to able to ignore the homosexual part of their being, mainly for reasons of society.
Marriage in my book is a recognized connection between two people who love each other, and this recognition applies in the eyes of the law only. The purpose of good government is not to yield to the will of the people, but to the greater good of the people. Because homosexual marriage will not effect anyone besides its participants, the government has the obligation of ensuring the equal rights and protections of the gay-minority; a minoryity which cannot choose its own lifestyle.
The civil rights movement went about changing America from the bottom up and the gay-rights movment does the same. My opinion has come out of experiences. How is it that Hutcherson can believe that homosexuals are immoral, since he has never met one he didn't renounce?

Regarding the debate between Hutcherson and Sims, it hasn't changed my mind. Ron Sims is still and idiot!

How far would Mr. Sims go in "extending" marraige? First men with men, women with women, how about several men with one women or several women with several women? Where would it all stop? Women with animals? How ridiculous. Much better to keep marraige defined by a God and nature. Between one man and one woman. That is what is good for children, good for society and best for the people involved. I believe homosexuals have as many freedoms as anyone until they bring their sexuality into the public square. They seem intent on forcing their abherrant behaviour into some sense of normalcy for their own peace of mind. Sorry folks, homosexuality is wrong ,was wrong and will always be wrong. Its creepy. Its weird. It will never be accepted as normal.

I believe gay marriage is wrong, but the Pastor's arguments weren't persuasive. Sims did a goog job, but his legal argument doesn't stand up, at least not yet. I'd like Robert Mack to respond to the comment that Ellen Degeress is married to a man and has children. Is that true? I couldn't find any evidence of that on the web. I may end up liking her.

I'm with Rev. Hutcherson..he's right..God made man and woman and the two become one and can make children..no homosexual or lesbian can procreate between the two of them. It's an abomination in the sight of God according to the scriptures..I implore Mr. Sims to read Romans chapter one..that should settle it..plus put the definition of marriage to a referendum..that would settle it once and for all..let the people decide..not the courts who are greatly flawed..

Let me start by saying I have my beliefs but other people do too. And they may not be the same as mine. I have to respect that. And as a government, it has to govern for all people. Including people who may not believe what I do. I have accepted the fact I may have to learn to live with things around me I don't agree with, but accept because others lifestyles include. Like drinking too much, Smoking, and yes Homosexuality.

The debate was very sad to see. I used to attend Antioch Bible Church. Ken is an amazing preacher. I do agree with the fact the bible is clear homosexuality is wrong. But, I don't agree with Ken's outspoken behavior. God calls us to be loving and Christ like. Jesus would never pop off, and be so disrespectful like he has. To ask people to buy stock in Microsoft and then try and sell it to hurt the company? How is that Christ like? We all know it would not hurt Microsoft so he was just trying to prove a point but that is not God spirited behavior. So what if Gay people get married. What does it matter? They are still going to live together, adopt children, have lives, regardless of if the law says they can be actually married or NOT. We as Christian's should spend our time loving them, and being Christ to them. Not running around being so outspoken about how GOD does not agree with them being GAY. The bible says for all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Ken did you lose sight of that? Why are you not going after Alcoholics and Drunk Driving laws? Bible says we should not get Drunk? All SIN is equal. This has become a lot bigger issue than it should be. I appreciate what you started trying to do, but it has gotten way too big. When Pastor Ken told Ron Simms to stop interrupting him, He was totally disrespectful condescending and rude, it should not have been said. He is a visible example of Christ to people. He interrupted Ron on just as many occasions. I'm not sure what Ken is trying to achieve here. Seems like he is just trying to tell people he is a Christian man who is after standing up to the law makers and he has forgot about the nameless Gay and Lesbian people out there he is hurting by forgetting they have feelings too. I'm disappointed. I used to look up to Ken. Now, I am just sad. I agree with his beliefs I just would never forget about people's feelings and I would care more about loving the "lost" people than fighting the law makers. After all just because homosexuals can't get married does not mean they will stop being Gay. So, say he gets the law to stop from being past, what good does it do? As a spiritual leader in the end all he did was turn a whole lot of homosexuals away from Church. Thanks Ken? How do you think that makes Jesus feel?

I think if Ken had a family member who was a homosexual he would totally behave in a different way. This is a distant issue for him. He speaks on the defensive. Ken Hutcherson does not need to stand up for Christianity; Jesus already did that on the Cross 2000 years ago when he died for the World’s Sin. God has called us to Love nothing more or less. Ken Hutcherson where is the Love? I’m not hearing you say, I have love for the homosexual community. Are they welcome at your Church? You have done a pretty good job of making them feel as unwanted as possible. How do you reconcile that as a Christian? It breaks my heart. I’m a Christian and I never wavier in my faith but I don’t exclude people, I always stand up for my beliefs but you have done things to seem judgmental. All for what purpose? If you are going to fight for something, you should be embracing the homosexual community as a Man Of God too. What are you doing? People need to see you have heart for the homosexual community? Surely you can’t be against them?

Ellen is not Married to a MAN! Ellen is GAY as can be and does not have KIDS!

It's amazing that what is right to one is foolishness to another. I choose the foolishness of Pastor Ken, because I am not an xwhite, but I am an xhomosexual. Jesus made the difference, and so did my dad who believed God when he stood up for what God says is right and called me back to my real family. Ken is calling you back to your real family and so is the God of all Creation, the God of all flesh, who designed what is natural - come on home - Jesus told the prostitute to stop her behavior in the Gospels - you can do it. Seek out churches like Ken's.

I found it interesting to see two pastors debate the issue of civil rights from two different perspectives. One perspective was weighted in Biblical laws and Godlike justifications. The other perspective was rooted in historical injustices, primarily based upon skin/ethnicity.

Mr Hutcherson,
While you may root your arguments in scripture and Biblical laws, you seem to have lost sight of who you are as a person in context of what your argument says. While you use Lavitical Laws to base your arguments from, or any other Biblical laws for that matter, either you are consciously deciding to omit other laws or, as a pastor who claims to be well educated in the very same Bible that you quote from, are ignorant to some simple facts. That for you to hold up those laws as your means of jurisprudence, also means that you must evoke ALL those laws and not just those that you wish to acknowledge. You can not pick and choose.

This is to say, Mr Hutcherson, that you endorse slavery. That you endorse multiple wives. And I may go on. That the clothes that you wear and have been seen in, are not synthetic and are not blended with wool or cotton. That you do not touch your wife when she is menstruating, or any other woman, for that matter, least you be unclean also.

And Mr Hutcherson, If this is about family or children, then what say you about the issue of legalized divorce. Unwed mothers. Single parent adoptions. You have failed to address these issues, yet it is these issues that are a hindrance to the concept of marriage, itself.

Mr Hutcherson,
You have failed to address the issues that erode the family. And you have failed to make concrete the values in which you call Biblical Laws, transparent through your own lack of fully endorsing ALL Biblical Laws. You reveal yourself as a bigoted pastor that picks and chooses his scriptural interpretations all while preaching the word of God and Jesus Christ as your basis of compassion. Please look deeply and pray hard, that God and Christ may allow you to see what truth AND compassion is and looks like.

I would suggest that you, Mr Hutcherson, reread Matthew 23.

Mr. Sims,
Thank you.

Thank The Lord for Pastor Ken Hutcherson, he is a true man of God who knows the Bible well. We thank him for standing up and representing those of us who hold the same views. A true believer loves and cares for homosexuals but does not accept their behavior. Attending Bible studies at Pastor Hutcherson's church would be a start in understanding why Christians believe the way they do.

During the debate, Pastor Hutch argued, as many on the Christian right do, that allowing gays to marry will undermine the institution of marriage (thus leading to sharply negative social effects). Northern European countries do have high rates of out-of-wedlock births, but most social scientists attribute that to the generous social welfare benefits provided by the state, which makes marriage less of an economic necessity for child-rearing. There is no evidence that the decision to offer state-sanctioned gay partnerships has had any effect on heterosexual marriage in those countries. Interestingly, the low marriage rates in some European countries is not a sign of broader social problems. In fact, by many important social indicators -- access to health care, infant mortality, lifespan, measures of personal satisfaction, rates of murder and violent crime -- those countries tend to do far better than the United States. Thus, were I inclined to misuse statistics in the same way that Pastor Hutch did, I could argue that the example of Scandinavia tells us that gay marriage will lead to fewer murders. Of course, I would be wrong in doing so, just as Hutch is wrong in trying to claim that gay marriage is the cause of low marriage rates in Northern Europe.
And to cite an example closer to home, there is one state in our country, Massachusetts, that offers full marriage rights to gays and lesbians. Massachusetts, if I recall correctly, also happens to have the lowest divorce rate of any of the 50 states. It is interesting that the places where marriage is strongest, as measured by divorce rates -- generally, the blue states -- also are the ones most receptive to gay rights. In the U.S., it is where marriage is weak, and social dislocation high, that people appear to be most fearful of allowing gays and lesbians the right to marry.

PASTOR HUTCHERSON...NO QUESTION ABOUT IT...
YOU WON THE DEBATE.

God loves all of us. Pastor Hutcherson does too. This issue is not about civil rights. Its about opening up the Bible and seeing what God wrote as the instructions for living our lives. After all he created us. It is easy to go along with popular opinion of what people want to hear that makes them feel good. It is quite hard to stand up for what is right according to God and maybe hurt some feelings. This is the only issue, being brave enough to say out loud, I believe what I preach. Bravo Pastor Hutcherson, like the Great Martin Luther King you have a vision and a mission. For the only thing that really matters in the end is sharing in the kingdom of God and this is what you want for all people including homosexuals. I believe you win the debate with God standing by your side.
Scripture 1Corinthians 6:9-10 Leviticus 18:22

Pastor Ken is right. We must protect the institution of marriage. Our kids need to be protected from the perversion and disease the homosexuals spread. As a married man, and a "minister", I wish Ron Sims would stand up for something good and decent for a change!

The debate was just another indication of how degenerative our society has become. To be clear, I don't believe that homesexuals should be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation but, I don't think that making them a protected class is the right thing to do. Expanding the current civil rights code to include "you shall not discriminate on the basis of religion, national origin, race, gender, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION, etc would suffice, don't you think?

Perhaps someone can tell me to what degree homsexuals are discriminated against that warrants them becoming a protected class? I for one haven't heard of stories of gays being denied jobs, housing, home loans, etc. because they're gay. Do gay men and women go to job interviews announcing they're gay - and as result are denied jobs? When they apply for loans is there a box they check indicating they're homsexual? Have you heard of homosexuals being priced gouged by banks with exorbitant fees and interest because of their sexual orientation? Again, I haven't.

Lastly, in regards to Ron Sims' definition of marriage as "a marriage between two consenting adults." Inevitably someone is going to challenge that and want to, once again, redefine marriage to include, perhaps, a man and his dog or a female teacher and her 10th grade student. You may laugh or smirk and think that could never happen. It can..it will! Where should society draw the line?

The one wonderful difference between being bigoted against Black people or Jews or gays, is that you may never have a child who is Black or Jewish, but you may have a child who is gay. Just ask Dick Cheney. You will certainly have family members, neighbors, and co-workers who are gay. You may find that your anti-gay pastor has "discovered" himself and announces he is gay and has been living a lie.

Next time you call the police, my gay cop neighbor may come and attend to you in your time of need. My gay friend may save you or your child's life in the emergency room. I dare you to refuse them to touch touch your family member.

Is there not enough freedom to go around? If someone else can be treated as a full citizen under the law, I do not understand how that injures you.

Wake up and smell the coffee self-righteous American Taliban. The world changed while you were sleeping. Sorry to be you!

Pastor Hutch is right on, you either believe in the Bible or you dont. I cant believe that Ron Sims is a Pastor, He has decided to sell his soul for his public image. Praise God for Pastor Hutcherson. Bonnie Schwartz

What a contrast between two pastors; one with a Biblical view and one with a worldview of this contriversial issue that is attempting to destroy our society. God's word is plain - He even destroyed two cities because of rampant homosexuality.

If there is so much gay discrimination, why do I know gays cops, doctors, lawyers, etc. Where are they living? Are they not getting loans for these wonderful homes they're residing? Are they not allowed into night clubs? What is going on? I know gay men that are cashiers at Costco, we take change from them all the time, what's the problem here? I'm not seeing the similarities to the black civil rights movement that Sim's is so eager to compare this to, I'm thinking it's all about redefining marriage. Why would this be? If I take my auntie in to live with me, we will seek an attorney for community property to protect our joint investments, I wouldn't marry her. If I am a woman who has an erotic relationship with another woman, that doesn't prevent us from going to an attorney to draw up living wills, powers of attorney or property division papers for our committed relationship. What's going on here?

Put the "definition of marriage to a referendum". Sounds like a good idea. Let the people choose, not our government!

First, let me thank Dr. Rutherford for the correct overview of DNA and genetic sex assignment. You are what your genes say you are. If you have chosen a lifestyle that is contrary to your internal/external and genetic gender, that's a lifstyle choice. Does a lifestyle choice deserve special treatment? I think not. Does a choice to act in a manner which is unacceptible to the majority qualify for special treatment? I think not. Does the bible form the basis for a marriage of two people? Yes, it does. Marriage of people is generally accepted as a religious ceremony to formalize ther joining of one man and one woman - Not two men, not two women, not two different species animal. Whatever ones choices are, they deserve neither more nor less humnan rights. All are entitled to the basics of human rights, without naming special cases for lifestyle choice. I agree with the Reverend Hutch - When a marriage is between two "humans" the earliest definition of being between a man and woman should prevail.

Simply put it to a vote of the PEOPLE. It is high-time that the SMALL minority stop driving an agenda for all people. Oh yea. Mr. Sims - I thought we had a gov't FOR the people, BY the people. Not a dictatorship. Stop pushing your agenda...

I think this is just more of the same far right Christian crap. Using the Bible to deny humans their humanity and the way that God has created them. It used to be that the church was for slavery, against inter-racial marriage, divorce, adultry and so on. Now these extremist christians need someone else to try and Bible whip so they now target the homosexuals. If you do any historical reading you will find that the Christian right in Germany had the same opinion.

I used to be a christian but gave it up when I realized how far away from Jesus the church continues to stray. I would rather go to the dentist for a root canal than go to one of Mr. Hutchersons study groups. This man does not speak for all people. He only speaks for those who cannot think for themselves and get past the need to always be right and blame God for their ungodliness.

Not all of us follow the christian god and I for one am tired of having Jesus crammed down my throat. If you think being homosexual is a choice then don't choose to be one, but go away and leave those of us, who like Jesus, value ALL of humanity, alone.

I would like to ask you straight people out there just how much of your neighbor's sexual preferences you know? Do you know what please the couple next door? What they do in their bedroom and with whom? and does that affect your family and your marriage?

I do not know what my neighbors do in bed let alone do I care and it sure as heck does not affect my marriage. Why do you think that being Gay or having a gay couple next door does? Are you really that brainwashed?

I thank God for Christian people like Ron Sims!

If Jesus were here he would be turning water into wine at a Gay wedding.

Could we separate the issues (as follows) so the debate could be in smaller, more managable pieces?

(1) Should we treat human beings decently even if we disagree with them on various issues?
Decency in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(2) Is it true you can treat each person respectfully but agree each person has a unique identity?
Saying we have equal rights to life, liberty, and happyness is good but it is not the same as saying we are all equal. Perhaps equivalent is a more accurate word since we have both similiarities and differences and are not clones of each other which is absolute equality.

(3) Doesn't it make sense to use voting as our main way of settling local community disagreements?
After all we are a democracy and all have to co-exist with each other.

(4) Are these word definitions acceptable to communicate with?
Marriage = Committment
Democracy = Voting on community issues
to debate and decide issues
Pastor = Someone who makes God his boss
Politician = Someone who makes the voter
his boss
Bigot = Someone who takes a person, or
class of peoples, human attribute
(like color, race, sex preference,
preference for voting on issues,
religion) and from that single
attribute "makes assumptions they
know that persons identity and
nature" without any real knowledge
of who that person really is.
Wise person = someone who listens to
others and asks God what is the
right thing to do?
Unwise person = a politician who calls
his boss (i.e. a class of people who
like voting) a bigot.
Discrimination = A choice. You can make
a bad choice (i.e. unfair) or a good
choice (fair). But you did see some
sort of difference and make some
sort of choice.

This is a very complex set of topics but its better to "talk it out and vote" than
"resort to phyical violence or name calling because someone disagrees with you".

I'd like to hear from you fundamentalist Christians about how you treat family members who are gay. It's too easy for you to turn away strangers.

It's not fundamentalist Christianity per se that I have an issue with, It's the behavior. I don't hate you, just your behavior and the choices you make. Christ would never have behaved the way you do.

Jesus says..... JUDGE, AND YOU SHALL BE JUDGED BY THE SAME STANDARD.

Let's just read the WHOLE story of Sodom and Gomorrah.... I guess it was just FINE for Lot to rather 'throw his daughters' to the men ....GEN 19:6-8 ...And Lot ... siad "I pray you, brethren, do not act so wickedly . Behold now, i have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring thme out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes,"

Yeah, Ken Hutch can go ahead and condone the gang rape of the daugthers too.

The sad thing is to see so many gay black men (all the great musicians in the black church) in the closet... beaten down by such pastors .... who live out the saying... the discriminated or abused go on to abuse and discriminate others.....

mercifully.... unlike those unaccepting white families who will go ahead and disown their gay sons and daughters.... I know the black mother will never give up and condemn her son or daughter. It's those pastors like KH who come to the house for fried chicken on sundays who, who are dressing like you know what....

It's the likes of Ron Sims that God looks for ... that one person in the whole of violent hateful, arrogant "sodom" that saves the place.
America is headed backwards because there is little TRUE compassion and real love, for one another... just arrogance of the ilk of KH showing people how 'evil' they are and sinful homosexuality is!

I am saved by Jesus who loved me UNCONDITIONALLY! I was made in God's image. I am grateful there are Christians who seek social justice and love. May they speak out and may the church not be hijacked by these violent 'christians' who 'know ' what God says!

Isaiah says it in ISA 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, ....."... go on, read your bible and read the GOOD NEWS!

Whew! After watching the debate and reading some of your commentaries I have to say feelings run really strong on this issue. That's not a bad thing. The first thing I want to address is the fact that truth by its very nature is not subjective but objective; we have a written moral code in the Bible from which our body of ethics and law is transmitted. Our government doesn't make laws on the basis of personal feelings. Moral and ethical law at its broadest points is universal.

The definition of immoral, unspiritual behavior has not changed in God's eyes since the beginning of time. What has changed is the remedy. God's intent back in Old Testament times was to make Israel a holy, unique nation he could use as a testament to the world. Unfortunately Israel eventually gave in after a time to the laws and culture of surrounding nations and lost sight of the need for holiness, justice and purity. God is absolute in his standards - the penalty for sin is death. That was the purpose of the Old Testament law and the subsequent Jewish sacrificial system; the shedding of blood for the remission of sin.

You say that is barbaric and hopelessly outdated? Outdated, yes; barbaric, no. The Old Testament sacrificial system was a representation of the holy principles God institutes in heaven; pictures and symbols of a future savior who would come to the world as a sacrifice for sin.

When Jesus Christ arrived in Bethlehem, born of a Virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit (therefore not inheriting man's sinful DNA), he went on to teach the principles of God and fulfill the moral law - and the penalty for breaking it - in himself. He ultimately paid the ultimate penalty - he died for sin on the cross in mankind's place, thus securing God's forgiveness and satisfying his need for justice.

Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies and Old Testament law by the sacrifice of his own body, just as God foretold thousands of years before. Then God raised him from the dead to show the world his power and demonstrate his truth. Jesus will return to history some day soon (I hope) to claim his own - those who accept his sacrifice for sin in their behalf and accept his divine forgiveness. There is no fear in love. Believers will not be judged for their sin because Christ died for sin in their place. For everybody else, the news is not good.

Now to the current issue at hand - homosexuality. In this sex driven culture we live in today sin is getting an evil hand up the ladder of society - masquering as the do-gooder's attempt at loving thy neighbor and living as they darn well please.

The truth of the matter is that no matter how you cut it, homosexuality is still wrong. God declared homosexuality wrong from the beginning of time and I don't believe he's changed his mind.

Now here's the crux of the matter re tonight's debate: If you divorce morality from government, all you are left with is law, the interpretation of law and cultural and political intent. The sticking point for some these days (i.e., Ron Sims/Ken Hutcherson) is the Sims argument equating the supposed moral right of gays to "marry"; equating that with civil rights. To deny them that right, according to Sims, is to practice hateful discrimination.

Although heteroxexuality and homosexuality are black and white issues overall, and I'm not referring to race here; gay rights (the right to marry, to receive employment of their choice, housing of their choice, etc) has nothing to do with true civil rights. Civil rights are based on a broad endemic platform of thousands of years of history and tradition. In this country we have guaranteed civil rights based on political representation, race, religion, gender and a number of other liberties. Gay marriage, by its very nature, violates the code of marriage instituted by God between a man and a woman. It does not qualify as a civil right. I really don't understand why people insist on painting this issue with such a broad brush. Anyone can claim discrimination; me for instance. I'm being discriminated against for my religious views (Christian). Yet nobody on the other side seems to care about my religious and civil rights. Instead, I am regarded as hateful and homophobic. Hateful I am not except when it comes to calling wrong, right. Then I come out of my corner.

To all the gays out there, you have my sympathy, in part. I know many of you suffer. There is a remedy if you want to take it. Agree with God that homosexuality is a sin and ask Christ to come into your life and give you a brand new being. Get involved in Metanoia, a Christian-based group that helps gays heal.

As for the rest of you that disagree and are not interested in what God says, I emphatically request one thing: that you don't insist I accept a doctrine I am spiritually and morally absolutely opposed to. You can live together, co-habit, whatever; why do you now have to get married? Because you demand legal sanction and benefits? I find it ironic that back in the 60's people were clamoring for the right to cohabit without benefit of matrimony. Now gays are demanding the government honor their particular sexual obsession and give them legal cart blanche. Why should I support with my tax dollars a behavior that God says is absolutely wrong?

Why don't we also make a fetish out of other sins? How about the civil rights of smokers, or murderers, for instance? They have strong feelings they struggle with. Or pedophiles? Certainly that is a problem group. How about liars? Or drunkards and druggies? We could go on and on here cataloging the whole litany of human sin and making a shrine out of the sinners in the name of civil rights. I think not. Give it a rest, folks. If not, let's bring it to a vote and let the the majority decide. Not the WA State legislature.

Oh, by the way, I support Ken Hutcherson's strong stand 110%

margaret Wagner says "Although heteroxexuality and homosexuality are black and white issues overall," really? how about bisexuals, transgendered people?

you also say "The Old Testament sacrificial system was a representation of the holy principles God institutes in heaven; pictures and symbols of a future savior who would come to the world as a sacrifice for sin." representation? but anything else in the bible isn't? men should not touch women when they menstruate? because they are unclean? whiles you are at it why don't yo read Leviticus 12:2,5 ( for those who dont' have a bible handy..... a woman is unclean seven days when she bears a male child ... but unclean TWO weeks when she bears a female child"

those who support this KH... why don't you take those things also seriously? had any children?.... have you been unclean, untouchable maybe after childbirth?

Ma'am do you see where you fall far short of God's ways and thoughts? (another representational word for falling short is SIN).

Compassion!

Way to go Mr. Hutcherson. It's about time someone stood for what they believe in rather than cave to the immorality of others. It's refreshing to hear a moral speaker on the news.

It is amazing that we are expected to accept lifestyles we diagree with. So if a sex offender or pedefile wants to rent an apartment everybody should be willing to accept them???? They chose a sexual lifestyle like a gay person but should it be accepted????

Live and let live. This country is not a theocracy, it is a DEMOCRACY and as someone who is gay, I deserve to marry who I want to. It's not hurting ANYONE ELSE who I marry - so BACK OFF!.. The "christian right" wing has hijacked this country and started the culture war, and we will end it.

As Ken Hutcherson stated marriage is the union of one man and one women and should not be changed!!!!!!!!!

Ron Simms doesn't appear to have ever read the Bible. God wiped out Sodom and Gomorah for such things as homosexuality. Certainly we should share God's Awesome forgiveness for our sins with confused Gay people, but we should never make special rights for gay life choices. Our forefathers who founded the constitution prayed at every meeting and were very strong Christian Men who would be very sad today to see how distorted our interpretation of the constitution and God's word has become. Great Job Pastor Hutcherson! Glory to God and we will pray for Ron Sims he will have some repenting to do before God Almighty.

Pastor Hutchersins ia a gay hating christian. As a pastor I hope he is aware that GOD created everyone in his (GOD's) own image. As Jesus indicated "love one another as I love you." But the pastor hates gays and homosexuality. Just because it says it in the bible. But he foregets, that the bible was written by man. Also, if the pastor position regarding homosexuality and voting, from his pulpit, he violates constitution from the separation of church and state. He is making a political statement and shold be taxed as all americans are. His views on homosexuality places him in the same box as Reverand Phelps from Topeka. His personal biases (prejudices) are causing him not to be a loving christian as Jesus was. He is taking the context of the bible and applying it literally. If so, if he does not like what he is seeing or nearing, then he should gouge out his eyes and cut off his ears. As so the bible states. This reverand and his church are ias based and not loving. GOD does not put conditions on his love, but Mr. Hutcherson does as a minister.
Mr. Hutcherson forgets how difficult it was to be accepted. But, now that he is in the "so called club" he now places his prejudices as the white man did to the black man in the early part of the past century.

As Ken Hutcherson stated mariage is the union of one man and one women and should not be changed!!!!

I am writing to express my feelings on the Gay- Marriage issue. First, let me say that I am a Christian and I believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

Second, I do believe that Gays should not be discriminated against for any reason. If gay partners want rights over their partners, get a will or living trust or Power of Attorney. Why destroy the institution of marriage.

With that being said, I find it sad that some of our politicians are equating the Gay marriage issue with the Civil Rights issues of the 60’s and 70’s. The two issues are miles apart. It is still far easier for a white gay man to get a job that it is for equally qualified Black man today. As a Black man or any minority, my color is the first thing an employer or renter or a police officer sees. There is nothing I can do to change my race. The same can not be said about the Gay individual! I have heard and read reports that they are born that way. Even if that is true, in our superficial society, the knowledge of someone’s gayness is not overtly evident. It also has been documented that many gays have gone straight. Are they choosing to be straight? I do not know, but they have the option to choose. As a minority, I will always be a minority, Black or Hispanic or Asian. You can not wake one day as Black man and then decide on the following day that you want to be Asian. But, I could live a heterosexual lifestyle on one day and choose to live a homosexual lifestyle on the next. This is a choice that is available to all of us.

So where does that leave us…I could use scripture (the Word of God) to make a point that Gay marriages are wrong, but you have all heard those points before. Since I have a science background, let’s look at it scientifically…

Simple Experiment: Study the Lives of Married Couples on Islands
1) Take 3 groups of people
a. 40 hetero-sexual couples (HC)
b. 40 gay men couples (GM)
c. 40 gay lesbian couples (GL)
2) Place them on their own separate but equal islands with unlimited capacity for growth
3) Provide all 3 groups with unlimited food, water, medicine, shelter, and education to meet their needs
4) Track for 100 years

Results:
1) After a few years the population on the HC Island started to increase, and after a few generations and their society grew and continued to grow
a. 100 years later the population is still growing
2) The other two island populations (GM and GL) remain constant. And after 40 to 50 years their populations started to decrease and continued to decrease
a. 100 years later the populations on the GM and GL Islands have all died.

Conclusion:
For some reason beyond this researcher’s knowledge, the GM and GL populations, even though given everything the HC populations had; they could not sustain life on the island. Therefore, Darwin’s theory of natural selection would surmise that these populations are not natural! They are self limiting and would have to recruit or entice individuals from other populations to grow. If homosexuality is so normal and natural why is it not self sustaining! The Black, Hispanic and Asian races are self-sustaining even in hostile environments.

My point, as individuals, Gays have the same rights as Black, Hispanics, and Asians individuals in our society, they can buy, sell, get jobs, live anywhere, and shop anywhere. EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, WHETHER GAY OR STRAIGHT. BUT THE RIGHTS OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR A MAN AND A WOMAN.

Find another way to ensure equal treatment for the gay individual, they all ready of the same rights as any man or woman.

They do not need status of “Marriage” to obtain those rights.

I am appalled and completely disgusted with Hutcherson & his very hateful, limited,small minded and discriminatory views. It is almost unbelievable that this man of color can preach his intolerance with such arrogance.No man of God could speak that way. I will pray for him so that one day he won't feel so threatened by Gay people. Mr Simms...thank you thank you for being the voice of reason, compassion and love. You truly understand the meaning of discrimination and I am grateful we have you to stand up for our gay citizens. We all deserve to be treated equally...we all deserve to live our authentic lives and be who we are. Remember being gay is not a choice it is who they are!!!

This argument came down to one simple fact. Is being gay a choice or are you born this way. Personally I believe people are born straight or gay and thats just who they are. I have a couple of gay friends who tell me being gay is not a choice. In spite of that there are some people who make the choice to be gay. These people may do it to rebel, fit into a social group, or have another reason for choosing this lifestyle, but there ability to choice the sex they prefer should not be seen as "proof" that all gay people choose their lifestyle. That said gay marriage would not impede upon the foundation of marriage. No one is saying that pastors should be forced to marry people of the same sex if they do not believe in that. In fact I believe there more then enough churches who endorce gay marriage that it wouldn't affect church's who dont endorce gay marriage.

When it comes down to it all I'm saying is that you don't have to agree with gay marriage, and there is a place you can voice you concerns. That place is your church. If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't attend a church that supports it. What another church does is its buisness and it should have the same rights to believe what it wishes that a church who condems gay marriage.

Marriage should be a fundamental right for everyone. If Mr. Hutcherson believes that marriage is between man and woman, for pro-creation, then what about the ones that can't pro-create. Do we not allow them to marry? What about the ones that do not want to pro-create? Do we take away their marriage licenses?
As a gay man not being accepted by the USA for equality as it shows in the Bill of Rights, part of the constitution, I am not being allowed the right to happiness. So, as a tax paying American not being allowed the right to happiness, I should stop paying taxes into a system that does not like who I am.

I don't believe this is a civil rights issue. I do not believe that homosexuals are being discriminated against and they don't have a valid case... such as in the past where blacks, women, etc. were discriminated against. They can vote. They have jobs. In society, we can't even tell who's gay and who's not.

The more I hear ken speak the more ignorant, and racist he sounds. it's ignorant people like ken who is not preaching god's word but his own,that's why we have so many athetiast in this world because no one can decide what the bible really stands for. he also has forgetten what it is like to be different, we are all god's children. we are supposed to be preaching love not hate.

Yay Ron Sims!

Thanks for standing up for people who are different. As a heterosexual male has never had a choice on the matter, I have great compassion for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. It ain't easy being different. Folks trying to impose specific and narrow rules from the Bible... That's tough. Shoot, if I wanted to live under "religious law" I'd just move to Iran and get it over with.

i just finished watching the debate. was it just me or did they seem to be going in circles?. neither was willing to let the other finish what he was saying before they butted in. I am 23 years old and even I know that the basis of a discussion, debate, or whatever is based on listening to what the other has to say in its entirity before you speak, make a decision, or rebuttal. it shows one thing, respect. now respect is what I was brought up with. "show respect to others before you expect them to show you respect" is what my parents said.
After i watched the debate I came here and read some of the responses. I think some of you have it wrong by thinking that this is a "left" or "right" wing debate. If I were to align myself with either it would be the right wing. BUT, I believe that gays should have the right to marry. religion does not enter into the question. this country may have been founded in christian principals, but they do not enter into our laws. the constitution says we have the freedom of religion. it also says that the government will not support religion. "the right to prosue happiness". my happiness and yours are two different things. I wonder, are there any objections out there to gay marriage that are not founded in religion?
i would like to pass on some quotes from robert Heinlein that i think are revelent:

Democracy is not an automatic condition resulting from laws and constitutions. It is a living, dynamic process which must be worked at by you yourself -- or it ceases to be democracy, even if the shell and form remains.

We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued, 'either-or' logic to arrive at his wrong anwers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personaly interested in the answer, he can't use any sort of logic and will discard an observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He
uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.
For explanations of a universe that confuses him, he seizes onto numerology, astrology, hysterical religions, and other fancy ways to go crazy. Having accepted such glorified nonsense, facts make no impression on him, even if at the cost of his own life. Joe, one of the hardest things to believe is the abysmal depth of human stupidity.

History does not record anywhere a religion that has any rational basis.

Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help.

I must thank Ron Sims for taking up the fight for those of us who are just too afraid to speak. As a man who was married to a wonderful woman and truly enjoyed the unity and support of family, friends and society as we raised our son and joined in all the "normal" moral family living... I know about choice. I chose to be accepted and keep within the warmth of being "normal'. I don't want to hurt anyone- anymore... but now in my middle age I just want to love freely again. My wife and I divorced for many of the same reasons over 50% of all couple do. Now I and have moved to the homosexual side of my bi-sexual "choice"... and without the support and automatic acceptance of people I want to continue to respect and continue to be respected by... FEAR dictates and controls my life. It makes the simple natural occurance of love only possible to express privately. I know how bigotted many people I work with are. So much of my life now is hidden from so many. I live in Seattle to be able to love a man. I'm far from a flambouyant immoral gay man. My boyfriend and I are professional hard working men of strong character. I simply love this man... as I fell in love in my youth to a woman. But it was somehow a wonderful thing then to everyone ... even though my love now has a much better chance of growing into a great marriage.

Wow...I have read many of these comments.It is so sad to see how very far we still need to go.Why are all of you religious fanatics so threatened by gay people? How can you say Simms or the minority are pushing anything on you? We are not asking you to join a group of people. All we ask is for you all to STOP HATING!!! Extend rights to ALL law abiding citizens. Let all live how they choose. Let everyone marry who they LOVE. Consenting adult people! How many hate crimes must we witness before you all get the message!!!! WAKE UP! There is nothing Christian about your hate, nothing Godly about your disrimination. So much ignorance...how can there be so much ignorance...God forgive you all

Jesus kept those who had committed adultry from stoning a prostitute back in his day. It isn't right for those to carry out a death sentence on others when they themselves have committed the same sin. Therefore he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone. Most people like to leave it right there. However, don't forget, he then turns to the prostitute and says; "Go and Sin NO MORE." Go change your ways and do what you know is right.

Here in America, you are free to go and sin no more. However, you free to go and sin here and sin there until you break enough laws and get caught a few times and may be put away. Any sin can be forgiven, but you should at least TRY not to sin, not simply redefine something to say it is not sin is not right. To hate someone becuase they sin is not right either, but we should encourage one another to do what is right.

Mr. Sims you seem to be off point. Once you allow a change in the defininition of marriage, why would you keep someone from having simply one wife. To do so would be discrimination, then where to next? Think things through a little better and be responsibile for your actions and where they may lead.

Ron ...you are one of the reasons I left King County.

This is a re-post with one additional word definition to consider:

Could we separate the issues (as follows) so the debate could be in smaller, more managable pieces?

(1) Should we treat human beings decently even if we disagree with them on various issues?
Decency in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(2) Is it true you can treat each person respectfully but agree each person has a unique identity?
Saying we have equal rights to life, liberty, and happyness is good but it is not the same as saying we are all equal. Perhaps equivalent is a more accurate word since we have both similiarities and differences and are not clones of each other which is absolute equality.

(3) Doesn't it make sense to use voting as our main way of settling local community disagreements?
After all we are a democracy and all have to co-exist with each other.

(4) Which works better to encourage people on the right track in life (laws or good advice and patience)?

(5) Are these word definitions acceptable to communicate with?
Marriage = Committment
Democracy = Voting on community issues
to debate and decide issues
Pastor = Someone who makes God his boss
Politician = Someone who makes the voter
his boss
Bigot = Someone who takes a person, or
class of peoples, human attribute
(like color, race, sex preference,
preference for voting on issues,
religion) and from that single
attribute "makes assumptions they
know that persons identity and
nature" without any real knowledge
of who that person really is.
Wise person = someone who listens to
others and asks God what is the
right thing to do?
Unwise person = a politician who calls
his boss (i.e. a class of people who
like voting) a bigot.
Discrimination = A choice. You can make
a bad choice (i.e. unfair) or a good
choice (fair). But you did see some
sort of difference and make some
sort of choice.
An individuals identity (i.e. SHAPE) - Their skills, habits, abilities, personality, and experiences. It is their sum total of their life so far and is more than just a single personal attribute.

This is a very complex set of topics but its better to "talk it out and vote" than
"resort to phyical violence or name calling because someone disagrees with you".

Marriage does not just equal "commitment."

According to the dictionary, marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Here is a solution. Against gay marriage? Don't marry one! It's that simple folks! All this talk about ex-homosexuals is making me sick. There is no such thing. Anyone who tells you they're an ex-homosexual is a liar. They are not happy with their lives because they're back in the closet. I'm not even going to begin to talk about whether or not people are born gay because I don't care. I can tell you this. I just didn't wake up one day and decide to suck *&%$! I mean let's get real people.

It's a scary time in this country. Right wing conservative fanatical christians are shoving their propaganda down everyone's throat. Not all Christians have this stance. All this talk about gays shoving their agenda down christians throats well about you so called christians. You are doing the same exact thing for example one person wrote "As for the rest of you that disagree and are not interested in what God says, I emphatically request one thing: that you don't insist I accept a doctrine I am spiritually and morally absolutely opposed to." And I say to you sir that you should follow your own advice.

Everyone talks about how sacred marriage is between a man and a women. Well, I got some news for you. Marriage is a failing institution in this country. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce between a man and a woman. Good job setting the example you hypocrits.

Listening to Ken was sad because all I heard was hate and disrespect. Ellen Degeneres ought to sue his hypocritical butt. Her name is Ellen Degeneres not Ellen Degenerate.

A lot of people who have posted hateful comments in here have posted anonymously, and I say to you, you're comments have no standing on this blog. If you can't even back what you say by at least your first name then you have no business posting on this blog because you are either ashamed, embarrassed or even scared about what you wrote. And that says everything about your character.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but let's come down to reality. Faith doesn't define laws and it shouldn't. I shouldn't have to suffer from a law because a group of people don't like me or what I do. My marriage to a man has nothing to do with you.

You can have your beliefs, you can go to church, you can teach these beliefs to your kids, etc... but don't mess with my life because it doesn't fit into yours. You have no right to do that. And that's why the state needs to make that decision and not you people who are against us. The state is trying to protect us from all you hatemongers.

I thought Christianity was a religion about love and compassion and I saw maybe two or three self proclaimed christians on this blog who maybe fit that bill and the rest of you are just haters. And I know many Christians would say to Ken that you don't speak for me or represent me because of his hate. I have seen Ken and his family at the movies and I hope and pray that his kids ARE NOT homosexual because their life would be a living hell. And if he doesn't make it a living hell then he just proved my point.

And I think it's so silly to say "I haven't met an ex-black" or "Michael Jackson was black at one point in time." I mean that is the dumbest &*^$ I ever heard. Man you better have some better analogies than that when you are on television.

All I saw was a man hide behind a book rather than see life and people for who and what they are. My opinion is that a lot of Ken supporters are brainwashed people who can't think for themselves. It's just my opinion and belief, if you don't like it, put it to a referendum.

I'm know theologian but I don't think you will find the word homosexual in the bible because I know that word didn't even exist back then.

The Hutch is RIGHT.

From my perspective, the idea of "standing on the Word" and "taking your cues" from that seems appropriate.

Consider that throughout past ages, civilizations have risen and fallen, apparently at random - or was it...? I feel that many of these past civilizations' demise was rooted in the degeneration of their moral values - their code of ethics and honor - their internal sense of right and wrong.

When we fail to hold to a standard, i believe we do our society a dis-service. We hasten the entre' of personal opinion about ideas and concepts that form the underpinnings of our society - in this case the concept of marraige.

I believe that the Bible is that standard - which other is there that would serve as well? It has a long history of suitable application - a good pedigree (from which we can gage results); it forms the basis of law in the USA, and its concepts are carefully threaded through our bill of rights; its precepts were fully appreciated by the great majority of the founding fathers; and on and on...

Unfortunately here in the USA, the silent majority appears to be quite lethargic about a vast number of issues (borne out by percentage of voters turning out in the polls) - until the full impact becomes known later on - when it may be too late...? The pattern i seem to observe quite frequently is the movement for change from a small VOCAL minority about relatively small issues - some that seem quite unobtrusive on the face of it. As these smaller issues continue to build on one another, a "birds eyeview" begins to reveal how these series of smaller issues have shaped the larger landscape - just a little bit at a time! THIS IS SUCH AN ISSUE! The Hutch is right - we need to make a stand for marraige - not for ourselves - but for those who come after us - those who will carry the torch when we pass on. I often wonder if our children will thank us for the political and social "inheritance" that will be bequeathed to them - do you suppose that (just maybe) they would care...?

I believe that we in America find ourselves on that slippery slope canted toward moral failure - that may not mean much to some folk, but i have a feeling it is beginning to mean MORE and MORE to a great many folk here, and ultimately the polls will bear out this thought.

It was with great interest that i watched the debate, and i found it "refreshing" that this kind of public discourse is taking place, and look forward to more such interaction.

You go HUTCH! you have my full support...rest assured you are not alone - regardless of what the polling studies show, there are more that stand with you...

Perhaps we need to define words like MARRIAGE and SEX also?

Using this dictionary definition submitted from another person the wording seems lacking important things to me:
Another person said this is the definition of marriage:
According to the dictionary, marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

To me it seems lacking because it is missing the word "committment". I certainly have a fantastic wife and I am "committed to her and vice versa". If I became paralyzed because of a horrible medical / dental accident and we couldn't have sex anymore it would be very sad. But, we would still be committed to each other. So I am puzzled why that word is left out of anyones definition of marriage.

Maybe we are mixing up a loving, respectful, marriage (i.e. committment) with sex. Fortunately I am blessed with both right now as a married person but I certainly don't need a legal document to "publically say I love my wife and I am committed fully to her". It's a nice document to have for legal purposes but our marriage is one of respect and committment to each other which comes from our heart, mind, and soul (not the government).

I am a former United Church of Christ minister who resigned from that denomination because it had been taken hostage by the gay rights agenda and had issued a mandate that its clergy officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies. Both my Christian value system and my research of history on the destructive impact of homosexuality on society contributed to my resignation as a UCC minister. I congratulate Rev. Ken Hutcherson for his insightful and forceful challenge of gay propaganda, and if he were a member of any other of the world's great religions I would congratulate him for the very same reason. I only wish that I had been on your show with him because I feel he overlooked some very crucial and revealing points on this debate.
First of all, the history of perversion in our society is repleat with grossly misleading propaganda and calculating diabolical fabrication. One of the few books written to outline the socially destructive and reckless self-centered myopia of perverts pushing an agenda and life style in our culture was written by a homosexual, who died of AIDS. ("And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts.) He had the courage and integrity to expose homosexuality for what it is and I respect him for it.
The movers and shakers in this perversion have invented a language which both distorts and undermines the English language, and this has been carefully orchestrated and promoted by the public media for propagandist reasons. If we allow this kind of propaganda to rewrite our dictionary, who will be next? Marriage, by definition and without exception, whatever your political or religious convictions might be, is between a man and a woman and there is no homosexual on this planet who will ever succeed in changing that fact. They may corrupt the English language but they can't change that fact.
Secondly, I think a growing number of us are totally fed up with the attempt by perversion proponents to piggy-back on the civil rights movement in an attempt legitimize-by-association their toxic cause. It amazes me that black people, who've paid for centuries with their own blood for the horrible injustices they've suffered under racial discrimination, would ever even begin to think of allowing perverts to exploit their suffering in this manner. It is simply outrageous! You will note that I seldom use the word "gay" and that is for a reason. There is nothing gay about perversion, which in past history has only served as the harbinger of social demise, and unless citizens of this country wake up to the lessons of history we will become history. Destroy the family unit in this society and you will have orchestrated the demise of our culture.
Rev. Hutcherson was quite right in his treatment of the word, "discrimination." It is a very good word, a very positive word, and a very necessary word in the parlance of both individual and social survival. We discriminate a thousand times each day because if we didn't, we'd all be dead. It's a survival technique. But it is also a word which the gay agenda has hijacked for political reasons to pervert to fit the dimensions of their hate-mongering agenda. Theirs is in no way the voice of freedom or equal rights. Theirs is the voice of fascist tyranny designed to undermine, exploit, and destroy the very values in this nation which give them the freedom to promote their socially reckless, self-centered, and myopic terminal life style. I was not fooled for one second by the politician in this debate, King County Executive Sims. He is a classic example of the propaganda-driven politicians in this country who are prepared to support anything in this politically correct zoo to advance their popularity. He is not only incorrect and uninformed in his knowledge of the gay agenda and its goals, but he is a more than willing advocate of this misinformation which has now become rather tedious gay propaganda.
Should scientists ever discover some physiological basis for homosexuality, I fail to see how that would change anything. People are born by the millions every day with all kinds of genetically based challenges, and as a civilized society, we attempt to treat them, to help them live more fulfilling lives. Perverts should enjoy the same consideration of treatment. There is no point in hating them if this should be the case. But if this is not the case, and trendy people are opting to become sheep and follow the repulsive mantra of our public media and political activists, then I see no way to resolve this conflict short of the ballot box or some other means. It isn't going to go away under propaganda pressure. As a matter of fact, if my response to such propaganda is representative of what a growing number of members of this society are feeling, I think an enormous backlash is now being created which will rather suddenly silence these grandstanding, bully-pulpit tyrants of minority pervert concerns who seek to ram their agenda down the throats of the majority of people in this society. This, however, will cause a certain segment of the gay community to suffer unsolicited and undeserved recrimination. These are people who quietly go about their own personal business/life style without feeling the need to join any gay pride parade in a display of disgusting sado-masochistic celebration. They realize they represent a minority life style and they feel no particular urgency to parade what they do sexually in the privacy of their own bedroom up and down the main street of American society. I happen to respect their discrimination regarding choice in that regard, but when it comes to a showdown on this issue, I feel they will be picking up the tab for those blethering, soap box pundits who think their gay propaganda is capable of taking over America. At the end of the day I don't think that snakeoil is going to sell.
No, I am not a proponent of either the Right or the Left on this important issue. I think the Right creates the Left, and the Left creates the Right, because I've been all around that circle and there is an over abundance of liars in both camps. I also happen to be the son of a Conservative Baptist Evangelical Fundamentalist minister who had five children and was a brutal, sexually abusive closet pervert, who fed his homosexual appetite by sexually abusing his own sons. I didn't discover the nature of the dehumanizing gay agenda through reading books in the public library or listening to its advocates in the public media. I grew up with it and understand all too well its inherent diabolical hypocrisy.
Thank you for providing this forum for public debate. It is a much needed venue.

You can find the ENTIRE DEBATE at
http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/newVideos.asp

I belive in god but I dont believe in the bible because over the centuries man has always wrote it the way they saw things, to fit their own egos so how can people sit up here and say they are preaching gods word, nobody knows what god words really is because over the centuries the bible has been changed so many times I think any body who lives their lives by every word in the good book has some serious problems.I dont believe in relgions because they all sound like cults, all they do is preach hatred and everyone forgets what god is supposed to be about love not hate and forgiveness, but all you here is people preaching hate,Ken sounds like a blow heart who just wants to preach the devils word.theirs a lot more serious problems in this world that need are attention who cares who one marries I really dont care as long as they are happy.

I am glad to see a scientist (see comment #1) stand up and say that science does not support the popular justification that homosexuality is a genetic trait. This has signficant legal implications because this is where the race/sexual orientation argument is fatally flawed. Without sound evidence that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, it should not be given any more protections than any other choice.

Gays have rights just like everyone else God created, and this country protects. However, marraige is a union of a man and a woman. It has been that way more than a thousand years...probably 10 times that long. This union creates new life. If the gays want some kind of a union, it is a different kind of union: not "marraige". Discrimination is an evil act and not synonymous with choices. The fact that I do not want my children taught by homosexuals in school or to worship in a Church with homosexual leadership is my choice. Homosexuality is not a normal condition any more than other behavioral or genetic abnormalities. What is "normal" for one person may not be "normal" for someone else, but the issue is not individuality - it is about mankind's marraige practices. Humans practice marraige between a man and a woman and it has always been that way. Why should we pervert the sacred institution of marraige for 99% of the population, to accomodate homoxuality practiced by a few?

Ron Simms could not give Pastor Hutcherson a straight answer on any question, He always gave some political mumbo jumbo back that did not answer any of his questions. When the statement was made about how Ron Sims got turned down for an apartment when he was an intern in Olympia, it was not because the person saw that he was gay! He saw the color of his FACE! You cannot compare the gay rights movement of today to the CIVIL RIGHTS movement of the 50'60's. I dont see police dogs and fire hoses targeting gays, churches and homes being bombed. I do not know someone is gay until they tell me! You know a person of color when you first look at them. Homosexuality is a SIN, what you do in your private life is your own choice, society does not have to except your sexual behavior as being normal because it is not! You have a choice to tell someone if you are gay or not! Asians, Afircan Americans, Latinos, and all other non-white people dont have that choice. If the Majority of Homosexuals were not WHITE, this would not be an issue! Ron Simms is a politian who is just looking for VOTES! IF he does not side with the Homosexual Community he will not get those VOTES. You cannot be a Minister and a Politian. You cannot seperate your relationship with God! Either you walk with him or you dont!

I especially liked Hutcherson's argument that he has counseled ex-homosexuals who have realized that homosexuality is sin......but he has never counseled someone who was ex-black. Indeed, that is because one is a choice, while the other is a genetic trait that you can't change.

Point taken.

"Blogger KING is one of the only TV station blogs
in the country that allows open comments."

e: I'm certain that eternal-infinite God,
our Father reigning as "heaven in our hearts",
fully approves of our expanded arena of living
rules as covered here by KING Tv's
"Comment Rules for Blogger King"

There are thousands of children with thousands
more to come who need a family to thrive or even
just to survive. Denying any couple who have made
a committment to each other for the purpose of
raising children, the same rights as any other
couple, SMACKS of prejudice and highlights
ignorance of the severe long-term debilitation
society will suffer due to neglect of children
presently without ANY parental guidance
OR loving overcare.

HOW CAN YOU choose fear & persecution, over love,
compassion & certainty of God in ALL people's
hearts, choosing living Loving Spirit over
misinterpretted, mangled doctrine?

God obviously provides ongoing personal revelation
fitting our real-life situations, especially as
we Father-Indwelt Universe Citizens collaborate
in Jesus' LIVING Holy Spirit of TRUTH, WAY & LIFE
that enhances our knowledge of God's Plans,
ever since Pentecost.

All you who base your opinions on SOMEBODY ELSE'S
interpretation of the Bible should realize you
are reading a second-hand translation AT BEST!

You are not grasping the significance of Jesus'
NEW REVELATION of God to Man and Man to God, or
that Jesus was

merely reciting the 22nd Psalm:
---"..why have you foresaken me.." Psalm 22---

so never doubted GOD our FATHER, as He hung
on the Cross also saying "forgive them Lord as
they know not what they do" (LIVING mercy)

Much of what you declare to be "God's word" is
actually an INTERPRETATION by someone else who
has an agenda, based on self-aggrandizement,
designed to control you and your purse.

Your children would be better off learning to
make wise choices based on PRACTICE of making
wise Our-Father-In-Hearts choices while they
are little, you are there, explaining things
and helping them through their bad choices.

For now, some "rules" of life are well expressed
as here, in the "Comment Rules for Blogger King":

.."..there are some responsibilities
that come with this freedom."..

"While we don't seek to limit or censor the
expression of ideas from our readers, there are
some responsibilities that come with this freedom.
To ensure that all participants enjoy and benefit
from the comments, we have established
standards for participation:

"1. Do not use obscene or offensive language.
You may not post or link to any material that
could be considered obscene, indecent, lewd,
pornographic, violent, abusive, insulting,
threatening, harassing or in violation of the law.

"2. Tell the truth. You may not post or link
to any material that could be considered libelous,
defamatory or false.

3. Do not solicit or advertise. Advertisements,
chain letters, charity requests, petitions for
signatures and any other commercial use or
solicitation are prohibited.

"4. Respect the privacy of others. Do not harvest
or otherwise collect names, email addresses or
other identifying information from
other participants.

"5. Do not steal. Post only those materials
for which you have copyright. You may not post
material that infringes the rights of others
including copyright, trademark, trade secret,
privacy, personal or other proprietary rights."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There are a few strawman arguments to this debate that have a tendency to derail the true issue at hand: that of granting equal rights and freedoms to all citizens.

Strawman 1) "Homosexuals choose to be gay". Who among us can say that they chose to be attracted to any one person or type of person before actually becoming attracted to him/her/that type? Did I choose my wife? I chose to marry her, but I did not choose to fall in love with her. I cannot turn off my affection or attraction to her, and I'd be horribly surprised if anyone claimed that they could possess such an inhuman power. Let's assume now for a moment that this is an accurate account. If people really do "choose" to be gay, then it stands to reason that the rest "choose" to be straight. This is what the argument for equal rights boils down to: it is the freedom to marry the one we love, the one that we as couples mutually choose.

Strawman 2) "Homosexuals have the same rights as all others—That is to say, they have the right to marry anyone of the opposite gender." This argument is purposefully misleading. Our right to marry is a right that grants us the ability to choose the person to marry. Just as this right cannot be abridged to restrict whom we can and cannot marry because of race or cultural heritage, it cannot be abridged to restrict our choice based on gender.

Strawman 3) "Marriage is not a right, but a privilege; therefore, it doesn't qualify under equal rights protections." In truth, marriage itself is a basic right, as outlined and upheld in the Supreme Court case "Loving v. Virginia" (A case deciding the fate of interracial marriages), wherein the decision states: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

No legal justification has yet been given to support the infringement of marital choice freedoms based on gender-preferences. Thus far, every argument against recites holy scriptures and teachings, but cannot cite legal justification for the restriction of civil freedoms of choice. Without legal justification, any such state or federal law is in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Two pastors with two views: Sims and Hutcherson.

Actually, it is not a matter of two men with two views. The real issue is what does the Bible say? For more than four thousand years, there was no disagreement on the matter. Just because someone decides to take issue with God doesn't mean he is right. God's Word is eternal and long after the debates are gone - His Word will stand and man will be judged accordingly.

It is a very serious matter to assume that God's Word is relative, that it can change. If it can change, then it is not truth. God will not be mocked and His Word is very clear that those who take counsel against Him (which includes His Word) will be judged severely (Psalm 2; Revelation 22:19). Regardless of man's ignorance or outright rebellion as to what God's Word says - it won't change. In your advertisements for the debate, you mentioned how could two pastors have differeing views from the same book? The answer is easy: One chose to ignore what has been very clear for 4,000 years.

Thank you for the privilege of sharing.
Pastor George S. Stiekes

The prior comment is flawed in several respects. The law does not attempt to regulate people's feelings or thoughts, but rather it regulates the choices people make as it relates to their ACTIONS.

We require people who have certain predispositions or unexplainable feelings (love or otherwise) to refrain from action on a routine basis. Washington just passed a bestiality law that requires people to refrain from having sex with animals. We do not ask whether their conduct flows from their feelings of love or otherwise, we simply regulate that activity.

Additionally, it should be not that the party seeking to expand the definition of marriage carries the burden of proof to show that their position is justified. So, as incorrectly noted in the previous comment, homosexuals and/or the proponents of gay marriage must carry the burden of prove why the law should change.

Finally, your argument based on the 14th Amendment falls short of the mark as well. Your analysis of Loving v. Virgina relies on Dicta. The holding in Loving v. Virginia is not that marriage is a fundamental right, but rather that disrimination based on race violates the 14th Amendment. Race is an immutable characteristic, and so courts apply a greater level of scrutiny to laws that treat minorities with immutable charactertics differently. However, as previously noted in the Comment #1, science has not proved that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. The prior comment's anecdotal evidence is of little weight.

God's word is final, and just like Pastor Hutcherson said is that many people choose to get there own interpetation of the Bible and try to get others to belive there opinion of it. Its plain in the word of God that Homosexuality is a sin! God created Man and chose a partner for him a Woman from his rib! Marrige is an ordinance that was given to man by God! Man created its own laws so that they would not have live by Gods word! So if you are smart and want eternal life after your time on earth is gone! I hope that you have a relationship with God and have studied his word because mans laws will no longer exist for you then!

Tony needs to know that Ellen's EX is now a wife and a mom--after leaving Ellen!

Responding to above comments: With due respect to differing opinions, I don't believe laws that restrict physical intimacy to those of the same species is in any way comparable to laws that restrict marriage freedoms to only those people in an opposite-gender relationship. First, homosexuality (and the physical relationship involved) is not illegal. Bestiality is. That is the comparison that must be drawn. You may suggest that it is also illegal to marry my pet; however, I would argue that this was illegal long before bestiality laws. One of the requirements to obtain a marriage license is to certify that both parties are entering into the union willingly and freely. A pet can't do that, legally or philosophically.

Regarding the burden of proof: thankfully, our Constitution does not require that we show just cause for the granting of rights. Quite the contrary, it is incumbent on us as citizens to show just cause for the denial of equal rights. If I am granted the freedom to marry the woman I love, just cause must be shown why Lisa cannot marry the woman she loves. The protection of even those basic human rights not specifically listed is already established in our Constitution.

And lastly, While Loving v. Virginia pertains specifically to racial differences in marriage, it also establishes that marriage itself is a basic human right. As marriage is now defined legally as a basic human right, just cause must be established in order to prevent a citizen from enacting that freedom. So, in order to deny two people from marrying because of their respective genders, one must establish legal justification (not just biblical—see the Lemon Test of Lemon v. Kurtzman) for denying this pre-established basic human right.

The biology behind homosexuality is too often a red herring in the greater debate. The issue is that of equal rights, not of how someone comes to be gay or how gay couples fall in love.

Let’s simplify the real issue at hand. You must first say the Bible is true and you believe – or you must say the Bible is false and you don’t believe. If you say false then what’s the point to any of this. If you say true then were done. But because of the times we live in, we have different interpretation from the Brokeback Bible Churches. These folks are smart enough to know there is a God, but just don’t like what God has to say. Sure being Gay is just as bad as looking at a hottie with lust in your eyes, but some sins have more implications then others. This is the Biblical and the real issue/conern for Christians. We either submit to Gods authority, or we reap what we sow as a Nation.

Where do I start? I am a christian, I was raised in the Presbyterian Church & went to a private school. I challenged the word of Christ, and to that I know I stand with God as my Savior. This is what I want to say: Mr. Hutcherson gives a horrible representaion of Christianity and he should be ashamed. I believe with all my heart and soul you are born gay. I have many (flambouyant) gay friends all of whom have told me they in a million years would never CHOOSE to be gay, but this is the the hand they were dealt. Most of them knew of their feelings as young children. ( With regards to Ann Heche?? Have you ever heard of bi- sexuality?? or people who are experimenting? )I now have a gay brother in law who CHOSE to marry adn have children because he too was trying to live right. HIs marriage was physically empty, he struggled with the feelings he knew he had and after 20 years of marriage is leaving. His devastated wife knew of his homosexual feeling before they married and yet she agreed. Ask her if you are born this way or if its a choice. What person in their right mind would choose to give up a stable life knowing how many people would be hurt along the way, your retirement with your spouse dissolved and welcome a life of discrimination. Sounds like a party to me. I do agree with the bible, the ACT of a homosexual lifestyle is wrong. God makes that perfectly clear. He also makes clear that all sins are equal. Living a homosexual lifestyle is equally as sinful as the hypocrite, the murderer, the liar, the adulterer etc. I believe being gay is NOT a sin, but living a gay lifestyle is. THIS is where you have the CHOICE. If you believe God's word, he gives us the freedom to make these choices. AND it is NOT our place to judge who is sinful and who is not. God is also very clear about that. We are responsible for ourselves and accountable to God. God's greatest gift to us is the gift of grace and redemption. As a Christian God has called us to spread the gospel , "good news" ( not fill people with resentment and fear ), to show compassion to others. Do you think that Christ would look at the gay man/woman and tell them they couldn't have the same rights as other because they are sinners? I don't. Christ showed compassion to the sinners and the sick when no one else would. He was mocked and sharply criticized by the pharisees, and yet he loved because that is the epitomy of grace.
I do not believe in Gay marriage, God makes it clear again that marriage is between a man and a woman and is a representaion of the marriage of Christ and the church. It is sacred and holy. But with all my heart I believe as human beings, not black/white, gay or straight, we all have the same rights to treated equally and fairly.
I am embarresed and disheartened by Hutch as well as all teh other fundamental conservative Christians. I hope he reads this and spends some serious time reflecting on his own sins and his own heart before condeming others. Also, I would ask Hutch this: What would you do if you found out your son/daughter was gay? Would you force them out too? Think about it.

The debate isn't about whether or not practicing homosexua