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 homosexuality is permitted/condoned by a Christian God, it is whether or not homosexuals are entitled to the same rights of others.

It has been stated in this blog already but while the founders of this Nation may have been Christian, we are not a Theocracy.

The only reason I can think of for denying homosexuals equal rights is if homosexual behavior causes a loss of freedom to another individual.

It's kind of like the arguments about pedophilia: some people are pre-disposed to desiring children as (sexual) partners just as homosexuals desire others of the same gender but we clearly make it illegal since there is harm to the minor in such behavior. There is no such harm found in a homosexual couple. Arguments that homosexual is harmful to society because homosexual couples are incapable of reproducing don't make that much sense either since it could be applied to Catholic priests and Buddhist monks whom adopt a lifestyle that also doesn't allow reproduction.

Also, excluding a minority to the rights posessed by the majority through a vote of the majority isn't really helpful either. I mean, things can happen like the majority voting to exclude the minority to rights such as voting, or free speech, etc.

Moving on to the debate of whether or not homosexuality is a choice - it is both. We dont really need to depend on biology either, empirical knowledge is enough.

Dividing sexual preference into three groups we have straight, bisexual, and gay. For the straight and gay, there is no choice - presuming that most of you are straight men, think of having sex with some guy... so hard that it could be defined as impossible right? Well, it's the same with gay people, therefore for straights and gays we like what we like and its really quite impossible to change. For bisexuals, well... by definition they can go either way, so they are the only ones that have a choice in sexual preference.

Moving onto the debate of whether God is ok or not ok with gay (and bisexual people) - or more simply put homosexual behavior. Well, first it depends what God(s) you are talking about, since we know the Greeks and Romans really into the homo-thing way back then so Zeus is probably ok with it. The Jewish God (same one that the Christians and Muslims worship, called Jewish simply cause they were here first) is probably against it since it says somewhere in the holy text (Tora, Bible, and Koran) that homosexuals get death by stoning and such. For Brahm... I have no idea - maybe someone Hindu can discuss this, but I will just guess "no" since the area where it is practiced is India and the Kama Sutra came from there and that book is really un-homo.

Now are either of these debates really nessecary when examining whether or not we should deny rights to a group of people in the United States of America? No. Their are a bunch of reasons, primarily constiutional and legal of which people like Donna (post at March 6, 2006 12:50 PM) have pointed at.

With only about 6% of Americans being gay, why the heck do we have to listen to all of this gay crap all the time and spend so many tax payers dollars and the governments time going over and over the issues of it. My mother would roll over in her grave.

I'm not saying that being gay is a bad, creepy thing. I have friends that are gay. I contend that if being gay is a bad thing, GOD will let you know about it when your time comes to check out of this life.

Give these people their insurance and some of their other ameneties they need in life. BUT! They don't need to infringe on the sanctity of a marriage between a man and a woman. And they sure as hell don't need to be adopting children. THAT! is one of the benefits of being in a heterosexual marrige. God gave us that. The government does not need to give gays children. That is an unfair sexual influence on innocent little lives that might go towards what the majority of society calls normal. We don't need to feed into a 6% society problem.

Oh, and one more thing. Just because a lot of people are screaming about gay rights, and gays have been around forever, that doesn't make it a good thing.

In our opinion the issue of gay rights has gone beyond personal rights guaranteed by our state and federal consitutions. We applaud Pastor Ken Hutcherson and his rebuttal to Ron Sims definition of marriage. Marriage is not just between two people who love each other. In the Bible, dictionary and all our state laws, with the exception of Massachusetts, it is a legal contract, entered into by a man and a woman, to live together as husband and wife. This must not change and I believe a large majority of people in Washington State and in the United States of America believe in this definition of marriage.

Remember the old saying? He who hollers the loudest is usually wrong. Guess who was hollering the loudest? And by the way. Those of us who have children that are gay are hurt by all you "Christians" that tell everyone how bad gays are. My child is not bad. My child tried not to be gay but found out if you are, you are and there is nothing you can do about. My child is happy and well adjusted and successful in spite of the prejudice against him. Those gay people who "changed" probably didn't change on the inside and are living a lie to please someone else. It's too bad America, free America (yeah, right!) can't treat all people as equals regardless. One more thing. If there is a God (I wonder where he's been for 2006 years), He created all kinds of people so we would learn to love all kinds of people. Don't call yourself a Christian if you judge people and think them lesser than you. Live your life as you feel is right but don't dislike other people who don't believe the same as you. Stop hurting gay people and their familes. How dare you!!!! Thank you, Mr. Sims, for pointing out the prejudices going on in this country. And it starts with the leader of our country!

Gay Facists/Nazi Mentality

Now that I have your attention please follow along with me.

In the closet / Now out of the closet calling us homophobic that are straight . They call what is Good Evil and Evil Good. They call us Bigots , racists, because they do want us to have our free speech about their affairs. They have choice, they are not an ethnic group. They unlike real ethnic groups who can not change who they are want us to believe a lie. Not only do these individuals want to have an equal footing but take an unfair advantage of all others in society by silencing us with so called bogus Hate Crime Laws which they get passed through deviant methods. These lovers of iniquity will do anything they can to promote their godless agenda and legislate their intolerance of our right to free speech about their backdoor behavior. In Canada it's illegal to speak out against gays or you'll be imprisoned. In Britain it is also against the law. Let's get the facts straight: According to the CDC the homosexual lifestyle comes with it an array of physical and social ills. The average age of a gay male is 42 years. The average gay male has approximately 20 different sex partners annually. Their need for medicines to suppress the diseases inside their bodies far out weighs the average monogomous man-woman relationship. Gay men are 1000 times more likely to aquire the HIV Aids virus than any other average sector of humans in our country.
If that is not bad enough an organization called NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Association) whom the ACLU defends whole heartedly. NAMBLA Who Are WE they say on their website; advocates sex between men and boys. Their supporters are lesbian, gay, feminist and other liberation movements. NAMBLA is lobbying our elected officials to put an end to what they call extreme opression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships. Folks WAKE UP. These people want to bed your children and be protected in doing so. You will not have a say so. If given their ways, they will educate our children for all kinds of deviant behaviors. Where do think the limit is; THERE IS NO END WITH THESE SICK INDIVIDUALS. If you want to let our society to go to the DOGS literally, vote PRO-GAY, suppressing all your rights and YOU GETTING IT IN THE END. If you are Pro-Family Values and do not want your children being taught what they ought not, then Vote and tell your elected officails that you've had enough of this obvious attack on our good social moral values. Say NO to perverted SEX and The Special Gay Rights Movement. Vote No against beastiality, No against deviant sexual behavior, No against Perverted behavior in public and IN YOUR FACE without punishment. To you who are Gay and Deviant Gay Rights Supporters: KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. I do not want your Stuff in my face or
in public. A note to the City of Seattle: I do not understand why you do not arrest at Gay Parades, those individuals who expose themselves to the public and enact (portray)explicit sex acts in front of the public. Some one get pictures, send them to the City Counsel, to the City Prosecutor and to the Police and have these people arrested. No Guts... Well how about a group of fed up citizens suing the city for not protecting them against these lued acts in public? SEATTLE it's time to do your rightful job here. If I a straight person did the same thing, I'd be behind bars. The Bible, JESUS CHRIST who is GOD incarnate (In The Flesh) says alot about this behavior. He said , so you know who He really is: " I AM The Alpha and The Omega the Beginning and The End, If you see me you see the Father Who sent Me." His Word is final, there is no room for anythingelse. Don't get me wrong, He loves the Sinner, all of us who sin. That is why He came to earth and to Calvary and gave up His Life so that we would have everlasting life. Gay, Lesbian, adulterers (heterosexual and homosexual) alike, murders, liers, evil doers etc. all can have access to the King of kings and The Lord of Lords. Ask Him by the Power of His Holy Spirit to come dwell in your life; abide in Faith in Him and turn from your wicked ways. Finally, In the New King James Version Read: Romans 1:22-27

Thank you for Reading and Protecting Our Great Country from those who want to Silence the Truth.

It is so sad to see how uneducated and brainwashed you people really are. How dare anyone compare homosexuals to pedophiles. One has nothing to do with the other. This is directed to the ex-minister. What happened to you and your brothers is the direct result of a sick man not a homosexual. I am so sick and tired of people using homosexuality as a scapegoat for pedophilia.

Then another man writes homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. What power on this physical earth other than your own ignorance gives you the right to make such an idiotic claim? That is just as idiotic as me saying that an interracial couple cannot adopt children. The idea is completely ridiculous.

You fanatical Christians act like your *&^% don’t stink! Well I am here to tell you that it does. You are all so engrossed in your own agenda that you don’t even realize the hate and hurt that you are spewing across this great nation.

Let’s focus on the issue at hand. And the root of the issue is should human beings be afforded the same opportunity as other human beings? The answer is either yes or no. If you answer no then you are a hatemonger. If you answer yes then you believe in the constitutional right to equality in everyone. That is the issue.

To all of you fanatical Christians out there, how do you know your religion is correct? As far as the Mormons are concerned we are all doomed! How do you like that? I bet you don’t, so get off of your high horse and come down to humanity not reality but humanity.

I will be damned if I live in country that I fought for in Operation Iraqi Freedom, to have it turn it’s back on me. I didn’t fight for this country for people like you to ruin the lives of others because it doesn’t align with yours. You fanatics are no better than the Taliban or Saddam Hussein. I can’t believe this is what I came home to. I sacrificed my life for your freedom. I was afflicted with an incurable neurological disorder as a direct result of vaccinations to protect myself, so I could protect your freedom and this is the thanks I get.

It’s really simple folks, against gay marriage? Don’t marry one. You have the right and freedom to your own religion and beliefs but it doesn’t belong on the absentee ballot. If you can’t recognize that what you are saying is a sugarcoated form of hate, then may God help you?

Marriage is a failing institution in this country, and over 50% of marriages between a man and a woman end in divorce. Good job for setting the example and foundation for your ridiculous argument. Sounds like you all need to tighten up ship at home before you vote on something you already fail so miserably at. Maybe you should devote more time and energy in your own lives and marriage than posting your hypocrisy and hate on this forum or you might become a statistic.

All you fanatics say that you are sick and tired of gays shoving their agenda down your throat well quit shoving your hate down our throat because we are equally sick of it. We wouldn’t even be discussing this issue on this platform if you would’ve recognized your hatred from the very beginning. This platform is about equal rights afforded to human beings, not for you to show how ignorant and hateful you really are. Religion doesn’t belong here, it belongs at home or in the church.

I think it's really entertaining to see someone complain about alleged lewd acts at a gay pride parade. Were you there? Because I was. And I did not see any lewd acts on KING 5 or KOMO 4. So I'm just curious to know what your facts are or what pictures you have. I'll tell you what, how about we go to gay pride this year and we go and look for these lewd acts and report it to the authorities.

Get a life man, and when you speak you should speak scholarly, because your facts about hiv and who is likely to get hiv is completely incorrect. You should have some knowledge about what you speak and don't rely on google for your source of information because it's not scholarly information. You need scholarly articles to back your claims. And sir I know your claims are not. You are a prime example of who I was talking about in my last posting.

Dear Terron,

I wasn't there I did not take the pictures but you know what. I've seen them and I know who has them. I used to work with the person who has them. They may be from years gone by but it still happens in cities across America.

By the way... I am not against persons who are gay, just their lifestyle. To indviduals who want to say that I do not have a right to my opinion in public,; where will our rights be if we the people are silenced by so called Hate Crime Laws. We do not Hate You, because we speak out against what we consider deviant lifestyle behaviors. You have the right to say what you like and I'd like to keep it that way. We are not trying to silence your speech. Gay persons should not be jailed for their behavoir in private no more than our speech against a gay lifestyle should should jail us who do not agree with you.

By the way... I have a correction to my previous blog: The average age at death of a gay male in the USA is 42 years. The reason for this is simple, their imune system is broken from the lifestyle and it needs to be fixed. Who can fix it on earth? I think this statistic is more sad in our lives here on earth, than anything else here in these blogs except for; not believing that there is a God who loves you.

Keep Freedom Of Speech Legal, if we don't, all of us are the losers. I'll protect your right for Free Speech and in respect please protect mine.

Dear Carl:

You act as if heterosexuals do not participate in sexual deviant behavior. Sex crimes are committed by more heterosexuals than homosexuals. I see heterosexual strip clubs in the middle of upper class neighborhoods. Look at Deja Vu in the middle of Lake Forest Park, WA. So you tell me who is more sexually deviant. This is not a comparison on who is more sexually deviant, because heterosexuals have no leg to stand nor talk judge anyone else’s sexual behavior.

I agree with you there “AIDS has become one of the leading causes of death for persons aged 25-44.” But you failed to state “The greatest increase was among youth aged 13-19 and 20-24.” Furthermore, you also failed to state “…AIDS cases attributed to heterosexual activity increased 130%, while those attributed to homosexual activity fell from 66.5% to 46.6%.”

So please, when I say get your information and facts straight, I mean exactly that. I can do this all night. The purpose of state government intervening and making a ruling regarding this issue is because they are protecting us from people like you, and the many others who posted incorrect numbers and statistics and all that crap. You all seem to have distorted judgment.

We have room for free speech in this country and there are some people that look foolish doing it, but just know that your free speech is filled with hate and fantasies that you wish were true about homosexuals but all you people are doing is talking without thinking.

Peace

And my facts are from PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7851311&dopt=Citation

I just finished reading all postings above and all I can say is God help us all. I have read several postings on each side that were presented well and made me sit back and think about what they wrote.

I am Christian and I have a nephew that is gay. He has had a very difficult life so far, and at the age of 22 he was diagnosed with HIV and since has progressed to full blown AIDS.

As a child he had tendencies that made us feel that he was going to be gay. My sister did not try to steer him in either direction and just let him grow up.

When I was a child homosexual behavior was treated as a disease with thoses that didn't want help going underground to practice their activities.

I often wonder in my nephews case if my sister had sought treatment as a mental disorder his homo-tendencies, if he would have been well adjusted and AIDS free at 24 years old.

This whole issue is complex, and calling each other names will not get anyone anywhere. As a Christian God will hold us accountable if we see someone who lost his way and do nothing. He says we should offer our help a second time and then if they still do not understand, to leave them be and have nothing more to do with them.

Maybe we should just offer ourselves to those that are called by or seeking God. Let the rest do what they want. After all, Christians are told to first seek the Kindom of God, and all else with ge given unto thee.

With regards to Brett's comments:

First, again you fail to acknowledge that marriage is not a fundamental right. Your citation of Loving v. Virginia is dicta, plain and simple. More specifically, if the marriage law in Loving had not discriminated based on race there would have been no issue to resolve. The law received stricter scrutiny because it involved race, not because it inovlved a fundamental right. (also see Korematsu) No U.S. Supreme Court case has HELD that marriage is a fundamental right. If the law does not infringe on a fundamental right, then the court does not apply strict scrutiny and the moving party must carry the burden of proof of showing that there is no rational basis for the law.

Next, for parties seeking to challenge a law as being unconstitutional based on disrimination, which is the position of gay-marriage advocates, there are different standards of review. If the moving party is claiming discrimination based on an IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTIC, such as race, then the government must carry the burden of proof as to whether the law is narrowly tailored and furthers a compelling state interest (strict scrutiny). If the party is claiming discrimination based on something that is not an IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTIC, such as homosexualilty, then the court will defer to the government and the moving party must carry the burden of proof to show that there is no rational rational basis for the law (Rational Basis).

In conclusion, the burden of proof does lie with advocates of gay-marriage to show that it will not be harmful to the community's general welfare. And the fact that the consequences of gay marriage may be much more latent and difficult to measure, like global warming, does make them any less serious or detrimental to our country's future.

My point in the bestiality analogy is that when you dealing with a law that does not a fundamental right AND does not involve discrimination based on an immutable characteristic -- the state has every right to regulate that activity and has broad discretion.

In sum, the determination of whether Homosexuality is an immutable characterstic is critical to the analysis -- it is not a red herring. If it is a choice or merely a predisposition, then the moving party does have to carry the

his whole line of cases flows from the notion that laws that discriminate based on IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS receive stricter scruntiny. Those that do no receive less scrutiny. Those characteristics that are not immutable receive deference from the court

The anti-gay KKKhristians always focus on their misconceived image of a man dressed as a woman dancing in a parade. Of course that's what the media shows on TV, not the boring Boeing workers I typically see marching in Seattle's Gay Pride Parade. I've attended that parade for years with my wife and 2 kids and have never seen anything lewd or illegal. Flamboyant yes, but in a Mardi Gras way.

Gay women have babies all the time and parent children with their committed partners. These families deserve equal protection under the law. That's all. There are 2 completely different parts to getting married. One is recognition by the state, the other recognition by a church. Currently, in America a man and a woman can go before a judge or justice of the peace and get married. They can then have the protections and responsibilities of community property, child custody, joint tax filing, Social Security benefits, power-of-attorney over medical issues, etc. They can even get divorced within a set of laws that govern division of property.

I think it's incredible that my neighbor who is a police sergeant and quite a gal isn't given equal protection under the law. It's amazing that my friend who's an emergency room nurse doesn't have the same rights as heteros when it comes to community property he shares with his committed partner. Their gay lifestyle includes protecting your family and saving lives.

Whatever you want to do in the privacy of your church is AOK with me as long as it doesn't involve ritual sacrifice. That's why there's separation of church and state. It was put in the Constitution to protect your religious freedom, as wacky and distasteful as I may think you are.

Right wing KKKhristians are trying to tear down that separation, without thinking about the potential backlash and future effects on their own ability to pursue their religious freedoms without outside interference.

I want to say that I have known Christians who are righteous and go out of their way to help others, regardless of faith. It's always the hateful rhetoric spewing hypocrites who get all the attention. That includes Rev. Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Rev. Hutcherson. They are to Christians what the man in the dress with the pierced nipples is: freaks who get all the media attention. The man in the dress isn't trying to restrict people from living their lives, but the others certainly are.

I am thankful that Rev. Hutcherson is only running a church and is not King County Executive or governor. Ron Sims is to be applauded for standing up for what's right. It's so rare to see a politician do that.

Two scriptures: "Do not judge, lest ye be judged in the same manner in which you judge." and...My personal favorite: "Let the first man who has not sinned cast the first stone."

Many Christians have a tendency to impose their religious beliefs without really knowing the scriptures and I can't stand being associated with those kind. We can disagree with the world, but we cannot force the world to believe what we believe. If we try, then we are no better than the terrorists who think everyone should worship Allah (sp?). Whatever happened to forgiveness?

Christian or not, I have the right to my own opinion and religous beliefs...I have the right to express them, but I do not have the right to impose them on anyone else.

I am a Christian...but, I do not judge my fellow man. Gays are human beings and are entitled to the same rights as everyone else in this country. In fact, ironically enough, my daughter's Godfather is gay. I know he would be a loving and caring care giver to my daughter if I were unable to take care of her. AND, he would not impose his sexual morality on her either.

As for the idiot who made the comment about jews and blacks, I would like to know what bible you read...because I have yet to find any scripture in the christian bible that tells us to destroy the jews or blacks. You sir are the worst kind of biggot and a waste of human flesh. You need some serious therapy. Still though, you are entitled to your opinions as long as you do not impose them on me.

Dear Terron,

Please do not get me wrong here. I am not against peoples that are gay.

I am however opposed to gay marriage only because there are militant groups (heterosexual and homoseuxual) alike who have a different agenda than maybe you do.

Bravo, you made a great point speaking about heterosexuals that have deviant sexual behaviors.
I wholeheartedly agree with you there. These people want to ramp up their bad behaviors (do whatever they want to do) and legalize it.

Fundemental views started with our Founding Fathers/Mothers who fought for Freedom of rights of religous and social politics. With these views taken to heart today we are therefor able to express our views by Freedom Of Speech. I hope that you believe that you should have the right of freedom to express your views openly without fear of being arrested for voicing these views.

Believing that any one who disagrees with an opposing point of view should have their voice silenced is not Freedom of Speech.

You think and say, I spew hatred because I have an opposing view.

First off I accept you the way you are with every fault you have. Are you willing to accept me with all the faults I have?

Ok, now that I have said my PEACE here. I think that you might agree with some of what I have to say, although it might not be also sholarly as you'd like or to talk with what manner you say is without the facts. The facts remain and all of us need to determine for themselves what the statistics and facts say. Then, we need to be given the right to go to the polls to determine how we will live according to the Laws of the Land. We should not go to court because, we might get opportunity to overturn the Will Of The People with Bullying to our position say it's unconstutional.

As a matter of fact I have a great idea. You said, let us meet to go to a gay pride parade.
I have a better idea, we can meet to discuss this further to understand each others point of view. I am not against you, I am for you and so Is Jesus Christ who died and rose again for all of us.

My point to the City of Seattle was not only pointed at peoples who are gay but, against the cities liberal views which do not support the Laws in place in society. Point in case; The Freemont parades which poeple who are ride bicycles naked in public who are not arrested for indecent exposure.

What about those peoples that want to bath nude in public both (heterosexual and homosexual) will they be arrested for indecent exposure right? Why of course they will, maybe even in the privacy of their own backyard. What I am saying here is that we need to have Laws applied to all and not just to some who do not respect the Laws of The Land as they already exsist.
If perchance that the laws of the land change which allow for gay marriage howbeit that I might think it's not right, I will respect your rights to engage in what I might feel is wrong.
On the same hand these rights do negate the fact that I have a right to speak my mind about this and even if it offends a different mind or view.

What I might have you ask yourself is this: What does Freedom of speech mean to you? If I say something that offends your point of view or anyone elses in society , does that give authorities the right to squelch my Freedom Of Speech... I Pray not.

I have no doubt Terron, that if You have asked Jesus Christ into your heart that He in fact does dwell there in The Person of The Holy Spirit.

A natural tendancy for all men/women is to do whatever they want and I too struggle with this in my own ways. A holy life is a life given up for the betterment of The Kingdom Of God, that we might present our bodies as a living Holy sacrifice being acceptable to Him.

If you do not agree with my views that's Ok with me. I am not the one who stands in judgement in our final hour, Thank God, none other than Jesus Christ stands in this judgement.

To all others who do not believe in Jesus as Lord God and Savior, there is too much evidence that ponts to Him that made you, The Heavens and The Earth. I respect your right to worship or not worhip any God/god as you see fit.

I will not try to silence you or jail you because of your speech for your belief or non-belief of Jesus Christ and Who He is and what He has done for man/woman kind.

What I do say here is that we should be respectful of each others point of view.

Like Lot in the Bible, if society has become so depraved, I should remove myself from that society and let God handle the rest.

Do you not think that the Hand of God does not ever visit a disobedient peoples, you need to go back to the Bible because there you'll not only See a Loving God but also a Rightous God Who does lift His Hand off a peoples, because of their disobediece and allows the destroyer (satan) to come into the Camp and cause them harm by various methods.

We all need to be sensitive to each other in society lifting each other up in friendship.

I am sure that if we saw each other on the street we'd be friends.

Do people have the right to have relations with whomever they want? There are some laws in place around the USA where it specifically states that sodomy (anal sex) with any man/women is a crime. Do I personally think people should be jailed for this, NO. You as a person has to listen to your own heart to get you own point of view. I think that there should be laws made to imprison those that take advantage over another persons body without their consent. This also goes to them who would like to legalize sex with children, animals, multiple wives/husbands,infanticide (in the womb or out of the womb), expose their sexual body parts in public, rape, murder, illegal drug use, intimidating peoples with opposing views by threatening physical harm to them or their families or anyone else etc.

Take Care of Yourself and May God Keep Blessing America

Please remember that you might be offended by what I say and I might be Offended by your Speech however, we still need to Keep Our Freedom Of Speech Legal because, neither one of us want to become a part of a dictatorship where no one can voice our views.

The argument always seems to go that if homosexuals are allowed the same rights as heterosexuals, then the next thing you know it will be legal to have sex with animals and children. That is an absurd nonsensical argument that has no logical merits. I can make similar arguments about you or your religious views, but won't play that game.

Convicted murderers on death row are allowed to get married, but my neighbor who is a police sergeant cannot.

The other piece of pretzel logic is the oft spouted "I do not hate homosexuals, I hate the behavior." At least have the guts to admit that you do in fact hate homosexuals. Stop playing mind games on yourselves and admit the fact that you do have hate in your heart. I know it conflicts with being a Christian, but there's the rub. You can't have it both ways. Rev. Hutcherson is a Christian who practices hate; a hate thy neighbor Christian. At least admit it.

The reason I defend gay rights is not to defend my friends. I'm speaking out for the kind of America I want to live in and want my 2 kids to live in. There should not be any second class citizenship in America.

Dear Carl:

You have the right to voice your opinion anytime and any place. Similarly, Krissypoo said it best “Christian or not, I have the right to my own opinion and religious beliefs...I have the right to express them, but I do not have the right to impose them on anyone else.” And that is exactly what you just did. For example, you said, “I have no doubt Terron, that if you have asked Jesus Christ into your heart that He in fact does dwell there in The Person of The Holy Spirit.” You are shoving your religion down my throat. How dare you. You and the others continue to be hypocrites. For example, you said, “We all need to be sensitive to each other in society lifting each other up in friendship.” You have got to be kidding me. There is nothing neither uplifting nor sensitive in what you or the other fanatics have said on this blog.

You the say, “Then, we need to be given the right to go to the polls to determine how we will live according to the Laws of the Land.” As far as I know, you will not be getting married to a man, so this law doesn’t affect how you will live. You do not determine for me how I will live my life or who I marry. But you like the many other fanatics misinterpret “Laws of the Land” for Laws of God. You need to be able to separate that. How about separation of church and state?

You again show how one sided you are when it comes to politics, you said, “My point to the City of Seattle was not only pointed at peoples who are gay but, against the cities liberal views which do not support the Laws in place in society.” Look, we are all adults here. If the right wing is not in office, then there is uproar from the conservatives and likewise for the liberal left. Give it a rest. Laws are created; some laws are not enforced for many particular reasons that I don’t care about. Then people want to create more laws, when the first law isn’t enforced.

You again revert back to the gay pride parade issue, you said, “Point in case; The Freemont parades which people who are ride bicycles naked in public who are not arrested for indecent exposure.” Unless you were there, then you are speaking without knowledge. You claim you have seen pictures, so what. They could be doctored. The bottom line is, gay or straight, it doesn’t matter. People expose themselves in public, it’s against the law, and sometimes people are not arrested because it isn’t seen by an arresting officer or for whatever reason. Speeding is against the law. A peace officer is supposed to uphold the law. But they can also use discretion. And they can choose to let you off with a warning. The next time you get pulled over for an infraction and the officer gives you a break let them know that you want the law enforced and demand that you receive a ticket.

Bottom line, religion belongs in the church, your home, with your family and friends, in a religious private school and in your heart, but it has no place in politics or how laws are created, because not everyone is a Christian or believes in what you do.

To counter the previous comment, liberalism has become its own religion and it is imposing its will on people every day. Moreover, the fact that its words are not contained in a Bible does not make its imposition any less real. Its churches are located in local ACLU Chapters, NOW and MoveOn.org. Their preachers do not speak in buildings with steeples, but instead speak in PUBLIC law schools and PUBLIC universities. The values of this religion are as homogenous as any, and its views of the world are interpreted through their own form of preachers -- professors and politicians. More alarming is the fact that because it is not organized as a traditional religion, and does not derive its beliefs from an identifiable book, it is even more difficult to spot and treat with equal constitutional rigor.

Indeed, it has an agenda and masks its religous views and impositions as "progressive" or "expanding rights." Laws are passed everyday in lock-step with how it views the world and how it thinks the world ought to work.

Indeed, the liberal religion will prevail because once our constitution is divorced from our "organized" Christain heritage, relativity will be the guiding light. In a twist of irony I suspect that one faction will be driving their gas-guzzling SUVs as they learn that the latent effects of their choices have lead to irreversible global warming and its progeny of environmental consequences. Conversely, another faction will be shocked to learn that the self-gratification that came with supporting abortion, changing the definition of marriage, encouraging distrubtion of condoms, was the tipping point for moral decency.

Truly, there is a culture war.....and terms like religion, constitution, and fundamental rights only have the meaning that we give them.

KH:

That is just so much Bill O'Reilly style rhetoric. Oh yes, the ACLU is such a threat to our culture. Without the organizations you mentioned, we could aspire to be a more righteous nation, like say...North Korea. I'm sure the anti-slavery folks were liberals too. Religious fanatics have been decrying the loss of moral decency since before Christ was born, and every generation thinks the next one is in decline. Your post reads like a propaganda commercial from the 1950s about The Red Menace. How do you manage to leave the house with such a terrified view of America?

Thanks for telling the way it is KH

Terron,

KH said it better than I did. I am sorry that you did not accept my invitation to met with rational understanding. You said you were Christian, I guess I misunderstood what you meant by saying that.

Yes Terron,

A person can seperate the actions with the acts of the individual(s) Jesus did it. If He didn't we're all damned.

Well, don't bother blogging me any more...
I've said my PEACE here.

Best to all of you bloggers. I hope we've covered the ground that needed to be covered with the Truth as we each see it.

I respect your views even though I might not like it. "KEEP FREEDOM OF SPEECH LEGAL" to say what you mean even it it rattles the cage of the oppositional thinker and even if they are offended by it. Jesus Christ was offensive to the people of His day... To the religous and the publican both. They put Him to death however, He's still alive and returning Soon! Prepare Your Hearts.

Like Jesus, I too will keep on offending people with His Words... It's an Evangelists duty to spread the Word of God. Letting peole know that Christs Blood was shead for the forgiveness of sin.

Eric1956,

If you want to address the post it would be worthwhile to address how you would DISTINGUISH liberalism from a religion in a meaningful way.

I analogized between two groups, and the issue is how do you distinguish between a relgion and an affiliation. How does a group that has very homogenous thinking differ from a religion -- and why is the imposition of their view constitutional while the imposition of a Christain view has been under attack.

Finally, your anecdotal evidence that each generation thinks the next generation is in decline supports my very point: global warming is ACCELERATING and it will continue to lead to an enviornmental decline unless we change our course. And my argument is that moral decency may very well be heading towards a similar "tipping point."

Please respond with valid points.

Both sides need to turn down their rhetoric and listen to each other. No progress is going to be made simply by turning up the volume.

There have been gays throughout history and there will be gays in the future. I was kicked out of my parents house for just the mere 'thought' of being gay. My mother found my journal when I was in college and I was kicked out--oldest of 6 kids, by no means a troublemaker, and had not dabbled in any homosexual behavior. They were using this 'tough love' mentality that the hard right likes to use.

A compromise that makes sense is this--we won't ask for gay marriage. You in turn will not prevent us from forming a civil union and the financial/legal responsibilities/benefits that come with it. To sweeten the pot, I will not ask your church/synagogue/mosque to perform this union.
Makes sense to me. Just don't continue to try to tell me what's good for me and legislate laws that prevent me from pursing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I will do the same for you.

It's curious that the divorce rate in red state is higher on average than blue states. (5.08 per 1000 in red states, 3.61% in red) http://www.heartheissues.com/gaymarriage-divorce.html

Ken Hutcherson came across as very condescending and rude--He was out to "prove God right and Ron Sims wrong"--this is the very rhetoric that needs to be turned down. Ken can shepard his own flock, but leave the rest of us alone.

“Conversely, another faction will be shocked to learn that the self-gratification that came with supporting abortion, changing the definition of marriage, encouraging distribution of condoms, was the tipping point for moral decency.” You have got to be kidding me!

First of all, know one is changing the definition of marriage. You need to let go of that preposterous claim. It’s about giving Americans the same opportunity to marry the love of their life that’s afforded to you.

Second, it’s not about supporting abortion. It’s about whether or not the government has the right to tell a human being what they can or cannot do with their bodies. How would you like it if the government told you that you had to shave your head because you were going bald? Whether or not you morally think abortion is right, is neither here nor there. It is you opinion and belief. The government doesn’t have the right period. If a woman gets raped then she is stuck with that child if abortion is outlawed. If a woman who gets pregnant has complications due to her pregnancy and her only chance for survival is to have an abortion, well then I guess she will die. You are thinking to yourself well only those circumstances this should be legal. NO!!!!! There is no double standard. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Third, the fact that you think that condom distribution has moral repercussions on society is mind boggling to me. So let’s just have everyone go out there and spread there disease and have unplanned pregnancies and bring illegitimate children into this world in a country that is already overcrowded. I mean wake up. Get off of your high horse!

FOCUS!!! Should Americans be treated equally? It’s either yes or no. Not Yes, but if they are gay, no. It’s either yes or no. If you say no, then you need to move to Iraq and learn and feel what it’s like to have your rights taken away. I know, I’ve been there fighting for your freedom and their freedom. Don’t use Christianity as your platform for hate.

With respect to the previous post:

First, there is no hate involved. However, it is often more comforting for people to dismiss another person's point of view if they can attribute it to hate.

Second, it is "no" one is changing the definition of marriage. Currently, the legal definition of marriage in Washington is limited to a MAN and a WOMAN. The case to change that definition is pending in the Washington Supreme Court right now. So yes, actually, the goal for proponents of gay marriage is to change the definition of marriage.

Third, and with respect to the distribution of condoms. I would ask whether the distribution of condoms has decreased the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases? Has it decreased the average number of sexual partners? Has it reinforced the role that sex should play in our lives? Are the number of out-of-wedlock births decreasing? Throwing condoms at sex is like throwing money at a problem. This supports my argument that, moral decency, when it comes to sex is in decline. My comment about condoms has now hijacked my central focus which was same-sex marriage.

Finally, with respect to your point that all Americans should be treated equally -- it is simply not true. There are many situations where people are treated unequally all the time. Many times it is for good reasons. We discriminate based on grades because we do see that discrimination as menacing. We discriminate based on college degrees, but we do not see that discrimination as menacing. We discriminate based on race, see affirmative action, but we do not see that discrimination as menacing. Finally, we discriminate against people's who are involved in conduct that we THINK is immoral -- see the recently passed bestiality law. My point: it is simply not true that all Americans are or should be treated equally. We obviously differ about whose view is right.

First off, the next time you want to correct someone else’s grammar, you should check yours first! Let's see, where do I begin? "Third, and with respect to the distribution of condoms." this is what they call a fragment sentence! "I would ask whether the distribution of condoms has decreased the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases?" this is what they call the improper use of a question mark! That was a statement and not a question. How about this sentence, "Are the number of out-of-wedlock births decreasing?" First of, you need to either add an "s" at the end of "number" or change it to "Is the number." Now that that ridiculous spectacle is out of the way lets get down to the other flaws in your argument.
Your comment was, “First, there is no hate involved. However, it is often more comforting for people to dismiss another person's point of view if they can attribute it to hate.” For you to sit there and say that the above point of views is not filled with hate is completely insane. Furthermore, point of views can have love, hate, disgust, etc…So your attempt at trying to be clever by using an analogy has failed you miserably. Just accept the fact that your point of view is filled with hate. You see how those are two different things?
The goal of proponents for gay marriage is to make sure everyone has equal rights, if that involves changing a definition then so be it. And the rights are not equal because Neanderthals like you have the right to marry Jane and I don’t have the right to marry Jon.
Now you asked the question “whether the distribution of condoms has decreased the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases?” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to answer this question. The answer is unequivocally YES! Now for the scholarly answer “consistent condom use resulted in an overall 87% reduction in risk of HIV transmission” “condoms provided a statistically significant level of protection against the combined outcome of gonorrhea or nongonococcal urethritis in exposed men” So don’t ask stupid questions that any pea brain can figure out on their own. You can find this information at http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862004000600012
And your argument about all Americans are not treated equally is weak at best. You say people are discriminated against because of college degrees? Get real! It’s called qualifications! And the root of affirmative action was to stop discrimination not create it. So please, don’t come at me or anyone else on this blog with this bull^%*&. Your argument is weak and just as ridiculous as me saying that I don’t think heterosexuals should be allowed to get married. But I don’t judge other people; it’s your right and your life. Just like it’s my life and not for you to worry about or shove your religion down my throat because that’s the only leg you have to stand on.

KH:

I don't have time now to get in-depth here, but in your previous post you say:

"Throwing condoms at sex is like throwing money at a problem. This supports my argument that, moral decency, when it comes to sex is in decline."

I love that supposed truism. Next time your car breaks down or your roof leaks remember that saying. In my experience, throwing money at a problem does in fact make a difference.

I'll be throwing condoms and strong parenting at my teenage son. Unfortunately, I can't always be by his side in all situations. It is a fact that teens have sex, as much as we parents may wish they didn't.

I'm not quite sure when the good old days that social conservatives harken back to actually were. The 1950s? Separate and unequal Jim Crow segregation, lynchings, McCarthyism, few opportunities for women and minorities to advance in the workplace.

Equal rights under the law for gays is the last big civil rights battle as far as I can tell. I really don't see those rights as a threat to the family, Christianity, or Christmas, as much as some want to portray it that way.

Here's something I want to know about. A child grows up in a devout Christian family and is a believer. That child realizes he or she is gay, and becoming an adult wants to find true love and companionship. What do they do? What does their family do? What if they can't be converted to heterosexuality, but still love Jesus Christ? What do you do if this is your child?

In your opinion can a person call themselves a Christian and be gay?

I still haven't read an explanation of how it makes sense that it's legal for a serial killer to be married in prison to a person of the opposite sex (happens all the time), but my police officer gay neighbor cannot have a civil union/marriage with her companion.

Gotta go.

Terron,

First, I was correcting spelling, not grammar.

Second, this is a blog, not a academic paper -- admittedly I should have said nothing because I doubt many people are proofreading their blogs.

Third, nobody questions whether condoms reduce the risk of contracting AIDS or HIV when two people have ALREADY DECIDED to have sex. The question remains whether handing condoms to kids changes their perception about the appropriateness of sex and creates a culture of promiscuity -- and increases the NUMBER of aforementioned problems. Also, the silence is deafening on the issue of out-of-wedlock births. You could make the same argument you made before and argue condoms are 95% effective, but yet we all know that the NUMBER of single mothers has reached an epidemic proportion. So, I suppose the answer is even more condoms?

Fourth, if you don't understand the historical and current jurisprudence surrounding the 14th Amendment, then our conversation is done. With respect to permitted and unpermitted discrimination, there are a long line of cases that try to determine when the 5th or 14th Amendment should provide protection. Such decisions turn on whether the right involved is a fundamental right and whether the nature of the discrimination touches on a suspect class. The court has wrestled with the issue for the last 100 years and still has not been able to provide a logically consistent framework. So my arguments are not bull$@#$, as you elequently stated, but rather arguments based on the existing case law. I would suggest you read Dredd Scott, Korematsu, Loving, Shapiro, Zobel, Saenz, Grutter, Bakke, etc. It will take a lot of time, but it might sharpen your analysis.

There is no nead to respond to this post, I'm done blogging.

To KH:

You argue that Loving's reference to marriage as a basic human right is judicial opinion, yet it is upon that very "opinion" that the ruling is based. The decision of Loving established that the Virginia law, which declared inter-racial marriages illegal, violated the equal protection of a basic human right, citing specifically the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment [Section 1] reads: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If marriage is not a right, then it cannot be protected under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

What was lacking in the Virginia law that led to the Loving case—and what is lacking in the case of denying same-sex marriage now—is due process of the law. Right now, marriage is restricted to exclude homosexual monogamous couples. This law restricting the right of marriage is being questioned at the judicial level now. In MA, we found that the state could not establish "just cause" to restrict this right, and so the law was ruled unconstitutional. The door was left open for argument, though, as the ruling said the case could be reviewed if just cause can be established. Instead of providing such reasoning, however, the state chose instead to seek out an amendment to the MA Constitution so as to specifically define marriage to exclude gay couples.

Furthermore, the government (at both the state and federal levels) bestows upon married couples additional and specific rights, benefits, and privileges; 1,049 at the federal level alone (documented by the General Accounting Office in 1997) that cannot be obtained in any other singular action. Many cannot be granted in any other case but through the act of marriage.

Changing the definition of marriage? If you would like to argue semantics, the verb "to marry" is used to define any act of joining two elements. In fact, its synonym is "to join". The core, literal meaning of marriage has nothing to do with human gender components.

You say that all Americans need not be treated equally under law? At least, you say that it is not true when it is suggested that they must. You cite GPA scores and degrees as examples of legal discrimination. Both of these benchmarks—which indicate specific levels of learning and base knowledge—are often required in occupational or academic environments. Private business as well as state or federal agencies require a preset level of knowledge and learning ability for qualification for jobs or higher education. GPA levels and degrees/diplomas are indicative of these required qualities. One may have a lower GPA, but is one's right to education being abridged in any way? No, as long as we still have public education, this fundamental right is not being abridged.

Bestiality is not illegal because of immorality. It is illegal because it is inhumane treatment of animals. Rights are not abridged on account of any perceived moral compass. They are abridged only for the safety and well being of the citizenry of the state and nation. Why do we not have the right to murder or steal? Not because the Bible says so, but because it infringes on the rights and well being of others.

What is a marriage? In my experience, marriage is an unbreakable promise of life-long commitment between two people. This commitment shapes the foundation for a stable family, which, together with other stable family units, shapes the foundation of a stable community, which leads to stable regions, which expands outward however far you choose to look.

The levels of government recognize the impact on social stability that marriage has, and so they pass along the aforementioned rights, responsibilities and protections to families through the act of marriage, so as to greater strengthen the stability of families, the community, ad infinitum (ideally). When you act to deny these marriages, you are choosing to deny these families the rights and security afforded to other families. Put simply, that act is in violation of the 14th Amendment and ultimately impacts not just the family, but the community.

I was sorry to see that Pastor Hutcherson did not address this deficiency, but instead reacted with outrage that the Bible would not be emulated in civil law.

I will respond to this post whether you read it or not. You're right, this is not an academic paper nor is this a history class. Furthermore, I am offended by your assumptions that I have not read any of the above reading that you claim would sharpen my analysis. Sir, I will run analysis in circles around you. That is what I do! So as I stated before, get off your soap box. This whole blog is becoming a waste of time. People are diverting the subject at hand. Fanatics will never agree, even if you find and point out flaws in their logic. And sir you are no different. You make a statement "The question remains whether handing condoms to kids changes their perception about the appropriateness of sex and creates a culture of promiscuity -- and increases the NUMBER of aforementioned problems." I'm so sick in tired of dealing with idiots in this world. Instead of making a blanket statement, find out the answer for yourself. In today's day and age kids are thinking about sex, going to have sex, and they are having sex. It is our responsibility to educate and provide the necessary tools for safety, so there should be no question in their minds about the appropriateness of sex. With that said, quit making stupid statements and I will quit responding to them. Like you are so perfect in your life, that none of this applies to you. Do us all a favor and quit blogging

Brett,

I appreciate your articulate response.

However, again I have to disagree that Marriage is a fundamental right. The 14th Amendment applies equally to laws that discriminate based on race as it does to laws that touch on fundamental rights. For instance, in Grutter the issue did not involve a fundamental right, but yet the court still applied strict scrutiny to determine whether the Michigan's use of affirmative action violated the 14th Amendment. I think it is a strained reading of Loving to find that the court found a new fundamental right of marriage. I think the more reasonable reading is that in 1967, in the midst of racial issues, the Court was holding that state laws that discriminate based on race must be narrowly tailored and advance a compelling state interest -- and laws banning interracial marriages does not survive that standard of review.

Before the MASS. gay-marriage case was even handed down it was obvious to most of us that this strained argument would be the only crutch that the court could lean on. The court had to find that marriage was a fundamental right because proving, in the alternative, that homosexuality is a suspect class based immutable characteristics would have proven nearly impossible. Moreover, the fact that 9 justices on the Massachussets Supreme Court view gay-marriage as acceptable does not necessarily mean much.

My presumption is that you would argue that fundamental rights are derived from our "evolving standards of decency." Therefore, marriage has evolved into a fundamental right. I struggle with this interpretation because it then leaves "decency" to be determined by 9 justices. Justices are people. Why are 9 justices any more adept at recognizing what is decent than an ordinary person. This is a moral question that should be played out by the people, not the court. I would argue that the moral question of what constitutes decency should be decided by the people and the court should defer to the people on these types of issues.

I said I was done, but I couldn't help myself.

To my thinking "marriage" should be something you do in a church.
"Civil union" is what the state/government should provide equally to all, opposite sex and same sex.

"Marriage" should pertain to love and your religious vows.

"Civil Union" should pertain to all the contractual/legal obligations, rights, and responsibilities. Similar to the way government codifies formal business partnerships.

I'm suggesting that the government only provide civil unions for all. The word "marriage" has so much baggage.

There, now I've fixed everything!

Bravo eric1956. I still argue KH's statement "Why are 9 justices any more adept at recognizing what is decent than an ordinary person." I ask you what makes you the resident expert on determining what is decent based on established laws today. You can't answer this question, because what you may consider decent based on your own religious and personal beliefs is flawed in our legal system. It's not whether those 9 Justices think homosexuality or same-sex marriage is decent, it's about them making an unbiased decision without bringing religion or personal beliefs into the equation. The sooner you people figure this out, the better off this country will be.

god created adam and eve not adam and adam thats all there is to it gay rights are a joke marriage is a holy thing not a subject for gays and lesbians

Today when you have the right to Free Speech, SPEAK UP because, it's not who you call the Extremist Christians that will silence you; it will be the (Extreme Islam Terrorist) who you have to be afraid of in this life.

I know of no Real Christians who have ever threatened homosexuals.

However, Extreme Islam Terrorists do not allow known homosexuality in their society.
I do not need to tell all of you how they will silence all of us, it's in the news every day.

If you can not freely speak out today or in the future about all issues, creating laws to protect you against what you think is offensive speech; when you speak out about Extreme Islamists who bring terror, all of us will be in physical danger.

You who lack understanding and are without wisdom will attack my message too.

Are you people blind to see what you are doing, creating Laws that protect everyone from offensive speech when there are no physical threats. If the laws went to protect everyone from what they feel is offensive speech; we'd all be legally bound to be mute.

Do you not know and see the signs of the times... WISDOM will show you the Truth.

Prepare your hearts, I AM returning sooner than you think.

KH:
You may be nominally comforted to learn that I myself do not subscribe to the notion that perceptions of "decency" should govern laws and the recognition of human rights. To an ambiguous degree, decency, like beauty, will forever be in the eye of the beholder. It is because of this that I do not embrace the idea that rights are "created" by way of social evolution (perceived or otherwise).

Instead, I say that marriage itself is one of those pre-established fundamental human rights to which the 9th Amendment refers, and I believe that it is this definition that Loving recognizes. It's ironic that, as the Constitution was being drafted, Jefferson and the Federalists were concerned that a Bill of Rights would one day lead people to believe that those rights that are not directly outlined in the Constitution may be excluded from the protection of that rule of law. As a compromise, Madison eventually agreed to the inclusion of what came to be the 9th Amendment, which affirms that other fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution are also protected.

Eric, I take your statement to mean you would like to see all current civil marriages nullified and reclassified as civil contracts? Can you explain how this solution would actually "fix everything"?

I am of the opinion that all who declare marriage to be a uniquely Judeo-Christian attribute (by invoking the Bible and its Scriptures) should remember two things: It is important to have and maintain your beliefs, and it is equally important to understand that others may not share those same beliefs. Recognizing that we are a diverse state and nation, basic human rights and freedoms must not be abridged without due process of the law.

Please do not share with the world how stupid you really are. When you grow up and have something of value to say then come and join us.

brett:

You say: "Eric, I take your statement to mean you would like to see all current civil marriages nullified and reclassified as civil contracts? Can you explain how this solution would actually "fix everything"."
----
I never said that. Did you find a bureacratic flaw in my idea. I am saying from this date forward the state should issue civil union contracts to both heterosexual and homosexual parterships. Aren't all heterosexual marriages now licensed by the state just that? With 40% or so of them ending in divorce, doesn't the contractual part of it come into play, controlling how property is divided, taxes paid, and children are parented?

I'm saying take the word "marriage" off all civil union contracts because the word is so loaded. I think my explanation of how it would fix everything stands on its own. Please explain what's not clear about it. I'm not saying every American will be happy with this approach. It just applies more to what the true function of state/federal government is. There are all sorts of partnerships and incorporations. Civil marriage is just another type. If you want all the bells and whistles you can also find a church that is willing to marry you.
-----

Here are examples of a few other changes that have caused conundrums for large segments of the population who thought they would be disastrous.

US women get the vote: 1920: Isn't it incredible that this was something they had to fight for?

End of slavery in US: resisted by every means including civil war.

Segregation of the races: to think that seeing the words "colored" and "white" over water fountains was once normal and accepted.

Voting age changed from 21 to 18.

Things do change! It's OK.

Terron,

Just say... Blah Blah Blah, your an idiot, uneducated, you're stupid, hypocrites etc.

Yeh! Just show Em your colors there Terron.
You are right again... WHY? Tell us, inquiring minds want to know!

I'd like to just hear you one more time degrade the people you're talking to, it's so humerous. If it wasn't so sad, it would actually be funny.

Your degarding and putting down everyone who opposes your way of thought really makes some one here look foolish and it's not your opposition.

Custer’s Last Stand, so to speak, but I don’t intend to lose.

O.K. here’s the deal, folks – the crux of this debate: Do you believe the following theological statements are true or false? “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16); “There is no other name under heaven (Christ) given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

When people debate whether a behavior is “sinful” (wrong) or not; i.e., homosexuality, they must not start mid-stream, arguing from religious and non-religious viewpoints. Let’s first agree on ground rules – let’s identify a primary principle and come to an agreement regarding definitions. Otherwise we are arguing apples and oranges. Here is the principle and its corollary in the form of a question: Do you believe in the existence of sin or not? How do you define sin?

From the biblical point of view, the Bible says that “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” It then goes on to say that “If we confess our sins he (Christ) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:8-9). That is my theological start-point and it comes right out of our rule book. The Bible clearly states that mankind is afflicted with a fallen spiritual condition called sin. In case you haven’t guessed what the biblical definition of sin is by now, it is identified as the bad things humans do that they shouldn’t; or feeling states regarded as unholy, such as hatred, lust, greed, idolatry, jealousy, fear, pride, etc. The hero in the story is Jesus Christ, the god-man appointed by God the Father to come to earth and clean up our mess. The Bible is very clear at identifying exactly what sin is and the solution (Christ). In fact, that is the whole point of why the Bible was written. It is God’s revelation to man regarding our physical and spiritual history; our fallen spiritual nature due to the fall, and the remedy provided by the savior, Jesus Christ. This is the crux of Christianity and it is meant for all people in all nations.

You say you’re not a Christian and don’t believe in Christian rules? Well, biblically speaking, the rules are not just Christian rules. The Bible states that the rules are designed to promote wisdom and happiness and keep all of God’s children from wrong. You’ve heard of the Ten Commandments, I trust. These represent the ten basic areas of human behavior in which we as sinners are prone to slide. These ten principles – the essence of which is to love God above all else and to love your neighbor as yourself – are the moral and spiritual guidelines to life that if followed, will keep us out of the ditch.

You say you don’t believe in the Bible? That’s because you are ignorant of its nature, doubt its authenticity, mistrust its teachings, misunderstand its principles, and/or were, poorly taught. The solution? Pick up a copy of The Holy Bible and study it for yourself. Start with the Gospels in the New Testament; particularly the Gospel of John (i.e., John 1:1 “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him and without him was nothing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not comprehend it.”). That ought to whet your spiritual appetite for starters.

God didn’t want us to misunderstand his purposes or miss his Messiah, so he put in lots of markers – irrefutable demonstrations that Jesus was so much more than just a man. He fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies during his lifetime; astonishing miracles demonstrated his power. He spoke continually of his Father’s will and carrying out the deeds of his Father. Jesus astonished us with his amazingly thorough and lofty ethical teaching and his slashing of religious hypocrisy. He was good, wise, gentle and totally non-political. He healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, calmed the wind and the storm. He demonstrated love, compassion, justice and forgiveness in a powerful compelling way no one ever has done before or since. You can’t take a good look or listen to Jesus Christ without being utterly amazed and humbled and grateful for what he came to do and did.

C.S. Lewis, the former atheistic/agnostic Cambridge scholar, to his great shock and dismay, found upon careful examination of the ancient scriptures that they were a self-testifying volume that could not be refuted. The truths and principles he discovered there were so profound and affirming that he, like millions before him, realized he, too, was a sinner and in desperate need of the savior, Jesus Christ. Spiritually reborn and re-oriented to God, he went on to write many great theological and literary works; one of which is playing at your local theatre today – “The Chronicles of Narnia”. If you are acclimated to logic and philosophical discussion, read “Mere Christianity” and Lewis’ other books. But I digress.

You say Christianity isn’t the only religion out there? That’s certainly true; there are hundreds of false religions and religious cults out there, including some who call themselves Christian. None of them can hold a candle to Christianity. None of them have a solution for sin; and the grace and the love of God is unknown. Christianity is the story of God reaching down to man in love and revelation; not man striving to find God and never being sure.

In the midst of so much man-made religion, how can people know what the truth really is? Take a look at the religion’s founder; what is his (or her) manner of life; how do the teachings work their way out into lives of believers? Who are the followers? What are their lives like? Are the teachings practical? Prophetic? Powerful? Easily understood by all cultures? Miraculous? Irrefutable? Historic? Self-sustaining? All-encompassing? Universal? Merciful? Affirming? Just? Wise? Fair? Good?

“Good,” I hear someone exclaim; “You mean there really is a good?”

Why yes, of course. Just like there also is a bad. I assume you can tell the difference; just imagine your neighbor doing it to you. Now extrapolate the consequences of this behavior as widely as you can. Do you approve of what happened? Would the action prove beneficial for society as a whole? Why? Why not? What is the cost/benefit? Would you want the behavior repeated by children? Why? Why not?

The Bible claims absolute moral authority instituted by God Almighty, because he made us. It states we live in a created universe gone bad; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and are in desperate need of a savior. Mankind has been in serious trouble ever since sin entered the human race in the Garden of Eden. Ever since Adam and Eve, no one has gotten it right – except Christ, the only begotten son of God whom God the Father sent to show the world what holy love was like, and to pay the penalty for sin so mankind would not have to be destroyed. Jesus took the sin-punishment for us. He died in our place, satisfying God’s justice and providing a vicarious atonement. To prove that Jesus was the savior of the world, God raised him from the dead! That is what Easter is about.

Now do you get it? The crux of the debate regarding homosexuality is really not about this one particular type of sin or even how terrible any of them are; the crux of the matter is about the sin in general that Christ says everyone is afflicted with, and how we must be forgiven by God by believing in Jesus Christ. Forgiveness, however, does not give anyone of us a license to sin or live as we please. Behavior always has consequences, and sin is no exception. You can’t get away with flaunting God’s laws. The Bible says you will reap what you sow.

We are all creatures of choice. We choose what kind of life we wish to live and we choose who we want as leaders. God wants us to believe what he says in his book and to follow his laws and have faith. The truths he gives us in the Bible instruct us how to live. The Bible says very plainly, “Choose you this day whom you will serve.” It issues us that challenge. Make the right choices and you will be free; choose sin and you also choose death.
The greatest sin in all the world is to ignore the savior God sent to save you from your sin. Unbelief in Jesus Christ is the only sin that will keep you out of heaven.

II The Problem with Physicality
In the meantime here on earth God wants our trust and obedience. Just as there are physical laws that govern the universe, there are also moral, spiritual laws. They revolve around temperance, purity and holiness, joy and peace and love, and are designed to keep mankind in moral, psychological and spiritual balance. When we forsake one of God’s primary guidance systems, such as marriage between a man and a woman, which he designed, we do so at our peril.

The problem with today’s society is that people have gotten used to pandering to their feelings and do not like anybody telling them what to do, especially when it comes to sexual behavior. Life itself is not valued; values are skewed; we are awash in selfishness and materialism and greed and we do not love God or our neighbor as our self. In this gross and unspiritual state we would rather be the boss of ourselves than to have anyone, even a God, tell us what we can and cannot do. So O.K. Go on ahead if you must; make up your own rules, follow your individual sin impulses. See to what plateaus of excellence they lead you – you who know better than God.

But I have better things in mind for you than that. In the Bible, marriage is held as a deeply covenantal relationship based on trust and commitment to a member of the opposite sex. It is not supposed to be based on just lust or physical attraction to just anyone you please. Real love, responsible love, understanding love, obedient love, respects the limits God designed for men and women and strictly adheres to these limits. I don’t pretend to understand all the dynamics in same-sex attraction. It may arise out of a combination of factors such as hormonal imbalance, psychological maladjustment, spiritual rebellion, authority issues, parenting and/or abuse issues, or a sense of cultural license which encourages people to experiment with para-normal sexual behavior. Pop culture these days encourages people to explore their lusts and their fantasies with little regard for the consequences – after all, one might discover one’s self to be gay! We’re all familiar with the cultural mantra these days – the liberal cultural mantra of sexual multi-diagnosis where homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc. are all regarded as possessing normal, alternate lifestyles. What has happened to our society that these kinds of aberrations are now regarded as normal and just a different kind of family? A human being cannot alter their basic biological sexual patterns without doing violence to their soul. The whole personality must make a paradigm shift to accommodate the new dynamic. What was once unthinkable now becomes almost inevitable.

Being pre-disposed to same-sex attraction doesn’t make the behavior any less wrong. An inclination or a weakness does not signify a green light. Temptation can be dealt with and destructive sexual patterns put on hold. Sin is sin; it doesn’t belong in our habitat because what it does is destroy. Why let sin damage your soul? Learn to kick it out of your life. Let Jesus help you. Pray for strength to resist sin and for a renewed sense of God’s power, presence and love. Look into Metanoia, a Christian-based group that is dedicated to helping gays heal. Many gays are finding true liberation in Jesus Christ and leaving the gay lifestyle behind.

The conservative element of our society is hard on homosexuals, with good reason. Many gays are in-your-face militant, traipsing their agenda through the schools and legislature; insisting the nation legitimize their wantonness and legalize their behavior with the attendant legal perks and bonuses due a regular married couple. I agree that every citizen has certain inalienable rights. I suggest gays draw up legal documents regarding property rights, medical rights, power of attorney and a will. I have those documents myself. Gays don’t need to be a married couple to do that. P.S. Gay couples do not need to get “married!” Marriage, by its very nature, is a covenant between a man and a woman; not a love relationship between two men or two women.

As for employment rights, insurance rights and housing rights; why can’t I, as a property owner, rent or sell my property to folks of my own choosing? Why would I have to rent or sell to a gay couple or anyone practicing the gay lifestyle? As a Christian, I would find it a moral affront. Please don’t protest that I am being discriminatory. Of course I am. I am exercising a choice; I have choices, too. To refuse me my choice is to deny me my rights. It’s my property. So there.

Additionally, why can’t I, as an employer, hire the person I believe best suited to the job? Why do I have to hire a homosexual if I believe they will be detrimental or unsuited to my business? Corporations have an employment policy called “hire or fire at will”. Why can’t I, as a private business owner, do the same? Why should I be held hostage to somebody’s sexual preference?

Believe me, if these so-called gay rights are turned into law, there’ll be a flurry of lawsuits; gays seeking to make a punitive point by demanding special rights in employment, housing, insurance, etc. Why should gay citizens be treated with more favoritism and distinction than others? Why is the American public held hostage to a small minority’s sexual preferences as the basis for legal anything? I don’t get it.

As a group, homosexuals are too often characterized by loneliness, guilt, anger, jealousy, promiscuity, lust, instability and usury punishing behavior. This is a benefit to society? This is to be encouraged? Medically and socially they also pay a heavy price for the consequence of their choices. Why are they insisting the rest of us pick up their very expensive insurance tab, while smokers, for instance (that most terrible and despicable scum group these days) are punished and restricted at every turn. It’s now a public offense to be a smoker these days; folks can’t even smoke outside within 25 feet of a building. But the gay and lesbian agenda is promoted and promulgated within congressional walls and patted on the back for enduring so much hostility on the part of religious hate-mongers called Christians for their “naturalized” sexual behavior. It makes me angry. My mantra is: Do what you choose; after all, you don’t have to accept my values. Do it privately. Don’t insist that others agree. Don’t legislate to make yourself a majority. Do not drag this stigma into our public school system and hack at my children’s value systems. Christians are not allowed even a shadow of public prayer in the classroom. Why is the homosexual agenda given superior status over God?

I care very much what happens to our society. I don’t like calling anyone a renegade. I have befriended a number of homosexuals; unfortunately their characters were terribly dysfunctional; it’s my opinion they turned to homosexuality out of repressed anger and great psychological need. I understand anger and need; I just don’t like seeing it used to manipulate others.

I believe wholeheartedly in God’s revelation in the Bible. I believe every word he says through his biblical prophets and teachers. I don’t believe he would lie to us about something so important as our eternal destiny and our relationship with others. The 66 books of the Bible are unflinching in their portrayal of man and his up and down relationship with God. The Bible warns, pleads and bears unflinching witness to the disaster awaiting those who insist on ignoring God’s moral law and doing about life their own way.

The bottom line is, who sets the moral tone for your life? Who did you give permission to guide and mold your life? Do you have a holy book you look to for answers? The Bible does not fall apart under scrutiny. All of its evidences, internal and external, are consistent and supernatural. For those who believe it is flawed or built on falsehood and myth, here’s my challenge. Prove it. Prove it to yourself. Most of you doubters out there are ignorant about what the Bible really teaches. I have lived under its teaching for 30 years. I have found it foolproof, but not a book for fools; wise beyond my scope of wisdom; irreproachable beyond my narrow code of ethics; holy beyond the scope of my imagination; good beyond my limitations and endurance. The founder and savior is Christ himself, Creator of the universe. I have the day-to-day guidance of the very spirit of God; I have his holy immutable truths in his word. It is boundless, ageless, infallible, perfect. I am a perfect sinner saved by perfect grace.

Those who would like to correspond with Christ can reach him in prayer and confession. Those who would like to talk further with me about this issue can reach me at mstarwars@peoplepc.com

In his name,
Margaret Wagner
------------------------------------------

Margaret:

Thank you for sharing your world view with us. How many years has it been since you've been cloistered away. I'm glad Jesus gives you the strength to deal with your demons. I would never dare try to reason with you. You know everything! Thank you for sharing.

Next time I see you picketing an abortion clinic or preaching to the sky on some lonely downtown streetcorner, I'll be sure to wave.

Eric, I actually do find a "bureaucratic" flaw in the idea of separating civil unions from religious marriages. To best illustrate this, I point back to your own comment: "Things do change! It's OK." Instead of CHANGING marriage to include both heterosexual and homosexual couples, you recommend further restricting the term "marriage" to those unions that are performed in a religious context. Rather than adjusting the current meaning to include more, this would actually adjust the current meaning to EXCLUDE more. That is the bureaucratic flaw. Also, you cite as examples of change the end of slavery and women's suffrage, the end of segregation and the change in voting age. These are items of progressive change in US history that succeeded in INCLUDING groups that were previously excluded from each act, whether it was the ability to vote or the right to live as a free human being. What you suggest rings more of the Jim Crow laws: Separate but Equal. Civil Union and Religious Marriage.

Truth be told, it may come down to eliminating the term marriage from civil law altogether, as you suggest. In my opinion, that would be a step backward for society, but perhaps that is what we need if we are to maintain a relatively secular state and federal government.

Margaret, you explain your point of view thoroughly and succinctly; however, there is one step in this debate that has been overlooked. You say that the Bible provides us with the rules we need as a human race, whether we are Christian or not. I ask you in all seriousness, do you believe that our laws are based on the laws of the Bible, namely the Ten Commandments (since you address them specifically)? If you believe this, how do you reconcile the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution with the 1st Commandment of the Bible? "Thou shalt have NO other gods before me" (aka "Worship no god but Me" in today's English version), or "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The Bible says that to worship another deity (or no deity) is to violate the first law of God, and is a punishable sin. Yet the 1st Amendment of the Constitution grants us the liberty to choose and follow our own faith free from government persecution.

As I noted before, state and federal laws recognize neither sin nor morality. Law is based on our rights and liberties as a free and multicultural society. It is therefore the duty of this society en masse to continue to strive for equal protection of rights and freedoms under the law so as to insure that our own freedoms do not fall one by one.

Of particular concern to me is the following comment: "As a group, homosexuals are too often characterized by loneliness, guilt, anger, jealousy, promiscuity, lust, instability and usury punishing behavior. This is a benefit to society?" Set aside for a moment that you've described attributes that are found "too often" in heterosexual individuals "as a group", by what means do you qualify this disparate character generalization as in any way indicative of homosexuals "as a group"?

Brett,

You stated that: "As I noted before, state and federal laws recognize neither sin nor morality."

Don't you think implicitly every law contains some moral component.

1. At one point we (meaning the U.S. Supreme Court) said that owning slaves was a fundamental right, then we said that it wasn't. (Dred Scott)

2. At one point we said the Constitution was color blind, but then later we said that the Constitution should usually be color blind but in some cases discrimination based on race is acceptable. (Plessy, Grutter, Korematsu)

3. At one point we said that capitol punishment was legal. Then we said it was illegal. Then we said it was legal, but illegal for mentally handicapped. Then we said it was legal, but illegal for those under the age of 18. (Trop, Stanford, Thompson, etc.)

To me there are just a few examples of how the law has been influenced and changed as a result of changes in the Court's moral sentiment. I guess, in the alternative, you could argue that the the prior interpretation was somehow always objectively wrong. But it seems more reasonable to me that moral sentiments of the justices have changed, and our laws have changed to reflect what they "think" is moral today.

Based on your stance with respect to gay-marriage, I would have thought that you subscribed to the "living constitution" vein of constitutional intrepretation. If not, it would seem strange for someone holding your positions on social issues to subscribe to an "originalists view" of constitutional interpretation. Indeed, I doubt the founding fathers ever would have thought the 14th Amendment would be interpreted as a basis for two men to marry.

What federal recognition brought about the end of slavery? Was it a sense of sudden morality, or was it a recognition that slaves are human and are therefore entitled to the same liberties granted under the Constitution? It was the latter recognition that ended slavery.

Later in history, what federal recognition brought about the idea that liberty is and should be colorblind? Was it a sense of morality, or was it recognition that, once again, all US citizens, born equal under law, have equal liberty? It was the latter recognition that established that the Constitution is colorblind.

And lastly, what federal recognition brought about the idea that capital punishment was, then wasn't, then was again (with qualifications) legal? Here I break away and say that this has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with what legislatures consider to be humane and fair punishment. It has nothing to do with morality or moral sentiment, however.

Whether you consider me to believe in an evolving Constitution or in strict original interpretations, my core belief is that the US Constitution grants equal protects of rights and liberties to all, and that these liberties cannot be taken away without due process of the law. In addition, I believe that no state can take it upon itself to abridge the rights of its citizens without said due process.

None of the human and civil rights we now think of as natural and unabridgeable were merely granted or legislated "when the time was right". They were all won after long hard battles, by heroic individuals, who demanded that "now must be the time". Always at major risk to themselves physically, and financially.

The time never really seems right, and the legislatures and courts need to be dragged kicking and screaming to these changes. There's always a tipping point, where public opinion crosses slightly in favor of change. It's often something horrifying like news footage of blacks being attacked by police dogs and sprayed with firehoses; and that one Kent State massacre photo. Then people sitting in their living rooms say "this is America?" and politicians are forced to respond.

I think of LBJ as a major figure in the civil rights movement. I wouldn't ever think of him as a "liberal". Definitely had powerful leadership qualities.

I was not able to view the whole telecast, but did watch the clips via the internet. The question of whether gay rights is a civil right that should be protected by law is absurd. What you are dealing with is a lifestyle and a behavior. One which goes against the plan of nature. All species of animals are of 2 separately identifiable genders. They were designed that way in order to produce offspring and to fulfill what is lacking in the other sex.
It would be wrong to equate the homosexual lifestyle to a person's race. I believe it is a choice as Pastor Hutcherson stated. You can change your lifestyle but you can't change the color of your skin.
Marriage in this state is defined as a commitment between a man and a woman. Any effort to change that be it a court or by the vote of the people should not be allowed.

Dean:

I don't know if you have children or plan to have children. I wish all your children to be gay. Then you can put your theory into practice and help them choose a different lifestyle. Do you know any like-minded people with gay children? How have they dealt with it?

I have actually met an ex-gay. Very hollow person. This was years back and I seriously doubt his conversion took hold.

I have known several gay people who used to be married in committed heterosexual marriages, with children and grandchildren. Not a choice that was made lightly by these very serious not-flakey people. I know 2 gay grandmothers who are past child-bearing age. Is that against nature since they will not be producing offspring?

What evidence do you know of to support this lifestyle choice theory? I've known lots of gay people and don't see anything that would make me think they were making a lifestyle choice.

What is "the homosexual lifestyle" anyway? What is a heterosexual lifestyle? Do you know what your heterosexual neighbors are doing in the bedroom? If it's not procreation is it moral or even legal?

Dean Turpin: You say being gay is choice? You are so right, because yesterday when I woke up, I decided I wanted to suck %^$# that day! Not!

Margaret Wagner: You need to get out more. I just love how you say that gays are not capable of “Real love, responsible love, understanding love, obedient love.”

I love this one “The conservative element of our society is hard on homosexuals, with good reason. Many gays are in-your-face militant, traipsing their agenda through the schools and legislature; insisting the nation legitimize their wantonness and legalize their behavior with the attendant legal perks and bonuses due a regular married couple.” We wouldn’t be in your face if we were treated like human beings instead third class citizens. Furthermore, those legal perks and bonuses that you claim straight people are entitled came out of my pocket. That’s right, taxes!!! Why should I pay taxes into a system that does not afford me the same benefits as my Jesus freak counterparts?

And you are just uneducated with statement “I suggest gays draw up legal documents regarding property rights, medical rights, power of attorney and a will. I have those documents myself. Gays don’t need to be a married couple to do that. P.S. Gay couples do not need to get ‘married!’” Gosh jolly, thanks for the information, like we didn’t know that we could do all that without getting married. How about the legal perks and bonuses we don’t get. We pay for you to get it, but we don’t.

This one is a masterpiece “As for employment rights, insurance rights and housing rights; why can’t I, as a property owner, rent or sell my property to folks of my own choosing? Why would I have to rent or sell to a gay couple or anyone practicing the gay lifestyle? As a Christian, I would find it a moral affront. Please don’t protest that I am being discriminatory. Of course I am. I am exercising a choice; I have choices, too. To refuse me my choice is to deny me my rights. It’s my property. So there.” You are so right, it is your choice to discriminate against gay people, but when it comes to employment, insurance and housing you don’t have that right. Your discrimination becomes illegal!!!!!! But of course you knew that because you have the answers to everything
This is a personal favorite “Additionally, why can’t I, as an employer, hire the person I believe best suited to the job? Why do I have to hire a homosexual if I believe they will be detrimental or unsuited to my business? Corporations have an employment policy called “hire or fire at will”. Why can’t I, as a private business owner, do the same? Why should I be held hostage to somebody’s sexual preference?” First off, the reason is your discrimination becomes illegal!!!!!! How the hell are you going to know whether someone is gay or not? How in the hell does one’s sexuality determine what kind performance you will get out of that person in the workplace?
Actually this is the best “The bottom line is, who sets the moral tone for your life?” Honey, I have news for you. It sure in the hell is not you or any of your other Christian fanatical friends. And by the way, thanks for the long blah, blah, blah sermon. You need Jesus! You claim to be this miraculous gift to Christianity when all you did was preach your ignorance of human beings who don’t follow in your beliefs.
I don’t hate any of you, I’m frustrated with you people and I feel sorry for you people. You all seem to bring religion back into the mix and while you are entitled to do so and have those beliefs, they don’t belong in our government or how laws are created. And again to Dean, the government has to intervene to protect us from biased individuals such as you. This is taking way to much energy out of my life.

This stuff is crazy. All of you are screaming free speach in every direction. Then you are screaming about your rights. So here's my opinion. For one thing, why the hell would you have any special rights just because you are gay? That is the big question on everbody's minds, I think.

Exactly what are gay rights anyway? Is there something you are lacking in your life that is hindering you you live as a free man or woman? Your sexual preference is not an American right. Your choice to be is. But we don't have to listen to it. Or is it because people have negative things to say about gays? Don't you get it? We heterosexual couples don't give a rip about your sexual preference. We just don't want it shoved in our faces with all your politcal reverie and your little parades.

And speaking of politics, I don't appreciate the fact that you all have taken this so far that millions of tax payers dollars are being spent trying to sort this crud out. Knock it off. If you choose to be gay, then by all means be gay. Just leave the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of GOD alone.

I have read a lot in here about people hurting that gay persons feelings. So what!!! Get over it. You are a 6% minority in a world that is really only doing things that don't upset you. We spend far too much time worrying if we've upset someone in this country. THAT is what the ACLU thrives on. What's next? Gay TV? I'm sure your gay cowboy movie really pissed off a lot of real cowboys. Thanks to the Hollywood agenda, cowboys now have to live with that in their faces.

If, according to all of you, church and state don't belong together, then why the heck should we let the state decide on the religious matter of marriage rights? Kind of ironic, isn't it?

So Sorry:

Sorry to be you.

So Sorry:

I'm so sorry that you are a complete bigot. We are not asking for special right. We are asking for equal right but your bigot mind wouldn't allow you to see, read nor understand that. You are just like the rest of them so shut the hell up until you figure it out.

So Sorry:

I was just responding to your first paragraph and as I continued to read your bigoted and offensive comment I thought I did a pretty good job describing you. First of all, according to the existing law, religion is not a factor in it's creation you moron. It states a definition. And the definition leaves a group of people out. And the nerve you have to say that we are spending tax payers dollars on our agenda, well I'm paying taxes so you can have the benefits of a married couple. But I can't have my share of the benefits? I can fight for this country so you can have your freedom to marry Mary Jane Rotten Crotch. Give me a break, just shut the hell up. And it's a movie, it's fake, not real, you get it? AS a gay man I haven't even seen it. And I doubt you have seen so shut the hell up. And if you did, then you shouldn't be degrading it, because people don't go see a movie like that to determine whether or not they hate it.

I am inclined to address one concern in the above remark by So Sorry (and mentioned on occasion by others before). In this issue being discussed, pertaining to same-sex marriage, there is no "special right" being demanded by any party. The right for two people to choose each other as spouses over all else exists today in the act of civil marriage; however, that right is abridged so as to exclude a select few couples without due process of the law. It is the need to see this right recognized equally that pushes the issue to the judiciary, because the legislative body has opted to continue to abridge this right without due process.

May everyone open their minds and hearts and set aside their biases when it comes to the creation of new laws. We are not asking for special rights we are asking for equality. Whether you agree with the lifestyle or not your faith doesn’t decide what human beings will have equal rights. I pay taxes to the same government as you do, the difference is, you have many tax benefits for being married that I don’t get. And the bottom line, that is not right. I don’t agree with all laws nor do I expect you to agree with all laws, but I don’t bring religion into the deciding factor, because this country is a melting pot of different religions and ethnicities. What may offend one person, will not offend another. It is our fundamental right. If I pay into something I should get something back, gay or straight. If you can’t understand that basic concept, then drive on and continue doing what it is that you are doing. And when it’s time to meet your maker, you will have explain it all over again why you denied someone equal opportunity because you didn’t like them or their lifestyle.

Homosexuality is a choice, as stated in the first comment. Race is not a choice. There are ex-homosexuals, there are no ex-blacks. The race argument is flawed from the outset, and analogizing to it dubious to say the least.

Next, if we start picking certain choices or lifestyles and calling them a constitutional right, we are on a very slippery slope. Why should we be limited to one wife, because I happen to love two women. If there is nothing special about a man and women getting married, then certainly there is a strong argument that there is nothing special about 3,4, or 5 people getting married -- they have an "equal right" to love one another and profess their love through marriage. There has to be a line drawn, and the historic institution of marriage -- between a man and women -- should be that line. The definition of marriage does and should not have to be redefined to include every relationship permutation just because people choose to form those relationships.

There are black people who can and sometimes do choose to live as white. The novel and movie "The Human Stain" deals with that subject. Don't you see many mixed race people? Are they black, white, Asian? They make that choice. So, your core argument is wrong.

How many ex-homosexuals do you know? I have known many people in my life and met all kinds of people. I met one person who alluded to having been "cured" of homosexuality. He was in his 80s when I met him and was born nearly 100 years ago, when it was extremely dangerous to be openly gay.

I am sure there are many more gay people who used to live as heterosexuals. I suppose you could say they were cured of their heterosexuality, which was not their true nature.

I have known many gay people and encounter them all the time. They are teachers, doctors, police officers, parents, and every other occupation. Fortunately, nowadays they are allowed to live as normal Americans. They pay taxes, fight in Iraq, teach our children, etc. They come from every kind of family background, including the devout Christian ones that abhore the thought. Still no one has answered how these families deal with their gay children. Has Dick Cheney's daughter been cured of her homosexuality yet?

Equal rights are never "allowed". They are "demanded". That will be the case here. Your consent is irrelevant.

Best wishes for justice and equal treatment in America! And to all you homophobes, may all your children be gay!

Living as white is not the same as being ex-black...there is no argument. Nice try.

Ryan:

You are a confused individual. You can create pretzel logic to make your case on anything. You are still wrong and very confused.

Do you have any gay people in your family?

This is what the Washington Constitution says:

‘No law shall be passed granting to any citizen...privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens...’
--Washington State Constitution, Article I, Declaration of Rights, Section 12

That is what I am pursuing as a gay man, in regards to gay marriage. Not pedophelia, bestiality, nor any of other ludicrous notions being propogated by the far right.

By the way--did anyone notice that HB 2632 failed to pass this week? This bill would have eliminated the cap on the number of low-income citizens that can enroll in the Washington State Health Insurance Pool.

Does anyone in here take an equally poignant interest in what's going on in politics beyond the hot button issue of Gay Rights?

Don't you think if the same energy was directed at other more pressing issues we could get make a huge difference in shaping the lives of people around us, rather than bonking each over the head all the time?

I have to say, I've got to join this bloggers group again, I thought I was done..

Marriage is not about equal rights. Not all people are legally entitled to get married.
There is a license to get married, this entitles a person in this country now a (one man - one woman).

This issue here I think is about entitlements.

When a person is married in this country they are entitled to receive certian tax deductions and with employers the ability to obtain medical benefits entitled to married couples.

We need no civil unions in the gay community to achieve what the gay community may be entitled to.

Please bear with me a moment here as I express some concerns for the gay community.

Let's say that two individuals contract a life time commitment together. Whether they are gay or not but, assuming they are of legal age consent to contract sharing their lives together living in the same domain; they'd be lawfully entitled to essentially the same benefits of marriage. Not only gay people would be able to access this method of law but also, Blood relation persons, brothers, sisters, sisters-brothers, friends only by (2).

I can see the possiblities here.

In Canada, (British Columbia) there is a teacher, together with his gay male friend who is sueing the government to demand that (all children) in classrooms of the public sector are taught about the benefits of a gay lifestyle. With this demand, it goes without saying that the gay community not only demands its way but, also imposes their will and lifestyle upon a community that does not want it.

Tollerance is a wonderful thing and should be taught but keep in respect another persons right to Freedom of Speech even if is openly contrary to your thought, otherwise you may also be muted about what you feel is morally wrong.

If one knows that there is a freight train coming and you are on the tracks, do they not have an obligation to tell you so even, if you do not like it?

I'd rather be offended by an indivual who is not threatening me with bodily harm or is damaging my material goods, than not being able to equally speak out against my core beliefs. This of course does not allow me to call a person names but certainly should allow to address the nature of behavior I find not only replusive but morally objectionable and not be punished in doing so.

If gay marriage becomes a legalized institution in the USA, we the non-gay community should be able to speak out freely against this in public and in our churches; it is our rights according to the US Constitution. We are not Canadians, we are United States Citizens.

We are a Republic not a Democracy. "WE THE PEOPLE."

Finally, there is Asolute Truth and those who want to deny it are entilted to do so. That does not say that you'll espape the consequences of Absolute Truth. The Dead Sea Scrolls and The Torra uphold that the Bible in it's unchanged version "King James Edition" or original Greek and Hebrew languages, is the WORD OF GOD. In it, it tells of Gods Son Jesus Christ who was born, died for all our sins and is risen and was witnessed by hundreds of people is True. All we need to do is accept This Free Gift and turn away from our wicked ways.

There are many here of you bloggers that do not believe this. This is not just some mantra of Religion. It's a Freight Train and if you don't get off the tracks you'll be eternally separated from God "Jesus Christ." There is NO BACK DOOR TO HEAVEN, you've got one shot at this. If you died tonight do you know where you be in eternity? How are you so certian? Have you been there? The witnesses of God are all around you. If you are uncertain all you have to do is call out to Him in belief that there is a God and He'll show up in your life in a BIG way.

Do'nt get mad at me for telling you the truth. You'll either be so happy I did and you accepted Christs forgiveness when you show up in Heaven or you'll eternally remember my words to you that could have saved you from an eternal HELL where there is weeping and knashing of teeth in a Firey HELL.

Get knowlege but also get with it WISDOM. Do you not see the signs.

Many prophecies have already been fulfilled. Isreal is now a Nation and the birth pangs in the earth have already begun as predicted in Revelation.

A little Revelation is better than no revelation at all. Isreal is now in the process of rebuilding the Temple and are going to reinstate animal sacrifice in the Temple. When this happens you'll have 3.5 years until The Man of Sedition is revealed (The Anti Christ) who will sit in the Temple and demand that all peoples of the earth Worship him. If you do not worship him you'll suffer deadly consequences. At this time God will send angels from Heaven to release The Bowls Of Wrath Upon all humanity because of their wickedness. God is a Jealous God and will have no other gods before Him. All knees will bow to the King of kings and the Lord of Lords. This time will be for 3.5 years after which time there will be a battle in the Valley of Armagedon, all nations will come against Gods Pride of Nations (Isreal)and Jesus Christ will return to earth to send Satan to Hell and Satan will be bound for 1000 years.
This is the Millenial Reign of Christ in the New Jeruselum.

CS Lewis was an evolutionist-athiest until he studied not just the Bible but all supporting documents surrounding Jesus Christ. Once he studied he found his understanding of what he thought was the truth was flawed and he found that there was enough supporting evidence that Christs Resurection was True and there is a Holy and Rightous God who demands us to be observant of His Commandments and WORD.

Carl:

You say: "If gay marriage becomes a legalized institution in the USA, we the non-gay community should be able to speak out freely against this in public and in our churches; it is our rights according to the US Constitution."

What do you mean by WE? I am not part of the gay community and I am willing to stick my neck out for equal and fair treatment for all. My wife, kids, and friends feel the same way.

This forum is interesting, but do not confuse it with asking you for your permission. As has been stated before, gay taxpayers in America are only reaching out for what is their right.

I still don't see how gay civil union would injure you.

No one has yet answered how Christian families deal with having gay children. I think many of you feel that if gays are allowed to come out of the closet completely it will encourage your own children (and maybe your parents and ministers) to do the same.

I've tried very hard to be respectful of your religious beliefs, however, you hardline Christians are no better than Taliban. You just refuse to acknowledge that there are other religions and belief-systems on the planet. Be thankful us supporters of equal rights aren't picketing your churches. If Jesus were alive today, I'm convinced he'd be on our side.

Best wishes for justice and equal treatment in America! And to all you homophobes, may all your children be gay!

Eric1956

We is an all inclusive term. You Eric should be allowed to this Freedom of speech right now and always, don't you get it?

Each person should have the continued right to Free speech even if it challenges each others way of thought.

If we can not see things diffently and be able to be open about issues our government will become a tyrany against the people. That includes you. Lets say that what you do and say offends me. I create a law which subjects you to that law which mandates you can talk about issues that I feel are inappropriate speech.
I have effectively silenced you and I can then create new laws even more damaging to get you to stop speaking altogether. This is not the Country I want to live in. If you disagree with me, I want it to be open and non-violent. Respecting each others views.

Eric, I respect your right to your view and I hope you will always to legally speak your views. I might not agree with you views and You might not agree with all my views. That is what Freedom of Speech and Freedom to express your individual thoughts and Freedom to worship the God of your choice or no god of your choosing.

I will always defend your right for Free Speech.

What I'd like to hear is anyone here with me? or would you like to see yours and My Freedoms of Speech shut Down?

As far as the Taliban... you are way off. When was the last time time you heard of any Real Christians or any Christians at all, (who usually get persecuted and put to death themselves for their beliefs) come and strap a bomb to their bodies and blow up innocent people.
The answer is NEVER!

Even during the Spanish Conquest you can not say that these individual representing The Roman Catholic Church were Christians. REAL CHRISTIANS do not do these things.

They do however speak up for Gody Moral principals written in The Torra, and as backed up in the Dea Sea Scrolls abou the (TRUE BIBLE) , not some changed version, slighted to the views of the moral interests of individual readers, Taking out the DO NOTS as they will.

Some of you think that you ought to be protected against us. The only thing we have done is told you that the Train in Coming. If you have disbelief... Stay on the Tracks and see what happens and disregard everything we True Christians have to say.

If it comes right down to it and you really believe that there is Hate speech in the Bible and all offences towards your way of thought becomes a crime then, you'll have to have all the Bibles in the USA confiscated and burned.

There is Only One way to Heaven and NO BACK DOOR ENTRIES.

One Day You'll find out and Not I but The WORD Of God, (Jesus WORD) will be the only Words that Count.

Jesus said, "I Am the Way The Truth and The Life, The only way To The Father is through Me."

You can either accept it or reject it, it's your choice. You also have the right to tell me that I'am wrong.

Eric, that is what Free Speech is all about.

Well now. There is a real atatement by Terron. He wants all these equal things but he tells me to shut the hell up when I speak out about how I feel about gays. Typical picked on person syndrome. Call me bigotted or whatever. But I don't think that gays have a place in the marrital community nor should they be able to adopt innocent children into that life style. THAT is my opinion. And if it comes down to a vote, I know how I will vote. It's not a matter of rights. It's a matter of morality.

My God. We can bring all this crap to the public and to our schools but we can't even mention religion in public or the schools. What the hell is going on with everybody? I'm watching the morality of America fall apart all around me it's really sarting to piss me off. And I hope that all the rest of the decent citizens of this world stand up to this crap pretty soon. If not, we're in deep you know what.

In the words of (I think it was) Billy Graham - "If GOD doesn't come down and do something about this pretty soon, HE owes Sodom and Gomorrah a big appology" There's a reason why they call it sodomy. The gay people can be gay all they want to. I don't want it in my face or the faces of my children and grand children. GET IT????

Dear Eric,

Picket the churches if you like you have that right. I'd find this interesting if it actually happened. However, I do not think it ever will happen. See, people usually like to have their sin hidden where there is light.

If you come to picket my church I will welcome you to come in and see what the Pastor is saying. If you disagree with him, I'd expect you to be respectful to speak with him in private and not shouting about your views while church is going on.

My churches location is east off 112th and Pacific Ave. in Tacoma WA. just on the left hand side of the road just after Cash and Carry. Church For All Nations.

Hope to see you there. If you come with a picket sign, I'll find you. I'll even shake you hand if you'll do the same in peace. You'll never have any fear about what I might do because I am peaceful.

What is a Real Christian all about... Come find out.

We help the poor, we pray for people in need whether they are sick in their bodies or have other more pressing needs. We give our time and monies for the prevention of spousal and other abuse. At my church you'll find acceptance and Love whoever you are. You'll also hear the Truth, maybe not as you'd like it to be told but none the less the Whole Truth of the Word Of God.

As a matter of fact, I invite all who would like to seek the Lord and His mercies and or just check us out to come...

We have all kinds of peoples there.
ExMurders, exfornicaters, exadulterers, exidolaters, formerprostitutes, exstrippers, ex drugaddicts, exgodhaters, exlesbians and some still practicing, exhomosexuals and some still practicing, exdrogdealers, exgangbangers. We have peoples here who still practice all of these things. We encorage them to practice THE WORD OF GOD.

We have broken down the walls to accept all peoples whoever they are no matter what nationality, race, color, sex preference and position in life they have, we accept them as they are.

It's Jesus who does the healing if the individual wants to change.

So picket if you must but, realize that we still love you and you are open to come and see what God has done.

By the way... The Taliban and extreme Islam/Muslim has Zero tollerance for other peoples views. If you want to practice anything else in their country other than Islam, they'll silence you permenantly. Please do not compare a compassionate peoples to those who are not.

If you want to come as you are in dress, drag or otherwise we welcome you.

JESUS IS LORD OF ALL!

Strangely, the previous person posting has co-opted my screen name. I'm sure it was done out of love. I also love you. However, I hate your behavior. Did I mention that I love you and accept you as a brother.

What is most icky about you is your shameless hypocrisy.

Best wishes for justice and equal treatment in America! And to all you homophobes, may all your children be gay!

Equal rights for all are coming to America! Prepare thyself!

Ron Sims' advocacy of the Gay Rights Bill and Gay Marriage, is just the norm for most Black democratic politicians. They are just puppet ni** politicians to a party of tricksters that fueled slavery and segregation and has historically gained the Black vote by continuing to use its guile.

In fact, it was the Black state legislators that help to get the Gay Rights bill passed. Had they stood the moral ground that most blacks take on this issue, this bill would have never passed.

I, as a black, am appalled that he, other black politicians, and the Gay Rights Movement are equating Black Civil Rights with Gay rights.

Sims, in my opinion, has sold his soul for the thirty pieces of silver.

Jones

Dear Eric,

Sorry... It was a type O

I authored it..

Just a note:
For those who don't want top hear about Jesus Christ here do not read on...
________________________________________________
Dear Eric1956,

I am certain that we and most of you have much more in common than differences. I'll stake a claim that this statement is also true with most individuals:

Because the way I see it... Most people, whoever they are, are caring compassionate-loving individuals. They help others in need. Protect those who are being abused. They feed the hungry both in spirit and in body. They help the injured and handicapped. These are the important things in life.

Eric when I was young, people made fun of me because, I had friends they thought were not the people I should associate with. I had black friends, gay friends, handicap friends, friends of different cultures, of different beliefs. Even my own family questioned my choices from time to time. I stood up for my friends.
You see I try to not look on the outside, I try not to judge but sometimes I do.

I think everyone does judge and if they don't they are unwise. Because, if you don't judge properly and discriminate against known murderers, gangmembers, drug addicts-pushers and intimately associate with persons who practice these things; you'll become like them or fall victim to them or their ways of life and become like them. Who do you want to be like? I hope you'd say Jesus Christ because He had a perfect Love which healed and forgave the sick, lame, those who were afflicted with demons, healing and mentally ill, prostitutes, murderers, adulterers, tax collectors, persecuters/murders of the Faithful as in Saul of Tarsus (Paul), idolitors, Religous etc..

The truth be known, is that He knows your name and every thought that you have. He hears you when you call and sees each tear that falls.

People all want to know that they are loved. Parents should love their children and reprove their children, so they will keep from dangers.; all the dangers in life. If a parent does not tell their children about the dangers in life, they truly do not love their children as they ought to, even if the children think they are right. Speaking the Truth in Love is not hypocrasy.

I listen to my friends if they say I have bad behavior. If you'd like to be a friend of mine, come without prejudice (prejudging) and get to know me.

Thank you for listing!

Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

So Sorry:

Yes, I "GET IT????" I get the fact that you are a hypocrit and a bigot who lacks common sense and only cares about himself, family and friends who are not gay! Does that sound about right. You continue to miss the point! It's not about your morality, your morality doesn't speak for me nor should it determine how I will live my life!! But you will never understand that so don't trying to explain your rhetoric to me because I don't care. I just hope that you will have a good explanation for God as to why you let your hate get in the way of citizens of this country be entitled to the same rights as you, that's if you are lucky enough to meet him because at the rate you're going now it's not looking good for you. Because I do believe as a Christian you are not supposed to judge, but that's exactly what you are doing. Your morality does not belong on an absentee ballot, GET IT????

As seen on "60 Minutes" last night the evidence of there being genetic and pre-birth factors that largely determine sexual orientation is mounting. Sexual orientation is not a 'choice' by any useful meaning of the term.

What's concerning is the position that the pseudoChristians must take to justify their bigotry. Are they really saying that it is better for gay people and society that they be open to persecution? Don't they realize that persecution and making gay people hide their sexual orientation encourages them to divorce sexuality from affection and commitment?

I remember explaining why I got out of the military to my sister: I could either have a boyfriend set up a household and soon be discovered and kicked out or I could have a one night stand with some guy who thought my name was 'John'. In an environment of persecution the latter is 'safer' than the former. This is the fallout of attitudes like the current crop of followers of this modern day Pharisee.

No where in the Bible is a monogamous same sex couple chastised. All mentions of homosexuality involve rape, idolatry, and adultery. That is why many Christians have a different view than the finger pointers like Hutcherson and his followers. Gay people that couple up are happier, healthier, take less from society and contribute more to same, just like straight couples do.

People advocating a right to discriminate over something they will never even see - how empty and dead can their hearts be?

all I can say is when the world agrues the gay marriage and rights untill society finally crumbles, The true believers will rest in the kingdom of heaven for eternity

No matter where the political ball falls.

Again Do Not READ THIS if You Don't want to hear about Jesus!

There is absolute Truth and This is it...

Jesus Christ died and rose again for all our sins. All of us are sinners; there is none worthy, no not one can come to the Father without forgiveness of their sin. Persons who profess they are Christians need to come to the Cross daily and die to their self amd put away the flesh; so it's too with any one who comes to Christ.

With that said: God Loves The Sinner, I am a sinner even greater than you all. I need to come to the Cross every moment.

Whoever you are, it's simple to accept Gods (Christs) forgiveness. Just ask Him into your life, put away the Old man, let Him do a work in you; read His Word and talk to Him daily; just as you'd talk with any of your friends.

It does not matter what you've done. He is able to forgive. Your sins (shame) will be washed away, as if they never exsisted.

It's by Faith the He asks you to come.

So Come... Ask Jesus into your life and His Holy Spirit to direct your path.

First, a gentic predisposition for certain behavior does not make it right or legal. Morever,a person still has some measure of control over their ACTIONS regardless of their genetic predisposition -- meaning they still have choices about how to act. Unless a person can show that it is not a genetic predisposition, but rather is an immutable genetic trait -- such as the color of their skin -- the law starts with the presumption that people with that genetic predisposition still have a choice.

For example, it is just as likely that there are genetic predispositions for violent crime, drug addiction, bestiality, infidelity, etc., but that does not mean that the government cannot or should not regulate that person's ACTIONS.

Note that studies have found genetic predispositions for drug addiction and violent crime. Also note that I used several examples that involve activities that arguably do not directly "harm" anyone except the person involved.

Having a genetic predisposition is not a free pass for a person to act in any way that satisfies their needs.

Third, as a prior post stated, there is a moral component to EVERY law. We use morality to determine when an abortion is legal or not. We use morality to determine what is an exercise in our freedom of speech or illicit pornography. We use morality to determine when a means of execution is constitutional. We use morality as a basis for not permitting cousins to marry or people to have sex with animals. (Note that in the Bestiality Case that was recently dismissed, the court found no harm to the animals, yet the legislature passed a law banning bestiality.) We use morality as a basis for not letting people take multiple wives/husbands.

In many cases people like to think that they can find some objective wrong, but as eggregious as the wrong might seem it is rooted in our moral view of what is right or wrong. The source of that moral judgment is irrelevant to the analysis. In sum, morality always has been and always will play a fundamental role in every law that is passed or court decision that is handed down.

I guess what I don't get is why I am called a bigot and told to shut the hell up while speaking out on my feelings about this. What you don't understand is that I couldn't care less what you do behind your closed doors. I don't care if you're gay. Be gay all you want. But now you are demanding that we all look at you and call you a normal part of normal society. Not me, pal. I choose not to think that you are as normal as me. No way.

I don't hate you. I may even very much like you as a friend. I have gay friends. They know how I feel. But they don't enforce their beliefs on me either. I just don't hink you should have any special privlages in this country just because you are gay. Maybe I should start screaming that I want some special rights just because I like raisin pie. Not very many people like raisin pie. Maybe the ones that don't shouldn't discriminate against me because I do.

And all this crap about comparing yourselves to the black community. If I were black I'd be really ticked off at that comparrison. Black people have nothing to do with being gay. Unless they, of course, are gay. Raisin pie doesn't have anything to do with it either.

There has been gay people in all cultures of life since time began. I believe it is either a genetic thing or I believe it could be a product of environment and early childhood first impressions. (Hence; my animosity towards gays adopting innocent children into gay relationships) But that is my own belief. However it may have started with an individual, that doesn't make it right or a good thing to have in a moral society. This could open up a whole ugly can of worms that could possibly wipe out all of the morality we have left.

They are already doing their level best to wipe GOD off tha face of the earth. The ACLU is Americas biggest number one public enemy in the fact that they have gotten out of control with using our court system to push every little agenda that comes up every time someone gets their poor little feelings hurt. What a waste.

Bottom line... someone being gay is alright with me if that's what you like to do. Just don't try to push it down my throat and the throats of my children. That is my family and I will fight to protect my family. My family is my gift from GOD and I intend to teach them all the moral ways to help them better their lives.

Carl,
1) there is nothing immoral about being gay.
2) we know that regardless of persecution or attempts at regulation the relative percentage of the population that is gay is pretty much the same. Since persecution breeds nonconformity and promiscuity, persecution is a bad thing.
3) since we know that people are happier and healthier if they pair-bond no matter what the pairs gender combination, all your negative examples are a bit self-serving.
4) Being gay in no way interferes with someone from being in complete compliance with the 2 greatest commandments of Christianity from which all the law derives.

BobVB

Thank you, for you opinion...

HB2661 doesn't confer 'special rights', it says that everyone's sexual orientation is irrelevant pertaining to 4 community areas; housing, employment, public accommodation, and finances. That's it. Same as it does for race, creed, marital status and a number of other qualities.

A bigot is someone who is is intolerant of the existence of opinions or behavior that they don't necessarily agree with.

I hope we can agree:
- That every citizen has a right to a sexual orientation.
- That every citizen has a right to housing, employment, access to public accommodations, and financial planning regardless of their sexual orientation.
- That every citizen has a natural right to pair-bond with someone and build a life with them.
- That every citizen has a right to equal access to government.
- That every citizen has a right to practice a religion.
- That every citizen has a right to NOT act as if they practice someone else's religion.

If we can't why not?

that gay rights subject is still flowing around thats rediculous like i said god made adam and eve not adam and adam or eve and eve and not to mention i dont want a bunch of homosexuals running around coming out of the closet thats just more i will have to beat

Ryan,

That's Rude and what you said is a Hate Crime.

Before you go beating any people who are gay, come see me first. I will stand in your way and I am not gay lifestyle advocate.

Ryan,
I hope you meant that in a political sense and not literally. That is not how we go around changing things or standing up for ourselves in the face of change that we don't advocate. I have had a very loud voice on this one but I don't make threats. I said I would fight for my families rights. That starts at the political level. Peace be with you.

There are many who believe Ryan and the likes of others, who believe the bible. But I have to respect their views on the basis that they are not educated enough on the matter. I would be heart broken to find out that he produced a gay child and either kicked him/her out or even worst, killed the child.

It surprises me that too many people take the bible literally. These lazy ones will not read the bible to make up their own minds. Instead, they allow another man (human being) stands at the pulpit and tell them how to be bias. So, what if he tells you to jump off the bridge and into a fire? Come on, get educated and read about the history of your own religion. Christianity came out of 300+ years of Crusades (killing); all in the name of Christ.

To make a fare judgment, one must look at both sides of the issue.

Lastly, for the geneticists; according to Dr. Hammer (Sulk Institute); gene area XQ28 is where sexual orientation does not totally kick in for a male to be totally heterosexual. Kinsey also supplies a study. We still use his results on human sexuality. On his scale 0 = total heterosexual where as 6 = total homosexual. Anything in between those numbers, people have either tried 1 or 2; 3 or 4 = bisexual leaning more to homosexuality. Check it out...these findings are fascinating.

So sorry,

Unless I am wrong, Christianity came out of Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Not the crusades.

There are a lot of people who take the Bible literally but understand it's historical context. It's not neccessarily bad to take the Bible literally.

>

Smoson, where exactly does the Bible tell us to hang blacks and Jews?

>

Vanessa, exactly what verse are you referring to?

Gary,
Are you referring to Dr. Hamer? If so, I hope you are not referring to Dr. Hamer's debunked findings in the July 19, 1993 edition of Science. Geneticists later tried to replicate Dr. Hamer's findings and could not. Indeed, in a later article in that same publication, Science, another group of scientists found no support for Hamer's findings that Xq28 was an indicator for male sexuality.

For one description see:

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm

Also, I think anyone who is arguing that homosexuality is a genetic trait should first read Comment #1 on this Blog. Based on the scientific research to date, homosexuality is at most a weak genetic predispostion. There is no doubt that every person has genetic predispositions, however, our law operates on the presumption that each person still has a choice.

Many comments have wished on anti-gay rights proponents that they would have gay children -- instead I hope my child does not choose to be gay. Meaning if they have some weak genetic predisposition towards being gay, I hope they would choose not to pursue that lifestyle. This is no different than if my child had a genetic predisposition for alcohol addiction or drug abuse, I would hope they would overcome those desires as well.

Where's Dick Cheney on this? I know some of you Christians have current first-hand experience with gay children or maybe even parents. Where are you? Not talking, eh? Tough stuff no doubt. Always easier to throw stones at people outside your own family.

I have a real issue with philosophical arguments that hinge on "if my child were gay I would...". When your child is gay, and is still a wonderful responsible person who loves you, and you love them, then let's see what your opinion is.

"Also, I think anyone who is arguing that homosexuality is a genetic trait should first read Comment #1 on this Blog."

I know I didn't respond to that comment because its very first assertion was a distortion that identified the writer as very biased. (which they later in the note clearly identified themselves as such)

Dr. Simon LeVay's research was never 'debunked', it was a preliminary study that was trying to see if sexually dimorphic areas of the brain were different between homosexual and heterosexual men. It did. Although people who desperately wanted it to not be true tried to rationalize the study away, it stills stands: there are sexually dimporphic areas of the brain, they are often different between straight and gay men. The Dutch Brain Institute found similar differences. Recent Swedish studies have show that gay men brains react to pheromones like straight womens. There are many indications that gays are physiologically different than straights in areas you can not choose.

"Based on the scientific research to date, homosexuality is at most a weak genetic predispostion."

Gosh drawing conclusions from a field of study that has yet to reach any conclusions? That identifies you to be in the same class as the doctor in the first note - too biased towards the answer you want to be taken seriously.

What we do know is that few gay people do change their sexual orientation - Dr. Robert Spitzer who did a study that showed that some people can change says that about 3% of gay people have this kind of 'malleable' sexual orientation, meaning 97% do not. The NHSLS sexual survey showed that the relative percentage of gay men in society is pretty rock solid through out all age groups.

Sexual orientation isn't a 'choice' by any reasonable usage of the word regardless of its origins. I've always wondered if the people who say this are of that small percentage of individuals that are truly bisexual and they think that everyone else is like themselves. Maybe you did choose your sexual orientation, but honestly very few others have. The idea you can 'choose' who makes your heart flutter, your voice stammer, your face blush seems pretty ludicrous to me, but then I didn't choose my sexual orientation - all those things were happening before I even knew what a sexual orientation was and I certainly can't control who sparks these responses.

"There is no doubt that every person has genetic predispositions, however, our law operates on the presumption that each person still has a choice."

Actually no - the law operates on that there are some things society can't require people to change - religion, creed, marital status, ethnicity, race and the like. That an individual has a right to have these qualities regardless of why or if they 'choose' to be that way. The law never implies that everything that isn't genetic is a choice or that all things that are chosen are ethically controllable by the state.

In a nation based on the rights of the individual to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' to say they don't have the natural human right to love and care for another is obviously false. People have a right to a sexual orientation, and they have a right to be able to life their lives in this society regardless of their sexual orientation.

BobVB,

You stated:
"Gosh drawing conclusions from a field of study that has yet to reach any conclusions?"

Note that I purposely and specifically stated "to date." To date means that there is ongoing research in this field of study. Ongoing research means the ultimate conclusion of whether homosexuality has a genetic component, and if so to what extent, is unknown -- what we can make are intermediate conclusions based on what is known as of a particular point in time. This is a simple notion......

The irony is that you immediately follow up this comment by stating: "Sexual orientation isn't a 'choice' by any reasonable usage of the word regardless of its origins." Applying your own anlaysis to this statement, how could you come to this CONCLUSION. Gosh drawing conclusions from a field of study that has yet to reach any conclusions.....sound familar. Finally, if the conclusion of your sentence--"regardless of its orgins"--is leaving open the possibility that homosexuality might be derived from some other source, then your conclusion is even less compelling.

The void that is left in your analysis is filled with your biases and your need for there to be some genetic proof that the genetic component, if any, in homosexuality is so uncontrollable that it is beyond choice and, thefore, should be acceptable (and you would probably argue even moral).

Indeed, this type of analysis is dubious insofar as it leaves the door open for every subsequent sexual deviant to claim that the government has no right to interfere in their sexual conduct because it is a result of what they claim is a genetic predisposition.

Bestiality is illegal. Perhaps some part of some person's mind reacts stonger to a horse's pharamones than a human's. Bestiality is seemingly a victimless crime, and by the court's own admission they could not find any physical harm to large animals. Yet, despite the victimless nature of bestiality and the source of the person's internal motivation, it is simply deemed ILLEGAL. Sexual conduct is REGULATED by the government, and so there is a current and historical basis for regulating not only homosexual conduct, but also gay marriage. Note that the same argument could be applied to polygamy.

It seems that your "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" doesn't apply to having sex with your horse, your first cousin, or professing your love to 3 people via marriage -- regardless of the fact that you might have some genetic predisposition. Perhaps you would argue that those should be permitted as well in a moral society.

""Sexual orientation isn't a 'choice' by any reasonable usage of the word regardless of its origins." Applying your own anlaysis to this statement, how could you come to this CONCLUSION. "

You are confusing speculations of causation with reality. Very very very very few people say that they consciously choose their sexual orientation, as such we know it isn't a choice by empirical data - you were speculating about causation where no conclusion has been made.

The rest of your note shows you really haven't thought about the other issues either:

- Bestiality is a practice, not a sexual orientation, and yes it is considered abuse of the animal even if they are large which is why it was deemed illegal.

- Marrying your first cousin is entirely proper in the majority of states (interestingly although 1st cousins can't license a copy of the civil contract in Washington state sexual congress between 1st cousins is completely legal). But if you are referring to incest there again is no indication that there is any 'orientation' who can only pair-bond to close relatives so that is merely limiting the 2 billion size possible contract cosignee pool by a small handful. Regulation vs proscription.

- The government can no more 'regulate' sexual orientation than they can regulate intelligence. As we know again from empirical data the relative % of the population that is gay is stable whether it is persecuted or not.

- As far as citizens licensing the secular civil contract in support of marriage with someone of the same gender, that's about reasonable equal access of all citizens to government features, so you are also wrong about polygamy.

Polygamists already have access to the civil contract of marriage, I know an islamic man with 3 wives and he licensed a state contract with the first. While the state can limit a citizen to only one copy of the contract with someone they would like to build a life with (regulation), that is worlds different than telling a citizen they can't license a copy at all with someone they would want to build a life (proscription). This is assuming you realize that the state can not marry anyone, that marriage comes from beyond government, and it merely licenses a contract in support of its citizen's marriages.

Oh and, of course, there is nothing illegal about any sexual orientation in Washington state so your whole 'legal' tangent is off the mark from the start.

"Bestiality is a practice, not a sexual orientation, and yes it is considered abuse of the animal even if they are large which is why it was deemed illegal."

You are incorrect in many respects and your terse response seems to suggest an inability to make meaningful distinctions on which the law could permit homosexuality, yet not permit bestiality or polygamy.

First, you start off with the CONCLUSION that bestiality is a practice, not a sexual orientation. Please cite your source for this proposition. If you argue that someone's homosexual feelings are tied to a genetic predisposition, then it seems equally likely that someone's sexual feelings towards an animal are also tied to a genetic predisposition. Note that arousal is required to have sex with an animal is triggered in the same region of the brain regardless of the source of that arrousal.

Second, you stated: "The government can no more 'regulate' sexual orientation than they can regulate intelligence. As we know again from empirical data the relative % of the population that is gay is stable whether it is persecuted or not." Again you rely on the unsupported conclusion that Bestiality is not a sexual orientation, but homosexuality is. This logic is equally flawed here as it was above.

Third, the COURT did hold that it was NOT considered abuse of an animal if the animal was large enough. Despite the court's finding the LEGISLATURE subsequently passed a law making it illegal. It was deemed illegal because it was immoral, not due to any abuse sustained by a horse.

Fourth, with respect to marriage, your "worlds different" argument stuggles for traction. Only a state sanctioned marriage can give rise to the many legal benefits that gay marriage advocates so desperately want. So saying that one of the polygamists doesn't get to enjoy the protections and benefits of a state sanctioned married rings hollow. The proponents of gay marriage know why they want marriages recognized by the state, so should you.

fankly i'm sick of it i am a gay man we seem to be going in circles its time to move be-on the issue that GOD made man for woman crap the fact is for me i was born gay. i can't prove it but then can you prove that your not gay can you prove that your stright? well we can go on and on and on this issue but in the mean time gays are being killed on this verry same issue but i'll keep saying it until i'm blue in the face I WAS BOEN THIS WAY and for all you moe-ons I DON'T HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS. if you want to go right a head i gess that what you like to do GO FOR IT ! but leave me alone and sy the F??k away from me! p.s. oh by the way my boyfriend just made me PG i'm hopping for a QUEER

My thing is using “democratic internet voting” to settle “community issues” respectfully and peacefully. I believe that is an excellent way to “make mutual community decisions” and “live peacefully together”. My belief is no one should be labeled “bad” or “called names” for having an opinion or a purpose in life. One of my purposes in life is selling “accurate” voting system using the internet. But some people call me a “salesman” like that is a dirty word or something. I can’t figure it out!

That means I use my “programming skills” to “provide groups with electronic voting software” run from their own personal site so they can “ask their own questions and get others to VOTE on the questions they are posing to the public to vote on”. At this point in time I believe our “traditional, state and federal voting system is too old fashion and electronic voting from your own “PERSONAL PORTAL” with i-receipts using the internet would work much better.

I can also provide you with “electronic list of registered names” you can “take to help create an official Washington initiative (i.e. remember initiatives put things up for a real Washington vote)” so you can re-do the vote you did on your “personal internet portal” again using the official Washington State Voting system. So using “personal portal voting” you can “survey public opinion” and then see if it “makes sense to you to move on and do an “official state or federal vote”. It all about your character and what things in life you have a real passion for .

Perhaps we can “work together and help each other” with the internet and public voting. I can provide you with “personal portals and electronic voting from them so you can seek out and find people who think like you” and “you can help me make an honest living I can be proud of selling accurate voting system and modern day personal portals to help you with your passion in life”.

What wrong with helping each other in life using our various types of skills? Mine is C# software development for individual people. In other words, personal portals to help you with your purpose in life. That seems o.k. to me. Helping each other I mean. That’s my style and hopefully my corporation can be of service to you someday when you feel the time is right.

Respectfully. Kevin Donahoe , CEO of New Technology Advantage Inc..

"You are incorrect in many respects"

Actually, no. We know that bestiality is not a sexual orientation because of the lack of empirical data - no one out of a world of researchers or even the bestiality practitioners themselves consider it a 'sexual orientation'. No one is noted to only be able to become attached to animals from adolescents on. This isn't some sort of mental game - your suppositions have to some grounding in reality.

"Third, the COURT did hold that it was NOT considered abuse of an animal if the animal was large enough."

No, they said it didn't fit the state's legal definition of animal cruelty, not that it wasn't abuse. By passing a bestiality law they have now protected all animals from such abuse so that loophole has been closed.

And you really can't see the distinction between two humans pair-bonding merging their lives and a human having sex with some non-sentient species?

"Ringing hollow" or not, the polygamist DOES have access to the civil contract of marriage and can license one copy with someone with whom they could reasonably be expected to want to build a life with which the gay citizen can not do at all. That is a qualitative difference while just wanting to be able to license multiple copies is a quantitative difference.

And there is no known condition where someone MUST have multiple spouses, e.g. "When I was married to two women I found them attractive, but I don't find them individually attractive" so limiting a citizen to one mutually exclusive spouse is NOT proscription but merely regulation.

The state can regulate even natural human rights. We have free speech but can be told we can be punished for libel or yell 'fire' when there is none. Each citizen has as right to marry but the state can reasonably limit its expression as long as its not effectively a proscription. So the state can limit the licensing of the marriage contract to a single mutually exclusive condition as long as all citizens have a reasonable chance of finding a qualifying co-signee. Only gay citizens are effectively proscribed from access to the current civil contract by the licensing restrictions. All straight citizens have a pool of 2 billion reasonable potentials, all gay citizens have a pool of 0.

Its just an equal access issue nothing more.

Make God help you all!

If you don't like being bothered and verbally abused, why don't all you gays go back into the closet from which you came? People never bothered you there. You people are the ones that stuck your necks out into our moral majority looking to create havoc so you can come out. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The bottom line - we don't want you. Marriage is OURS. Forget it.

Pepper must be really fun to be married to. Fascinating psych case!

Yes eric, Pepper is the poster boy of why HB2661 is a necessary thing.

oh my... treat everyone the same... let them have the same rights... Hell the Bible IS stories written by man NOT god. How many different Bibles are out there? PLEASE PEOPLE learn to treat all equal and respect all.

Dear Stephen,

You're absolutely right and absolutely wrong.

There are alot of versions of the Bible, not because the original Word is not Gods Word.
Man has changed the Word of God to conform to his own thought, taking out those things which offend man. Man replaces and ommits those things in the original Biblical documents which he finds offensive, so that his sin will not be exposed. There are true original documents, not doctered by man. The original King James version of the Bible is the closest of all versions not doctered by man. The Dead Sea scrolls support the evidence written in the historical writings in The King James Version. The Torra gives historical documentaion of the Old Testament.

Yes, they are written by man but, by inspiration of The Holy Spirit.

You can choose to simply believe the Truth or better yet, do an in depth study to prove all the writings as wrong.

When you actually do this you'll find out as many athiests have that the historical evidence is too strong; supporting that Jesus Christ is Lord of lords and King of Kings.

The Bible claims that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. He came to earth so that men would be rejoined to The Father because of the separation of man from God because of sin that entered man in the Garden of Eden.

Jesus came not to judge but, give life through the forgiveness of sin by freely giving up His life through hanging on a cross for salvation of man.

There is enough supporting evidence that this man Jesus Christ not only died but, also rose again. (The only person ever who ever rose from the dead). He walked amoung man for 40 days following 3 days in (hell, Abrahams Bossom). He was seen and recognized as being the same man Jesus Christ by five hundred people who also saw Him ascend to Heaven at the end of the 40 days.

If you do nothing and come to your own conclusion not investigating about who God is instead of asking Him to reveal Himself to you; you will not have the Truth in you. You will miss God in your life and continue to be empty inside as you are right now. You will miss having someone who will love you for who you are with all your faults.

God is a Holy and Just God, (His Name Is Jesus Christ). He enters a persons life by the person asking Him to enter their life through The Holy Spirit. All you have to do is accept the Mercy he gave us through His sacrifice at Calvary.

Let God be the Lord of your life and Live Forever. Let yourself be the god of your life and be not only eternally seperated from God but, suffer the eternal fire that Jesus Christ talked about. Salvation is a free Gift from God, all you have to say is...

Jesus forgive me of my sin. Restore me, walk with me and lead me into your presence. I accept you as King of kings and Lord of all lords. I turn away from sin and ask you to enter into my life and I will serve you all the days of my life. Help me to live for You.

I pray that you will find Peace in your life through Jesus Christ.

After you accept Christ into your life and place your trust in Him; find a church that preaches the whole Word of God and does not change the Word to suit mans perspective and views.

I pray that God reveals Himself to you like Saul of Tarsus who persecuted the believers and you will serve Him all the days of your life.

Ken Hutcherson presented his position well.
I am suspect of a person who makes a definition by using the same word to define the word (i.e. marriage). Sims called into question a study that Hutcherson brought up, but with no evidence. Sims required Hutcerson to listen to his ramblings, while interrupting Hutcherson. Sims arguments were too emotionally based with no evidence. The weakness in Hutcherson's position, if you can call it that, would have to be his refernece to God. It was those same convictions that the founders of this country held. They passed to their next generation a country that was strong ethically, morally and philosophically. That is a lot more than I can say about our contemporary politicians. Absolutely, Hutcherson won the debate. I can only hope that the politicians, our elected officials and judges can also realize that if our country does not maitain strong morals and ethics we will not have a country worth defending.

Regardless of your belief, it is not acceptable to disciminate. If you are a person of the Lord, allow God to make the final decision, and when decision day comes, don't be surprised if you are judged harshly by your actions of hate, your judgements of others ( to quote the Bible- "thou shall not judge") and denial of rights to all people. Don't take for granted that we live in a country that allows people to live freely, and please don't take steps backwards to eliminate the civil rights this country fights for. Moving forward includes tolerance, and from what I can tell, Mr. Hutcherson doesn't have a lick of tolerance in him.

You posted my comment last night. (April 02). Where are the rest of the letters from March 21 to last night?

susan

My letter--after being posted, disappeard!

I was so sick to my stomach after listening to the hate spoken by Mr. Hutcherson. He proposes that he is a man of God but he spoke more like someone from the Nazi nation. How can he not forget that the KKK proposed their action and right of 'white supremecy' was God-given and God had placed the white man over the black man. Any action that hurts another and is done so in the name of God should be seen for what it is - sinful. Shame on you Mr. Hutcherson and may God forgive you.

Margaret and Dr Susan, you both made a wonderful contribution to this discussion.
Note the difference between the two debaters. Sims is easily rattled, and almost comes unhinged when Hutch calls him on the carpet.
I can assume this is a standard M.O. for Sims, and for that matter, most leftists.

And Robert, thank you for always having both sides represented. This is crucial.