They're both pastors. But they read the Bible very differently.
It was a spectacle. Eight-hundred people packed Town Hall to see King County Executive Ron Sims and Pastor Ken Hutcherson face-off on gay rights. Sims is the Democratic politician who encouraged gay couples to sue over the right to marry. Hutcherson is the pastor at Antioch Bible Church who threatened to boycott Microsoft over gay rights. They have both faced discrimination; They are both ministers. Yet on this issue, the divide is enormous. Who do you think was more persuasive? If you haven't seen the debate sponsored in March by Town Hall and The Stranger, click below to see it in streaming video.
Our Up Front Web site (click above) has streaming video of the debate. Few debates are this lively. As a moderator, I was grateful that the 800 people at Town Hall (for the most part) respected the two men for the 90-minute debate. I came armed with dozens of questions but within the first ten minutes, realized this was a different kind of debate. In adopting the "less is more" strategy, it was clear to me that people came to hear these two outspoken men challenge each other--not to hear some moderator question each individually. So many of my questions went unanswered, but I think people got more out of the free-flowing format. Back stage, Sims and Hutcherson were remarkably cordial and jovial, though all of us were pretty tense right before the debate started. In the end, not much was resolved. No surprise really, as it appeared almost everyone in the room came to the event with an opinion already formed. But hopefully, we all came away with a better understanding of each other.
31 Comments
Tom said:
I've never thought much of how Sims has come across in the past but he did an excellent job of stating the fact that we, as a people, need to move forward without discrimination. I find it hard to believe that in this age, people cannot have their own opinions and be able to do so without discrimination. Sims was able to point out what is best for people as a whole whereas Hutcherson was only able to focus on a limited view of his practicing religion.
Michael said:
While in some twisted way you may be able to make the argument that the Bible is against homosexuality, there can be no doubt that descrimination against the gay community violates the spirit of everything that the Bible and Jesus Christ stands for.
Lisa W said:
Hutcherson's argument requires me to accept several statements as fact. 1. God is the final arbiter of what is marriage and whether homosexuality is right or wrong. 2. The Christian bible is the word of God and not the work of man or man's interpretation of God's word. 3. The Constitution is not the final arbiter of our civil intercourse and the law of the land. Even if I accept the first statement, he cannot prove the other 2, nor do I accept them.
But a great discussion.
K. Thome said:
Ken Hutcherson won this debate in my opinion. I am glad we live in a country where we can publicly share our opinions in respectful and couteous manner. Thank you to our founding fathers for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Larry Hughes said:
If logic wins, Hutcherson also certainly did.
Allan said:
I believe that people are entitled to their opinions, and everyone has the right to believe what they want. Pastor Ken Hutcherson I feel has the right idea and that it is a matter of what is right or wrong, that the meaning of marriage is the binding of two opposite sexes to become one.
Shelley Ramcke said:
What a great debate! I like the fact that Hutcherson doesn't sugar coat his words and try to speak politically correct like Simms. Wow did Simms talk the politician talk! How refreshing to find someone like Hutcherson who stands firm on what he believes and doesn't try to "change with the times." Kuddos to King 5 and Robert Mak for airing such a sensitive topic!
I'll start off by saying that I believe that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. I believe all of us are sinners and deserve eternal separation from God.I believe that Jesus died for every sinner in the world that lived or would live and HE enabled our salvation if we would only believe in him and Love as he loved. I also Love all people but hate the sin that kills us all. Only through Jesus can we see the father. Only through the wisdom granted by the Holy Spirit can we properly hear what the Bible is saying to us.
As a Christian I have no authority to judge the actions on non-believers....God is the judge. My responsibility is to love and serve them as Jesus would. For those that profess to love Christ but live in unrepentant sin, we, as your brothers and sisters in Christ are commanded to provide compassion and discipline so that you might repent of you sin...that's what Love is!
Biblically speaking Sims was way off the mark and also didn't appear to have any coherent logic. I pray that Mr. Sims will open his heart and mind to the Holy Spirit that is screaming at him. I pray this issue doesn't service to divide but to open up channels of communication, compasion in love as it glorifies God and is in accordance to his will.
I'm praying for you Seattle!
Warren Woods said:
America was given to our Forefathers by God. This is still a Christian Nation despite those trying to remove God and His ways from our Land. God alone has the authority to bless or curse our Great Nation. Don't you think we should find out what offends Him. Jesus has made it clear in His word that Homosexuality is wrong. Jesus created Marriage to between one man and one woman. We as a Nation including myself need to repent and return to the one True God and His ways so that he may Heal our Land.
Cliff said:
I like someone standing up for what they believe. Nowadays, "Potlically Correct" becomes something you need to follow. No one truely stand firm for what is right and what is wrong. Too many politicians claim that they are Christian but what they are doing are actually opposing the Bible. In fact, the word "Marriage" always mean "binding of two opposite sexes". I don't see any reason why it needs to be changed.
Frank said:
Mr. Ron Simms comes across as being insincere and contradictory at best. When he was challenged about redifining 'Marriage', he says he is not but when asked how he defines marriage, he stutterred to define it as "marriage between two committed people..." you can sense that deep in his heart he knows it is not true nor does he believe it, he is simply catering to his Seattle constituent.
It is imcomprehensible that he was ordained as a minister, this is what's giving Christianity a bad name. I know that he is a very liberal politician, but I didn't know he'd go this far.
Rev, Ken Hutcherson won this debate hands down because he didn't have to lie.
Kali said:
Sims easily won, because ultimately justice is or his side and he was the one who stayed consistent with "biblical logic" that has always emphasized God's favor for the minority and the maligned. Hutcherson only showed himself to be adept at using his charisma to excite and inspire a very un-Christ-like ignorance. I am also a Christian, and the Bible's teachings have always been clear to me and I too stand firm upon them: the sanctity of marriage is about commitment, not gender; prohibitions against gays exist in scripture, but Jesus was about liberating us from prohibitions that kept us from loving the essence of human beings; the Bible has never been the last word, but rather a very important starting point; "loving the sinner but loathing the sin" is not at all love, it's pity. Read the gospels more closely. Jesus would be pleased with Sims ad would have championed gays.
Dean said:
This was a very interesting debate. Hands down to Mr. Hutcherson for speaking his mind. His belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, The Almighty Father and what our Nation stands for was well communicated.
Unfortunately, the debate was side tracked from the issue. This was suppose to be a debate over same-sex marriage. Mr. Simms took it to a civil rights issue which it is not.
The sactification of marriage is stated to be between two persons of the opposite sex.
On the message of marriage, what about polygamy? Last check it is illegal. Is this the next debate?
If, as a State, and as a Nation, we endorse same-sex marriage, what are we teaching our children?
This country's beginning was established as "One Nation Under God". This is what has always made our Nation great. The dividing of families and lack of clear morals continues to harm our children.
Marriage between two persons of the opposite sex has been in place for thousands of years. What can we expect next? Because a person loves her/his cat, or the dog, or the hamster, will she/he be allowed to marry the family pet?
Mr Simms is a politician. He proved that tonight. He should not make claim to be a pastor. He appears to have strayed from the path of God to gain votes. Does he have children? How has he raised his children? I suspect the answer is they are "open-minded".
Last check, not one of the religions of the world condone homosexuality. I suspect a vote from most aetheists would oppose same sex marriages. I say, lets put it to a state vote.
Hold the ground Mr. Hutcherson. You are on the right path.
Todd said:
Ken Hutcherson won.
george said:
Ron Sims is a shining example of why Seattle and King county muffed up the last Governors race. Not only does he play both sides of the field- he has no coherent reasons why. As Mr Hutcherson said- we all discriminate on a daily basis. Either you like something- or you dont, either you believe in something or you dont- either you practice what you preach- or you dont. Call it what you will- it is- in a sense- discrimination to choose one over the other. You cant have it both ways- but unfortunately- only in America do we feel it is our RIGHT to do just that. If Mr Hutcherson was running for King County Executive, he would have spanked Ron Sims .. but good!
steve said:
Mr. Hutcherson wins hands down! no doubt!!!
mr sims will do ANYTHING to try and generate votes for himslf, and his party!! how sad. how pathetic. how shamefull.
Aaron said:
I have one thing to say plus a storie i read. Hutchrson claims to be going off what the bible says... then im claiming hes white.Well i was gonna post it but can't but those that are intrested in reading go here. http://blog.myspace.com/5925668
Peter Degon said:
Great match up of two intelligent, black men with influence. Both of them argued passionately. What stood out to me was that Hutcherson spoke his mind freely and passionately while Simms seemed to be attempting to maintain a politically correct stance. He is a politician now, and thus has a harder time speaking his personal convictions. Hutcherson came off as having a much deeper sense of conviction. Great choice of debate. I think it will be difficult for anyone to match up with the pastor. Simms did not fair well.
Dave said:
As a general rule, I am as far from a fan of Ron Sims as it is possible to be. However, despite the handicap of not being as glib as Rev. Hutcherson, Mr. Sims made mincemeat of Hutcherson on most of the specific issues raised. Particularly glaring was Hutcherson's inability to see the parallel between the fights for civil rights for homosexuals and for blacks.
I was also appalled by Hutcherson's repeated insistence that he knows "many ex-homosexuals." He cited Anne Heche as one example of an "ex-homosexual," seeming not to grasp that despite now being a mother and in a relationship with a man she may still be gay. Going back into the closet does not equal becoming straight.
The whole debate played like a scene from "Inherit the Wind," with Hutcherson's insistence on literal interpretation of the Bible withering before Sim's combination of common sense, science, and humanity.
WWJD? Well, I'm pretty sure He wouldn't be spewing anti-homosexual rhetoric. It wouldn't really fit in with the teachings of love and acceptance we know He espoused.
A.I. said:
Sims won, no boubt about it.
Watching the debate was like watching a child trying to rationalize his side of a story. Hutcherson simply is too stuborn of a man to take in any differences he is too close-minded to see, and that is why he is not the right material to put infront of public. He is too opinionated, and that is what brought up the issue of his church almost being kicked out of my high school they are lucky to have to begin with. A man that bias and that "anger management" material, should not have the right to lead a religious group into his own interpretations. As a devoted christian, I hope God has his ways with that man.
ANDREW WALDEN said:
I think that Rev Hutchinson did a superb job on rectifying the point of gay rights. I just can't see how you can introduce a "MAN" at the head table at a banquet or a annual anniversary and his wife is another "MAN". When you start debating on issues such as this, please look at the whole picture and not behind the scenes. Again MR & MR_____ will not get it in the public eye.
Susan said:
When Simms said that we can't discriminate against the beliefs of Buddhists, Muslims, etc., he forgot to include not discriminating against the beliefs of Bible-believing people. We may not agree, but we have the right to disagree.
If the definition of marriage is a "free-for-all," then why not include polygamy, incest, group marriage, wife-swapping and even marriage to animals? Why discriminate at all?
Hutcherson won this one.
BTW, anyone ever heard of Blacks discriminating against Whites -- or gays discriminating against straights -- or political parties discriminating against each other -- or religions discriminating against one another? For that matter, how about Blacks discriminating against Blacks and Whites discriminating against Whites and and homosexuals discriminating against bi-and trans-sexuals?
Would Simms discriminate if a convicted, but released, sex offender wanted to rent his triplex where children lived in the middle unit? Or would Simms discriminate if Hutcherson asked for a Council appointment from him?
If I wanted to rent from gays and they did not want to rent from me, THEY should have the right to say No. If a gay employer refused to hire me because I'm an orthodox Jew, and/or straight, that should be his right. (If he injures or slanders me, that is not his right.)
If I ultimately cannot find housing, then the courts should find remedy ... but ONLY if there are no other reasonable alternatives. I don't believe gay people should be forced to work in hostile environments nor mistreated in any way. Every individual carries value in God's eyes and deserves courtesy and respect.
Would I reach out to help someone who is gay? I most certainly would! Have I helped gays financially? I have. Do I believe that gays merit special rights? I do not.
Jane B Lucke said:
My admiration of Ron Sims has increased after his debate on Gay rights. I am heterosexual but have known some wonderful gays that have been in loving long term relationships.
Chrisann said:
Discrimination of any kind is wrong. It was frustrating listening to Hutcherson using the word discrimination in the context of "taste" VS. what it really is in this issue, of being one of "societal equality". Our country is founded on the ideals of seperation of church and state, personal freedom, and equality.
Coming from a background of being bi-racial, my mother being Buddist and father being baptist, raised poor, and all the obstacles and predjudices that my family and I experianced. I have learned that love should not be limited or judged. The idea that two men or women, who come together under the same desire of commitment and love, cannot have their relationship recognized and celebrated in the same manner as heterosexual couples, is denying them a civil right. Get the bible out of this obvious human rights issue. I've read some arguments about "protecting families" As if there aren't gay couples that have children. Is this family unit any less valid, than children raised by straight parents? Should we then re-define what parents are? I agree that this is also a family issue. The right to have your own family.
Shelley Ramcke said:
What a great debate. I like it that Hutcherson stands up for what he believes and is not wishy washy like Simms. Simms is trying to be so politically correct. It's nice to see Hutcherson be so firm and clear on right and wrong.
Abby said:
I'm sick of people arguing that the Bible does not support nor condone homosexualitity. I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom FROM religion as well. If this is so, why are homosexuals being bound to certain statutes in which they may not believe? The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment. And because of this legal separation between Church and State, no one has the right to impose rules on anyone else because of something they percieve to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. We are all Americans, and some of us are religious -- it is our responsibility to maintain a boundary specific relationship between the two. This brings me to the topic of marriage. Why do people oppose the right for any two people to be wed? Because it would lead to incest, beastiality, and a world-wide homosexuality pandemic? These ridiculous arguments are a desperate attempt by the fearful to incite fear. We fear what we do not understand. We then descriminate. We segregate blacks and whites, we deny women the right to vote, we deny gays the right to marry. Leave your Bibles in the bedside drawer for a moment, and search your souls. Are you a hateful bigot frightened of change, or are you willing to accept that love has more forms than you originally thought? What side do you want to be on?
Bob S. said:
I think everyone is missing the point here. Religion and Politics are "supposed" to separate. Jesus taught us that his kingdom was no part of this world and that we should owe to Caesar's things to Caesar's and God's things to God. What right does Mr. Hutcherson have to be putting his nose into politics?!?! And, what right does he have to judge you or me? GOD is our judge and we answer only to HIM, not Mr. Hutcherson. Civil rights are everyone's to have. Not just whom HE thinks they belong to. I'm sick of religion getting involved in issues that don't concern them. Haven't religious beliefs been the cause of so many wars? I watched the debate and found Mr. Hutcherson to be a pompous, arrogant, and self-righteous ass. Not god-like traits from what I've read in the bible.
Ray F said:
I believe the Rev. Hutcherson won the debate hands down. I fully agree with the Rev. Hutcherson on every point and a very pleased someone of his caliber has chosen to speak out on these issues. It's a breath of fresh air to hear someone such as him who is truly a son of God speak the truth. We need many more Christians speaking out to this very important issue.
Ron Sim's arguments seemed weak and having no basis.
Actually God (father, son[Jesus], and holy spirit) don't separate things as much as you believe or perhaps desire. But I agree with you two wrongs don't make a right. I guess one of the most famous prayers was "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". So if you take that litterally then if we all try to figure out "what the father wants us to learn each day (even during conflict)" we turn earth into a place very much like heaven by making it better each day. We also make ourselves better too with wiser choices in life. The trick is to realize the difference between father, son [Jesus], and holy spirit. They each have a different purpose / role you know. When you actually see the father working don't get scared he has your best interest in mind. Submitted for your respectful consideration.
Create two overlapping circles for future debates between these 2 people. Label one circle Mr. Hutchinson’s opinions, label circle two Mr. Simms opinions, and label the intersection of both circles “what they can agree on”. Then ask the following questions and place the answers in one of 3 places. Circle one, circle two, or the intersection (i.e. where they agree). After finishing this exercise take the intersection (i.e. where Mr. Sims and Mr. Hutchison agree) and go do something productive and constructive with that synergy of ideas to make our community better.
Some suggested questions to ask:
(1) Did God see heterosexual sex as say it is GOOD…VERY, VERY, GOOD!!!?
(2) Do you consider homosexual behavior a good lesson to spend taxpayer, or stockholder / investor, money teaching future generations that it is also a good choice in life?
(3) Is treating someone unfair, or hurtful, at work or in housing the right thing to do?
(4) Does God condone us to physically beat someone up because they disagree with us?
(5) Does God suggest we gently correct people with love who make poor choices in life or treat them with disrespect and hate?
(6) Will re-defining marriage make our world better for future generations?
David McDowell said:
Heres some comments in response to a few statements previously made.
statement "While in some twisted way you may be able to make the argument that the Bible is against homosexuality," -Tom
Have you ever read the bible Tom? Try reading Romans 1.
statement "(4) Does God condone us to physically beat someone up because they disagree with us?"-Kevin Donahoe
In this situation, spiritual beating should occur. In 1 Corinthians 4.21
""What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?
"" When a outspoken christian is blatantly maligning the word of God, sometimes the spiritual rods should be pulled out in effort to realign that individual with what is right, or atleast force him to reconsider his thought process.
Ron Sims has no biblical support whatsoever to support is views. Praise be to God that Ken H. is standing up for what is right.
It was a spectacle. Eight-hundred people packed Town Hall to see King County Executive Ron Sims and Pastor Ken Hutcherson face-off on gay rights. Sims is the Democratic politician who encouraged gay couples to sue over the right to marry. Hutcherson is the pastor at Antioch Bible Church who threatened to boycott Microsoft over gay rights. They have both faced discrimination; They are both ministers. Yet on this issue, the divide is enormous. Who do you think was more persuasive? If you haven't seen the debate sponsored in March by Town Hall and The Stranger, click below to see it in streaming video.
KING 5 News Up Front with Robert Mak
I've never thought much of how Sims has come across in the past but he did an excellent job of stating the fact that we, as a people, need to move forward without discrimination. I find it hard to believe that in this age, people cannot have their own opinions and be able to do so without discrimination. Sims was able to point out what is best for people as a whole whereas Hutcherson was only able to focus on a limited view of his practicing religion.
While in some twisted way you may be able to make the argument that the Bible is against homosexuality, there can be no doubt that descrimination against the gay community violates the spirit of everything that the Bible and Jesus Christ stands for.
Hutcherson's argument requires me to accept several statements as fact. 1. God is the final arbiter of what is marriage and whether homosexuality is right or wrong. 2. The Christian bible is the word of God and not the work of man or man's interpretation of God's word. 3. The Constitution is not the final arbiter of our civil intercourse and the law of the land. Even if I accept the first statement, he cannot prove the other 2, nor do I accept them.
But a great discussion.
Ken Hutcherson won this debate in my opinion. I am glad we live in a country where we can publicly share our opinions in respectful and couteous manner. Thank you to our founding fathers for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
If logic wins, Hutcherson also certainly did.
I believe that people are entitled to their opinions, and everyone has the right to believe what they want. Pastor Ken Hutcherson I feel has the right idea and that it is a matter of what is right or wrong, that the meaning of marriage is the binding of two opposite sexes to become one.
What a great debate! I like the fact that Hutcherson doesn't sugar coat his words and try to speak politically correct like Simms. Wow did Simms talk the politician talk! How refreshing to find someone like Hutcherson who stands firm on what he believes and doesn't try to "change with the times." Kuddos to King 5 and Robert Mak for airing such a sensitive topic!
Extremely Interesting debate.
I'll start off by saying that I believe that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. I believe all of us are sinners and deserve eternal separation from God.I believe that Jesus died for every sinner in the world that lived or would live and HE enabled our salvation if we would only believe in him and Love as he loved. I also Love all people but hate the sin that kills us all. Only through Jesus can we see the father. Only through the wisdom granted by the Holy Spirit can we properly hear what the Bible is saying to us.
As a Christian I have no authority to judge the actions on non-believers....God is the judge. My responsibility is to love and serve them as Jesus would. For those that profess to love Christ but live in unrepentant sin, we, as your brothers and sisters in Christ are commanded to provide compassion and discipline so that you might repent of you sin...that's what Love is!
Biblically speaking Sims was way off the mark and also didn't appear to have any coherent logic. I pray that Mr. Sims will open his heart and mind to the Holy Spirit that is screaming at him. I pray this issue doesn't service to divide but to open up channels of communication, compasion in love as it glorifies God and is in accordance to his will.
I'm praying for you Seattle!
America was given to our Forefathers by God. This is still a Christian Nation despite those trying to remove God and His ways from our Land. God alone has the authority to bless or curse our Great Nation. Don't you think we should find out what offends Him. Jesus has made it clear in His word that Homosexuality is wrong. Jesus created Marriage to between one man and one woman. We as a Nation including myself need to repent and return to the one True God and His ways so that he may Heal our Land.
I like someone standing up for what they believe. Nowadays, "Potlically Correct" becomes something you need to follow. No one truely stand firm for what is right and what is wrong. Too many politicians claim that they are Christian but what they are doing are actually opposing the Bible. In fact, the word "Marriage" always mean "binding of two opposite sexes". I don't see any reason why it needs to be changed.
Mr. Ron Simms comes across as being insincere and contradictory at best. When he was challenged about redifining 'Marriage', he says he is not but when asked how he defines marriage, he stutterred to define it as "marriage between two committed people..." you can sense that deep in his heart he knows it is not true nor does he believe it, he is simply catering to his Seattle constituent.
It is imcomprehensible that he was ordained as a minister, this is what's giving Christianity a bad name. I know that he is a very liberal politician, but I didn't know he'd go this far.
Rev, Ken Hutcherson won this debate hands down because he didn't have to lie.
Sims easily won, because ultimately justice is or his side and he was the one who stayed consistent with "biblical logic" that has always emphasized God's favor for the minority and the maligned. Hutcherson only showed himself to be adept at using his charisma to excite and inspire a very un-Christ-like ignorance. I am also a Christian, and the Bible's teachings have always been clear to me and I too stand firm upon them: the sanctity of marriage is about commitment, not gender; prohibitions against gays exist in scripture, but Jesus was about liberating us from prohibitions that kept us from loving the essence of human beings; the Bible has never been the last word, but rather a very important starting point; "loving the sinner but loathing the sin" is not at all love, it's pity. Read the gospels more closely. Jesus would be pleased with Sims ad would have championed gays.
This was a very interesting debate. Hands down to Mr. Hutcherson for speaking his mind. His belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, The Almighty Father and what our Nation stands for was well communicated.
Unfortunately, the debate was side tracked from the issue. This was suppose to be a debate over same-sex marriage. Mr. Simms took it to a civil rights issue which it is not.
The sactification of marriage is stated to be between two persons of the opposite sex.
On the message of marriage, what about polygamy? Last check it is illegal. Is this the next debate?
If, as a State, and as a Nation, we endorse same-sex marriage, what are we teaching our children?
This country's beginning was established as "One Nation Under God". This is what has always made our Nation great. The dividing of families and lack of clear morals continues to harm our children.
Marriage between two persons of the opposite sex has been in place for thousands of years. What can we expect next? Because a person loves her/his cat, or the dog, or the hamster, will she/he be allowed to marry the family pet?
Mr Simms is a politician. He proved that tonight. He should not make claim to be a pastor. He appears to have strayed from the path of God to gain votes. Does he have children? How has he raised his children? I suspect the answer is they are "open-minded".
Last check, not one of the religions of the world condone homosexuality. I suspect a vote from most aetheists would oppose same sex marriages. I say, lets put it to a state vote.
Hold the ground Mr. Hutcherson. You are on the right path.
Ken Hutcherson won.
Ron Sims is a shining example of why Seattle and King county muffed up the last Governors race. Not only does he play both sides of the field- he has no coherent reasons why. As Mr Hutcherson said- we all discriminate on a daily basis. Either you like something- or you dont, either you believe in something or you dont- either you practice what you preach- or you dont. Call it what you will- it is- in a sense- discrimination to choose one over the other. You cant have it both ways- but unfortunately- only in America do we feel it is our RIGHT to do just that. If Mr Hutcherson was running for King County Executive, he would have spanked Ron Sims .. but good!
Mr. Hutcherson wins hands down! no doubt!!!
mr sims will do ANYTHING to try and generate votes for himslf, and his party!! how sad. how pathetic. how shamefull.
I have one thing to say plus a storie i read. Hutchrson claims to be going off what the bible says... then im claiming hes white.Well i was gonna post it but can't but those that are intrested in reading go here. http://blog.myspace.com/5925668
Great match up of two intelligent, black men with influence. Both of them argued passionately. What stood out to me was that Hutcherson spoke his mind freely and passionately while Simms seemed to be attempting to maintain a politically correct stance. He is a politician now, and thus has a harder time speaking his personal convictions. Hutcherson came off as having a much deeper sense of conviction. Great choice of debate. I think it will be difficult for anyone to match up with the pastor. Simms did not fair well.
As a general rule, I am as far from a fan of Ron Sims as it is possible to be. However, despite the handicap of not being as glib as Rev. Hutcherson, Mr. Sims made mincemeat of Hutcherson on most of the specific issues raised. Particularly glaring was Hutcherson's inability to see the parallel between the fights for civil rights for homosexuals and for blacks.
I was also appalled by Hutcherson's repeated insistence that he knows "many ex-homosexuals." He cited Anne Heche as one example of an "ex-homosexual," seeming not to grasp that despite now being a mother and in a relationship with a man she may still be gay. Going back into the closet does not equal becoming straight.
The whole debate played like a scene from "Inherit the Wind," with Hutcherson's insistence on literal interpretation of the Bible withering before Sim's combination of common sense, science, and humanity.
WWJD? Well, I'm pretty sure He wouldn't be spewing anti-homosexual rhetoric. It wouldn't really fit in with the teachings of love and acceptance we know He espoused.
Sims won, no boubt about it.
Watching the debate was like watching a child trying to rationalize his side of a story. Hutcherson simply is too stuborn of a man to take in any differences he is too close-minded to see, and that is why he is not the right material to put infront of public. He is too opinionated, and that is what brought up the issue of his church almost being kicked out of my high school they are lucky to have to begin with. A man that bias and that "anger management" material, should not have the right to lead a religious group into his own interpretations. As a devoted christian, I hope God has his ways with that man.
I think that Rev Hutchinson did a superb job on rectifying the point of gay rights. I just can't see how you can introduce a "MAN" at the head table at a banquet or a annual anniversary and his wife is another "MAN". When you start debating on issues such as this, please look at the whole picture and not behind the scenes. Again MR & MR_____ will not get it in the public eye.
When Simms said that we can't discriminate against the beliefs of Buddhists, Muslims, etc., he forgot to include not discriminating against the beliefs of Bible-believing people. We may not agree, but we have the right to disagree.
If the definition of marriage is a "free-for-all," then why not include polygamy, incest, group marriage, wife-swapping and even marriage to animals? Why discriminate at all?
Hutcherson won this one.
BTW, anyone ever heard of Blacks discriminating against Whites -- or gays discriminating against straights -- or political parties discriminating against each other -- or religions discriminating against one another? For that matter, how about Blacks discriminating against Blacks and Whites discriminating against Whites and and homosexuals discriminating against bi-and trans-sexuals?
Would Simms discriminate if a convicted, but released, sex offender wanted to rent his triplex where children lived in the middle unit? Or would Simms discriminate if Hutcherson asked for a Council appointment from him?
If I wanted to rent from gays and they did not want to rent from me, THEY should have the right to say No. If a gay employer refused to hire me because I'm an orthodox Jew, and/or straight, that should be his right. (If he injures or slanders me, that is not his right.)
If I ultimately cannot find housing, then the courts should find remedy ... but ONLY if there are no other reasonable alternatives. I don't believe gay people should be forced to work in hostile environments nor mistreated in any way. Every individual carries value in God's eyes and deserves courtesy and respect.
Would I reach out to help someone who is gay? I most certainly would! Have I helped gays financially? I have. Do I believe that gays merit special rights? I do not.
My admiration of Ron Sims has increased after his debate on Gay rights. I am heterosexual but have known some wonderful gays that have been in loving long term relationships.
Discrimination of any kind is wrong. It was frustrating listening to Hutcherson using the word discrimination in the context of "taste" VS. what it really is in this issue, of being one of "societal equality". Our country is founded on the ideals of seperation of church and state, personal freedom, and equality.
Coming from a background of being bi-racial, my mother being Buddist and father being baptist, raised poor, and all the obstacles and predjudices that my family and I experianced. I have learned that love should not be limited or judged. The idea that two men or women, who come together under the same desire of commitment and love, cannot have their relationship recognized and celebrated in the same manner as heterosexual couples, is denying them a civil right. Get the bible out of this obvious human rights issue. I've read some arguments about "protecting families" As if there aren't gay couples that have children. Is this family unit any less valid, than children raised by straight parents? Should we then re-define what parents are? I agree that this is also a family issue. The right to have your own family.
What a great debate. I like it that Hutcherson stands up for what he believes and is not wishy washy like Simms. Simms is trying to be so politically correct. It's nice to see Hutcherson be so firm and clear on right and wrong.
I'm sick of people arguing that the Bible does not support nor condone homosexualitity. I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom FROM religion as well. If this is so, why are homosexuals being bound to certain statutes in which they may not believe? The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment. And because of this legal separation between Church and State, no one has the right to impose rules on anyone else because of something they percieve to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. We are all Americans, and some of us are religious -- it is our responsibility to maintain a boundary specific relationship between the two. This brings me to the topic of marriage. Why do people oppose the right for any two people to be wed? Because it would lead to incest, beastiality, and a world-wide homosexuality pandemic? These ridiculous arguments are a desperate attempt by the fearful to incite fear. We fear what we do not understand. We then descriminate. We segregate blacks and whites, we deny women the right to vote, we deny gays the right to marry. Leave your Bibles in the bedside drawer for a moment, and search your souls. Are you a hateful bigot frightened of change, or are you willing to accept that love has more forms than you originally thought? What side do you want to be on?
I think everyone is missing the point here. Religion and Politics are "supposed" to separate. Jesus taught us that his kingdom was no part of this world and that we should owe to Caesar's things to Caesar's and God's things to God. What right does Mr. Hutcherson have to be putting his nose into politics?!?! And, what right does he have to judge you or me? GOD is our judge and we answer only to HIM, not Mr. Hutcherson. Civil rights are everyone's to have. Not just whom HE thinks they belong to. I'm sick of religion getting involved in issues that don't concern them. Haven't religious beliefs been the cause of so many wars? I watched the debate and found Mr. Hutcherson to be a pompous, arrogant, and self-righteous ass. Not god-like traits from what I've read in the bible.
I believe the Rev. Hutcherson won the debate hands down. I fully agree with the Rev. Hutcherson on every point and a very pleased someone of his caliber has chosen to speak out on these issues. It's a breath of fresh air to hear someone such as him who is truly a son of God speak the truth. We need many more Christians speaking out to this very important issue.
Ron Sim's arguments seemed weak and having no basis.
Dear Bob S,
Actually God (father, son[Jesus], and holy spirit) don't separate things as much as you believe or perhaps desire. But I agree with you two wrongs don't make a right. I guess one of the most famous prayers was "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". So if you take that litterally then if we all try to figure out "what the father wants us to learn each day (even during conflict)" we turn earth into a place very much like heaven by making it better each day. We also make ourselves better too with wiser choices in life. The trick is to realize the difference between father, son [Jesus], and holy spirit. They each have a different purpose / role you know. When you actually see the father working don't get scared he has your best interest in mind. Submitted for your respectful consideration.
To Whom It May Concern: A Suggestion:
Create two overlapping circles for future debates between these 2 people. Label one circle Mr. Hutchinson’s opinions, label circle two Mr. Simms opinions, and label the intersection of both circles “what they can agree on”. Then ask the following questions and place the answers in one of 3 places. Circle one, circle two, or the intersection (i.e. where they agree). After finishing this exercise take the intersection (i.e. where Mr. Sims and Mr. Hutchison agree) and go do something productive and constructive with that synergy of ideas to make our community better.
Some suggested questions to ask:
(1) Did God see heterosexual sex as say it is GOOD…VERY, VERY, GOOD!!!?
(2) Do you consider homosexual behavior a good lesson to spend taxpayer, or stockholder / investor, money teaching future generations that it is also a good choice in life?
(3) Is treating someone unfair, or hurtful, at work or in housing the right thing to do?
(4) Does God condone us to physically beat someone up because they disagree with us?
(5) Does God suggest we gently correct people with love who make poor choices in life or treat them with disrespect and hate?
(6) Will re-defining marriage make our world better for future generations?
Heres some comments in response to a few statements previously made.
statement "While in some twisted way you may be able to make the argument that the Bible is against homosexuality," -Tom
Have you ever read the bible Tom? Try reading Romans 1.
statement "(4) Does God condone us to physically beat someone up because they disagree with us?"-Kevin Donahoe
In this situation, spiritual beating should occur. In 1 Corinthians 4.21
""What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?
"" When a outspoken christian is blatantly maligning the word of God, sometimes the spiritual rods should be pulled out in effort to realign that individual with what is right, or atleast force him to reconsider his thought process.
Ron Sims has no biblical support whatsoever to support is views. Praise be to God that Ken H. is standing up for what is right.