Gee, maybe people have other worries right now other than Hutch's mental issues? Maybe the two endless wars and what is turning into an extincition level event in the Gulf of Mexico have been a higher priority than giving him attention?

Ken Hutchinson is such of a piece of human shit, I only wish that cancer scare he had was real.

So what's the verdict- is he seriously stupid or seriously crazy? I ask this in all seriousness.

The politics aside, if my Friday workday had contained a conversation that... I don't know if surreal is the right word, but I can't think of a better one... I sure would be looking forward to my first drink of the weekend. I feel dazed just reading it second-hand.

I have it on good authority, Jesus told me, that God really doesn't like us eating shellfish or lobster.

And he's very upset about us ignoring what he said about clothing and allowing hamsters to be on TV.

I honestly think my two cats have better comprehension skills, then does the Hutch." Seriously.

There's no use arguing w/ the willfully insane.

4 - They also conveniently forget Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give it to the poor." I often wonder why they never take that verse "literally."

Again, a shining example of how they pick-and-choose from the Bible.

Here's a few facts for the Hutch. People don't rise from the dead. Jesus died because he was a trouble maker, not for anybodies "sins". And virgins do not give birth. You are a con man and a moron. And you obsess about gay men's sex lives because you are stuck in an adolescent masturbatory fantasy.

Seems to me that his understanding of argument is tainted by his 100% trust in his personal interpretation of the bible. In his mind, only interpretations that support that world view can possibly be correct, regardless of evidence.

These sorts of people are kind of pointless to argue with, I think you're only hope here is to get him to, perhaps begrudgingly, see that there is another point of view that exists not based on his personal view of what the bible says. Maybe show him that there are people out there who interpret the bible differently.

Man, Hutch really needs to take an introductory stats class. Maybe then he'd understand that correlation does not equal causation.

Arguing with idiots on the Internet is always a losing effort.

For this guy's sake I hope his *extremely* one-sided and myopic view of the Bible is the right one, or else he may find himself going down, down, down, into a burning ring of fire.

See? This is what happens when trolls get a budget!

Eli... stop feeding the Hutch-troll!

That was one of the best SLOG posts I've read in a long time!

I can just imagine Hutch sitting lackadaisical in his office, doodling crucifixes or nativity scenes on a scrap of paper, and complaining to a gay man that his anti-gay ad wasn't stirring up enough controversy. Priceless!

Yeah, so it's the same go-nowhere conversation as usual, but I don't know, I just liked this post on it. Thumbs up from me Eli... er, Bro!

That was fascinating to read. It is fascinating to interact with individuals who are convinced that only their personal interpretation is correct. Good luck with your next interaction, Eli.

See, if he wanted controversy, he would have had a picture of Jesus on an oil-soaked cross as pit bulls looked up at him.

That would have got comments and controversy.

I gotta give the guy credit for having an actual back/forth dialogue, as opposed to the "whoever screams louder gets to make their point" style of debate that so often permeates that mindset to which he subscribes. I mean, it's a shame he's brainwashed by goofball christianity and stuff but, like @9 said, maybe there exists some small glimmer of hope for making something roughly amounting to progress with him. Long shot sure, but I look forward to reading of your next interaction...

@9 See, I think that guys like Hutch are too stuck in their ways to respond to that, and I say that out of personal experience. He's a religious fundamentalist; even mere acknoweldgement of competing interpretations of scripture is heretical in his mind. I'm sure he doesn't consider the pro-gay and proud of it mainline Protestant churches in this area to be "real" Christians.

Sexual orientation is a choice? So he chose to be attracted to those who attract him? When? Was it a multiple-choice test, or did he have to write an essay, or what? I must have missed that day at school.

...actually, that explains a lot.

Picture of Jesus on the cross.

Caption underneath it.

"Go ahead and tax soda. What do I care, I'm already skinny."

COMEDY GOLD, Jerry, I tells ya!

(And a last piece of advice...there's really no point in trying to use logic to foil someone who (to paraphrase Carlin) believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible man living in the clouds who watches everything and rewards those who was either born into or guessed the right way of following his path with eternal, but heart-stoppingly boring...obviously, salvation...and who would cast everyone who failed to follow the right combination of human-tainted variables inherent in any "religion" to unending torment. His trump card is that he will never be proven wrong until death...where the last thought of every human being raised on faith will HAVE to be: "What the Fuck...nothing?")

@ 8 minor point but "virgin birth" refers to mary's own, not jesus' (she was born without original sin, apparently).

I'm with you though; it's all a sham & a scam.

engaging in conversations like this, with people like hutch, really is an exercise in futility. you must be a masochist, Eli.

Confirmation bias, the most common mental error you can make. Hutch is a blithering example of such. Fun read though, always interesting to watch people ignore established facts and make jr. high level logic and argumentation errors. Reminds me anosognosia article in the NYT Opinionator blog --- too stupid to be aware of own stupidity. And so it goes.

@18, I do agree. Getting someone to like this to change, even a little, is tough.

It's just, if you're going to do it at all you have to appeal to their interests and nothing interests this guy more than the bible and its stories and rules.

This guy is so obsessed by the rules of the bible he can't see what most of us take for common sense or logical conclusion. Directly questioning the rules of the bible will just lead to him ignoring the argument so, instead, one needs to convince him that the rules aren't set in stone or all encompassing or, ideally, contradictory.

RE: "Virgin Birth" -- Y'all should read up on "Parthanogenesis." Rare, but it happens.

Well, this exchange certainly highlighted the fact that Ken Hutcherson is both functionally illiterate and entirely willing to attempt to accommodate that fact by pretending he knows things anyway.

Dumb and dishonest: things we already knew about the Prayer Warrior.

Beyond that I really fail to see the point. Good job taking his money, I guess, although while I'm sure y'all feel very clever for redistributing his wealth, it seems to have nevertheless gotten him the attention he wanted.

If/when you do talk next, don't switch tracks when he asks you why you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. These people both should & need to hear our reasons, like "there's no evidence and evidence is a good thing, while believing things based on blind faith alone is demonstrably stupid."

Feel free to use any of these examples to back up your argument:
http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundame…

I think there's nothing wrong with people like Hutch wrapping themselves in the flag.

So long as it's the Giant Gay Pride Flag that's up on the Space Needle.

If he let himself think in a straight line, he'd be out of a job.

I think Hutch's last sentence just put him out of the closet.

Pastor Ken:

Just in case you're still reading, I can help you out with the whole "agreeing with the premise but disagreeing with the inference" thing. The Bible talks about slavery. Fact. The Bible lays out rules and modes of behavior for slaves and salve owners. Fact. Thus, one can clearly infer that God condones slavery. Now, I can't agree with that. Can you?

Fact: There is no reliable evidence for the existence of supernatural entities.

Inference 1: There exist no supernatural entities.

Inference 2: Supernatural entities exist, but they are hiding. They prefer it if we believe they exist despite the absence of evidence. They actually find it morally superior.

One fact, two entirely different inferences. See how that works, Mr. H?

Controversy? Being stupid isn't much of a controversy, is it?

"I asked him what he would tell me if I came to talk to him about it. He said he would ask me why I hadn't accepted Jesus Christ."

Wow. After all these years of bantering back and forth, he still hasn't realized you're Jewish?

Also, I'm immensely pleased that he's bummed that he's complaining it's too quiet.

Hahaha.

"a lifestyle that the CDC has determined actually causes HIV/AIDS.".....

Eli, is having sex with males a part of the "gay lifestyle"?
What percentage of Gay men have sex with other men?
Any idea?

According to the CDC 75% of all American men with AIDS got it because they had sex with other men.
75% is pretty disproportionate for a group that makes up only 2-3% of the total.

And it is not just AIDS.
Rates of all STDs are climbing among Gay men.
Even while they are dropping among other demographic groups, even among IV drug users and heterosexuals who engage in risky sex. According to King County public health officials.

"What causes HIV is being exposed to HIV".....
Wow.
That's clever.
You really zinged the Rev....
Your clever quick wit is probably great consolation to the thousands of Gay men who will get AIDS this year, 38X as much as Americans who do not engage in homosexual behavior.

Gay men, all by their lonesome selves, will account for more than half of all the new AIDS cases in America.
More that heterosexual men and heterosexual women and all those bad bad black women you are always clinging to put together.
Why is that?

"What causes HIV is being exposed to HIV".....
Right.
So tell us Eli-
what is it that makes Gay men get AIDS so much?

Why are homosexual men "exposed to HIV" so astronomically much more than other Americans?

If the homosexual lifestyle is not "a lifestyle that ... actually causes HIV/AIDS." then why do homosexuals get AIDS so much?

Are they just really really really unlucky?

Why is the reason, funny man?

Maybe clever semantic hairsplitting and
head-in-the-sand denial
such as Eli exibits
are a big reason that AIDS
among Gay men continues to increase

Eli, how does Hutchinson encourage black gay men to stay in the closet any more than white men?

You conclude that black women get AIDS more than white women because Hutchinson condemns homosexual behavior?

Really?

Or did you just string two totally unrelated factoids together and infer a causal relationship?

There are basic facts that we do agree you got correct, but the inference and conclusion you draw from those facts is demonstrably false.

Eli, you should share that nugget about South African women with King County public health workers.
Really.
Now.
Don't wait till Monday morning.
Cause they've been scratching their heads and fretting that despite 25 years of intensive education targeting Gays the rate of AIDS and STDs keeps rising among Gay men.
When you explain that thing about women in South Africa to them it will all become clear.

are you dialing?.....

I hope you are being tremendously sarcastic and unfunny rather than serious and a tremendous boob.

Eli, do you have any evidence that "persecution" by Hutchinson causes suicide among homosexuals?
Cause Christians "persecute" lots of folks.
Are suicide rates among adulterers rising?

Have you ever considered that Dan's rigid dogmatic insistance that anyone who outs them self must forever and ever remain Gay may be a cause of despair?
Some 13 year old kid dabbles with the Gay; because it is very trendy these days, and a sure attention getter; but realizes that *gasp* he is not Gay after all.
But Dan has assured him that he can tell people he isn't Gay but "Nobody Has To Believe Him..."
There the poor kid sits, heterosexual but trapped in the Gay by Dan's persecution.
Easy to see how a kid like that might decide to end it all.

perhaps you could have a talk with Dan about it.

Eli- what are the reasons homosexuals commit suicide more? (other than Hutchinson's persecution...)

Do South African women also commit suicide?
Is that the key?

Is part of it the inner torment of doing something that goes against the innate essence of what you are?

That quiet nagging voice inside that knows what really is and doesn't fall for all the BS?

Eli, the ad states "homosexual persons are indeed victims -- but overwhelmingly of their own behavior,
not that of others."

In relation to the AIDS rate among homosexuals is Hutchinson correct?

Are homosexuals' own behavior choices the reason they get AIDS 38X as much as other Americans?

or is Gay AIDS Hutchinson's fault too.....

Fuckin A, dude @35-38, if you're so freaked out about getting AIDS from having sex with gay guys, then just stop doing it already!

Period Hive Drones, you all must have teeny tiny penises, like this: 8=D
Why else do you feel so compelled to seek validation of your pathetic existence by earning the ire of people you don't know through posting factually incorrect and slanderous comments in a series of tubes? Either you were ignored as children, or I'm right about the penis thing.

Current theory on "." I am thinking that Loveschild was simply the caterpillar form of whatever Zerg-like entity we're dealing with here. Then she went chrysalis, resulting in a couple months of blissful, relatively nonsense free, Slog. The chrysalis, however, just hatched, and now the hive mind is out in full force, citing the same worn statistics, the same tired tropes, but on overdrive, almost like a mating call. "Gays bad, gays bad!" it trills, every bit as driven by instinct as a salmon returning to it's home (although, to be fair, salmon are somewhat more likely to have mating opportunities than "." Theory 2: as someone suggested, Loveschild was just a peculiar sociology experiment (she did seem to disappear around exam time, if memory serves). "." is the result of summer school.

44 slander doesn't mean what you think it does.

ooooh-
lot's of snark but no factual rebuttal.

Why do homosexuals get AIDS 38X more?

Lots of Americans engage in promiscuous sex.
Lots of Americans engage in anal and oral sex.
They don't get AIDS as much as homosexuals.

Prove the Reverend is a chump-
explain it-

Why is homosexuals' AIDS rate SO HIGH?

Christ, the level of inane drivel of the hateful Hutch supporters/period drones is obviously the real sin here; and not in the stupid biblical sense, but against simple reason and basic decency.

I've never commented on the slog but I feel compelled to respond to "."

I'll answer your question, sure. Gay men have an astronomically high AIDS rate because we are promiscuous as hell and our sexual proclivities (i.e. anal) are more prone to AIDS transmission.

That being said, what are you trying to accomplish with your rant? To create a world in which homosexuals are persecuted, such as has existed pretty much interminably for every gay person in this country, until very recently? To deny gay people equal job benefits, legal protections, etc. because their sexual habits make them prone to disease? Because you personally don't like it?

I wish you could know what its like to be gay, "." I wish you had been kicked out of your house by your parents. I wish someone had yelled "faggot" at you, at least once in your life. I think, and you will probably disagree, that a possible reason so many gay men have promiscuous, dangerous sex might be because we have been so unloved for so long. I don't have AIDS myself, don't plan on getting it, but I think its wiser to see AIDS as a public health concern rather than a religious, or moral concern. If you are so troubled by AIDS, ".", you should be leading the pride parade this Sunday instead of trying to re-closet and Christianize us homos. Having grown up in a Christian household I PROMISE you that Christianity is not a cure for homosexuality. As a child I swore fealty to Jesus, cried myself to sleep, in an attempt to like women. It doesn't work. You might be surprised how many gay men and women have felt pressure to do the same.

In a related note, how come so profoundly few lesbians have AIDS? Could it be God approves of their lesbianism, has decided to save them while condemning gay men? Be sure to let me know.

Thanks for your time

You're never gonna convince religious fundamentalists like Hutcherson that being gay isn't a choice. I'm not entirely convinced that, even if could somehow be proven that some people are born with a same-sex orientation, it would stop them from trying to "cure" gays and lesbians. They'd probably just compare it to a birth defect.

It's just such a shame -- and, in my opinion, a real rebuke to the teachings of Jesus -- that Hutch and his ilk focus so much attention on people of the same sex who love each other instead of on people of the opposite sex who hurt each other (rape, domestic abuse, cheating, etc.)

To Mr. Indignant:

The answers to your questions are many and varied. There are plenty of statistics available for you to research on this matter. One interesting thing you will find is that they vary wildly for gay men and lesbian women.

So, considering the answers are varied between these two groups, does the Reverand have separate opinions on male and female homosexuality? I'm guessing the answer is no, because it seems to me that his real reasons for speaking out against homosexuality have nothing at all to do with statistics or reason or any supposed danger that homosexuals pose, otherwise he would have a more nuanced opinion.

52/Jason :Gay men have an astronomically high AIDS rate because we are promiscuous as hell and our sexual proclivities (i.e. anal) are more prone to AIDS transmission.

While Hutch is completely off-base in asserting or implying that same-sex sex (or even attraction) is wrong because gay men in the U.S. contract HIV at higher rates than any other group, Eli is also being disingenuous by stating "What causes HIV is being exposed to HIV." Sure, that's the proximate cause but what causes "being exposed to HIV" is behavior, unsafe behavior. If I fucked countless women during a year without any protection and ended up getting AIDs, or some other STD, it wouldn't be "God's punishment" for being a straight guy. But it would be a result of my choice to engage in risky behavior.

Anyway, it wouldn't matter one bit if gay men didn't get AIDS at all. Hutch and his ilk would still see homosexuality (the attraction and love as well as the sex) as "wrong."

Hutch is right: you and Jesus might be right for each other. I don't think he puts out, but I bet he gives a mean hummer.

@57: Doubtful. The Period Hive Mind, as we have dubbed it, seems to be a loose collection of many pissy insecure cranks with the cognitive dissonance necessary to make claims that are completely disproved by the links that they post to support them.
As a beekeeper myself, I can tell you that I've never seen such a strange hive as the Period Hive. It appears to consist only of drones, implying that they are all the offspring of either an old queen or one or more laying workers. They are capable of collecting ideas and data, but God only knows how they survive without the ability to properly interpret and understand them.

Why for the love of God do you engage this bigoted homophobe? He'd just as soon spit on you as do anything positive for you. Why do you care at all for this POS? The man is dying. The sooner he goes the better off humanity will be. He can join Jerry Falwell.

@52

Thank you for your response.

What are we trying to accomplish?
(we plead not guilty to 'ranting'-
just spreading the stone cold Truth...)
We would like to see Eli skip
the semantic pissing contest with Hutchinson
and say what you did.

Because Jackasses who think like Eli
are the reason AIDS remains rampant
among homosexual men.
It is totally avoidable and a tragic waste of lives.

Sexual promiscuity is unhealthy.
Even deadly.
Not because God punishes folks who have too good a time.
Because it is a biological epidemiological fact.
It is unhealthy for homosexual men.
It is unhealthy for heterosexuals.
It is a orientation-blind equal opportunity risk.
Latex doesn't make it "Safe".
Only slightly less deadly.
When Dan glibbly encourages inexperienced teens to engage in anal sex as a means of birth control it is criminally irresponsible.
Liberals squeal for "Science" to dictate policy.
Here's your Science:
Sexual promiscuity is unhealthy.
Which is why the CDC says abstinence until in a longterm relationship and monogamy therein is the best way to stay disease free.
Instead of gloating over his mental superiority over Hutchinson Eli should get that message out.
Because promiscuity kills thousands more homosexual men that all the Hutchinsons put together.
(And kills heterosexuals.
And teenagers.)
End of Rant.

We are sorry for the struggles you have faced and face.
You are right.
We don't know what it is like to be gay.
We can't imagine.
We approach it from the standpoint of biology
and find it a total non-starter.
Personally we neither dislike or like it.
(We do think it has profound implications for social policy and society, however. Gist for some other post...)
We do not dislike homosexuals.
"Some of our best friends are...blah...blah..blah.."
(feel free to gag at this point)
But it is true.
Admired favorite professors.
Childhood friends.
(No. We don't discuss homosexual social policy.)

We don't know what it is like to be gay.
We do see that it can be,
as you described, cruelly difficult.
Internal and external pressures and struggles.
We don't have an answer.
For you or ourselves.

The biology of heterosexual intercourse
seems pretty darn amazing to us.
And the emotional satisfaction of a caring successful man-woman relationship beyond amazing.
And the benefits to the individuals and society when those forces are harnessed and channeled into long term relationships seem, to us at least, beyond dispute.
Sure....
No one gets it 100% right 100% of the time.
But it is an ideal that is worth pursuing and even getting it half right is very rewarding to everyone concerned.

(prepare to be offended. but it is not our intent...)
As we said, the biology of homosexuality doesn't add up to us. There is no 'right' or 'safe' way to do it. And the emotional underpinings even less so. We imagine it would lead to a lot of tortured self doubt. Eli blames suicide on Hutchinson. It seems to us it would spring from within. From trying to make something terribly unworkable and unnatural work. The external trappings- marriage, children- strike us as trying really hard to make it all look normal, but are shallow pale counterfeits of heterosexual institutions. Great energy expended grasping for something good but going about it the wrong way. Taking the innate drive that can lead to the greatest joy and fulfillment one can know and turning it 180 degrees. It seems achingly sad and empty.

We don't pretend to know why or how so many people don't seem to 'get' the whole heterosexual thing that seems so obvious and self-evident to others.
And we have no clue how one gets from 'there' (whatever 'there' is...) to happy heterosexual bliss.
We really don't.

You are probably pretty angry and disgusted by now.
But that really isn't our intent or purpose.
Some gulfs are very wide.
We don't want to see homosexuals persecuted.
We wish you well and hope you find happiness and joy.

Thank you again for your comments...

Extremely religious people tend not to be very bright. A couple years ago a preacher visited my college campus and tried to tell me that The Earth couldn't be 4.5 billion years old because "there's not enough sediment in the ocean." As an Earth Sciences minor I was well aware that seafloor spreading clears sediment away and that there is no contradiction between the amount of sediment and the age of the Earth, but he didn't seem to hear me. And then when I pointed out one of the Bible's many contradictions- the discrepancy between the two Gospel genealogies of Jesus- he tried to tell me that one of them was Mary's side, when the actual text of the actual book he was holding in his hand doesn't support that interpretation at all. It didn't say "Son of Mary, Daughter of..." it said "as it was supposed, Son of Joseph, Son of..." and this idiot tried to tell me, in essence, that "as it was supposed" meant "Mary" and that the "Joseph" in the text that was RIGHT THERE was somehow irrelevant, which obviously holds less water than my kitchen sieve. I left his company with even less respect for religion than I had when I entered. His total blindness to anything that contradicted his ridiculous beliefs left he with nothing but contempt for him.

I like how the Period Hive Drone at #60 insists, "oh, we don't hate gay people or anything. It's just that gay sex makes no sense to us and we think it's inherently unhealthy. So we want to make everyone straight and chaste."

@63: Three scenarios:
A: A man and a woman are in a loving committed relationship, having wild raunchy sex with each other and nobody else.
B: Two men are in a loving committed relationship, having wild raunchy sex with each other and nobody else.
C: Two women are in a loving committed relationship, having wild raunchy sex with each other and nobody else.
How is any one of the three more "inherently unhealthy" than any of the others? Explain that to me.
The truth is that homosexuality is not dangerous or unhealthy. Neither is responsible promiscuity. What IS dangerous and unhealthy is irresponsible promiscuity: having sex without proper protection or without getting your partners tested/vetted. (If you sleep around, you are perfectly safe as long as you verify that your partner doesn't have any communicable diseases, and, if heterosexual, use reliable birth control.)

@37, 64: "I asked him: What should black gay men do? Do you even believe that black gay men exist?

'I don’t think there should be any gay black men,' Hutcherson said.

But there are, I told him. So what are they to do?

He said something about there being no more black gay men when Judgment Day comes.

Just for the sake of a thought experiment, I said: Well, until Judgment Day, what are black gay men supposed to do? Be straight?

'Get straight,' he replied. 'By accepting Jesus Christ. Like you need to. You aughta come and talk about it.'"

Hutcherson right there says that black gay men should "get" straight, in effect telling them to go into the closet. Yes, BLACK GAY MEN in particular. BOOM! Any further questions, you twatdrippers, or will you read the fucking article next time?
Also, Alleged, it's "Hutcherson", not "hutchinson". At least try to feign reading comprehension.
BZZZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzZZfuckZZZZoffZzzzZZZZZzzzz, Period Hive Drone. Or do I need to fire up the vuvuzelas?

@66: White gay men weren't mentioned. I suppose that until someone asks him about gay men of other colors, it'll be an unresolved issue.
If you look at Hutcherson's Wikipedia entry, you'll see that he had enough of a following to temporarily scare Microsoft away from supporting anti-discrimination legislation.
I'm not going to comment any further until you learn to spell "Hutcherson" properly instead of just typing "Hutchinson". You can read the article (at least, I think you can read); it explains in a fairly straightforward fashion just how Hutcherson might encourage black gay men to stay in the closet and engage in risky, irresponsible sex.

60, I'm straight like you. But, unlike you, the fact that people are attracted to the same sex doesn't bother me. Nor do I see it as any kind of threat to society. I get the impression you're one of those people who sees the purpose of coupling as producing children. Many straight couples have chosen to not have children and their relationships are just as valid as those where there are children involved. In fact, what this world needs is MORE people not having children (It took until 1960 for the world's population to hit 3 billion. It then DOUBLED, to 6 million, by 1999, a mere 39 years later.) And, to that end, I'd argue that gays and lesbians are actually performing a social good.

Sure, we humans are designed to reproduce and perpetuate the species and, for that reason, males and females are attracted to each other. But if some males aren't attracted to females and some females aren't attracted to males, so what? Why does that bother you? It's not as if humans risk extinction because gays and lesbians don't breed like straights. If anything, we risk extinction (and already have things like famines) due to our fellow straights breeding like crazy and voraciously consuming earth's resources.

Let me address some of your other comments...

Eli blames suicide on Hutchinson. It seems to us it would spring from within. From trying to make something terribly unworkable and unnatural work.

By using "unworkable" you again seem to be seeing the purpose of coupling to be producing children. Same-sex relationships are "unworkable" in the sense of not breeding prolifically like straights (and thank God for that) but, other than that, they're just as workable as different-sex relationships. You and many other people seem to have a misunderstanding of what "natural" means. Natural doesn't mean "one correct way." Natural means what is in your nature. Left-handed people are, like gays & lesbians, a minority but that doesn't mean they're unnatural. Left-handedness is natural to left-handed people and same-sex attraction is natural to gays & lesbians.

As a straight guy who finds women attractive, sexy and irresistible, I don't understand how some men can not want to kiss them, caress their soft bodies, make love with them. But I also realize that some men simply don't, that they are attracted to men instead. And just because I don't understand something doesn't mean that I condemn it or claim it's wrong. That's a problem with a lot of things in society, not just sexuality: people fear or condemn that which they don't understand.

Now, all that being said, I do agree with you on one point: sexual promiscuity is risky, and can be deadly. And, as you said, not because it's "God's punishment" (as many religious conservatives seem to view AIDS) but because it's a biological epidemiological fact.

Which is why the CDC says abstinence until in a longterm relationship and monogamy therein is the best way to stay disease free.

I was unable to find that on the CDC's website but I wouldn't disagree with it. Just because you're not abstinent doesn't mean you're going to get an STD -- risk doesn't mean certainty -- but being abstinent assures you're not going to get one.

Because promiscuity kills thousands more homosexual men that all the Hutchinsons put together.

It's Hutcherson and that's true. But Hutcherson isn't concerned for gay men when he uses AIDS statistics. He just uses them in an attempt to "prove" that homosexuality is inherently wrong. The fact is that even if gays & lesbians didn't have sex at all, but merely held hands and kissed, Hutcherson would still be ranting about it. It's the attraction that he doesn't like. He thinks that if everyone "accepted Jesus" they would be attracted to the opposite sex but that is simply untrue. There are many people who have "accepted Jesus" who remain attracted to the same sex. "Accepting Jesus" doesn't mean adhering to ancient Jewish laws. It means treating others with love, kindness, compassion, understanding and respect. I would argue that it's so-called Christians like Hutcherson who have not "accepted Jesus."

@68: I'm really not sure @60 is straight. He trolls more on this issue than any other issue, though he does like to come around occasionally and mock the supposed "blind reverence for Obama" that no one actually has. (Well maybe not "no one," but you know...)

Anyway, it's always made me wonder of the nature his preoccupation with this issue, and more specifically, with Dan's advocacy for gay rights. I've wondered about it for quite some time. But it's clearly his favorite issue. It's the favorite issue of some gay people because, well, it's their civil rights in question. As to why one might be preoccupied with the civil rights of a specific group of other people, well... I'll leave that up to inference, I guess.

Other than that, of course, your comments are spot-on.

It appears the argument du jour against gays, oh sage Period Hive Mind, is centered on STDs. Your concern for the queer community is touching. Would you be okay with the gays if they all started using protection a lot more effectively, bringing HIV/AIDS infection rate in line with the rest of the population? Or is there something inherently evil about the gays putting all society at risk merely by their presence?

70, I assumed he (or, I suppose, she) is straight but, who knows, perhaps not.

And thanks for your follow-on comment.

slake@29: that was my gut impression, too! and btw, anyone else's gaydar set off by rand paul? i got the vibe before even hearing about his strong anti-gay stance--which only confirmed it for me.

@60 tl;dr

Hutch makes a very good living being that stupid, off of a group of people even more stupid than he is.

If you only had to work on Sundays and Wednesdays, and get new stuff and/or cash whenever you wanted by sending out a Prayer Warrior email, wouldn't you do it also?

Here's the kicker: He doesn't even have to worry about maintaining a church. They meet in a high school gym. The idiots that attend Antioch have been duped into believing that gives them some sort of "street creds".

Just imagine if Americans didn't have such boring lives and such a huge lack of imagination, where would religion be?

Oh, and one other thing: They call Vacation Bible Camp "RimRoc". How gay is that?

That conversation proves that Hutch is an extremely unintelligent and out-of-touch man. He literally comes off like the town idiot. It's an unfortunate reality that he seems to have so much influence and power ($$).