Seattlest: Hate Gays? Take a Cruise with Pastor Hutch!

TroyJMorris

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:40:47 -0800

Hey Hutch, Did you read the 13 comments before you? Most of us were pretty well in sync with your grievances of the cruise. Except for the sarcastic, and horribly inaccurately vocabularized, comment by the person who was upset over the lack of creativeness in Jack's sarcastic post.

Hutch

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:35:43 -0800

Funny, I didnt know hatred was a biblical value? I thought that we were to love (an accept) our neighbors not form hate groups and mingle together with hatefull thoughts...I think that is a sin. It is a sin to not accept one for who they are regardless of their own beliefs and such. I love how the bible condradicts itself and how people view things differently. Personaly I think you are the ones that are going to burn in hell for posting this idiotic and illogical cruise...that is if hell even is real. Further more it is time to STOP the Hate Crimes (yes that is what this is folks!) and learn to live with each other for who and what they are. Different people have different religions, beliefs and cultures. Being gay is no different than being left or right handed, it GENETIC get over it already. I know my post here will go unnoticed, and that you people are so dead set against your ways that you could not see anything other than what you believe, I figured someone has to post a comment here in the name of human rights. When you people wake up and learn how the world works and that were are all here to learn and help each other, then perhapes you will see the real light. Peace Out....

clintatl

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:34:58 -0800

So I went to the website out of a sense of perverse curiosity... So this preacher is anti-gay? Have you seen this boat? It's gayer than a parade float. And it touts "Broadway shows" in its theater. Yup. Sounds gay to me.

TroyJMorris

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:34:19 -0800

Conservative- I was very purposeful in my use of the term "know," for the single reason that this argument of superlative Absolutes has been going around for thousands of years. About "if Jesus exists" statement. Whether Jesus existed, I still have not seen enough compelling evidence to show me that he exists fully as the concept and Christ. Just as the debate rages to Shakespeare's details of existence (was he several people, one person, baron, etc.?). I know a man named Jesus existed, but if he actually said everything he has been attributed to or not is still debatable. So "if Jesus exists" was an un-defined statement. I should have said "if 'the' Jesus Christ exists as was thought"

ohmygoshaconservative

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:43:04 -0800

Tom, you said "intolerance is an affront." Isn't they key issue intolerance of WHAT? In other words, to what do you appeal so that you can say your moral disapprobation of Hutch is objectively better than Hutch's moral disapprobation of homosexuals? It seems you've nibbled around the edges of an answer to that, but I still don't see that you've adequately addressed it. I'm trying to probe, not just be obtuse. What grounds your moral statements? Troy, similarly you said you "know" that bigotry is bad. Again, I would ask how you ground that moral statement. Do both of you dislike intolerance in the same way that you dislike a certain type of food and admit that it is fundamentally a preference or instinct you cannot defend? Or are you saying there is some sort of objective rightness and wrongness out there that Hutch is running afoul of. That's what I want to know. PS, Troy, a point of history: saying "if Jesus existed" is not really factually tenable. You are certainly free to say you hate Jesus, think Jesus was a fool, think Jesus never died on a cross, etc. But denying his existence is on par with saying Aristotle or Nero never existed. If it assuages your conscience to think Jesus never existed, then so be it. But just know that it puts you squarely in Holocaust-denier land as far as a viable opinion of history. PPS, Troy, we agree on the proper treatment of mimes.

TroyJMorris

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:30:13 -0800

I'm pretty sure that if Jesus existed, he'd be pretty darn upset with good ol' Ken too. Considering he requested all his followers to "bless and do not curse" (Romans 12:14), his agenda against gays would probably put him on the wrong list. God may hate gays, but He really doesn't like when He asks you to do something and you do the exact opposite. Luckily, I don't believe in Jesus or God, so I'm going to start cursing people. I'm going to start with mimes.

TroyJMorris

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:25:28 -0800

I have a strong disdain for people getting offended by "curse" words. From my what I can gather from listening to those most offended, they are repulsed by the use of such words as "fuck" and "shit" because of some skewed sense of decency handed down to them by some religious figure head. Yes, religious. Not because it's exclusive, but because those are the folks in my experiences most offended. Unfortunately, the "Lord Almighty" wanted us to not use profanity which, before the great evolutionary language of English pushed it to it's current definition, was only about using the Lords name in vain. And yeah, Hutch can go fuck himself. I'm not intolerant of intolerance. I just know that those who are bigotry intolerant don't deserve much in the way of leniency. At least those who threaten the well-being of another human don't. Hutcherson stated, “God hates soft men” and “God hates effeminate men.” Hutcherson went on to say, “If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.” So again, Hutch can go fuck himself. Just to make sure he ain't soft. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/352368_faith23.html

Tom

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:22:20 -0800

I never claim to be a moral relativist. Observations of others, readings of various texts and histories (including religious ones), as well as life experiences have taught me to treat people with respect and decency and, initially, to give them the benefit of the doubt. Part of it, yes, is my internal moral compass; another part is selfishness or "enlightened self-interest": I don't want others treating me badly, so I don't do it to others. I'm willing to make that first move. So when people violate that trust, such as by mistreating myself or others or otherwise being a bully, such as Pastor Hutcherson with his rhetoric, than a re-evaluation is necessary. It's partly self-preservation: am I supposed to lie down and let Hutcherson walk all over me and deny me basic privileges that others are granted without question? Moreover, intolerance is an affront and threat to tolerance. We should be working to get along and understand one another; intolerance undermines that work. Therefore, it's necessary to fight it. I believe that tolerance, like respect, is a two-way avenue. All parties are responsible to make an effort. As for the potty-mouth, you have a low threshold. But perhaps in my frustration and anger so do I. I get a little tired of simply walking down the street and having occasional passers-by, in car or on foot, yelling things like "faggot". Given the recent rise in verbal aggression and physical violence on Capitol Hill, for example, I get a little angsty when public figures such as Hutcherson enable the attitudes that lead to such things, even if they say them in jest. Also, that was very nice use of low-brow provocation in your first comment followed by claiming the moral high ground at the end of your second one. It seems both of our pockets are brimming with intellectual zingers.

ohmygoshaconservative

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:18:50 -0800

Tom - "Morally imperative"? What a quaint notion. Thought we knew better than that in our enlightened age. From whence cometh the moral imperative? Your personal predilections and preferences? Do tell. Funny how quickly moral relativists ("who can really know what's right?") resort to absolutist judgments when they're ticked off about their own pet preferences. BTW, the onus is on you to explain how it is philosophically consistent for you to be intolerant of intolerance. To simply state that it is so is not an argument. It's an assertion. Kind of like the assertion that...I don't know...uh...homosexual behavior is wrong. Thanks also for confirming my views that liberals can't argue without resorting to potty mouths. What intellectual goodies can I expect next? "Hutch is Hitler"? "Hutch can go f*ck himself"?

Tom

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:51:07 -0800

#4, compared to the awesomely creative, original, rare, and hyperbolic invective crapped out by Pastor Hutcherson, I'll take Jack's lampooning any day of the week. It's quite alright and philosophically consistent--as well as morally imperative--to be intolerant of intolerance. That bigot Hutcherson deserves every bit of shit hurled his way.

Kim Ruehl

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:44:51 -0800

what about my gay salt? does that mean i never get to shake my gay salt out of the shaker?

ohmygoshaconservative

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:37:37 -0800

Wow! A liberal in Seattle caricaturing an evangelical conservative by using hyperbolic invective and setting up straw men? That is so rare and crazy! Awesomely creative and original, Jack!

alonzodavid

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:27:50 -0800

Featured speaker: Ted Haggard - The perils of using your real name with the gigolo. Come early, seats are limited!

TroyJMorris

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:43:47 -0800

I have no idea what that man is trying to tell me.

Audrey

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:40:43 -0800

Well-played, good sir, well-played.