Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Pastor Ken Hutcherson Compares Marriage Equality to Horse-Fucking

Posted by on Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Antioch Bible Church pastor Ken Hutcherson didn't sit in the same room as two gay people to debate marriage equality. But he did call into the Seattle Channel studio where gay people were present for a debate on same-sex marriage.

And of course, Pastor Hutcherson went there: "If this law is passed, what is going to happen? Now ask your guests in the studio. Do they believe that if they change the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman, what is going to stop two men one woman, two women one man, one man against a horse, one many with a boy, one man with anything?"

Equal Right Washington's Josh Friedes responds with a take down as rational as Hutcherson's question was horse-fuckingly crazy.

 

Comments (56) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
undead ayn rand 1
I wasn't aware that gays and ally status could be aerosolized and transmitted through proximity.

Or perhaps he didn't want them to see his face gnarled into a bigotsneer?
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 25, 2012 at 4:11 PM · Report this
jjm84 2
I wonder if Dominic noticed the Cavalia ad that was right below this post?
Posted by jjm84 on January 25, 2012 at 4:20 PM · Report this
3
I love that this post is currently right on top of an add for Cavalia.
Posted by -J on January 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM · Report this
tournant 4
Paging Chuckles.
Posted by tournant on January 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM · Report this
Ian Awesome 5
What a douchenozzle.
Posted by Ian Awesome http://oneangryqueer.blogspot.com on January 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM · Report this
6
Oh that fact that a Cavalia ad is right below this is priceless
Posted by Democrat1234 on January 25, 2012 at 4:27 PM · Report this
treacle 7
How come this is always framed as "MAN on [dog | horse | duck | whatever]" and never "Woman...". Women can be gay too!
Posted by treacle on January 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM · Report this
8
What time in the video does he make the remarks?
Posted by Whodunit? on January 25, 2012 at 4:33 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 9
@8) The horse-fucking talk begins just after the 22-minute mark.
Posted by Dominic Holden on January 25, 2012 at 4:35 PM · Report this
Chef Thunder 10
The entire gay community owes Josh Friedes a drink!
Posted by Chef Thunder on January 25, 2012 at 4:36 PM · Report this
ryanayr 11
I think Ken is implying that he would like to fuck a horse. I, for one, am disgusted by Ken Hutcherson's desire to fuck horses.
Posted by ryanayr on January 25, 2012 at 4:44 PM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 12
Time to redefine Hutch's last name?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on January 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM · Report this
13
@Chef Thunder

The entire community owes Josh Friedes a drink. Bigots take us all down.
Posted by brokejumper on January 25, 2012 at 4:50 PM · Report this
Fnarf 14
If a man and a woman are allowed to get married, what's to stop TWO men and a woman, or a man and TWO women, or a man and a four-year-old girl, or a man and a woman and an Irish Setter from getting married? Slippery slope, people.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 25, 2012 at 4:50 PM · Report this
venomlash 15
@12: Hutch: n. A wooden outdoor cage designed to house lagomorphs.
Posted by venomlash on January 25, 2012 at 4:53 PM · Report this
16
I cringe anytime a gay marriage supporter tries to argue for it by framing the argument as forcing recognition for our love, or even worse, marriage as being "magical". *shudder*

All the religious types can keep the bullshit magical definition of marriage- All I want is the rights and responsibilities straight people take for granted. So long as I'm legally afforded the right to visit my partner in the hospital, the fundies can argue the philosophical or theological merits of marriage until their blue in the face.
Posted by UNPAID COMMENTER on January 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM · Report this
balderdash 17
It's hard to believe these know-nothing bigots are still spouting, word for word, the same discredited, hateful nonsense they've been harping on for decades.

Check yourself: are your views on a social issue word-for-word the same as the views of people who shared your position, before the progress of many years and several waves of social change? If so, YOU'RE WRONG.
Posted by balderdash http://introverse.blogspot.com on January 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM · Report this
18
"one man against a horse", eh? Hell, if I'd known I could get married AGAINST somebody I'd have done it ages ago.
Posted by gloomy gus on January 25, 2012 at 4:57 PM · Report this
COMTE 19
Does Hutch really not grasp the concept of consent? Or does he assume that, at a man-on-horse wedding, when the horse stomps its hoof once that means, "yes, I would like to enter into the state of holy matrimony with this male homo sapiens"?
Posted by COMTE on January 25, 2012 at 4:58 PM · Report this
20
Is Patty Murray gay? Pidgeon sure implies that at about the 18:00 mark...
Posted by Whodunit? on January 25, 2012 at 4:58 PM · Report this
Hernandez 21
@16 I'm married and I hate it when people talk about marriage being "magical" or worse, "life changing". It's not. This is about equal rights under the law for any two consenting adults, and that's it.
Posted by Hernandez http://hernandezlist.blogspot.com on January 25, 2012 at 5:01 PM · Report this
22
What justification do you offer for the continued refusal to allow polyamorous individuals to marry the people they love?
Posted by MarriageEquality on January 25, 2012 at 5:01 PM · Report this
23
21 your wife is one lucky gal.....
Posted by ...take care not to over inflate her on January 25, 2012 at 5:03 PM · Report this
24
People who resort to slippery slope arguments are always wrong. They are the last refuge of the someone who is completely out of ideas.
Posted by SLCamper on January 25, 2012 at 5:16 PM · Report this
25
His wife married an idiot. Next thing you know, the dipshits will be allowed to get married, then the nitwits, then the morons. THEN WHERE WILL WE BE?!
Posted by RubyDynamite on January 25, 2012 at 5:30 PM · Report this
seandr 26
My wife sometimes likens our marriage to "horse-fucking". I always considered it a compliment.
Posted by seandr on January 25, 2012 at 5:33 PM · Report this
27
All I want to know is - when a man and a horse and a Great Dane get married, is it rude for me to assume my cat-spouse is also invited to the wedding? And where the hell do they register? Bed, Barn and Beyond?
Posted by K3 on January 25, 2012 at 5:50 PM · Report this
Donolectic 28
/mentions the Cavalia ad/horse fucking correlation
Posted by Donolectic on January 25, 2012 at 5:54 PM · Report this
Fnarf 29
I dunno, after all these comments I'm wondering if maybe I need to see this "Cavalia". Or at least wait for Charles to see it and review it here.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 25, 2012 at 5:56 PM · Report this
Knat 30
My head hurts too much to watch this sort of garbage right now. I'll try later.
Posted by Knat on January 25, 2012 at 5:59 PM · Report this
31
I dunno, I thought they were all too measured in their responses. There's a time for reasonable, patient argument and there's a time for "fuck off, you evil nutjob".
Posted by FeralTurnip on January 25, 2012 at 6:10 PM · Report this
kim in portland 32
@ Fnarf,

Took the entire extended family over Thanksgiving weekend. It was a bit of an artsy Cirque du Soleil-like show, with opera-like singers, gymnastics, acrobatics, dancing, and thrills. The horses are all males, both stallions and geldings. I love horses and the cooperation between them, the trainers, and riders is impressive. I'd rather go to Cirque du Soleil, the ballet, or the opera, though.

I hope that helps.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on January 25, 2012 at 6:25 PM · Report this
kim in portland 33
Re @ 32.

The music is all live. Some wonderful flamenco guitar.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on January 25, 2012 at 6:29 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 34
@ 26, I'm sure. Did you write a letter to Penthouse Forum about it?
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 25, 2012 at 6:33 PM · Report this
35
I've been thinking about this whole churches fighting the marriage equality thing. Does their fear stem from a perceived threat of losing their tax-status? If they refuse to marry gay couples, would they then be stripped of their amazing nearly tax-free existence?
There's gotta be some economic issues at hand here. Most people care more about money than the downfall of civilization.
Posted by CbytheSea on January 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM · Report this
digittante 36
I can't say I've tried gay marriage or horse-fucking, but on the surface they seem pretty different to me. So the only way someone could reasonably compare the two, or suggest one causes the other, would be if they were speaking from experience...WhatyoubeenuptoKen?
Posted by digittante http://www.digittante.com on January 25, 2012 at 6:51 PM · Report this
37
@22, bring a lawsuit, and I'll support it or not on its merits. Promise. Supporting a marriage equality bill that recognizes my marriage does not require the justification you request.
Posted by Meat Weapon on January 25, 2012 at 7:00 PM · Report this
LEE. 38
@35

no, it's painfully less complicated than that.

@18

AWE-SOME. once one man can get married against another man, I'm signing up to marry against Seattleblues.
Posted by LEE. on January 25, 2012 at 7:01 PM · Report this
39
If the only argument is a slippery slope, it sounds like you have admitted that gay marriage, in and of itself, not a problem. If we are all willing to admit that, then we can all focus our energy on how to combat the upwelling of horse fuckers in this country.
Posted by I think we all agree. on January 25, 2012 at 7:21 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 40
That boy's gotta sick fucking mind.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on January 25, 2012 at 7:23 PM · Report this
seandr 41
@34: Did you write a letter to Penthouse Forum about it?

If I pretend it's 1983, your comment is almost funnyish. Keep working on it, I'm sure you'll eventually find something interesting to say.
Posted by seandr on January 25, 2012 at 7:56 PM · Report this
42

I've been thinking about this whole churches fighting the marriage equality thing.


Yes, certainly, their based on couples whose reproduction rate is over replacement. That's the only way to grow and maintain the thing -- at least from the centuries past perspective that they view things.

For example, what is the use of social media in the Catholic Church? If it's there, I haven't seen it.

Really the fight for traditional marriage among the Catholics is like the fight for density by urban gay liberals. Both want to Socially Engineer the rest of us to increase their potential members, but as a recent article in HuffPo points out, gay bars in dense urban areas are largely being replaced by online pick up places.

So this is yet another sad battle being fought by people with Ice Age memoplexes in a 21st century world.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on January 25, 2012 at 7:58 PM · Report this
43
The fundamentalists -- including the Catholics -- are against gay marriage because it's not OKd by their sacred scriptures written anywhere from 1000 to 3000 years ago. Once they took that position, they could not mess around with it because, you know, they are fundamentalists and they don't change their minds and they are proud of that.

There's also the little detail about their view of women. Every single fundamental religion/cult has the same view of women: keep them in the home and pregnant so we men can run things. They certainly see no reason to change that, and all this liberal gay/abortion/contraception stuff just opens the barn door to let change in and the...um horse...out.
Posted by sarah70 on January 25, 2012 at 9:06 PM · Report this
Just Jeff 44
I've said it before and I'll say it again: God has spoken to me personally and He/She/It thinks that Ken Hutcherson is a total douchebag:

http://pstonews.com/2012/01/24/god-hates…

God personally (Godly?) HATES Ken Hutcherson. He/She/It told me so.

Seriously.

Take it to heart, or wind up in Hell Light.

-jw
Posted by Just Jeff on January 25, 2012 at 10:39 PM · Report this
45
@19: Most of humanity has and does live with the belief that the Universe is designed such that it's a bad idea to violate their local purity codes, and that 'consent' is irrelevant, what's more important is the set of bodily bits that are permitted to come into contact. I don't know, but I suspect that there were serious V.D. epidemics in our early agricultural/urban pasts, we didn't understand them, and the groups with the stronger codes outbred the rest.

As for consent, so little was consensual in daily life that the idea that it mattered was silly---you didn't consent to be rich or poor, slave or free, smart or strong or weak or stupid, so noöne even bothered thinking that consent mattered much. You probably ate the same things every day, and everyone else did, and almost certainly had little choice in whom you married, at best a man could choose for his children.

(The last paragraph doubles as a description of most religious fundamentalists' ideal world.)
Posted by Gerald Fnord on January 26, 2012 at 1:23 AM · Report this
46
Sorry to go on, but forgot to say: to such a mind-set, gay sex, pædophilia, incest. and bestiality _are_ all the same: they are all 'sex-crime', and that's what really matters. To them, making a distinction between any two such is fundamentally as invalid as making a moral distinction between two sexual predators who prefer victims with differing hair colours would be to a decent person.

Or, to quote the alien formerly known as 'Jim Jones' speaking to the alien formerly known as 'Jesus' on the bridge of the alien attack fleet's mothership, 'You haven't been down there for awhile...you forget: they think like _bugs_ there.'
Posted by Gerald Fnord on January 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM · Report this
the idiot formerly known as kk 47
Fnarf @14: Indeed. If one man is allowed to marry one woman, what's to stop a man from marrying a woman, having a couple of kids, then sleeping around, then dumping his family, then marrying again, then carrying out a six-year long affair with a staffer, then dumping his wife and marrying again? Or what's to stop a pastor--a MAN OF THE WORD OF GOD--from officiating at the wedding of an obese drug addict to his FOURTH wife?! Oh, wait, nothing will prevent that.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on January 26, 2012 at 1:57 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 48
@17 Why the surprise? Ignoring counter-arguments is what religious people DO. It's all they do, or they wouldn't be religious any more.

Mosey on over to Pharyngula and review the many, many gumby quotes from religious nuts making the same tired "arguments" that have been debunked for years and years, usually since before the speaker was born. And that's in matters that are more based in physical facts than this slippery-slope nonsense. (Although the legal facts against most of this shit is equally solid: you cannot enter into a contract with a horse!)
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on January 26, 2012 at 6:48 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 49
@ 41, given that I can't turn into either a vapid, dull-eyed pinup or you (the only subjects you find interesting), I guess I'll never write anything you'll admit to find interesting. Boo hoo.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 26, 2012 at 7:40 AM · Report this
monkey 50
Look up horse fucking in any given porn site and 99.9% of the time you'll find some woman getting fucked by a horse. If you look up dog fucking 99.9% of the time you'll find a woman getting fucked by a dog. I'm just saying. Like most of the complaints about the gays, the straights are the biggest offenders.
Posted by monkey on January 26, 2012 at 7:52 AM · Report this
nikoniko 51
@35 tax status makes a lot of sense, especially when you combine it with the fact that most religious conservatives won't try to keep their bigoted mouths shut. You also saw religious conservatives breathe a collective sigh of releif here in Washington when the clause that let's them not marry gays if they don't want to was added to the bill, but continued to "fight the good fight" on a matter of principal.
I'm not saying that everyone testifying in Washington is in it for the money, but I'm pretty sure that's what "infringe on my religious freedoms" means.

Also consider that if a church charges for their services, they can't discriminate, which I'm sure we'll be seeing quite a few lawsuits when this thing passes. And maybe, the tax exempt statuses will go with it.
Posted by nikoniko on January 26, 2012 at 9:19 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 52
@50: Enumclaw has reasons to disagree.

@51: "And maybe, the tax exempt statuses will go with it."

When on earth has that ever happened? I won't hold my breath.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 53
@7- They don't care about women because they don't think women should be making any decisions about their own sexuality. In their world, father's own a woman's sexuality until they get given in marriage, then it's the husband.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on January 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM · Report this
54
@26, Hahahahahaha.

(not being ironic, I really did find that funny)
Posted by clashfan on January 26, 2012 at 7:13 PM · Report this
55
@51: That has nothing to do with 501(c)(3) status, which is what churches fall under. It actually amazes me how little people understand about how this works. (I work for a religious organization.) Individual churches don't even have to officially apply for exempt status--parishes or denominations or larger consortium groups do, but not a single individual church. Different states or municipalities have different rules about sales and use tax, but the federal status is the one that really matters and what actually qualifies your group as a charity.

An organization endangers its 501(c)(3) status by either personally enriching the organization's directors/board of trustees/etc., by endorsing a specific political candidate, or by spending the majority of its time/programming on political issues.

Non-profits are perfectly allowed to discriminate in who they provide their services to. A Catholic church is within its rights to refuse to marry me to my soon-to-be husband because neither one of us is Catholic. I volunteer at a women's shelter, which serves anyone who identifies or presents as female (so we include transgender women in our services). However, we don't serve men, because we want it to be a safe space for our ladies, many of whom have been abused by men. Doesn't endanger our tax exemption in any way, even though one could argue that we discriminate in who we serve.

Also, many churches don't technically charge for their services. I don't think I've ever seen a church that "charges" for weddings. I've only ever seen the cost of wedding services presented as a "donation" to the church.
Posted by Alexandrine on January 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM · Report this
56
@51: That has nothing to do with 501(c)(3) status, which is what churches fall under. (I work for a religious organization.) Individual churches don't even have to officially apply for exempt status--parishes or denominations or larger consortium groups do, but not a single individual church. Different states or municipalities have different rules about sales and use tax, but the federal status is the one that really matters and what actually qualifies your group as a charity.

An organization endangers its 501(c)(3) status by either personally enriching the organization's directors/board of trustees/etc., by endorsing a specific political candidate, or by spending the majority of its time/programming on political issues.

Non-profits are perfectly allowed to discriminate in who they provide their services to. A Catholic church is within its rights to refuse to marry me to my soon-to-be husband because neither one of us is Catholic. I volunteer at a women's shelter, which serves anyone who identifies or presents as female (so we include transgender women in our services). However, we don't serve men, because we want it to feel like a safe space for our ladies, many of whom have been abused by men. Doesn't endanger our tax exemption in any way, even though one could argue that we discriminate in who we serve.

Also, many churches don't technically charge for their services. I don't think I've ever seen a church that "charges" for weddings. I've only ever seen the cost of wedding services presented as a "donation" to the church.
Posted by Alexandrine on January 27, 2012 at 8:44 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy