Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 85807

[Pastor Ken Hutcherson testifying against a bill in WA to legalize same-sex marriage]

I think that you are saying, as a committee and as a legislature that you know better than God, since you think that it is a very minded, bigoted, not understanding and loving thing to limit marriage to one man and one woman…If you pass this bill you’re just as narrow minded, you are just as bigoted and you’re just as unloving to everything and everyone who wants to get married outside of one man and one woman, two men and two women. But since you think God is not smart enough to make it fair, you’re saying that you’re smart enough to make it fair.



Pastor Ken Hutcherson, Think Progress 68 Comments [1/28/2012 9:36:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 71
Submitted By: Aspergus
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
#1370292
John

But since you think God is not smart enough to make it fair, you’re saying that you’re smart enough to make it fair.

Well, He wasn't smart enough to just poof humanity out of existence instead of going through that protracted and messy Flood business - He wasn't even smart enough to poof up the boat; He had to make Noah build the thing himself. Then He wasn't smart enough to figure out that killing everyone except Noah's family wouldn't solve the problem of sinful humanity, because Noah's righteousness wouldn't be inherited by his descendants like eye or hair color. Then He wasn't smart enough to just kill off the Amorites instead of stopping the sun and leaving Joshua to do His work for Him. And Jesus wasn't smart enough to use His powers to eliminate cancer or Down's syndrome, instead of wasting His miracles handing out free wine, bread and fish.

No, the God of the Bible ain't all that smart ...

1/29/2012 1:42:42 PM
#1370294
DinosaurRidinJeebus

Actually what we are saying is that everyone should have the same rights and morons like you shouldn't be able to ignore the first amendment and pass openly religious restrictions on marriage and social life.

So yeah. Fuck you. Learn2constitution.

1/29/2012 2:03:20 PM
#1370302
christopher

@Seattle Falls: The light on a cloudy day is still sunlight, just filtered through the clouds. You fail at science.

1/29/2012 2:32:06 PM
#1370305
Quantum Mechanic

Keep your superstitions to yourself, pompous, sanctimonious asshole.

1/29/2012 2:56:01 PM
#1370308
David F Mayer

He does have a point.

If marriage, traditionally meaning the union of one man and one woman, can include two men or two women, why not other combinations such as:
two men and one woman;
two women and one man;
two women and two men;
three women and two men;
three men and two women;
three men and three women;
any number of either sex?

Should any group of persons of any combination of genders be permitted to form a legal marriage?

1/29/2012 3:04:55 PM
#1370310
Osiris

Marriage exists in every culture on the planet and all those cultures have had different meanings. You don't own a monopoly on marriage and you definatly don't have the right to tell anyone else how they can be married.

1/29/2012 3:09:01 PM
#1370379


It's not very hard to be smarter than God.

1/30/2012 2:05:10 AM
#1370536
Mister Spak

"I think that you are saying, as a committee and as a legislature that you know better than God, "

Since god is imaginary it would be hard to not know more than god. Unless you are a fundie pastor or mulla.

1/30/2012 9:10:39 AM
#1370551
Dr.Shrinker

@ David F. Mayer

No, he does not have a point. Hutchinson, like all the rest of his ilk, has no logic to support his position. All he has is his own interpretation of bronze age superstitions.

When thumping the bible does not help them to get their way. Hutchinson and his ilk generally do exactly what you just tried to do: they try to turn the discussion into something it isn't in the hopes of provoking a reaction of disgust. This is what anti-equality bigots are trying to do when they ask, "Why can't I marry a sheep/a 5 year old/my mother/etc." It seems that you were trying the same tactic when you began asking irrelevant questions about plural marriages.

If you want to address the topic at hand, please do so. If you want to discuss plural marriages, find a discussion on plural marriages. If you want to pretend that A=B, prepare to be justly ridiculed.

1/30/2012 9:31:46 AM
#1370802
Washcloth Repairman

Cthulhu says faggy-looking, mouthbreathing douchenozzles named Ken should be sodomized with pineapples until they die. And what Cthulhu says, goes.

1/31/2012 4:43:58 AM
#1370803
Argle Bargle

Biblical marriage is between a man and his gaggle of concubines.

1/31/2012 4:48:12 AM
#1371883


Using words "bigot" or "narrow minded" doesn't make them automatically true. Don't want same sex marriage?. Don't marry a person of the same sex. Simple as that.

2/4/2012 5:19:21 AM
#1371950
Anon-e-moose

"I think that you are saying, as a committee and as a legislature that you know better than God, since you think that it is a very minded, bigoted, not understanding and loving thing to limit marriage to one man and one woman…If you pass this bill you’re just as narrow minded, you are just as bigoted and you’re just as unloving to everything and everyone who wants to get married outside of one man and one woman, two men and two women. But since you think God is not smart enough to make it fair, you’re saying that you’re smart enough to make it fair."

Okay. Now show us on this doll where the nasty US Constitution and it's laws - which make absolutely no mention of 'marriage' - touched you...?

2/4/2012 12:11:56 PM
#1371970
Filin De Blanc

So because you support same-sex marriage between two people, it necessarily means you don't support polyamorous marriage? That doesn't follow.

2/4/2012 4:42:55 PM
#1371972
Feral Dog

@ David F. Meyer:

The idea of marriage being "one man, one woman" is relatively new. The idea of "one man, as many women as he can care for" is older. Some areas put a cap on the number of wives- four in Islam and only if you could afford to care for that many, for example- while other places had no limit on wives, but men preferred a small number of wives with many concubines, as a concubine's child usually had fewer rights than a wife's child.
The only place I know of off the top of my head that had polyandry rather than polygyny was in Nepal or Tibet- the woman was to be shared between both men, usually brothers, and any resulting children inherited from both men.

2/4/2012 5:09:00 PM
#1372134
Dr.Shrinker

As for god being smart, I think that whole "putting the forbidden tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden and not foreseeing what would happen" business speaks volumes about that.

2/5/2012 8:00:28 AM
#1445061
Ebon

This is just more "you must be tolerant of our intolerance" word games.

9/8/2012 4:48:17 PM
#1470288
UHM

God is irrelevant for secular law. Be a Christian in your private time.

11/16/2012 3:16:10 AM
1 2 3