Randall Terry: "My Prodigal Son, the Homosexual, Part 2"

Editor's note: Randall Terry led the nation's largest civil-disobedience movement, "Operation Rescue," in opposition to abortion. He is an outspoken opponent of granting special rights to homosexuals, and led the fight against "same-sex marriage" in Hawaii and Vermont. His current work is online at OperationWitness.com.

As you may have read here at WorldNetDaily, or seen on CNN, or read in any number of newspapers across the nation, my son has declared that he is a practicing homosexual. I am still grieving for my son.

My son decided to go to the homosexual press about his "lifestyle," which also brought the mainstream (and usually pro-homosexual) media rushing to my door, prying into our family, our history and our pain. And, of course, even though they almost never get the facts right, they always somehow manage to further the homosexual agenda.

I am in the awkward position of being a leader in the fights against abortion and homosexual marriage. Obviously, this is why the big dogs in the media world have been hunting us down. Perhaps their effort is to embarrass me, and discredit my efforts because of my son's homosexuality. I assure you, their efforts to silence me are futile.

That being said, I am hoping our pain is not wasted, and that it can help others in this struggle. Hence, I have pondered long and hard on how to best respond to all this news coverage.

And if you think this does not effect you, let me give you a dose of reality. I just returned from Boston. I was there on May 17, when the first batch of "homosexual marriage" licenses were being handed out. Many of those who got licenses in Massachusetts were from other states ... including yours. They will now return home, go to court and attempt to overturn your laws on marriage by judicial decree, just as they did in Massachusetts.

In that light, I am going to unburden my heart, and hopefully help those who want to stop this heinous juggernaut.

First of all, I love my son. I love him unconditionally. I want him to succeed in life, and prosper. I want him to be safe, and live a long life. I want a healthy father-son relationship with him.

But loving him does not mean I should agree with everything he does or says. It is because I love him that I am grieving for him – and it is because I love him that I cannot accept his lifestyle. His homosexual behavior could cut his life short by becoming infected with AIDS. I don't want to attend his funeral.

I know many well-meaning people think that when we love someone unconditionally, it means we must accept everything they say and do. That is not true. As parents, we do not tolerate dangerous behavior from our children when they are young. Even though we love them fiercely, our love does not mean "anything goes." This principle holds true when our children are grown.

When someone "comes out of the closet," family members have three basic choices: 1) Accept the person and their behavior, and support them in their decision; 2) Reject the person and their behavior completely; or 3) (And the more difficult option) Love and accept the person, but not their homosexual behavior as normal, and refuse to pretend that their homosexual behavior is positive or healthy. This is much harder, because it does not offer quick solutions. The relational tensions remain unresolved.

While it is harder, I believe the third option is the proper course. Allow me to use an illustration to explain my point.

If you have a family member who is an alcoholic or drug addict, do you tell them: "Congratulations! What a great life choice! I'm so happy for you as long as you're happy. All I want is that you be happy!"?

Of course not. Because you love them, you say: "I love you. Please get help. I'll help you in any way I can. Don't destroy your life with this addiction. Don't continue in this suicidal behavior. I love you, and I want you to be alive and healed and free. I'll stand with you while you get help."

I know what I am about to say is not politically correct, but if we are going to win the rhetorical war, if we are going to pierce through the veil of darkness that is falling on our country, if we are going to stop the homosexual juggernaut, we must say the Truth clearly, and kindly. That is what love requires. So here goes.

Homosexual behavior is a sexual addiction – complete with all the cause-and-effect issues that accompany other addictions. Homosexual behavior is a degrading, self abusive behavior that mars the body and the soul. It is wrong. And it is a behavior that is chosen.

Many homosexuals say that they did not choose their "homosexual feelings" or that they don't even want those "feelings." That is probably true. However, all of us have "feelings" from time to time that are unhealthy. Perhaps we even have "feelings" that, if we acted them out, our actions would be immoral or even unlawful. But we choose to not act out those "feelings." If we do act on our feelings, we accept the consequences that go along with our choices.

The homosexual activists have become masters of "mix and match." They talk about "feelings" and behavior as if they are one and the some. They are not. They also "mix and match" when they compare their struggle for "civil rights" to the struggle of black people for civil rights. They chant, "End Racism! End homophobia!" as if the two were even remotely related.

To compare homosexuals to African Americans struggling for civil rights is absurd. People don't choose the color of their skin – but a man chooses to have rectal sex. People don't choose their race – but a man chooses where he puts his genetilia. Let's be real.

We are in the dangerous place in our history where homosexual fanatics have browbeaten many of us into accepting their behavior, even though most of us know it is self-destructive. To say homosexuals qualify for marriage because of their sexual addiction is like telling drug addicts their drug addiction qualifies them to be pharmacists.

But more simply put: Homosexual behavior is wrong because it violates the way our Creator made the world, and the Laws He gave us. This brings me to the most important part of this article: The Name, the Person, and the Standards of God.

If you have followed the fight over homosexual marriage, there has been a steady drumbeat to keep the Name and the Standards of The Almighty out of the debate. This, of course, is not new. Whether it is the debate around abortion, or over prayer in schools, or the Pledge of Allegiance, or the posting of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, there is a blatant, unashamed effort to drive the Name and the Laws of our Maker from the public square.

Tragically, many well meaning people in our camp have decided to go along with these rules. I tell you plainly: If we surrender on this point, we will lose the war. We will not win. We cannot win.

Why? Because absent the Created order and standards of the Almighty, there is no reason to oppose same-sex-marriage. Why should we deny two consenting people who love each other the right to be married?

The arguments against homosexual marriage involving children (having or raising them) won't hold up. Older couples who marry cannot have children. And children are raised in homes without two natural parents every day. Sometimes a grandparent raises a child. These scenarios might not be optimum, but it is done by millions every day.

Arguments over "traditional marriage" are also of little value. We've had a lot of traditions that needed changing. This could be another one. Traditions are important, unless they stand in the way of liberty. Moreover, who is to say which tradition is the best? America's, or ancient Greece's or ancient Rome's, where they openly practiced homosexuality?

The reason we oppose homosexual marriage is because it violates the way God made the world – it attacks the institution He created; it betrays and defies the Laws He gave us.

If there is no God; if we are the chance arrangement of molecules that happened to evolve from some primal swamp; if we are merely animals and there is no such thing as moral absolutes, good and evil, right and wrong – defined by the Ultimate Lawgiver --- then anything goes. Let the homosexuals do what they want. Who are we to impose our morality on them?

But if there is a God who makes the rules, then He has imposed His morals on all of us, and we are obliged to obey and defend those ethics in the public square.

The Declaration of Independence declares that our rights come from God. It also declares that Laws come from God, and that God is the Supreme Judge of the Universe. We do not get to pick our rights, nor the laws that govern our behavior, nor the standards by which judgments are to be made by us and the Almighty concerning the behavior of men and nations.

Rights, Laws, and Judgments come from our Maker – not us, not the state. It can never be a "right" to have a homosexual marriage, any more than it can be a "right" to murder our offspring, because God did not give us those rights, and they violate the rules He made.

The tone and manner in which we discuss the Almighty and His standards in the public square is critical. Surely that man who walks around with signs saying, "God Hates Fags" does not represent God, nor is he a good example on how to involve God's standards in our political debate. He is a misguided fool, and a mocker of the Good News.

I contend that we must speak of the Almighty in the tones and the language of America's founders. Read the Declaration of Independence again. When they discussed God and Truth in reference to public policy, they sounded very catholic (universal) in their references to God, not like fundamentalists quoting chapter and verse from the Bible.

Furthermore, we must not go about with long faces, as if God was angry at everyone, especially homosexuals. If you say, "Homosexuality is an abomination to God!" you may partly correct, and a few people might get it, but it speaks to a sliver of the sliver. It sounds harsh, and it alienates more people than it attracts because it does not take into account the unfathomable mercy of God.

But if you say, "God loves homosexuals, and will redeem their lives, and give them the strength to overcome this self-destructive behavior," your words are also true, and they resonate with more people. All of us have sins, and we all want the mercy of God. So let's offer it to all, while at the same time not altering the standard of right and wrong that God gave us.

Even homosexual militants know they need God as a part of their strategy for ultimate victory in "homosexual marriage" (perverse as it sounds.) Anyone with a brain and a heart knows God is linked to marriage, so they too must link Him there. That is why many homosexuals boldly declare that God made them homosexual, and He would not deny them "homosexual marriage." It's His doing, His plan, or at least His fault.

It's like blaming God for giving a man "stealing feelings" or "assault feelings." Our bad feelings don't come from our Maker. Our feelings are ours – they come and go – but we can all control our behavior, and overcome unhealthy feelings. As I stated earlier, we must not confuse homosexual "feelings" with homosexual behavior. If we do, it will only play into their hands.

Certain homosexual militants are now insisting they cannot change, that they are homosexuals for life, and that no homosexual ever can or ever will really change. They also say that all reports of homosexuals changing their behaviors and feelings are false. We must fight these lies that cause people to lose faith and hope.

We know there is a God in Heaven who loves us, and has helped many of us turn from unhealthy and unholy behaviors by the power of the Gospel. Likewise, with the help of God's grace, many of us have overcome unhealthy feelings, or we have learned how to defuse those feelings, and not let them rule over us.

We also know that many men and women have gone through "12-step" or similar programs to break addictions, and overcome self-destructive behavior. They have been successful. Others have gone to therapeutic counseling, and have changed.

To say that homosexuals cannot overcome their addiction and their behavior is to deny the power of the Gospel.

This we must never do. Furthermore, it invalidates the entire field of clinical therapy, and it invalidates all self-help programs and literature. Are we prepared to say people cannot change?

I hope that you will ponder these words. And where you find it helpful, I hope you will incorporate the logic and rhetoric into the battles you will face in your community, and God forbid, perhaps your family. We must lift a united front against this onslaught, and use all the vehicles at our disposal (radio, newspapers, Internet, flyers) to rally our troops, and expose the lies and fallacies of the homosexual marriage movement.

I ask you for your prayers as I speak and work against abortion and homosexual marriage. These have been incredibly trying days on almost every front.

And I ask you to pray for my son. While he is acting out his "feelings," he is gambling with his life, abusing himself and others. My duty is to love him, which I do. Love requires that I not approve a behavior that may kill him. And I love him enough to tell him the truth.

Frankly, we should all love homosexuals enough to tell them the truth. And whether we like it or not, we are all in this fight because the battle for homosexual "marriage" or "civil unions" will soon be raging in each of our states.

If we don't fight, where will this end? If we agree to keep God and His standards out of this discussion, what will be the final stopping point? Three men in a marriage? Or four women? Or perhaps a man, a plant, a rock, a child and a puppy? I can hear it now: "Fight Racism! Fight Homophobia! Fight Pedophile-phobia! Fight Specie-ism! Fight Mineral-ism!" It may sound crazy now, but not much crazier than homosexual marriage sounded 30 years ago.

If we are going to prevail, and restore the Republic, we must have Truth and courage. We must cling to Eternal Truth that is knowable and doable. And we must have the Courage to obey the Truth when it is uncomfortable; the courage to declare the Truth even if we get some bad press; the courage to herald Eternal Truth in the public square, even while our adversaries mock us, belittle us, or threaten us. Truth and Courage will be our guides and our guards.

And remember: Truth has within it the seeds of its own victory; lies have within them the seeds of their own destruction.

We accept that you have feelings and struggles that are self-abusive, and we hope and pray you overcome them. We will help you as we are able. We love you, because you are made in the image of God. But don't expect us to validate, lionize, legalize or otherwise elevate as "normal" your self-destructive addiction. Don't expect us to tell our sons and daughters that homosexual behavior is a healthy path they might choose someday.

If homosexuals seek to live at peace while they work on their struggles, fine. Don't ask, don't tell. But when they seek to cram their agenda and perversions down our throat as good and normal, we must oppose them, and defeat their efforts. All of us have a duty to stand strong in this battle, as Providence gives us opportunity. May God have mercy on us all, and make us equal to the battles that lie ahead.

Yes, Randall Terry is a Christian who has failed to meet the standard set by Christ. Who hasn't?

I have never been unfaithful to my wife. Have you been unfaithful to your wife.

Who hasn't? Right

I have a cousin that is gay and a good friend from high school. Both are successful and honest people who have been faithful to their partner's for years and years.

Mr. Terry made a vow to God and he like Bill Clinton violated that vow.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Your desire for 'homosexuals' is that they all be saved and changed (cured) so that they can be the people that God intended them to be, fathers, husbands, etc. Living Godly lives free from sexual addiction. Is this correct?

However, if they refuse to be saved and changed then you'd rather they die now before they hurt anyone else. Is this also correct?

That's kind of the definition of God's love (and of love the sinner hate the sin). God loves us and wants the best for us but if we refuse to receive it then He will put us into situations where we will be apt to call on Him. (Diseases like AIDS maybe for the 'homosexual'). And unfortunately many times He's forced to remove us before we hurt others. It pains Him to send them to hell but sending one to hell is far better than sending that one and the 100's of others that he led dragged into hell with him.

I thought you were sort of anti- those who make moral judgment anyhow as a rule? Palpatine/OPH always pinged you and Poohbah to his railings against the Christian Right.....(damn, I thought he'd be back by now.) Anyhow....it is hypocritical of Terry, I agree but I'm not sure I'd toss him in the same cesspool with Klintoon.

I would. Mr. Terry is completely unrecondite. He expects all and sundry to affirm his moral turpitude as the right thing.

When I was a young jarhead, I was taught that I had to lead my Marines by my example.

I take my marriage seriously. I am a "one life, one wife" kind of guy. I expect those who claim the mantle of leadership in the Christian community to do likewise.

The Christian Right has done far more damage to the Gospel and to conservative politics than they've done good. They passed their culminating point (the Clausewitzian way of saying they "jumped the shark") in the mid-1980s. Now, their specialty is giving scandal to the Gospel and getting the more liberal of two candidates elected out of spite.

No, you do not even come close to understanding me correctly.

My personal desire is that homosexuals will keep their lifestyles as advertised when they argued before the Supreme Court to overturn the sodomy laws -- PRIVATE!

As far as scripture goes, God will send all unreprentant sinners to hell. Homosexuality is a sin. Those who practice it need to repent or face God's judgement.

Personally, I do not "love" the sinner -- as in feel an emotional affection for -- and hate the sin. My emotional response is more one of resentment. I resent the fact that gays want to force everyone else (including BOY SCOUTS for gosh sakes) to approve of their deviant lifestyle through force of government and social pressure. I resent GLSEN for their efforts to pander this crap to school children. I resent LAMBDA Legal for abusing the court system. I have no emotional affection for these people. If they were to change their ways, I would work to forgive them. That's all that's required of me from a scriptural perspective. I stand ready to forgive if they turn from their wicked ways.

That's what I was saying.

I did love my niece -- as in have an emotional affection for -- who was trapped in the gay lifestyle. I loved her long before, and later, in spite of, her deviant lifestyle. I loved her before and in spite of her dishonesty and thievery too. I did not approve of her behavior. She will have to answer to God for that. But I did love her entirely in the human sense. My love for her in the godly sense should have been greater. Maybe then I would have worked harder at helping her out of her destructive lifestyle before it was too late.

Personally, I do not "love" the sinner -- as in feel an emotional affection for -- and hate the sin.

...

That's what I was saying.

I understand what you're saying. I feel much the same way. What I was getting at however is that 'love' (as used in this discussion at least) is not a 'feeling'. It is not emotional affection. It is a decision to want the best for someone else. We decide to love the sinner because God commands us to love one another. Sometimes that love requires us to seek their health and sometimes that love (for yet others) requires us to seek their deaths. But we always deep down want the best for them.

I have a brother who is trapped in sodomy. I love him because God commands me to and he is my brother. I hate him because of what he does and what he believes. The two are not exclusive (The exact opposite of love is apathy not hatred)

When Christians say to a general audience, "We love homosexuals," I think it sounds silly. We look ridiculous because to most people, love is an emotional affection. Now you probably have an emotional affection for your brother that has nothing to do with his homosexuality. So you do love him as the world defines love. But to say you "love" homosexuals to a secular audience is a self-defeating statement. In general terms, it is false.

I do not personally want anyone's death in this matter. I am very sad when they get diseases and die. I know they did it to themselves. But it still grieves me. I know God is just and I trust Him. But I am not happy when it happens.

I agree that God's love is not a feeling. That really was my point too. Godly love is about what you do, not what you feel. In context, however, that is not how the world perceives the statement. From God's perspective, those of us who are fighting against the gay agenda are actually acting more loving toward homosexuals than those who join their cause. Love must sometimes side with what is best for a person, not just what makes the person feel good for the moment. God disciplines the son he delights in, to make him better. His correction of us is a display of His love for us. We do the same for our own children. It is hard to define a greater love than the love of a parent for his child. Yet the most loving parent is the one who gently corrects and instructs his child in ways that are right and good.

This is not untrue of other love relationships. You do not show genuine love by enabling a friend, family member, whomever, to continue in self-destructive ways.

Follow?

Now you probably have an emotional affection for your brother that has nothing to do with his homosexuality. So you do love him as the world defines love.

With the exception of the above I agreed with everything you said. As I suspected, but wanted to be clear for the lurkers who may be following the conversation, we were discussing and understanding the same issue.

Have a great day and may God Bless you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.