[John.Cooch]

Thank you for this article. I just recently was informed my sister has decided to join the lesbian lifestyle. It is amazing to me that her and her "friend" used God as a justification for this lifestyle. The perversion of God is love, we love each other, this must be from God, causes my stomach to convulse. Count me in on this battle as I pray for you and all those that take up the battle against God and his Laws for us all.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

This is actually very good.

You know, I hear many people say they love homosexuals, just not their sin. I don't. I loved my niece who was trapped in the lifestyle, but I don't love all homosexuals. I resent a lot of them. I don't "hate" them, but I don't love them. I resent the ones that don't keep it private, especially the ones that are pushing this crap on school children, Boy Scouts, Big Brothers, businesses, and government.

[irishlass]

An excellent, thoughtful, and well-written article. He sure does not sound like the radical hatemonger the mainstream press makes him out to be. I grieve for his son and respect his position. Thanks for the post.

[familyofman]

Does this mean Mr. Terry won't go to the wedding if his son decides to marry?

[my4kidsdad]

WOW....what a great article. Thank you for posting it.

[antiRepublicrat]

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good..." -- Randall Terry

Gotta love this guy.

[shhrubbery!]

Just for the record, IIRC this son of Mr. Terry's is a child he adopted after persuading the mother not to have an abortion.

Of course there are biological children of conservatives who've declared they're homosexual too (Phyllis Schlafly's, Dick Cheney's and Pete Knight's kids come to mind; Laura Ingraham and Newt Gingrich have gay siblings).

Maybe every family has to have its rebel -- at least families where there're more than a couple of kids. I was my family's black sheep. No, I'm not gay, but a conservative in a solidly liberal family. (But I prefer to see myself not as a rebel, but as the inheritor of my conservative grandparents' views.)

[lady lawyer]

This is a good article. I am a believer. I believe that God ordained marriage between a man and a woman. But I disagree with the premise that you can't argue against homosexual marriage without resorting to "God said so." Even if you don't believe in God, you can't deny that sex has a biological purpose, and that same-sex behavior subverts that purpose. There is also plenty of research showing the need for stable two-natural-parent families to maintain a stable, healthy society.

[Catspaw]

I suppose it'd be rather awkward for Randall Terry to condemn adultery.

[Rodney King]

I wonder if the son rejecting traditional values has anything to do with his dad trading in his mom for a newer model.

[chit*chat]

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.

Yes, I agree with this precept of the Founding Fathers, for the alternative is that our rights and laws come from the biggest and most powerful bully.

IMHO, homosexuals are fighting the sin of lust. The spirit is willing and the flesh is weak, to be sure. It does not mean that the society should sanction their behavior. I liken it to the leprosy of this century. And it is a mistake to refer to the lifestyle as 'gay', which attempts to pretty it up and make it acceptable. It it homosexual, with all the connotations that accompany that word.

[chit*chat]

Isn't MARRIAGE a sacrement, instituted by the church, between a man and a woman? Starts and ends there. Now a 'civil union' is secular and I would leave that up to the judges to evaluate how that stands with our laws and constitution.

All this 'marriage' stuff is nothing more than trying to 'normalize' that which is not normal. If their lifestyle is so okay, then why are they, as a group, trying so hard to pattern themselves after society's norm? Especially when they go to such great lengths to show how truly faulty it is when examined?

[fr_freak]

The arguments against homosexual marriage involving children (having or raising them) won't hold up.

I could not more strongly disagree with Terry here. These arguments are valid, and I am surprised that he would surrender them so easily. If he, and others like him, concede these arguments, we will lose this battle.

Homo activists have tried to counter the position of marriage being reserved for the raising of children by pointing to all the childless (hetero) couples in the world and asking if their marriages are invalid. But that is a misdirection, and should not be conceded. The fact is that marriage is an institution, a structure that provides the optimal environment for raising children. As long as the structure is protected and remains intact, the proper raising of children is promoted. If the structure itself is destroyed, the proper raising of children is destroyed. Marriage between a man and a woman who won't or can't have children still reinforces that structure - of a life-long, monogamous union between one man and one woman - and therefore promotes the proper raising of children in general. However, the acceptance of any other type of union, such as same-sex, as a "marriage" destroys that necessary structure, whether that union intends to raise children or not.

Terry also points to the proliferation of non-traditional households as proof that we should abandon the argument for traditional marriage, as if the mere existence of these households in significant numbers is proof enough that secular arguments for traditional marriage are invalid. But this is a severe logical fallacy at best. Many of our social pathologies of today can be traced back to the increase in fatherless children, for example, and so these instances should be used to prove the case for traditional marriage, not argue against it. Terry's logic here is equivalent to saying that if enough people begin to murder and steal, we should just repeal all laws against murder and stealing because there can't be any valid arguments against those acts.

I agree that the moral arguments that Terry makes are an important part of this fight, but practical, secular arguments are just as important, especially considering that not all people who need to be convinced can be convinced by religious principles. But more importantly, no valid argument in this debate should be surrendered because it weakens the overall argument. Never give an inch in this fight.

[ladyinred]

I hadn't heard this about Randall's son. I assume that he has worked out whatever other problems he had and has resumed his ministry. That is good to know as he was always such an outspoken force for good against abortion.

[Quix]

EXCELLENT DOC.

Thanks much.

[scripter]

Ping. I don't have the time to provide lj's excellent commentary on each article, so I'm just pinging as I find 'em.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.0)

Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search