Posted on 05/28/2004 7:45:07 AM PDT by Theodore R.
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.
Does this mean Mr. Terry won't go to the wedding if his son decides to marry?
WOW....what a great article. Thank you for posting it.
"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.
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.)
bump
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.
I suppose it'd be rather awkward for Randall Terry to condemn adultery.
Well, yes, if the young man "marries," said would not a "marriage" in the eyes of God; so Randall Terry would not go to the "wedding" if he follows the beautiful philosophy that he clearly outlines in this article. Otherwise, he would be supporting the sin, instead of merely loving the sinner.
I wonder if the son rejecting traditional values has anything to do with his dad trading in his mom for a newer model.
I'm sorry. I'm in the same boat. While my sister doesn't have a girlfriend, she has had same-sex attractions for years, and decided to quit fighting it about a year and a half ago. She didn't try to use God as an excuse, as we were raised in a very fundamentalist Baptist church, so she's more decided that either God doesn't exist or he isn't someone she'd care to know. She seems to think that if I love her I will likewise cast off my moral beliefs, and she has some support in this from my family (I'm the most conservative one in my family). It's always tense when I'm around her because she has a way of forcing the topic to come up. In a lot of ways she isn't the person she used to be, since now she seems defined by and absorbed by her sexual orientation.
It's very difficult, as we were very close when we were kids. I have had to give up a lot of dreams of the future that I took for granted before--a brother-in-law, nephews and nieces. . .
Maybe we should start a support group for Freepers with gay family members. ;)
I wonder if the son rejecting traditional values has anything to do with his dad trading in his mom for a newer model.
Yes, this could be a factor in young Terry's homosexuality. Scripture clearly teaches that the sins of the father are passed on the son and each succeeding generation. Good point. But people don't learn.
Yes, Randall Terry is a Christian who has failed to meet the standard set by Christ. Who hasn't?
In his favor: Terri Schiavo. Randall Terry played a major role in getting Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted in October 2003 -- seems like so long ago. Yet Terri Schiavo remains in a living hell imposed on her by the corrupt FL judiciary and a loveless "husband."
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.
________
In order for your statement to be true, using subvert as a synonym for destroying or undermining, it must be true that ALL sex be ONLY for biological reasons, i.e., procreation. We know that is not true. Loving, Christian couples can also have sex for pure enjoyment of the experience. Since it has no biological component, would not that sex also subvert the biological purpose? I don't think the biology argument is terribly useful, but that is just my opinion.
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.
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?
Christ used allegories about the bride and the bridegroom. So marriage is a sacrament, but not all Protestant denominations use the term "sacrament."
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.