Being a patriotic American and a devout Christian gets very difficult for me when the issue of gay marriage is brought up.
There just aren’t that many people who that think gay marriage is both a constitutional necessity and morally wrong, as I do.
The writers of the First Amendment took special pains to make sure that America would not be a Christian nation.
They mandated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Even though a number of our founding fathers were Christians, they decided against basing our country their religion or any other religion.
It is, however, based on freedom for all, which is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
One of the first points in the Declaration is that “all men are created equal.”
And when it says “all,” I believe that it says “all” because it truly means all.
We give members of Westboro Baptist Church the same rights as the motorcyclists who (righteously) drown them out.
One of the main reasons that people vote against this equality for homosexuals is that Christianity considers homosexuality morally wrong.
This country, however, is not a theocracy; therefore, following our stated principles (freedom) should be valued above legislating the morality of a certain religion, which we expressly decided we would not do.
I believe that if heterosexual people have the freedom to marry, then homosexual people ought to have that right as well. That’s equal.
Wouldn’t this lead us down a slippery slope toward legalized bestiality and acceptable pedophilia?
No.
No man, heterosexual or homosexual, is allowed to marry an animal. No woman, heterosexual or homosexual, is allowed to marry those who are underage without parental consent. If these things were to appear, I would be against
them.
These are absolutely wrong, not wrong based on religion.
The legalization of homosexual marriage is an equal-rights issue.
I view this issue in much the same way that I view the fight for African-American civil rights in the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s.
This pro-gay marriage stance puts me in the minority of Christians.
But I’m not totally liberal; I do believe that homosexuality is wrong.
I believe God created man and woman, and not any other configuration, to be together in marriage.
But let it not be said that I hate homosexuals, or even that I hate homosexuality more than any other sin.
Demonizing homosexuality as a sin worse than heterosexual promiscuity, gossiping, greed, anger or anything else isn’t scriptural. All sins are viewed equally by God.
Here’s another shocker: Jesus Christ hung out with the promiscuous gossipers and the unrepentant, greedy jerks.
Christ would’ve hung out with homosexuals, and given that there is nothing new under the sun, he probably did.
There is no record of Jesus calling out someone for homosexuality.
He instead admonished the Pharisees, who made life hard for people in the name of religion.
So yes, I think homosexuality is wrong; but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to berate you in the name of religion.
If I saw people who said they represent Christ act hatefully towards me, I wouldn’t be part of their hate.
I don’t follow Christ so I can spread hate; that’s contradictory to the message Christ brought.
My religion influences my opinion on homosexuality, but it does not influence my opinion of homosexuals.
Do I think homosexuality is wrong?
Do I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry?
The answer to both is yes.
Stephen Carradini is a professional writing junior. His column appeared every other Tuesday this semester.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Rhology 3 years, 5 months ago
My rights: To marry someone of the opposite sex. Your rights: To marry someone of the opposite sex.
If we change the law for same-sex couples, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry: -a grapefruit -a dead person -a 3-yr old -a parakeet -a tree
If we change the law for same-sex couples, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry 4 people at once. All consenting adults. Maybe we should change the law for that, too, huh? What would be your argument for why, since we changed it to give YOU a super-right, why we shouldn't change it for anyone else? Couldn't that just be discriminatory of some other group? We certainly wouldn't want that!
Discord 3 years, 5 months ago
Why can't I practice polygamy if the women in question are completely happy with the arrangement and my religion allows it?
lindsayjhodges 3 years, 5 months ago
Whilst I do not agree that homosexuality is wrong, I think you write a very thought-provoking column here. I have always thought that America needs to stand by its founding principles and remove religion from politics, but it seems that too much is tied up in keeping conservative Christians happy and not enough is invested in doing what is ethically right. I'm a Christian who believes that what you do is between you and God, certainly not for anyone else to judge as long as it hurts no one. Of course gay people should be allowed to marry - their lives and hearts are just as valid as straight peoples'.
JJanowiak 3 years, 5 months ago
Paging OUDaily.com's resident radical right-wing Christian slaves, one of your flock is being led astray by the evil homosexual atheist conspiracy! Everybody play ball.
JWade 3 years, 5 months ago
Janowiak, you are a pedactic complaint.
kdbp1213 3 years, 5 months ago
i'm trying to understand carradini. he's okay with homosexuals being married but he disapproves of homosexuality. what does that mean? i just don't understand the logic. i think i'm correctly paraphrasing carradini: "i disapprove of your lifestyle but i approve of your marriage." if you approve of homosexual marriage, you approve of homosexuality. homosexuality is the major component of homosexual marriage. again, what does carradini's logic mean? am i missing something?
i'd say allow homosexuals to marry. they can be miserable in marriage just as heterosexuals are miserable in marriage. just as the homosexuals want to marry, let them divorce, too. get out to the miserableness, i say! (i commend & applaud the happy folks in marriage.....)
tbgalileo 3 years, 5 months ago
Burt2198 - think about this. The crimes you listed, rape, murder, stealing, etc, are crimes because they wrongfully deny another person of something (their property, their life, their choice of sexual activity). These laws are obvious because they involve victims, and they need no specific religious regulation to make them so. As far as gay marriage goes, it really has no tangible effect on another person, so yes, it is a good question why it is not recognized (and a good question why the religious right fights so hard about it, given that it doesn't really effect them).
Your logic would be well-applied to laws regarding recreational drug use, as it is well-debated whether it impacts unwilling victims.
OUSooners 3 years, 5 months ago
Good column Stephen. I have talked about this quite a bit and I'm right there with you.
There are tons of things that I think are morally wrong, but I would never argue to make them illegal. Why? Because this is America, for crying out loud. A country of freedoms!
free4all 3 years, 5 months ago
Thank you Mr.Carradini for writing an amazing article. I, too, am Christian and believe homosexuality is a sin; however, it is a sin just like the others you mention, heterosexual promiscuity, gossiping, greed, anger, and it is no worse or better than those. I also believe that homosexuals should be allowed to be married because our Constitution guarantees equality which is obviously being denied. Thank you so much for such a well written article that shows how difficult it can be to be a Christian and an adamant follower of our Constitution.
tbgalileo 3 years, 5 months ago
What a thought-provoking article! But be careful, Carradini. You may not be as much of a minority as you think you are. The strongest elements of the religious right that have taken up the anti-gay crusade may not be as much of a majority as you think, even though they are yelling the loudest.
BrianCBiggs 3 years, 5 months ago
dd, You disagree with Christianity from the get-go in your comment. Marriage is not a contract. Gen 2:22-24 records God instituting marriage - and since He created it, He defines it and sets its limits. Ephesians 5:25-33 shows that marriage is a picture of Christ and the church; if we stray from the bounds of marriage, we mar that picture. It is not saying we are better, but that God defines marriage.
T_Money 3 years, 5 months ago
Stephen, I agree with your sentiment that you are basing your political opinion not based on your religion. However, I would like to introduce another minority of thinkers and that is being both anti-gay marriage and atheist/agnostic. I think that many atheists/agnostics are more dogmatic than religious people, especially on political issues. It is very easy to lump everyone that is against gay-marriage as right-wing, which couldn't be further from the truth. When people do that they do not have to answer the merits of the issue and this trend disturbs me. I am like you, I do not let my religious ideas (my atheism) sway my political ideas. I think gay marriage is wrong both morally and politically and I am not religious at all.
free4all 3 years, 5 months ago
burt2198:
You asked "One question that I had after reading the article: how can we establish that murder, theft, rape etc are legitimate issues to legislate but not homosexuality? What makes a moral issue one that we can pass judgment on?" All of the crimes you mention harm another, unwilling person while homosexuals are participating consensually.
BrianCBiggs 3 years, 5 months ago
"These are absolutely wrong, not wrong based on religion."
This is mainly what I take issue with. One cannot separate ethics from metaphysics and epistemology. If right and wrong does not find its foundation in God, from whence does it come? How can a Christian divide between what God says is right and wrong and some other 'absolute' right and wrong? I am not advocating Divine Command theory: I suggest God's nature is the standard of Good. What I am trying to point out, Stephen, is that the implications of what you are suggesting there is a standard of good that exists apart from God, which He must be subject to.
burt2198 3 years, 5 months ago
To answer kdbp1213's question: Carradini is simply saying that the fact the he personally believes whether or not homosexuality is a sin is inconsequential when he is considering gay marriage. His personal beliefs and religious based morals do not affect his political stance, considering that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
One question that I had after reading the article: how can we establish that murder, theft, rape etc are legitimate issues to legislate but not homosexuality? What makes a moral issue one that we can pass judgment on? (I am not saying that murder, rape, stealing and so are right, or that homosexuality is wrong, just trying to see how we can legitimately differentiate)
kdbp1213 3 years, 5 months ago
thanks, burt2198. after your attempt to explain carradini's beliefs, it's still over my head....... just a dumb okie, i guess.......... i appreciate your answer even if i still don't understand.........
billmilo 3 years, 5 months ago
The column does not make sense in a logical framework. It makes sense in a duplicity framework: meaning he wants to reconcile both sides by taking two opposing views.
The author forgets that by doing this he is true to no side.
The opinion page of the Daily is usually poor.
dd 3 years, 5 months ago
Rhology, Marriage is a contract. A contract takes consenting people who agree to its terms. A grapefruit, dead person, 3-yr old (or a sixteen year old), a parakeet,or a tree cannot consent. Denying marriage to homosexuals is essentially saying that you are better than them, and you deserve things that they do not. The point of the article is that, even if you so arrogantly believe that, the Constitution does not allow it.
cowd3769 3 years, 5 months ago
Stephen, I disagree with your assertion that God views all sins equally. This is evident in some of Jesus' teachings recorded in the Gospels...e.g. John 19:11, and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 6:18), the example of the latter showing sexual immorality to be among the worst of sins, because it alone is committed against one's own body.
I do understand why you would want to say that they are all equal, however; you are trying to show that you do not view yourself as being any better than a homosexual individual, all humans being sinners in need of God's grace. Unfortunately, you'll need a different biblical basis when talking in such a way, as humble an approach as it is.