A guy I've gotten to know in Washington is a columnist with his university school paper. We've had quite a few interesting conversations about homosexuality in lieu of the recent developments in Massachussetts and the legalizing of same-sex marraige vs. passing an amendment to ban same-sex marraige. So yup, it's kind of cool to be used a "source" for an article....hehehehe

Homosexuality: Is it a sin?

Wayne Ma | Daily Illini Columnist
Published Tuesday, February 10, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. — At the end of the day, it comes down to an issue of morality. Is homosexuality a sin and if it is, should Americans pass a constitutional amendment defending traditional marriage against last week's Massachusetts gay marriage ruling?

If you believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible, then homosexuality is indeed a violation of natural law. It's not the way God intended us to behave and should not be tolerated under any cost. However, the fundamentals of the Constitution outline the separation of church and state. If we follow secular logic (and we must in this country), how can homosexuality be considered immoral?

Perhaps you can argue that our laws legislate morality to some degree. After all, society generally agrees that being a murderer, a thief or a drug user is immoral — but in these cases, there is a clear physical or emotional trauma to a victim. Who, may I ask, is the clear victim of homosexuality?

"Maybe it's an emotional hurt," my cousin tells me. He's a devout Christian who staunchly opposes homosexuality. And perhaps being gay might cause emotional suffering, but that's likely because of society's unwillingness to accept gay people. What's more, if someone is looking for evidence of physical harm, statistics do show that homosexuals report higher rates of STDs, but sexual promiscuity is a lifestyle choice for heterosexuals as well.

Like many Christians I've spoken to, my cousin follows the "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach, and I'm wise enough to know that not everyone who opposes homosexuality is a bigot. In all fairness, he has the right to believe what he does, and private churches should never be forced to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to. But on the other hand, another Christian tells me there's a strong distinction between doctrine and morality. Morality develops from doctrine, and you need to look at the Bible as a whole rather than specific passages selected out of context. Who was the audience at the time the Bible was written?

To argue that government should ban gay marriage because the Bible says it's wrong shows little consideration for the millions of Americans who, quite frankly, don't believe in the Bible.

As a result, what's the secular logic behind the Bush administration's criticism that the Massachusetts ruling is "deeply troubling"? What's the secular logic behind the president's most recent budget proposal that includes an estimated $1.5 billion to strengthen the institution of marriage in our country?

Mr. Bush might believe you can strengthen traditional marriage by throwing money at marriage counselors, but I fail to see how a ban on gay marriage strengthens my ability to get married or alters my respect for marriage in general. Furthermore, as long as the definition of marriage remains as the legal union between two consenting adults, I don't see how it creates a slippery slope or opens the door to more unorthodox marriages.

Our society changes for better or worse. Fifty years ago, the attitude toward blacks and mixed marriages were similar to today's view of homosexuality and gay marriage. A great number of Americans (especially in the religious South) believed mixed marriage was immoral and sinful. These days, we look back and scratch our heads in bewilderment at how anyone could defend such ideas. Who is to say that 50 years from now we won't view homosexuality the same way?

Ultimately, it's not government's role to legislate morality. Its true purpose is to create a functioning society, one where everyone has the freedom to say and do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. In the end, if we can't establish a clear reason for why gay marriage hurts others, then it shouldn't be banned.

Homosexuality might make a large segment of Americans uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean it harms society. Last week's Massachusetts ruling is proof that tolerance and acceptance must be practiced if we're going to become the champions of freedom and individual liberty to others.

Wayne Ma is a junior in LAS. His column appears alternate Tuesdays. He can be reached at opinions@dailyillini.com.