From: kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi)
Subject: Re: Our attitude towards homosexuality
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:30:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.200939.10613@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul30.192722.10336@udel.edu>, kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>> 
>> >Now the problem is, why should B be hurt?  
>> 
>> I hope I had made that clear. A is violating a trust that is inherent in
>> a marriage. 
>
>
>There is something I still don't understand about your perspective.
>You've clearly stated that you don't believe in adultery because it
>violates the trust in a marriage.  What I don't understand is why you
>don't feel the same standards apply to homosexuals.  Is it not true
>that the vast majority of practicing homosexuals are not married?
>What happens to the question of trust in their case?  I know you've
>expressed a desire to keep this off the net, but these are issues
>and views which I think others may share (both yours and mine), and
>the apparent inconsistency is something I am not seeing for the first
>time.  I am not questioning your right to your beliefs and values or
>anything of that sort -- I am merely trying to understand how you would
>go about constructing a consistent set of beliefs and moral values.

I have been requested by someone through email not to drive this exercise in 
"acute polemics" :) underground (e_mail). So, having just recently expressed
a desire to discontinue posting on this thread on SCB, I am back with further
intrusions into netters' sanity. :)

Why do I not see an inconsistency in my belief system which is apparent to Shakil? 
This is because I apply a single consistent criteria for judging the morality of
an action. 

   Zunaid's Axiom 1: If there exists an action A, such that engaging in 
   action A by X, where X is an element of {Y : Y-> the set of human beings}, 
   causes harm or hurts Z, where Z is an element of {Y: Y-> the set of human 
   beings} and Z <> X, then action A is immoral.}

:) :) [I guess I go into a kill file right about now] 

Sorry, couldn't resist that. Simply put, any action that will hurt another person
is immoral. Applying this single axiom to premarital sex, or adultery, or extra-
marital sex, or homosexuality results in a consistent ascription of morality.

[Mushfiqur Rahman, in a previous post expressed views that are exactly
 equal to what I hold. So all of the following is really repetitious]

In deference to my wishes I had received a more elaborate email from Shakil
in which he was requesting clarification of this apparent inconsistency.

I am appending an excerpt from the email:

   [In response to my view that adultery is immoral]

   I guess you're applying an axiom here which you haven't clearly
   explained.  Why should there be such a trust in marriage?  Are you
   implying that any homosexual activity outside of homosexual marriage
   is also immoral?  If so, what do you have to say about the fact that
   the vast majority of practicing homosexuals are not married?  Would
   you consider them to be acting in an immoral manner?  I'm still having
   a lot of problems with the consistency of various things you have said
   in this thread.

In my belief system, an integral part to the definition of marriage is
mutual love, devotion and fidelity. Consequently extra-marital sexual
activity, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is counter to my first axiom
and is immoral. 

With respect to pre-marital sexual activity, my views would be that to accept
such within the bounds of a relationship within which there are certain 
commitments. You could construct Zunaid's Personal Axiom 23:

  Promiscious sexual activity for the sole purpose of satisfying physical desires
  is immoral. 

The difference between Axioms and Personal Axioms is that I apply Axioms to all
activity but Personal Axioms are further restrictions on my actions. 

As I intimated earlier an explanation of my belief system would get rather
tedious. My apologies to netters for having subjected them to the above.

>-- Shakil

-- Zunaid Kazi
   kazi@cis.udel.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh