From: kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi)
Subject: Re: Our attitude towards homosexuality
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:27:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.181126.9182@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul30.140620.17886@udel.edu>, kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>
>> In my belief system, I would proscribe adultery since it is a violation of
>> the marriage covenant, with its concomitant understanding of loyalty to one's
>> spouse. It is an act of betrayal. While homosexuality, with mutual consent,
>> doesn't come under acts which might engender my proscription.
>> 
>> You may not agree, and that is your prerogative; but drawing again an analogy
>> from logic, my belief sysetm is 'sound' and 'complete'. At least, to
>> me. :)
>
>Well, I do see a problem here.  Suppose that A and B form a
>heterosexual married couple, and A decides to commit adultery.  Now,
>in your belief system, this violates the understanding behind a
>marriage, and hence, B is being hurt in the process, thus making
>things immoral.  But at the same time you would argue that
>homosexuality is sexual tendency which should not be considered
>immoral and nobody should feel uncomfortable about it.  

I didn't say people may or may not feel uncomfortable with homosexuality.
I am personally quite uncomfortable with the notion, but homosexuals and
their activity do not violate any moral principles [mine]. Its similar to my
feeling uncomfortable with the Japnese practice of eating raw fish, or
the Masai habit of drinking cow's blood, or the American practice of 
playing baseball. [Gross generalizations, no?] I will not engage in such 
practices but I cannot condemn them. 

>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. 

>Extending the sexual attitude story a little further, could it not be argued that 
>the need for multiple sexual partners is simply another sexual tendency?  

Given my response above, the extension again is a non-sequitur.

>And if so, why
>should we hold it against person A?  Indeed, why should B be hurt by
>what is merely a characteristic of A, some might even argue that it is
>a genetic attribute in much the same way that homosexuality is often
>labelled as genetic.  This can be extended ad absurdum.  

This has been extended ad absurdum. In my view, a genetic attribute is 
defensible only when such actions do not harm or hurt others. Being a mass 
murderer or a pick-pocket might also be a result of some genetic attribute, 
but that does not mean I will defend their right to engage in what their 
genes demand.

>That is why
>it seems to me that the only clearly defensible positions on this are
>either the one which frowns upon homosexual acts, adultery,
>premarital sex, etc. or the one which openly advocates all of these.
>I subscribe to the Islamic standpoint, the one which considers all of
>these sinful.

I respect your views and understand them. However, I do not see the strict
compartmentalization of all the activities that you have listed into one
category. Unfortunately, discussions relating to personal beliefs rarely
reach any form of agreement. You have your value system, I have mine.
I am not saying that mine is better [or worse], only that it is one with which 
_I_ am comfortable. This is fast becoming a bilateral exchange of our personal,
and unyielding, views; and, obviously inappropriate for SCB. 

This is my last public post on this thread. I will be glad to continue
this through email.

>-- Shakil

-- Zunaid Kazi
   kazi@cis.udel.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh