From: exuhaak@exu.ericsson.se (Haseeb Akhtar)
Subject: Re: Our attitude towards homosexuality
Reply-To: exuhaak@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:53:34 GMT

In article 20778@udel.edu, kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>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.
>
>

The inconsistency however, still remains. How would one judge an action to be harmful or harmless? To you adultery is a breech of contract, because it "is violeting a trust that is inherent in a marriage." Apart from Shakil's point (the trust between  homosexuals) there is a legitimate fear of spreading AIDS through homosexual activities which ought to concern all. What does Zunaid's Axiom 1 ascribe to this potential threat? I'd assume that your Axiom 1 does not consider this harmful to any "Z, where Z is 




an element of {Y: Y-> the set of human beings}." I know, it's not only the homosexuals who are spreading the AIDS however, they are still the main vehicle. 

Nothing against your personal beliefs but let's say your neighbour's house catches fire and you stand still ... we'll know what can happen! Regards.

ha
 
>-- Zunaid Kazi
>   kazi@cis.udel.edu
>




Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh