From: mrahman@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Mushfiqur Rahman)
Subject: Re: Our attitude towards homosexuality
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
	<MRAHMAN.92Jul30162019@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>
	<1992Jul30.213312.11603@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:35:28 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Jul30.213312.11603@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
   In article <MRAHMAN.92Jul30162019@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>, mrahman@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Mushfiqur Rahman) writes:
   > In article <1992Jul30.181126.9182@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

   > Depends. Let's leave religion aside. If say A decides to enagage in 
   > sexual activities with others but both B and A have an understanding
   > (in other words it's also ok for B to have sex with others) then I dont
   > think anyone should get hurt. If they dont have an understanding then
   > it is not moral as long as a marriage contract is concerned. The point
   > is as long as couples are not engaging in acts that are harming each
   > other (or others) then things are ok.

   Well, we could get into a long discussion on the point of marriage in
   that context, but I think we have very different views on that. :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way that is not the view I subscribe to also. It was merely an
example that I was trying to present.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   > >   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.  
   >                 ^^^^^^
   > It should be considered immoral as long as the couples engaged in it
   > are not harming each other or society in genaral. And it would be
   > ideal the majority of the people weren't homophobic. 
   > People should be valued for what they are and not for their 
   > sexual orientation.

   I'm not sure what you understand by "homophobic."  I do know quite a
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^
   number of homosexual people, and have no problems getting along with
   them at all.  I certainly treat them no differently from any others.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   But I do consider homosexual acts to be sinful and immoral, just like
   ^^^^^^^^^
   I consider many other acts to be sinful and immoral.  For that, the
   people who commit them will be responsible to God, not me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shakil, Shakil what made you ever think that I was calling you
homophobic. If you notice I was just commenting on what you had said
before where you wrote (in response to Zunaid's article)
"homosexuality is sexual tendency which should not be considered
immoral and nobody should feel uncomfortable about it." Isn't it 
asking to much that _nobody_ should feel uncomfortable about it? 
Which is why I wrote that it would be _ideal_ if people weren't
homophobic. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              
   > >   Now the
   > >   problem is, why should B be hurt?  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?  
   >                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   > I'm not sure here, but are you saying that homosexuality means having
   > multiple sexual partners and/or being promiscous? Not the ones I
   > know.

   No, that was not my point.  What I mean is that if homosexuality is
   just an orientation, then why shouldn't the need for multiple partners
   be considered an "orientation?"  
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine if that is how you are defining it. But the point still is what
sort of understanding say A nd B (assuming they are lovers) have
regarding sex with others. I have already mentioned this before. Why
should B get hurt if both A and B decided to have sex with others
other than themselves.

The way, I see it and the way Zunaid sees it it who's hurting
who. If nobody's getting hurt in the process then everything is 
hunky-dory.Anyway, this discussion is getting out of hand and this w
ill be my last response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
   And if so, then why should person B
   feel hurt by what person A did?  I was merely looking for a
   consistent solid basis for the views being advocated, and was thus
   pointing out what I think are shortfalls in the approach presented.

   -- Shakil


Tushu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh