From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Our attitude towards homosexuality
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:52:24 GMT


In article <1992Jul30.174749.3742@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, budaraju@cae.wisc.edu (Srinivas Budaraju) writes:
> In article <1992Jul30.200939.10613@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

> >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.
> 
> Would it be ok in your books if marriage is allowed between homosexuals?
> Is adultery the problem or is it the homosexual act that is the 
> problem? If it is the latter then can you please explain the role
> of sex? Is sex for procreation or recreation? If it is the former, then
> does all sex between heterosexuals result in procreation? Do you then
> prohibit recreational sex (even between married people)? And do you 
> also oppose certain sexual practices among heterosexual married couples?


I think a couple of things need to be clarified here.  As far as *my*
standpoint goes, I would like to think it as that of Islam, i.e. that
homosexual acts, adultery, premarital sex, etc. are all sinful and
hence immoral.  Obviously, not everybody subscribes to Islam, and
thus, not everyone will agree with this standpoint.  I do not have a
problem with that.  The reason I took up the discussion is because it
seemed to me that there were some logical inconsistencies in something
another netter expressed.

You ask whether the problem lies with adultery or with homosexual
acts.  Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly.  I'm looking for
consistency, not problems -- my own views on the morality are clear.
It just seems to me that one could apply the same brand of reasoning
that distances homosexuality from immorality to adultery and reach the
same conclusions.  Hence, it would appear that either they're both
immoral, or they're both moral.

Allowing homosexual marriages and declaring all sexual activity
outside these marriages to be immoral would certainly add consistency
to Zunaid's standpoint, and I guess that is what he implies in his
last article.  But I still see a problem in consistency related to why
marriage should be based on such trust when sexual orientation is an
issue of choice and should not be something considered "immoral."
The point I'm making is that people could argue that sexual activities
with multiple partners is a form of sexual orientation.

Ultimately, my point was that for the sake of logical consistency, one
either has to reject all or accept all as moral.  I choose the former,
Islamic, standpoint.  Needless to say, many others will disagree.  I
am not denying the existence of homosexuals, nor am I advocating any
kind of discrimination against them.  

Now regarding the purpose of sex.  Whether it is for procreation or
recreation or both or neither is not the issue.  My standpoint is that
it is a sin to engage in it outside the bonds of a heterosexual
marriage.  Of course, many will disagree.  But if they do, they may
face some problems of logical consistency unless they advocate a
totally open view of it, free of any kind of restrictions, be they
social or religious in nature.

I hope my point is somewhat clearer now.

-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science     INTERNET: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station   BITNET  : ahmed-shakil@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158      UUCP    : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh