From: kazi@bugs.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi)
Subject: Re: Our attitude towards homosexuality
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:04:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.210952.27296@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>I actually thought I might just be able to survive the whole summer
>without getting drawn into another major scb-debate... :)  I guess
>it's not going to happen, so here goes:

Welcome back, Shakil :) Sorry to have dragged you out into the fray.

>Your second paragraph on judging a person's merits and contributions
>to mankind is well taken.  But I do believe it is an orthogonal issue
>to the question of morality.  Islam condemns homosexual *acts* as
>immoral.  In much the same way, adultry as well as premarital sex is
>prohibited.  Hence, from the Islamic perspective, considering
>homosexual *acts* as immoral is no less reasonable than considering
>adultry unacceptable.

Discussing this from the Islamic point of view, all immoral acts
are unacceptable. From that perspective, there can be no two ways about
this. What is immoral is proscribed. Ergo, no contention here.
However, I am discussing this from my own canonical belief systems.

>A lot of people will vehemently oppose any form of adultry as a
>distinctly immoral, unacceptable act.  The implication is that people
>should *refrain* from engaging in such acts.  But these same people
>fail to see why expecting homosexuals to abstain from sexual acts is
>not a significantly different issue.  Hence, if we accept
>homosexuality and its practice as a freedom of personal choice with no
>moral obligations, we should treat adultry in the same vein, right?

Why can't the two be significantly different issues? Isn't morality a
matter of perception? What I perceive to be immoral may not be perceived
as such by another person. My views on adultery, or homosexuality, or
murder etc are governed by my own canon of morality. It is a set of
value system with which I am comfortable. To a major extent, this
set might overlap the set of morality as espoused by the major religions, 
but, in many ways, there are irreconcilable differences. 

>There is no provision in Islam for homosexual marriages.  In light of
>your friend's comments on homosexual marriages defying evolutionary
>goals, one could construct the argument that your definition of good
>human beings may look somewhat shaky.  After all, could one not argue
>that purposely engaging in acts that are evolutionarily
>counter-productive may be construed as harmful to mankind?  I suppose
>that would depend on whether you consider continuation of the human
>race an important and "good" quest.

Sometimes, I ask myself the same question :)

But seriously, this is a non-sequitur. I can't really argue from the
perspective of my friend, but let me shore up my definition of a good
human being :) 

I am not too worried that homosexual practices might result in the
extinction of the human species. Since heterosexual acts are the norm,
I suppose ascribing this as a reason for species extinction is something
that does not fly against my definition of doing good for mankind. In 
such a case, each and every human being who has not had a direct
involvement in the birth of a child is contributing to the end of Man.
Would you consider heterosexual couples who chose not bear a child
to be evolutionary counter-productive? 

I suppose a gay or a lesbian person might be better suited to argue
their case for acceptance into society. To be frank, I may defend
their rights, I am not too comfortable with their actions. My morality
tells me that homosexuals have normal rights, while from another perspective
I cannot comprehend how such actions are motivated. I suppose its 
in the genes. 

>Essentially what I'm trying to say is that Islam has a clear position
>on homosexuality, namely that homosexual *acts* are sinful.  You may,
>of course, choose to distance yourself from that standpoint and
>advocate the opposite.  But if you do, then you risk treading on
>inconsistent ground unless you also advocate open marriages, adultry,
>premarital sex, and whatever else may fall into that category.  If you
>do support and believe in all the latter, then your point is well
>taken, and I guess we just stand on two completely different sides of
>the issue.

Yes, Islam has a clear position. No arguments there.

In each of 'whatever else falls in that category' I may or may not
have views diametrically opposite yours. In each of the category
I use my own value system to judge the morality of action. 

To many, they may appear inconsistent; but I am comfortable with my 
beliefs.  However, I am not here to argue about my own belief system. 
This sort of discussion never gets anywhere and leads to a mindless
exchange of unchangeable opinions. I have simply expressed my attitudes 
towards homosexuals, and I am not here to justify my beliefs.  

Let me reiterate: On the basis of Islam as a value system there can
really be no discussion. It is known and understood what Islam advocates
and what it does not. 

>-- 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
>=======================================================================
>

- Zunaid Kazi
  kazi@cis.udel.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh