From: mrahman@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Mushfiqur Rahman)
Subject: Re: Our attitude towards homosexuality
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
	<1992Jul30.015105.29830@cs.yale.edu> <1992Jul30.140620.17886@udel.edu>
	<1992Jul30.181126.9182@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:20:19 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Jul30.181126.9182@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:



>   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.  
    
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.

>   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.


>   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.
I would think that being humans they would want to have one special 
person in their life like many of us.


>   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.  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 believe, regardless of sexual orientation, as long as people aren't
hurting their partners or society, then we shouldn't have a problem
with it. This, I think is what Zunaid is trying to say. If we of
course bring in religion, then as Zunaid has already mentioned, Islam's
position is very clear. 

Hope this doesn't open up a can of worms.
And no flames please.

To Dipen - I congartulate your friend for coming out of the closet. I
can at least imagine what it must have meant for him to come out of
the closet being a South Asian.

>   -- Shakil

Regards,

Tushu.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh