From: kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi)
Subject: Re: Our attitude towards homosexuality
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:06:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.015105.29830@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul30.010412.17306@udel.edu>, kazi@bugs.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>
>> 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. 
>
>Indeed there may be.  And that is why I was careful to state that you
>are, of course, free to define your own set of morals.  What I was
>questioning was the logical basis to defining such a set, i.e. does it
>make sense to apply different standards to homosexuality than to
>adultery?  If the answer is "yes," my question is "why?"

In any proof system, what logically follows is dependent on the initial set of 
axioms and the rules of deduction. Unfortunately, we are deducing our premises
from a non-matching set of initial axioms. Consequently, what appears to you as 
the application of different standards is, to me, a consistent application.

In my belief system, I would proscribe adultery since it is a violation of
the marriage covenant, with its concomitant understanding of loyalty to one's
spouse. It is an act of betrayal. While homosexuality, with mutual consent,
doesn't come under acts which might engender my proscription.

You may not agree, and that is your prerogative; but drawing again an analogy
from logic, my belief sysetm is 'sound' and 'complete'. At least, to me. :)

>> 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.  
>
>I don't think it was really "justification" that I was looking for.
>You stated a set of beliefs and morals that you stand by.  What I
>would like to know is how you arrive at these beliefs and moral
>values.

Well, my beliefs and values were reached after long deliberations. Right
now, I am comfortable with the set of axioms that are fundamental to my belief
system. An explanation would be too involved and, I suppose, beyond the
limit of patience of SCB'ers. I will be glad to continue this through email.
At a later date, of course. Right now I really do not have the time.
  
>-- 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