"On homosexuality"

However, I would like to say to Mr. Farjad that, basically the outcry against homosexuality is rooted mainly in the moral ground rather than in its tangible damages to society. It is worthwhile to mention one of radio talk show hosts' ( in USA) comment on homosexuality.

Referring to recent incident of issuing marriage certificates to gay couples in San Francisco, he asked where we should draw the moral line in the name of "individual freedom". He asked the "champions of individuality" that if a brother wants to marry his sister in the name of "free will", weather it would be accepted or not. Needless to say, this is considered to be a shameful act in all the civilized societies not because scientifically it is harmful say, for a brother and sister to be tied in wedlock, rather morally this is degrading and its repercussions are totally against the accepted norms of a civilised society that have been nurtured and protected since the creation of human civilisation.

Similarly homosexuality is such a phenomenon that is against the natural order of life and detrimental to one of the most important institutions of human civilisation, i.e. marriage. Homosexuality is like some century old diseases prevailing in our societies. Unlike finding a cure for those diseases, people like Mr. Farjad want homosexuality to be as it is just because it has been there over the centuries.

While talking about some famous homosexual writers, Mr. Farjad somehow was not able to differentiate between moral value and aesthetic value. A person's artworks might have stunning aesthetic value in the society; where as his personal conducts may be down below the accepted moral standards. In the annals of art and literature, we can see many such instances and we haven't necessarily tossed out the master pieces of many of such artists just because of their mental or behavioural disposition.