Homosexuality

. PHOTO: AFP

The first time I read Nagorik's mail, I was very surprised. Are the homosexuals in Bangladesh becoming too courageous? Why does this person want rights? How is that possible and I, for one, cannot support such rights? However, Rubayyat's mail was even more surprising- how can a well-educated person living in Australia bear such narrow-minded views! When WHO has removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, how can Rubayyat go on rambling about homosexuality being a disease?

Rubayyat has raised questions regarding family and religion, but he doesn't know that many of our daily behaviour hardly comply with religious beliefs. In a populous country like ours, if a fraction doesn't take part in reproduction, it doesn't cause any harm. Rather it facilitates child adoption. So, from this point of view I can't even agree wholeheartedly with Rubayyat either.

Being in my middle ages, I can't support homosexual rights in Bangladesh. On the other hand, being a part of the progressive civil society I also cant react aggressively like Rubayyat. What I believe is that everyone including homosexuals, is a part of our society and everyone should have the freedom to live his life as he wants.

I read with interest Syed Rubayyat's response to Nagorik on homosexuality (Daily Star, 30 May 2005). Although I am not defending unorthodox sexual, it was utterly disappointing to pick up, in Rubayyat's letter, undertones of religious bigotry and the clear lack of a moral basis to argue against homosexuality. His letter seemed to home in on the fact that homosexuality would lead to the breakdown of the nuclear family and therefore it is a disease. On the point of the breakdown of the nuclear family I would like to remind him that this statement is untrue. Homosexuality is not a modern phenomenon. It has existed since ancient times. So, if homosexuality were to destroy Rubayyat's "family structure" it would have done so already.

Moreover, with a little wisdom it is easy to see that there is no evidence to suggest that the world's gay population has increased disproportionately. It has always been the case that there are more straight people in the world than homosexuals. Where is the threat to the nuclear family? If he claims that homosexuality is a disease then all other forms of birth defects - blindness, Down syndrome, deafness etc - are diseases as well. For the most part, homosexuality is not a lifestyle but a condition that people are born into. So, on what basis could you call Nagorik's condition a disease? I understand sex is a taboo to talk about in certain cultures, and people in those cultures are less inclined to face issues relating to sex head on. This leads to ignorance. And, as they say, little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Saadi Chowdhury, UK