News
Harvard Medical School Cancels Student Groups’ Pro-Palestine Vigil
News
Former FTC Chair Lina Khan Urges Democrats to Rethink Federal Agency Function at IOP Forum
News
Cyanobacteria Advisory Expected To Lift Before Head of the Charles Regatta
News
After QuOffice’s Closure, Its Staff Are No Longer Confidential Resources for Students Reporting Sexual Misconduct
News
Harvard Still On Track To Reach Fossil Fuel-Neutral Status by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds
To the editors:
As a religious heterosexual I feel suited to criticize Hugh Liebert's position on homosexuality. Introducing religion into political debate is unfriendly. Just as I do not expect those who morally disagree with me to study the Parjnaparamita, it is absurd to posit that Christian moralists can only be opposed with Biblical criticism.
Eventually political dialogue will devolve into textual analysis in dead languages. Christians have argued that the Jews are immoral because they killed our saviour. Must we entertain such blatant nonsense, even for a moment? Clearly couching social debate in the context of personal religious experience is untenable.
As far as tradition is concerned, homosexuality is ancient and well established. Plato (via Aristophanes) strongly argues for its superiority in the Symposium.
Finally, homosexuality tends to lower population and thus could be an incredibly useful tool in the modern social context. Perhaps it is time that the essentially anachronistic practice of heterosexual monogamy disappear. NATHAN W. HILL '02 Nov. 2, 1998
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.