Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!dyer From: dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Dammit Dyer Message-ID: <19639@wivax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Jun-84 08:26:41 EDT Article-I.D.: wivax.19639 Posted: Thu Jun 21 08:26:41 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 01:12:40 EDT References: <1780@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma. 01879 Lines: 18 OK, Ken, I see your point, though I don't exactly agree with it. That is, I really see speaking from morals as at a finer level of granularity than is really needed here. That is, I see the situation of gays as pretty much the same situation as blacks in the 60's, where most of the problem stems from ignorance rather than moral outrage. Thus, when you asked gays to speak from moral causes, I thought it was not necessary, since the corresponding argument for straight people (hey, why should you be allowed to live) never comes up, and of course it's evident to all of us arguing one side! But, perhaps I'm off base here. Couching your arguments in the politics of pragmatics is a bit more persuasive. I don't see any problem with formulating a statement based from morals--a "Summa Homosexualica", if you will, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's necessary. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA