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