Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss Subject: Re: Gay Rights Message-ID: <2825@allegra.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 15:27:32 EDT Article-I.D.: allegra.2825 Posted: Tue Oct 2 15:27:32 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 20:06:04 EDT References: <190@usfbobo.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 42 >> Deciding what is right and what is wrong is terribly difficult. >> However, once a society, or an individual, decides what it will >> consider wrong, I believe it's easy enough to divide those acts >> considered wrong into two categories: >> >> Type 0 wrongness: an act which is wrong because it hurts >> another person. >> >> Type 1 wrongness: an act which is wrong because it hurts >> oneself, or [for the religious] because it is unpleasing >> to God. >> >> [Me] > How about: Type 2 wrongness: teaching people that personally harmful > things are okay so long as you only hurt yourself and not > anyone else. > > [Dave Brunson] No, Dave, you got it all screwed up. Do you see the word "okay" anywhere in my article? What I said is that people have a RIGHT to lead their lives as they choose, as long as they don't hurt others. Whether what they do is "okay" or not is irrelevant IN THIS CONTEXT. I can affirm a person's right to make such choices without condoning their actions. This is a crucial distinction, which you fail to understand. Think about this: I support freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything that's ever said. For example, I consider your opinions reprehensible, but I'll defend your right to express them. (On second thought, Dave probably won't understand this example, since he has publicly stated that book-burning is not wrong per se.) -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories