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