HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mudge@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MUDGE BRIAN WAYNE)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:56:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.000347.21162@col.hp.com> vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin) writes:
> What Amendment 2 states is that homosexual, bi-sexual or hetero-
>sexual behavior is not a valid reason to demand government dollars be
>allocated to pursue claims of discrimination. 
  even if true.

> The Supreme Court
>agreed that sodomy laws do not abridge "due process" (Hardwick v.
>Bowers, 1986), so behavior is not considered an "unalienable right".
  Due process?  As long as they get a trial they get due process.
Are you sure you don't mean cruel and unusual?

> Homosexuals can still pursue wrongful-discharge suits, but their
>behavior is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the
>employer.  Amendment 2 keeps Coloradoans on equal footing in the Civil
  Flat out wrong.  At least with regards to their sexual orientation.
What CO2 did was:
  1.) Make it legal for any employer in the state to fire an employee
      for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual.  That's regardless of on the
      job performance BTW.
  2.) Make all laws that would protect LGBO folks invalid.


>Rights arena.  No special rights or considerations are appropriate for
>a group whose BEHAVIOR sets them apart from the (vast) majority.

  Ok, I give up.  I can't think of any.  Name one local ordinance in 
the state of colorado that granted homosexuals special rights.  Please
enumerate these special rights.  I have to know what they are.
  BTW, you are wrong about one thing.  In Boulder, people could not
be discriminated against on the basis of their SEXUAL ORIENTATION,
LGB or straight.  Now, only straight people are protected, making things
decidedly UNEQUAL.
  Go ahead and email me those special rights... c'mon I dare ya! :)

                     Bri.....
From: doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:43:24 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <BxKzyt.Kwr@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim  
Pierce) writes:
> In article <Nov11.212152.61564@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  
doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe) writes:
> 
> >I'm sure there are  
> >many at CFV who would have welcomed him with open arms and tried to  
ease  
> >his pain had he made an effort to contact them for help.
> 
> Open arms ... and latex gloves ... and surgical masks ... and,
> undoubtedly, some handy-dandy legal writ.  They're so good at that,
> after all.
> 

Interesting...for someone who probably doesn't appreciate being  
stereotyped, you apparently are more than willing to dish it out.  But,  
we're all hypocrites in the end.

> >Moreover, please  
> >don't refer to the people at CFV as "ilk."  Can't someone disagree with  
> >you without you resorting to name-calling and insults?
> 
> Bastard.  All Amendment 2 means to you is "disagreement?"  Where the
> fuck did you learn to read?

Your eloquence leaves me dumbfounded.  I'm still learning to read, so I  
can't answer your question at this time.  However, we seem to be talking  
in terms of those who were in favor of Amendment 2 versus those opposed to  
it.  That would imply less than complete agreement on the issue, would it  
not?  I hesitated a long time, first in support, then against, before  
deciding how I would vote on Amendment 2.  People like you certainly don't  
convince me that I voted incorrectly.  In fact, I've heard several people  
who voted against the amendment say that they would now vote in support of  
it, seeing the outpouring of hate and propaganda from the homosexual  
community in the past few weeks.  In any case, when the time came to vote,  
I found myself in agreement with Amendment 2, that homosexuals should not  
be entitled to protected status on an equal footing with underprivileged  
and politically weak minorities.  But I guess everyone's entitled to your  
opinion.  Case closed.
From: jbibb@eng.auburn.edu (John S. Bibb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Misogyny gay and straight
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:12:19 GMT
Reply-To: jbibb@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering

In article 19666@wam.umd.edu, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.193241.17305@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> >In article <13179@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
> >writes:
> >
> >>I never cease to be amazed at how:
> >
> >>3. how often homosexual men in soc.motss insist on childish
> >>insults based on the assumption that women are inferior.  (Like
> >>the example above).
> >
> >What a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black.  Vast
> >numbers of heterosexual men are constantly making childish insults
> >based on the notion that women are inferior.  Also based on the notion
> >that homosexuals are inferior.  This is so obvious it is a stereotype.
> 
> I do not see a real correlation between these two paragraphs.
> 
> 
> >>Of course, the misogyny of male homosexuals isn't surprising,
> >>if you simply interpret it as the response of someone filled
> >>with self-loathing about their efforts to fulfill (at least
> >>occasionally) a role that the male homosexual regards as "female."
> >
> >This presumes women are inferior in order to conclude male homosexuals
> >are inferior.  
> 
> Not really. What the original poster said was: That male homosexuals 
> REGARD as female.
> So, he is not giving his own idea about women, but he is presenting his
> idea about how homosexuals regard women.
> His comment, even if wrong, has nothing to do with his idea about women.
> 
> 
> >-- 
> >     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
> >               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
> 
> AAP
> 


This may be off the point so let the flames fly, but.....

Why are these people telling me that I am full of self loathing????

I wouldn't exactly say that I am a George Stephenopolous (sp?) or anything,
but I do find an awful lot of worth within myself.  And further, how do you,
my advisor (long story), or anyone else know how I regard women?



Family Value:	1 homoerotic Border Collie (Harken)
		1 pregnant Shar-Pei (Miss Maudine or Miss Thaaang)
		1 Grandfather Clock (Grandfather)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 __           ___________________________
FAMILY VALUES in a new light!!   \/          |_____________/\____________|
                                             |____________/  \___________|
                                             |___________/    \__________|
   J. (not John) Bibb                        |__________/      \_________|
   email: jbibb@eng.auburn.edu               |_________/        \________|
                                             |________/__________\_______|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mind is like a parachute---
It only works when it is open ;-)
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Let's end this dual-sided flame war!
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:22:52 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Nov22.013359.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>, cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
>
> 	Understand, there are homosexuals and even "asexuals" (people who
> recognize NO sex).  They have the freedom to live as they want to.

Is this cretin for real?   He announces he is "sorting this mess out"
and immediately reveals that he doesn't even know the legal status of
Gays in many states.

I guess they're right when they say that ignorance is bliss.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:34:53 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <Nov18.202737.72955@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe) writes:
>
>No, I'm not from the "all gays are child molesters" category.  What I do  
>object to is the presentation of homosexuality in public education as  
>somehow just another "normal" lifestyle.  I recently read an article in  
>the National Review (my roommate subscribes, not me!) where children in  
>the New York City public education system are given books to read in which  
>"Jane is presented with her two mommies," etc.  Parents who object to this  
>kind of indoctrination of ideology in the classroom are told by the  
>admistration to just butt out.

    What an awful thing!  The administration is trying to give kids a
realistic view of the world in bare-faced defiance of parents who would
rather control their kids' ideaology!  BTW, to present reality is not the
same as "indoctrination of ideaology".  That kind of mis-association has
OCA and other hate groups' fingerprints all over it.
    Oh, and gay identity is "just another normal" human condition...perhaps
your kids will realize that if you don't tell them otherwise.  Do you think
kids would find same-sex couples' holding hands to be wrong in the
*absence* of bigotted input from "adults"?

>....if you want to make an appeal to logic, then obviously men  
>were meant to have sex with women.  A cursory examination of human anatomy  
>will reveal that. 

    Oh, gawd, not this again.  Here's a relevation for you: there is more
to sex than pumping away in the missionary position for 15 seconds (and
lots of hets practice exactly what lots of gays do).

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ckincy@mcs213h.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado)
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:51:55 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

Attribution:
>> g-skinner@uiuc.edu
>  jmacvean@willamette.edu (Jennifer MacVean)
   cpk

>>Most (all?) current English translations of Paul's letters contain
>>references to homosexuality.  Once instance is in 1 Corinthians:
>>
>>   Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male
>>   prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives, ..., will inherit

In the KJV, this appears as "effeminate."  This is a euphemism for
"catamite," which is a male prostitute.  Even so, the Pauline Epistles
are not fundamental to Christianity.  Just the early Christian church.
Paul screwed it up, just like Pat Robertson's doing.  

Call me a heretic, and you reserve the right to bite me.  :)

BTW, don't post this drivel to soc.motss.  Most ppl there could
not care less.  It gets enough traffic as it is.

[...]
>
>Not to mention that all of the references in the New Testament to
>homosexuality are made by Paul except, I believe, an epistle (letter)
>by Peter, which several bible scholars have said appears to have been
>rewritten.  

Agreed.  I've always said that Paul was a weenie.  I always get a 
funny look when I say it, too.  :)

cpk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: mohlrich@cs.washington.edu (Miles Ohlrich)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 04:48:21 GMT

In article <18NOV199212170243@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>The new catechism essentially reaffirms the old "hate the sin, love
>the sinner," approach to homosexuality in the mainstream Catholic 
>church.  This is the kind of teaching which resulted in the 
>burning of witches to save their souls.  That's just what we need
>in 1992.  Geesh.
>Scott I. Chase		
NEW CATECHISM FOR CATHOLICS DEFINES SINS OF MODERN WORLD:
(from NY Times)

"For the first time in more than four centuries, the Roman Catholic Church
today issued a new universal catechism, a massive compendium of its teachings
that reaffirms traditional tenets but also identifies a range of new sins
that are products of modern-day society.... <including> tax evasion, 
drug abuse, mistreatment of immigrants, financial speculation, abuse 
of environment, artificial insemination and genetic engineering."

....<later on> "In denouncing all sexual relations except those 
between husband and wife, however, the catechism does hint at new 
understanding of homosexuality.  It says that, while homosexuality is
'against the natural law', a 'not negligible' number of men and women
present fundamental homosexual tendencies.
   'They do not choose their homosexual condition', it goes on.  'For
most of them, it is an ordeal.  They should be treated with respect, 
compassion and sensitivity.  All manner of unjust discrimination should
be avoided with respect to them.'  It adds that homosexuals should 
nonetheless remain chaste."

Everything above is excerpted from the NY Times, Nov 17, 1992.

					Miles Ohlrich 



Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jbibb@eng.auburn.edu (John S. Bibb)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Reply-To: jbibb@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:09:18 GMT

In article 92Nov20005249@hurricane.cs.odu.edu, wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:

> I wonder if everyone out there actually believes that true Christianity
> is about "bashing sinners."  It's not, if you go by the original teachings.
> Check it out.  Though it does expect conformity to its own standards,
> this was supposed to be voluntary, sincere, and by persuasion, resting in the
> fact that it would prove itself true by the individual's application.
> 
> Waddy'all think about all this?


I will say that many of your views are not mainstream Christian (for the South any way), and
I applaud you for holding to what you believe.  I find that MOST Christians here do NOT
believe that it is supposed to be voluntary (we will leave sincerity alone for now).

For me, the Christian ideal, Jesus giving his life for other's sins (yes I know that this
is an oversimplification), just does not work.  I am the only one responsible for my
actions, and I will receive just compensation for them (good and bad 3X over).  

I find justifying criminalizing MY behavior based on YOUR religion distasteful.  I find
denying MY right to pursue a claim of discriminization based on YOUR religion distasteful
and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  

An it harm none, do what you will.



Family Value:	1 homoerotic Border Collie (Harken)
		1 pregnant Shar-Pei (Miss Maudine or Miss Thaaang)
		1 Grandfather Clock (Grandfather)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 __           ___________________________
FAMILY VALUES in a new light!!   \/          |_____________/\____________|
                                             |____________/  \___________|
                                             |___________/    \__________|
   J. (not John) Bibb                        |__________/      \_________|
   email: jbibb@eng.auburn.edu               |_________/        \________|
                                             |________/__________\_______|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mind is like a parachute---
It only works when it is open ;-)




Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dpizzo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (David Pizzo)
Subject: Re: Don't Promote it as a lifestyle
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:56:12 GMT

In article <BxxAvH.4tF@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v115r4q5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
(Perry M Jowsey) writes:
> 
> 
>    I understand that homosexuals in today's society face widespread discrimina-
> tion and abuse, but instead of taking a hint, it seems to make the gay commun-
> ity want to be in limelight even more.  America does not wish to see gay pro-
> testors fighting for gay rights and preaching their platform to those who give
> them the time.  While physically assaulting a homosexual may be wrong, these 
> acts are only encouraged by the homosexuals themselves.  If they would take the
> time to realize that their way of living is wrong and more importantly that 
> society doesn't want to hear it falsely declared a lifestyle, they would realize
> the way to combat this discrimination is to adopt a normal kind of lifestyle and
> stop corrupting others.  
>  See Old Testament, Leviticus 20:13
> 
What a pile of SHIT!!!!!!!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing)
Subject: CWA letter for monetary support
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:41:44 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville


The following letter was sent to a friend of mine who ask me about it and
the organization that sent it.  I pass the letter and the article on to you:

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM CWA PRESIDENT BEVERLY LAHAYE

	In this critical election year, the situation in Washington is
	urgent.  And Concerned Women for America needs your immediate help. 
	U.S. Senate Bill 574 (and its House companion version H. R. 1430)
	opposes everything God intends for the family.  The homosexual and
	lesbian lobbies have already pressured many senators and congressmen
	to endorse this dangerous bill.
	
	Please help me stop this anti-family bill.  CWA legal staff,
	legislative analysts, and lobbists are working around the clock to
	rally pro-family congressman and senators on Capitol Hill.  But to
	meet our emergency legislative budget, CWA needs to receive your
	gift before November 23.
	
	Your gift of $20, $25, $35 or more will help.  Please mail your
	contribution today.  God bless you.
	
						Beverly LaHaye, President
						Concerned Women for America

Also attached:

"Concerned Women for America Rallies Thousands Against Homosexual Bill"
which is an unreferenced article which is just entirely TOO long to type in.
Just in summary, the article slams Barney Frank, and Edward Kennedy for
introducing the legislation.  It makes the ye-old arguments of having to be
forced to hire homosexuals if the legislation is passed.  It makes the tired
claim that religious leaders are outraged, but makes no effort to quote or
name anyone.  They misquote and misrepresent a couple of gay activists.  In
general, it is the same kind of trash that was served up, compliments of
Robertson and Co. at the Republican Convention.

Comments and flames are more than welcome.  I believe that, just as calls to
OCA helped hinder their campaign, so calls/letters to this organization will
be equally as hindering to their hateful campaign.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Jansing  |  University of Louisville  |  Dept. of Electrical Engineering
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Real Courage Holds On Only Five Minutes Longer" -- seen recently on a 
                                                    church marquee in
                                                    Louisville, KY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:	The opinions expressed here are strictly my own and do not
		necessarily reflect those of the Department of Electrical
		Engineering or any other department within the University
		of Louisville.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:36:45 GMT

In article <BxxuC7.Kq5@csn.org> kenw@teal.csn.org (Ken Waletzki) writes:
>Look, I don't care what sexual orientation anybody is. Amendment #2 is
>worng BECAUSE to pass a law that prohibits passing other laws, regardless
>of what it is about, is just wrong.

I really hope you don't mean that laws and government involvement are
universally good, and that the government should be free to pass
any laws it likes... After all, the entire point of the Bill of
Rights is to restrict what sort of laws may be passed (no laws about
religion, or limiting freedom of speach, or of the press, etc...)

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Don't Promote it as a lifestyle
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:47:47 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <BxxAvH.4tF@acsu.buffalo.edu> v115r4q5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey) writes:
>
>   I understand that homosexuals in today's society face widespread discrimina-
>tion and abuse, but instead of taking a hint, it seems to make the gay commun-
>ity want to be in limelight even more.  America does not wish to see gay pro-
>testors fighting for gay rights and preaching their platform to those who give
>them the time.  While physically assaulting a homosexual may be wrong, these 
>acts are only encouraged by the homosexuals themselves.  If they would take the
>time to realize that their way of living is wrong and more importantly that 
>society doesn't want to hear it falsely declared a lifestyle, they would realize
>the way to combat this discrimination is to adopt a normal kind of lifestyle and
>stop corrupting others.  

    Perry, m'boy, this drivel has been addressed point-by-point by many
other posters.  If you have the balls to respond, please do so a) without
presuming to speak for all of America, and b) without resorting the the
bible-book to support your bigotry (unless, as others have noted, you
adhere to each and every dictum in Leviticus.

> See Old Testament, Leviticus 20:13

    See Tao Te Ching, 32.  It's a much better book than the bible, btw, and
has had a hell of a lot more followers throughout its history.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: What about OUR rights
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:30:29 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <By6Iqo.Czn@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v115r4q5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey) writes:
> 
>   There has been alot of talk recently about the rights of homosexuals [...]
> With all this talk, however, people are ignoring what is really important- the 
> rights of American men who choose a normal and decent type of lifestyle.  If 
> America gives in to the voice of the minority and grants homosexuals equal 
> rights [...], then America will have ignored the rights of the majority.  

Sorry... you don't have the right to make an entire class of people disappear
just cause you don't like them.

> Just think of the man in the Navy who now 
> is forced to shower with a man who is homosexual.

Sounds like a good premise for a sketch on Saturday Night Live.... maybe the
guy should get soap on a rope... ;)

There already are homosexuals in the military, always have been, and always
will be, even though they are already spending billions trying to smoke them
out, and often falsely accusing heterosexuals in the process.  Changing the
policy against homosexuals would not increase the percentage of homosexuals in
the military, it would just put an end to a lot of stupid, expensive witch
hunts.

- xenon