HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:46:50 GMT
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

In article <Bx7yqp.50o@access.digex.com> bruceg@access.digex.com (Bruce Garrett) writes:
>  nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>
> > It seems to me that you are saying that societies have no right at all to
> > sanction some forms of behavior and not others.
>
>        It seems to me you are saying that societies have a blanket right to 
>regulate whatever and whomever they please for any reason at all however
>irrational or ignorant or destructive to that society's fabric.  Correct me if
>I'm wrong...then tell me where you find the basis of the right of societies
>to regulate the behavior of citizens if it isn't in someones personal
>prejudices or whims?
>

It's not a blanket right, it's the result of political and cultural   
negotiation.  It may be the result of personal prejudice to some extent,
but it also has to do with discouraging practices that are deemed 
harmful to the society or to the culture.  Example, we don't sanction
the desire of many Morman citizens to have more than one wife.  We don't
sanction the desire of some people to engage in the sex trade or to
walk naked down the street.  
'
> > We don't live in a Libertarian society.
>
>        Does it follow that we live in one where prejudice is entitled to
>prevail over tolerance?  Do we need to live in a Libertarian society to live
>together as equals?  Does the fact that we don't live in such a society mean
>that equal rights under the law is an impractical unachievable or dangerous
>concept?
>
Americans are tolerant.  They simply do not accept the proposition that there
is no moral difference between gay and straight behavior.

> > Through our various levels of government we've allowed certain forms of
> > "private" activities to be constrained.
>
>        Yah...  Question: to what end?  For what purpose?  =Why?=  Does
>constraining homosexual behavior do anyone the slightest shread of good?  Does
>the fact that some private actions are restricted by law mean that =any=
>private actions might as well be?

As I've said, our culture and our laws basically reinforce what the traffic
will allow.  People believe that their kids will live happier lives and that
society will function better if homosexuality is not encouraged.  

>
> > ...it should be clearly understood by now that not all those who
> > oppose placing homosexuality and heterosexuality on the same moral
> > level are practicing hate.
>
>        Hate?  Perhaps, as you say, not.  Bigoted prejudice?  Without doubt.
> 

In your dreams.

Roger Shouse
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: bruceg@access.digex.com (Bruce Garrett)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:01:02 GMT

  nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) avers:

 > So far, no _responsible_ person on either side of this argument has
 > mentioned going to war.  If this is intended as a sly threat, give it your
 > best shot.  You'll be amazed at the backlash against your cause.

       Funny...I heard a LOT of talk about a Cultural War at the Republican
Convention.  Oh...that was supposed to be a metaphor...right...?

       Actually, for a lot of us it =has= become a war pal.  People DIED in 
Oregon when they put question 9 on the ballot.  People are getting clubbed and
shot all over this country just for being homosexual in record numbers.
Question: what would =You= do under those circumstances:

        a) Make sure you knew how to pass for straight before you stepped
           outside.
        b) Learn how to dodge incoming baseball bats, bricks, bullets...
        c) Choose between a .45 ACP (good concealablity, good firepower)
           or a Smith & Wesson Model 25 (more reliable, accepts wide variety
           of slug designs).

       I hear our good friends in the Christian Coalition are planning to 
bring their Oregon show to a few more states to see how well it plays.  I hope
to have settled "c" above for myself before they open in Maryland...

 > Did anyone in this conversation ever mention puting homosexuals in jail?!?

       But....surely....any attempt to remove sodomy laws from the books will
result in an increase in homosexual behavior which will in turn bring about
the prompt extermination of the human race.  We don't want to   Promote  
homosexuality by striking those laws down do we...?

       Here's a real question:  Do you seriously expect that the voting
population of any state will be inclined to see us as anything other then a
threat to their existence so long as we are kept isolated and invisible by
other laws which you so heartily approve of?  Will they strike down their
sodomy laws when all they know about homosexuality is what they are allowed
to hear from bigots?  Will juries treat us fairly if all they know about a
homosexual defendant is what they've been told by those that hate us?  There
is a cause and effect between the isolation you wish to impose upon us and
the jail cell...or the prison camp.  If you think it's possible to have a 
decent and stable society with, oh, just a little   prudent   penning off of
certain undesirables then I recommend a trek to your nearest holocaust
museum.

 > I will continue to speak my mind, of course, and the direction we take
 > as a society will continue to be as much my business as it is yours.

       Except that we will have to live under the burden of the discrimination
that you want to keep legal.  But, yes, we will =all= have to live with the
torn and fragmented society of your dreams.

-Bruce Garrett

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: erin@cwis.unomaha.edu (Erin A. Porterfield)
Subject: Re: CO-2 and OR-9 mentioned on Melrose Place
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
 I was VERY impressed with the few lines on "Melrose Place" about the two 
Distribution: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:19:54 GMT
From: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Homosexual Stereotypes (W
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:29:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 

...KL>Not only can I think of a similar stereotype for a heterosexual person,
KL>but it appears to me that our culture attempts to set these stereotypes to
KL>be emulated!!!  Can you say "macho" and "bimbo"?  Sure; I knew you could.

KL>BTW, my girlfriend thought I was gay before getting to know me ;-)

Hmm... My family and friends were convinced that I was straight until
I "straightened" them out on that!!  
"Really son, how could you possibly be gay" (...no such thing as a
bodybuilder/jock who is gay right!!!).  "The girls are always after you..
why don't you just meet a nice girl (and lie to her/yourself and kill
yourself when your 40 because you wasted your precious lie living a lie.)
---
 . DeLuxe. 1.21 #777sa . I tried the rest but bought the worst!!!!
                                                                                                                               
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: bruceg@access.digex.com (Bruce Garrett)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:02:13 GMT

 gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes Roger...and
 nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) promptly misses the point...:

 >> >Incidentally, prostitution is legal here in Germany.  As a result,
 >> >there is less of it and it is less visible (because it is regulated
 >> >and localized.)

 > Incidently, if we wanted to be Germany we could have done this along time
 > ago.  We are the United States, and love it or not, we do things
 > differently.

       Try appealing to him using examples of how things were done in Germany
in the Mid 1930s...I bet he'll like those a lot better...


From: Alan.Moorman@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Alan Moorman)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Opinions. LIGHTEN UP. (w
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 11:21:08 -0600


Oh... lighten up, Melinda!

Fido :-)

 * OLX 2.2 * Life... a sexually transmitted disease!

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: Rob Gordon <rgordon@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: OR-9 Shot Down! CO-2???
Originator: rgordon@cvxcs.cs.convex.com
Reply-To: rgordon@convex.COM (Rob Gordon)
Organization: CONVEX Colorado Springs, CO
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 17:12:17 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Nov4.063718.24291@oswego.Oswego.EDU> kinne@oswego.Oswego.EDU () writes:
:Folks:
:	I have just recieved word from OR that OR-2 Was SHOT DOWN
:60-40!!!!!
:
:	Still no news from CO...
:
:				Doc Kinne
:				kinnerc@snymorva.BITNET


Sad and embarrassed to say that Amendment #2 in CO passed 53-47.
Lawsuit expected to be filed within a week. A group of Denver
lawyers have been preparing a case for a long time and are ready
to jump in. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ag055@yfn.ysu.edu (Ward Chanley)
Subject: Re: why call it hate?
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:08:55 GMT


Re: I knew what it said when I voted for it...

Then you DO deserve the anger you've been getting.

-- 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics
From: gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 13:38:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.010129.13370@ncar.ucar.edu>
gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:


>  It all depends on how we agree what "rights" there are, doesn't it? I don't
>  include housing, employment, medical care, &c as "rights". I do include
>  free speech and the freedom of association (and the concomitant freedom of
>  dissociation) as rights. Yelling "faggot" at someone shouldn't land me in
>  jail, nor should refusing to hire a gay for a job I have.

Do you include equal protection under the law?  If you do, and you
voted for #2, you are either a moron or a bigot, or possibly both.

In any case, get this crap off of soc.motss.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:19:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.184710.23513@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.191428.22327@midway.uchicago.edu>
>nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>
>>Next, and more specifically, are societies obligated to allow all forms of
>>sexual behavior?  What about incest between adults? 
>
>What about incest between adults?  Do you have an argument here, or
>are we just supposed to recoil in horror?

No, simply admit the point that not all sexual acts between consenting
adults are sanctioned.  A brother and sister or a pair of first cousins
could not marry in this country, correct?  Is this unconscienable 
discrimination?
>
>>In fact, what about sexual relations between adults and children?  If
>>you say "that's different, we're only talking about relationships
>>between adults," then I'll argue that that is your own little bias.
>>Why shouldn't young people be allowed to have sex with whomever they
>>wish?
>
>An interesting thing about children which you may not have noticed is
>that they need care and attention from adults.  If you are talking
>about teenagers, different places have different rules.  At what age
>should we quit trying to defend the young, and give them the freedom
>to decide?  This is not something on which a large theoretical claim
>can be made, because by the nature of the human species, we must
>defend the young from themselves below a certain age, at any rate.
>

But again, we do make laws governing what is and is not acceptable.
By the way, if you're going to talk about "the human species", it's
interesting to note that it's preservation is not entirely compatable
with homosexuality, no?

>>The point is, you've chosen to engage in a practice/lifestyle that a large 
>>portion of the population do not wish to see sanctioned or legitimized into
>>the public realm.  You can huff and puff all you like, this is simply the
>>way it is at this time.  You have a right to try to persuade people to change
>>their minds, but I doubt if you will have any success by improperly casting
>>people as bigots.
>
>If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I say it is a duck.
>You don't want to be called a bigot because you don't like the
>implications of the word, but you don't dislike them enough to leave
>off being a bigot.
>
And I would suggest that you don't like being called "abnormal" because
you don't like the implications of that word.  Be clear about this,
you can't continue to engage in name calling without it being returned.

Roger Shouse


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 18:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.211302.19349@midway.uchicago.edu>
nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:

>>You might point out why it is a bad idea.  If you don't know
>>why it is a bad idea, then what is your point?

>I'll grant you that there may be no objective argument against prostitution.
>But this doesn't that societies have not legitimate basis for restricting it.

This is a contradiction.  In essence, you've just said "I'll grant you
there may be no legitimate reason to restrict prostitution.  But that
doesn't mean that societies have no legitimate reason to restrict
prostitution."  If no reason exists, society can't have one.

Can you at least try to make a coherent argument for some position?

>The teenager may not be mature enough to understand why becoming a prostitute
>is not a healthy road to pursue.  So, we tell them that it's an undignified
>profession, not worthy of their talent and effort.

This is pretty dumb psychology, and I also don't know what it has to do
with questions about what laws should or should not exist.

>Incidently, if we wanted to be Germany we could have done this along time
>ago.  We are the United States, and love it or not, we do things differently.

Get around in the world and you find that some things we do better,
and some worse.  When we seem to be doing worse is not the right time
to get smug about the Good Old USA.




-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:7029 soc.motss:46981
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: QRD: Colorado Directory created
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:31:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: localhos.9211110631.AA100204
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA21009; Tue, 10 Nov 92 22:31:38 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA06216; Tue, 10 Nov 92 22:31:36 -0800
X-Received: from localhost (marcus.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB39);id AA11713; Wed, 11 Nov 92 01:31:23 EST for soc.motss.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by localhost (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/AIXV3-SUB16) via SMTP;id AA100204; Wed, 11 Nov 92 01:31:43 -0500 for amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu
X-To: soc.motss.usenet, alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet
X-Cc: gaynet@gallifrey.kent.edu, qn@queernet.org, amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu


I have created a directory on the QRD [anonymous ftp /pub/QRD on nifty.andrew.
cmu.edu] in the rights directory [full path: /pub/QRD/qrd/rights/colorado]
that contains a list of addresses that people can write to expressing
their reaction about the Colorado Constitution #2. There are also 
newspaper articles on Amendment 2 and copies of the Colorado Voters Guide
and a bunch of stuff.

The idea is to use the /pub/QRD/qrd/rights/colorado directory as a resource
to help people get info about the Colorado situation dispersed. If you have
anything to add either send it to me by email, or upload it into 
/pub/QRD/incoming.

---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ***Clinton-Gore 92!***
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"A visceral recoil from homosexuality is the natural reaction of a healthy
society wishing to preserve itself." Pat Buchanan, March 27, 1991, N.Y. POST
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: kraig@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kraig Count)
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:52:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.132745.44592@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> rminor@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>A question of clarification:  Does the Colorado vote mean that I can
>discriminate against people who are straight?  Could I as governor
>announce that I will not hire any self-proclaimed or suspected
>heterosexuals?  In other words, I can discriminate on the basis of
>sexual orientation if I want and exclude heterosexuals since they are
>no longer protected either?
>
>It looks to me like protection from discrimination does not give
>special rights to gay and lesbian people, but that it protects
>everyone from such discrimination on the basis of their sexual
>orientation.
>
>Just a thought!

 valid thought.  You are right, the CO vote does mean that anybody
 can discriminate against anybody else on the basis of sexual 
 orientation.  Of course, the likelyhood of any largescale 
 discrimination of straights is fairly small, BUT it would be
 legal.

 Kind of ironic isn't it?  The fundies used the claim that by 
 passing this amendment those people that voted for it would
 insure that we  (LGB) wouldn't be gaining any special rights.
 Yet, at the same time the fundimentalists  basicially prevented
 ANYBODY, even heterosexuals, drom claiming discrimination on
 the basis of sexual orintation.

later,

Kraig
From: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: From Russia With Love
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:29:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 

KT>From: thornek@mis.tridom.com (Keith Thorne)
KT>Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality

KT>Who could we write that might help influence the people of Russia to
KT>support Yeltsin's position. Amnesty International? Please post the
KT>address if you know it.

I thought Amnesty International still had its head stuck in the mud
over gay/lesbian issues.
Have they woken up?  Let me know if they have!
TTYL
---
 . DeLuxe. 1.21 #777sa . Go ahead! Do it! You can always apologise later.
                   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Someone PLEASE post the outcomes of No. 9 and Colorado events!!
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 15:29:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Nov4.210115.3989@ultb.isc.rit.edu> kjc7435@ultb.isc.rit.edu (K.J. Cater) writes:
>Someone out there, PLEASE post these!!!  and hurry up!!
>You'd think on a community newsgroup like this one, info like this
>would be posted this morning!!!

    9 failed. 2 passed.  Details in soc.motss.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightm
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 13:49:36 GMT

In article <287.1652.uupcb@synapse.org> steve.connelly@synapse.org
(Steve Connelly) writes:

>I fully agree with RS.  How can people be educated/discuss views openly
>and honestly.  That attitude help perpetuate the bariers bettween
>gays and straights, lesbians and gays ect...

This is not a dialogue between glbs and straights, but between bigots
and anti-bigots.  Straight people are welcome on soc.motss.  Bigots
are not.

>Who are you (**) to decide that no one was interested.  Have you not seen 
>the dialogue.  Obviously YOU are wrong.  Anti-het is equally as wrong
>as anti-gay!

Anti-het has nothing to do with it.  It is a matter of anti-bigots.
If you want to defend the moral equivalent of the KKK, go ahead.  But
know what you are doing.


-- 
   Eugen W. Schmidt/Der Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 18:37:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.153425.15414@midway.uchicago.edu>
nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:

>I might make one more point here.  A teenager makes the statement,
>"I'm going to be a prostitue one day because if you're really good
>and can make the right connections you can make a lot of money and
>have a very comfortable life."  What constitutes an appropriate
>response to this remark?  Should we say, "that's great, go for it!"?

You might point out why it is a bad idea.  If you don't know
why it is a bad idea, then what is your point?

>The point is that societies have always sanctioned some forms of
>conduct and constrained others in order to maintain what might be
>called the social fabric.

I don't see what the social fabric has to do with it.  Are you going to
tell the teenager not to be a prostitute in order to maintain the
social fabric?  I doubt you would get much respect for that argument,
and would deserve none.

Incidentally, prostitution is legal here in Germany.  As a result,
there is less of it and it is less visible (because it is regulated
and localized.)


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gns0897@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: homosexual adoption
Reply-To: gns0897@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 02:27:16 GMT


  I am writing an opposing viewpoints paper for a class on homosexual adoption
So far I have been unable to find a lot of information on whether homosexual
couples should or should not be able to adopt.
  I would greatly appreciate any information you may have on this topic.
  Thanks in advance!
                                         Nicole
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics