HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kbowles@den.mmc.com (mac bowles)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:06:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.135021.15282@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> smith@dallas.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>Obviously the spirit that guides you is not the Holy Spirit.  No 
>self-respecting Christian would openly support a life style such
>as homosexuality. 
>-- 
>
>==============================================================================
>DPS
>==============================================================================

No person guided by the teachings of the Bible, the Father, the Son, or the 
Holy Spirit would judge another. If they truly read the Book and understood
the spirit of the men and women it is about they would find a place in their
hearts to forgive others who choose differently than they do. They would also
be able to see past the tree in their eye to the goodness any man, woman, or
child can have in them. If they could do this, they could live with them, work
with them, help them, and even love them for the good qualities they have, not
hate them for one personality trait they may have.

You, who has cast a stone, show that you are more a tool of Satan than those
you disapprove of.
Xref: sparky co.general:2458 rec.skiing:9362 rec.travel:17530
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:40:06 GMT

In article <1ifkj2INNoat@hpfcbig.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
> That is pure B***S**T.  You obviously are not in a position to do any
> hiring/firing.  If you were, you would know that the ONLY grounds for
> firing a person are work performance or general layoff.

"Love in Action", a play by Brian

Act 1, scene 1 (at work, in a nice office building):

Employed guy:   You wanted to see me.
Boss:           Yes.  I'm firing you because you're gay.
Unemployed guy: But that's irrelevant to my work.
Boss:           Tough beans.  Be gone.

Act 1, scene 2 (in another nice office building):

Unemployed guy:  I was fired solely because I'm gay.  Sexual orientation
                 was irrelevant to my work.  What can I do?

Lawyer:  Nothing.  The constitution explicitly states that 
         under no circumstances can there ever be a law against 
         discrimination against gays.  Have a nice day.


Act 2, scene 1 (in a nice, quiet apartment complex):

doorbell rings, unemployed guy opens door...

Unemployed guy:   Hi Mr. Landlord!  What's up?
...
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:07:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.135021.15282@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> smith@dallas.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.044543.10771@netcom.com>, altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:
>
>|> John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
>|> ===============================================================
>|> There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
>|> My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
>
>
>Obviously the spirit that guides you is not the Holy Spirit.  No 
>self-respecting Christian would openly support a life style such
>as homosexuality. 
>-- 

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle.  It is a sexual orientation that
we don't scientifically understand, and it occurs in other animals.

My stand was against discrimination.

No self-respecting Christian would openly condemn his fellow man,
but then you didn't say you were.


-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Stripped of Civil Rights?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:22:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.192535.27675@evolving.com> bpk@evolving.com (Brad Knotwell) writes:
>
>I'm tired of everyone pretending the issue is about the fact that the
>amendment leaves a certain groups (hets) with special rights while removing 
>certain rights from other groups.  
>
>Perhaps more relevant discussions would be:
>
>	1)  Does sexual orientation deserve special protection under the law?
>
>	2)  Does anyone believe that the boycott will hurt cities specifically
>	    offering protected status based on sexual orientation while
> 	    not affecting cities in favor of the law. . .many of whose 
>	    citizens may not like Denver, Boulder, or Aspen very much
>	    anyway and thus, get even more satisfaction from the law.
>
>	3)  Does anyone believe this law (or a variant) couldn't pass anywhere              . . .yes even California?
>

I'm not sold on a boycott being the answer.
Colorado happens to be the first place something like this passed.
It is important to understand that this could, and will, happen
elsewhere - yes, even in California - if we are complacent.

>	4)  Why all the anger about the amendment?  Is it because of the fear
>	    generated by the amendment's wording?  It is because it shows
>	    changing political sentiment?  Or is it because this vote was
>	    the first one lost by the gay political community in Colorado 
>  	    (correct me if I am wrong)?
>

It is because the amendment takes away people's rights.
It is because the amendment is yet another step in the direction of
hate and intolerance being made the way of life here in the United States.
It is because the amendment and what it represents IS NOT RIGHT!

>


-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Xref: sparky co.general:2473 rec.skiing:9410 rec.travel:17602
From: kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary)
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:08:37 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hplsdak.col.hp.com

kbowles@den.mmc.com (mac bowles) writes:
> Besides, science has shown that homosexuality is probably genetically based. 
> Therefore, homosexuality could not be a 'SIN', since it is a NATURAL part
> of existence. If you call it a 'SIN', you are calling GOD a 'SINNER' or 
> that he is not perfect because he has made a mistake.

I agree that biblical arguments against homosexuality are unimportant.  Your
genetic argument is equally unimportant.  There is some scientific evidence
that some people may be genetically predisposed to homosexuality.  There is
equally strong evidence that some people may be genetically predisposed to
addictive/dependent behaviors such as alcoholism.  I am not equating
homosexuality and alcoholism.  I am merely stating that the existence or
non-existence of genetic evidence is not an argument that a behavior is
good, bad, natural, unnatural, sinful, pure, etc.

Dan Kary

-- 
"And that, my leige, is how we know the earth to be banana shaped."
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.listserv.travel-l
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:41:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.160022.1556@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jmelnick@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jay Melnick) writes:
>                                TravelBank Systems
>                               Colorado TravelBank
>                               COLORADO SKI REPORT
>                   "Colorado, Where else would you want to ski?"

Someplace that didn't have a constitutional amendment stripping gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals of their civil rights?

Oh, was that a rhetorical question?

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.list
From: maman@mars.Colorado.EDU (Nathan M. Maman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Reply-To: maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:38:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.194544.10866@dazixco.ingr.com>, dlb@sunloaf.dazixco.ingr.com (Dave Buehmann) writes:
D.Buehmann|>     The issue is whether to grant special constitutional protection
D.Buehmann|>     to a group of people who have no externally detectable
D.Buehmann|>     differences from the general population.  It's quite different
D.Buehmann|>     from granting protections to minorities whose minority status
D.Buehmann|>     is obvious from the color of their skin.

What about religious beliefs then?

					Nat
--
M. Nathan M. MAMAN,  Campus Box 429,  Boulder COLORADO 80309, USA
EM:maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU TEL:(303)492-4481 FAX:(303)492-4990
Newsgroups: co.general
From: shecht@lamar.ColoState.EDU (steven heckt)
Subject: ammend. 2 (ski report NOT) hit kill now
Summary: GOD, sin, science, geesh 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:56:52 GMT
Distribution: co.general
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523
Keywords: don't drink coffee 

  While I understand why the argument about God creating sin was made,
  (yes, this is not on skiing, but on how we can argue without getting
  anywhere- note the stripped cross-post) it is not based on general 
  biblical th inking. There are many problems in the world- these are
  attributed to sin (as in going your own way against what is what 
  would be good) and the fallen state of the world (ie. we have diseases
  and such not necessarily because of personal sin but because the world
  is not what it should be). Granted this is difficult, but we could
  debate why the bible comes up with this thing about free choice and 
  real consequences of behavior and all.
  Secondly, the poster saying that both this and science is irrelevant
  hit a very good point- I've wondered about the change in thought over
  time regarding this (it used to be we didn't want alternative lifestyles
  defined as predetermined because of this eugenic problem). As a scientist,
  I must tell you that it is very unreliable thing to rely on the level of
  evidence we have now. The one study on twins and sibs is suggestive. THe other	studies have too many problems (what caused what? sample size). IT
  MAY BE genetic, but this is not confirmed by current studies (do you drink
  coffee? which study do you believe on that?) The creation scientists have
  played this game with science studies and it is very tiresome.
  Is it helpful to argue over the bible says this or that if we are talking
  from a variety of frameworks in this group? If you don't believe that this
  is the (dictated) work of God, then the best you can do is argue with
  people about something you are likely to think is a much different thing than
  they do.
  pax and lux,
  steve

  ps. DISCLAIMER_ I, unfortunately, don't know much. Wish I did have all the
  answers. Do not buy stock based on the information above. "It's so hard to
  know anything" (B. Mermer, c.1980)
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.listserv.travel-l
From: kschwab@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kerry Schwab)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Followup-To: co.general,nyx.misc 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 12:43:34 GMT

***Wild newsgroup distribution left intact, but I did set followups
   to co.general***

In article <1993Jan8.003732.10002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart) writes:
>>>>Someplace that didn't have a constitutional amendment stripping gays,
>>>>lesbians, and bisexuals of their civil rights?
>>>
>>> Or how about a place where its not acceptable to grant special
>>>treatment and priviledges to certain groups of individuals.
>>
>>Don't try to be logical with radicals. It's obvious they'd rather have
>>seperate legislation for *each* and *every* group that could possibly be 
>>discriminated against.
>>
>>I'm anxiously awaiting the "Humpback Asthmatic Lesbians" equality act..
>
>Funny.  "a place where its not acceptable to grant special treatement and
>privileges to certain groups of individuals" doesn't exist in the US.  Every
>state and the federal government grant special rights to heterosexuals, which
>are unavailable to homosexuals (ref: marriage).  No state nor the federal
>government grants any rights to homosexuals that are not evenly granted to
>heterosexuals (including Colorado's cities with non-discrimination ordinances).
>So he was just being snide and ignorant of fact.  You consider that "being
>logical".  Sigh.


Check the article you quoted. You are assuming that I wrote *all* of it.
I wrote the above lines preceded by  ">>", the lines preceded by ">>>"
were quoted by me, written by someone else.

By saying logical, I was expressing my disdain for excessive legislation. 
>
>Meanwhile, you invent what "radicals" would rather do as a strawman of your own
>imagination.  Your attempt at sarcasm falls as flat as your logic.  Have you
>actually read, say, the Denver and Boulder ordinances?  Naw, that would be too
>factual for a "logical" mind like yours.  You would rather sneer at parodies
>which only you think insightful.
>
>You might find the reality refreshing, if your fantasies aren't too fulfilling.
>

My "invention" of what "radicals" would rather do was sarcasm, and 
an exaggeration of the end result of individualized legislation.
I have not read the actual ordinances, but feel free to post them if
you think they would be enlightening(sp).  I have read summaries, and
do not think they make my arguements moot.

I didn't see the second part of post my post disputed by you. Can I assume
you agree, or is it just that sarcasm pisses you off?

--
Kerry Schwab
kschwab@nyx.cs.du.edu
From: zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:20:55 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

>>I'm not aware of any such place.  Every single state, county, and municipality
>>in the US that I know of has laws on the books protecting some groups from
>>discrimination.
>
>Colorado Springs doesn't.  Somehow I'm not surprised....

Actually, darn few if any have such laws.

Many governments in this country have non-discrimination laws which protect
ALL residents equally against discrimination in certain areas (eg: employment).
That is, they say something along the lines of "no discrimination on the basis
of race", rather than "no discrimination against blacks".  The "protecting
some groups" thing is mainly propoganda from the right wing.

A much, much smaller number of government has additional and separate
legislation granting extra preferences to named groups, generally with much
more limitations on scope.  For example, "no discrimination based on race"
applies to most public and private colleges; but some of the "affirmative
action" preferences apply only to educational institutions which accept 
Federal, and the penalty for non-compliance is losing federal funds, not
fines or jail.

Many many people confuse the more common and more stringent "color blind"
non-discrimination laws which give equal rights to all citizens, with the
much more limited (but high psychological profile) affirmative action
programs which single out groups for extra benefits.  Until this separation
is understood, one can hardly discuss the issues rationally.

The point the earlier poster could have made is that heterosexuals get extra
privileges and rights in almost all jurisdictions, unavailable to homosexuals.
This may be the most universal case of singling out one group for extra
benefits or special rights.  Ironically, so called gay rights exists only
within the "equally applied non-discrimination" sections of civil rights,
not the more controversial "affirmative action" programs.  CFV claimed
otherwise, but it's perfectly legal to lie in campaigns.
    
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.list
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:37:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.181749.12797@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> thester@nyx.cs.du.edu (Uncle Fester) writes:
>
>     In response to Andrew Burt's (aburt) proposal of creating 
>     a group dedicated to Amendment 2 discussion:
>
>                        I vote NO.
>
>     It's probably a good idea in one respect; those people that
>     are actively involved in it would join the group.
>     My only objection is that persons *not* wanting to hear about
>     it would never subscribe.  That's okay with me, but I feel
>     that whenever and *wherever* the issue pops up, the chance
>     that a narrow-minded bigot might actually read and learn 
>     something is an advantage.  Sort of like a surprise attack
.

There's something to be said for this.  As soon as amendment 23 passed,
California's equivalent of CFV announced that it was going to put its
own version on the Ca. ballot.  There was a piece on it this morning 
in the San Jose Mercury News.  This isn't a local thing, it just happened
to happen in Colorado first.  No one expected the thing to pass in
Colorado, either, it seems.  It has to be talked about openly and in
many places.


-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: cyrill@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Cyro Lord)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Needed, Info Molecular Computer
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:18:13 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Alpha Communications Development Corp., Aurora, CO.

I'm looking for information on a Molecular Computer.
Need manual/general information on how to use this
beast which I know runs Multi user CPM. Reply via
email as I don't believe anyone else is interested
in the computer.
-Cyro

-- 

Cyro Lord	ALPHA Comm. Dev. Corp. -  DOMAIN  cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com
UUCP		{ncar,csn,nyx}!scicom!cyrill
Endeavor to Persevere - Chief Dan George - ALPHA CDC FAX 1-303-375-8234
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.list,alt.config
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 01:11:06 GMT

Since co.politics.amend2.info isn't carried as widely as it could be
(since most sites outside the state have no interest in co.*), I'd like
to suggest the creation of alt.politics.colorado.amend2.  (talk.* might
be better, but I doubt we want to go through all the red tape to make a
talk group.)

I'm sure that this kind of discussion will crop up again and again until
we get this wart removed from the state, and indeed I *encourage* that
it be discussed until it gets resolved.  However, such discussions as
sprung up in response to the ski report ought to have a place to be
forwarded to once they start.

On the one hand, this topics needs wide visibility [for the simple purpose
of demonstrating this is wrong to those in favor of depriving rights from
an arbitrary subset of the population; i.e., the more it carries on the
more local folks will see they're in the overall minority for favoring
such deprivation] -- but on the other hand, those who are interested in
the topic can add a group to their .newsrc.  Also, folks who are interested
but haven't found a discussion of it could then do so.

Since it has become the focus of national attention (and rightly so), I
think it merits a group.  It can also help inform everyone what exactly
the deal is, and why this is such a bad amendment.

All those in favor?  Opposed?
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:45:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.001301.2093@tigger.jvnc.net> Ops Mgr <ENS@tigger.jvnc.net> writes:
>
> Well isn't it about time that a state has finally decided that no one
>group of individuals should be granted more favourable treatment over
>any other.
>

Read it, and read it carefully.  The amendment specifically denies a
group of people basic rights.

> You seem really screwed up with this, how can any state pass a law that
>forbids people "from obtaining any civil rights protections"?
>

Is this a philosophical question?  Colorado just did, and it's called
Amendment 2.
 

>>Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
>
> "Hooray for Colorado".  Ski elsewhere then... and quit whining.

By stating this, you are admitting that you support discrimination.
By the way, who's whining?

-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day)
Subject: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Organization: TPS
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:21:57 GMT

This is probably more a question for mechanics than politicians, but here 
goes.  My newest ever vehicle, a 1986 Toyota Van, recently failed an 
emissions test: CO was 4X allowed and HCs were 10X allowed.  This vehicle is 
as loaded with antipollution stuff as it gets: fuel injection, sensors 
everywhere, catalitic converter, etc.  It will cost me $270 to get this 
unit back on the road.

"My other car is a" 1973 Toyota Hilux with 300k+ miles and no serious 
antipollution add-ons.  It has always passed inspections in Nebraska, 
California, and Colorado.  And it did again this year.  Not only did it 
pass, but its emissions were lower than the max levels for the '86 van.  

So here's my question: is there really a significant improvement being 
made to any part of the exhaust emissions by all this "improved technology" 
or are we just being jerked by our good intentions into buying new cars?  If 
my old pickup gets better mileage, maintains low emissions (at least 
relative to my newer van), and doesn't cost the resources it takes to build 
a new vehicle every few years, what is the point in owning a newer car?  
Please don't feed me estetic reasons, the Hilux's ease of maintenance 
overwhelms any improvement in cosmetics or even the addition of air 
conditioning that my van offers.
Newsgroups: co.general