HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (C.J.K.)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:52:17 GMT

dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.203640.22101@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>>
>>The passages in Leviticus have come up many times. No where else(that I know)
>>does the Bible say bad things about gays. Of course Leviticus also tells you

>Romans 1:26,27 is another passage concerning homosexuals.

Do you know any passages concerning heterosexuals?  Aren't there
a couple hundred or so references?  What does this mean?

...

>God does not 'hate' homosexuals. He 'hates' the lifestyle. That a
>woman desires a woman or a man desires a man (sexually).

What is this lifestyle you're talking about?  From all the reading
of the many many postings on this subject, I've still not figured out
what this means.  Is there a heterosexual equivalent?  In parentheses
you have "(sexually)".  What about emotional desire?  If there's no sex
involved, is that OK?
From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Dangerous legalism in NJ?
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:45:38 GMT
Reply-To: <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



A friend at Avenel Adult Diagnostic Center has asked me to post his
warning.  Please direct replies to me:  lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu
and I will forward them to him.    Thank you.   Louie Crew

                             - - - - - - - - -


WWOR-TV Channel 9 News of 12/30/92 reports that the NJ State Attorney
General is investigating the possibility of enacting preventive imprisonment
laws for sex offenders, similar to the one in Washington State.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such a measure might be useful in extreme cases (given thorough safeguards
built in to prevent abuse).  A less-than-obvious effect of such a proposal,
however, would be to strip away established protections and make the 
CONFIDENTIAL treatment notes and records of sex offenders OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC.

This alarming prospect, if effected by legislation, would mark the beginning 
of the end of the privileged communications which make meaningful group
therapy, individual counseling, and confession possible.  The element of
trust between client and provider would be utterly destroyed.  Therapy
at Adult Diagnostic & Treatment Center would grind to an abrupt and 
permanent halt.

To turn the public and the media loose in therapeutic archives is to
unleash a media feeding-frenzy, an orgy of sensationalist vigilantism, 
which would destroy the First Amendment..

Today, sex offenders.  Tomorrow?


Bob Walker



-- 
  ==========================================================================
  Louie Crew, Academic Foundations Department, Rutgers University, NWK 07102
  lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu                                   201-485-4503
                   Preferred:  P. O. Box 30, Newark, NJ 07101
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: edwards@emr.ca
Subject: Lesbian  Nuns
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:52:06 GMT

 My lover is doing a research project on Lesbian Nuns; Any info  would be
appreciated..
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:45:30 GMT
	    <1993Jan4.031518.8457@netcom.com>
	    <1993Jan4.230835.26532@s1.gov>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan4.230835.26532@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

&>	However, [Thomas Jefferson] did try to keep his Deism in the closet,
&>as it were, though not completely successfully. Thomas Paine had similar
&>views, and was more outspoken, in his book _Age of Reason_, in which
&>he pointed out numerous Biblical Satanic Verses, as I call them. How
&>many others of our Founding Fathers? We may never know for sure,
&>because they would have gotten in deep trouble if they took any
&>heresies they might have had out of the closet.

&>	This "closet" analogy is with, of course, homosexuality, and
&>in that connection I once saw somewhere that there were those who, in
&>Bertrand Russell's words, "exaggerated the intimacy" of TG [sic: TJ] and TP,
&>calling them "the two Toms".

I wouldn't take Bertrand Russell's opinions on homosexuality and homosexuals
for much. According to A. L. Rowse, Russell may have been a brilliant logician
and mathematician, but he was extremely imperceptive and intolerant.

To give Russell credit, though, I've never read account of any bisexual
inclinations of Jefferson. Unlike Washington and Lincoln...

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality as a religion--Fu** That!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:51:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.230920.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.045422.7509@netcom.com>, cjk@netcom.com writes:
>
>	Will this never cease.  

No.

>I can understand you want equal rights...but
>enough is enough already!!!  Read this and burn it into your memory: 
>HOMOSEXUALITY IN *HUMANS* IS *NOT* NATURAL!  

Perhaps you could provide proof? 
(don't bother quoting the bible, reading and writting in humans is not
 natural)

>	Make Homosexuality a religion, and you'll scare all the kids off of the
>street.  It is a FACT that most molestations occur by homosexual males.  

Mind providing some statistics? 

>Just
>listen to every newscast.  

I do, it always says:

X was sentanced to Y years in jail, his wife was quoted as saying...
I've yet to hear "his lover was quoted as saying"

>If it wasn't a parental molestation...it was done by
>some stranger who was a HOMOSEXUAL MALE!  

Right, someone who likes hairy muscular guys is going to get his rocks
off molesting scrawny hairless 10 year old girls?
The only reason little boys get molested is that they look femine enough
for heterosexuals to stomach.

[more mindless drivel deleted]

Fact:

Homosexuality is natural in humans (and virtually all animals).

Most molesters are heterosexual.

If you can't deal with the facts go get help.
-- 
------  Linux, Religion, and electronic shopping all in one place!
\    / Repent of Bean eating, MS-DOS, OS/2, and windows NT, no sales man
 \  / will hassle you, no priest will sacrifice you. Free 9600 baud download.
  \/ Call the Virtual World Information Systems BBS at 508-793-9568        
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9217 talk.religion.misc:25586 alt.rush-limbaugh:13397
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:03:56 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

After reading in this group and in soc.motss that the Children of the 
Rainbow books "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather has 2 Mommies" only 
teach that "homosexual families exist" and don't pass any value judgement 
on homosexuality, I got a chance to spend the afternoon at the library. 
I looked up some articles on "Children of the Rainbow", and checked 
"Daddy's Roommate" out.  They didn't have "Heather...".  

For the most part, "Daddy's Roommate" was quite benign; I didn't see 
anything that I would object to having my daughter taught in 1st grade. 
It showed a boy talking about his parents getting a divorce, about 
the new person at Daddy's house, showed the things Daddy and his 
new roommate did together (cooking, going to the park, cleaning the 
house, etc), and things they did with the boy.  Then near the end of 
the book, the boy says "Mommy says Daddy and Frank are gay. At first, 
I didn't know what that meant, so sh explained it.  Being gay is just 
one more kind of love.  And love is the best kind of happiness." 


There was also an article in USNews and World Report, that said:
----------------
"These are not books about tolerance - letting people alone and not 
picking on others because of sexual orientation or family structure. 
They are books that celebrate the wonders of double-mommy and 
double-daddy households.  But surely schools can generate respect 
for Catholic children, lets say, without putting 'Heather finds 
peace as a Nun' on the reading list.  Schools can promote respect 
for all children without endorsing all the different beliefs, 
lifestyles or orientations found in their homes. 
 
So how did these books make it onto the reading list?  The answer 
is tucked away on page 145 of the city's 'children of the rainbow' 
first-grade curriculum: Teachers must "be aware of varied family 
structures, including...gay and lesbian parents," and "Children 
must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of 
household".  A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new 
ethic is descending upon the city's public school system.  The 
traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live 
together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new 
ethic requiring approval and endorsement (of gays want to live 
together, we must "acknowledge the positive aspects" of their way 
of life).   
------------

Despite what some of the gay posters have claimed, these books 
do more than teach that "queers exist".  The school curriculum book 
itself says that it is meant to do more than that.  

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:18:51 GMT

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>Col#2 doesn't give "Legalized privilege".  The only thing it has really 
>done to this point is overturn Denver, Boulder, and Aspen's regulations 
>regarding 'sexual orientation' and discrimination.  Now, there are no 
>protections regarding 'sexual orientation' in the discrimination ordinances. 
>Which is the exact same case as with the Cracker Barrell situation, and 
>the exact same situation as in most of the country.  In most parts of 
>the country, there are no 'sexual orientation' clauses in the discrimination 
>laws.  So, for practical purposes, what makes the current situation in 
>Colorado any different from these other places where discrimination is 
>legal? 

There's a big difference between _no_ law on the books that gives
anyone special rights over another, and a law on the books that
specifically takes them away from a particular group.  Theoretically,
a heterosexual in Colorado could still sue his/her employer for
discrimination due to his/her sexual orientation if s/he felt that
that was the reason s/he was fired.

The law that _should_ be on the books is now prevented specifically in
Colorado.  That law would allow for _anyone_ of _any_ sexual
orientation to sue if they felt that their sexual orientation had been
the cause of discrimination against them.

For all intents and purposes, it is currently legal in Colorado to
require the applicants for a job to be heterosexual.  Requiring them
to be homosexual (therefore infringing on the rights of heterosexual
applicants) is, however, illegal.

From my own standpoint, that of a white heterosexual male, I know how
it feels to be discriminated against without any real legal recourse.
More than once I've been faced with someone telling me, "Sorry, you're
not the right color/sex to receive this job/scholarship/benefit/etc."
It's all perfectly legal, at least according to the current dreck we
accept as law in this country.  My chances of winning a discrimination
lawsuit against, for example, a company that was only hiring minority
members, are quite poor.

I can tell you this: The laws in the country _will_ change.  This will
happen sooner or later, peacefully or violently, but the current
system of giving and taking away rights based on the traits of any
particular group isn't going to work.  
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
From: LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Les/Bi/Gays Invited to March in Denver's King Parade
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:42:56 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


The following is reprinted without permission from _Out Front_
(a Colorado gay newspaper), December 23, 1992:


Wilma Webb Invites Gays
to Join King Parade

Realizing the Dream Together

Wilma Webb, the Mayor's wife and Denver's First Lady, has invited
all lesbians and gays and their friends to join the Martin Luther
King Parade (MIRADE) on Jan. 18.  Webb hopes there is a large
turnout as the passage of Amendment 2 is a "blatant violation
of human and civil rights."  Webb would like to see a very large
lesbian and gay representation march in the parade.

Organizers of the MIRADE (the name they're using instead of
parade) to celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have 
invited gays and lesbians and community activists believe it's
time that call was answered with a contingent of individuals which
could even surpass PrideFest.

The MIRADE will begin in City Park at approximately 9:00 a.m., Mon.,
Jan. 18.  Gay, lesbian, bisexual people and all opponents of Amendment 2
will be asked to gather in a designated area of City Park [cite yet
to be determined--watch for the next issue of _Out Front_] to
merge en masse and march with the thousands already gathered to honor
Dr. King for his vision and civil rights achievements.

"Take this call to heart--we must be visible to undo 2," one organizer
said.  "During the month ahead, personally help organize each and every
opponent of Amendment 2 statewide and come in peace to join this
potentially historic display of unity within all communities.  Dr.
Martin Luther King had a dream--let's realize it together."  For
further information call 333-8876.
From: klopez@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Mirth in Maine
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:24:06 EDT
Organization: Hampshire College
NNTP-Posting-Host: hamp.hampshire.edu


Yippie! Hooray for Portland, Maine! (The first Maine city to amend its
constitution to mandate equal protection for gay, lesbian, and bisexual
citizens) 
Happy Portlander
Kate
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Gay Tolerance (was: Re: Oh Please!)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 11:15:36 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

tcarlin@athena.mit.edu (Thomas B Carlin) writes:
> First of all, oh Christian one, take your God and go to hell.
> Finally, FUCK OFF.  Who invited you here anyway.  You have a
> problem with lesbigay lifestyles, fine, eat shit and die.  Why
> you feel the need to spew your bullshit on a Usenet line designed
> for lesbigay people (and curious supporters) baffles me, unless
> you are trying to tamp down your latent homosexual desires by
> varnishing them over with religious crap.
> 
> Time to turn the other cheek, fuck off, and keep your opinions
> to yourself.  Want to argue with someone, talk to street people!
> 
> Tom Carlin

Wow.  When I posted to soc.motss, I was told that soc.motss was 
for lesbigay, and that *this* group was for 'others'.  What *are* 
you talking about, Tom?  And do you really need to show off your 
"complete" vocabulary to make your point?  

Walter
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Berserk Sex Maniacs (was  Re: Lifestyle Choices)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:12:37 GMT


In a previous article, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) says:

>In article <1993Jan6.161506.7349@news.eng.convex.com> foster@convex.COM (Harry Foster) writes:
>>smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>>
>>>glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
>>>> I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
>>>> of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
>>>> her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
>>>> in nature"?
>>>
>>>Yeah, ever see ducks?  Go to your local duck pond in the spring...the males 
>>>tend to gang up on and nearly drown the females...
>>>
>>
>>Fascinating!  One can only conclude that all male heterosexuals are 
>>berserk sex maniacs unable to control their behavior . . .
>
>Jeez!  How 'bout if we simply agree that humans cannot learn morals from 
>watching animals?
>
>Ted

Jeez!  How 'bout you simply get with the thread?  The point was made that 
homosexuality wasn't natural because animals did not do it.  The poster showed
that it does, indeed, occur in animals, making the point moot.

 

>
>
>-- 
>So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
>too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
>oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
>by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:23:05 GMT


In a previous article, flash@fennec.com (Jim Melton) says:
>
>The fact is that until homosexuality was removed from the AMA's list of 
>mental disorders that the "cure" rate was extremely high. Even today, 
>there are organizations who boast "cure" rates of close to 100%. 
>Homosexuality is NOTHING MORE than a behavior. One chooses to exercise 
>that behavior.

And once again, this is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

I am homosexual.  I am sexually attracted only to other males, and not
to women at all.

I am also quite celebate.

In the state of Ohio I can STILL be denied housing, or evicted from 
housing.  I can STILL be refused or dismissed from employment.  I
STILL can be denied the priveledge of adopting a child.

NOT because of behavior, ONLY BECAUSE I am attracted to other males, and
am not ashamed to admit it.

I have enguaged in no "behavior" which any person could look at and say,
"That's immoral behavior", yet the powers that be will not defend my right to
the same things any person like me, except for orientation, takes for
granted.   


>
>If I am attracted to a woman (not my wife), does that make me an 
>adulterer? How then can being attracted to a man make me a homosexual? It 
>is only my BEHAVIOR which places me in either category. Any other 
>definition is indefensible.
>
>


Bullshit again.  Tell your wife sometime, "I'm really sexually attracted to
another woman".  I'm sure you'll find out right away that the word equals the
deed, even in the Heterosexual world.

Don't you DARE presume to tell me that I am not gay simply because I have 
chosen not to be sexually active.  I am, I am proud of the fact, and this
will not change.


>-------------------------------------------------
>Jim Melton flash@fennec.com
>Validated User    Fennec Information Systems
>(512) 451-9769    Austin, Texas USA
>-------------------------------------------------
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Why why why?!?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:30:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan08.081532.145200@zeus.calpoly.edu> jkusters@zeus.calpoly.edu (Chrome Jester) writes:
>Can ANYONE tell me why the first thing a person who wants to tell you that
>homosexuality is wrong is to equivalize it with child molestation and
>bestiality? 


	For two reasons:

	1.  In any urban center, it's quite easy to find the flamers
	running around with drag queens.  

	2.  In Pride marches, the gay community, stupidly,
	associates itself with freakish fetishists, transvestites
	and NAMBLA.

	People see this, andmake the connection.  Period.


>always seem to see is "Well, then, shouln't child molesters and people who
>have sex with animals?"  It gets even worse when they lump in other people
>such as necropheliacs.


	Also, because it's an effective tactic.  If someone holds a view
	that goes against 90%+ of the world's opinion, they should have
	a better argument than "can't you just leave us alone!!" because
	people in out culture (and most) do not leave ANYONE alone for ANYTHING.


Qx


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.