HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: GAY & LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION IS FUCKING HILARIOUS
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 20:12:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.113321@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George  
Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <ie8DJB5w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM>, djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
> (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
> |> 
> |> And they wonder why they make us sick to our stomachs.. 
> |> 
> Who has to wonder ??  It is fear, plain and simple.  That's why there is  
the word homophobia.  It is, after all, an irrational fear, but that's a  
whole 'nother subject.
> 
This is non-sense.
I do not fear all thins  that make me sick to my stomach.
I do not like a lot of things that I see. Does it mean that I am affraid  
of them?
Saying that is just solving the problem in an easy way, without ever  
touching the heart of the matter.
Yeah, homophobes are afraid, yeah...

AAP


> -- 
> Excuse me, could you scream just a little louder ??  I can't seem to  
hear
> you.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Regrets
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:30:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.213411.15167@wam.umd.edu> aap@next01wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>In article <kujumcINN75t@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)  
>writes:

By the way, you two aren't related, are you?

In article <1992Apr13.213411.15167@wam.umd.edu> aap@next01wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>Congenital means that I am naturally Argentinian born, and there is where  
>you are wrong.

Does that mean it's a "choice" or that your parents "recruited" you?

>Anyway, I would not be surprised if you were reverencing Zeus and Odin  
>right now.

"Reverencing"--and it's actually idiomatic.   Wow!

Let me repeat for you, Alberto Adolfo, what your fellow adolph, Arne,
was saying: by the 1980's, Freud and Lacan were only taken seriously
(or should we say "literally") by scholars of literary criticism,
certainly a fate indicating their overdue demise.  By now if you
mention Lacan at a MLA convention, it's like discussing junk bonds and
the takeover of Cheez Whiz.  Stale, stale, stale.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: ai210@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Josh Steier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Reproduction and Sexuality
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:55:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr9.045535.20806
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Now if you have a consistent belief that sexuality should be engaged
in strictly for reproduction, than I can easily see how you would
not approve of homosexuality, birth control, and the whole nine yards.
I have no problem with this position, as long as nobody tries to force
the overwhelming majority of people who do not do this to do it.

However, the previous exercise in proving how bad gays are because gay
sex does not lead to reproduction is disingenuous. Does that mean that
if some new advance in genetic technology could produce a HIV negative
egg with a half set of my chromosomes out of a stomach lining cell, which
could be fertilized by a male lover and implanted and brought to term
in an artificial womb, would that mean that gay sex would suddenly become
OK? It it just a set of technical limitations in reproductive technology
that defines homosexulaity as non reproductive and hence bad?

The argument of "naturalness" is bogus. I guarantee that if you were
placed
outside here in Northeastern Ohio without anything manufactured by another
person, you would freeze to death next winter, assuming you were resourceful;
enough to survive on what you could kill and find with weapons of your
own manufacture. The very thing that allows humans to survive in
those climates that most people live in is the very fact that we manufacture
the non-natural things that we need. In fact, for a group of humans to 
voluntarily relinquish all pre 20th century technology would be profoundly
unnatural. (Not that I have a problem with the Old Order Amish who made
that choice).

be well
josh
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (The Chrome Jester)
Subject: Re: Adream
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 20:59:03 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407

Okay, Alberto.  In an effort to "clear the air", so to speak, I'm not
going to include any text anyone else has said, nor am I going to
attempt to paraphrase anyone.

You seem to state that your point is that you don't think it's wise for
homosexuals couples to raise children because without proper masculine
and femanine rolemodels the child will not develop something called an
"Oedipus complex" (or an "Electra complex"), and the lack of such a
complex would be detrimental to the child's well being.

How close am I?  I'm simply trying to find out EXACTLY what you're
point is so that you won't have to say "That's not what I meant!"

JOhn.
-- 
/-John A Kusters, jr.----------------------------------------------------______
| jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu & phule@bbs.fubarsys.com              \    /
Silence keeps us all in darkness, we can't change things overnight!       \  /
But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovksy & Phillips
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.motss
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: New Phone Male System For Chicago Area Gay Guys
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 10:53:40 GMT


In article <1992Apr6.062242.9378@chinet.chi.il.us>
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A.  Townson) writes:

>A new voicemail service called Phone Male is now operating in the Chicago
>area for gays. The service has several components:

To me it seems odd that one of the net's best known
moderators (comp.dcom.telecom) would post a frankly
commercial announcement on Usenet.  I object.  I'll skip the
rest of the editorial.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:1777 alt.sex:13623 soc.motss:19379
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Homosexualism
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:53:10 GMT

Chose, didn't choose, was born as.  I don't much care.

In article <1992Apr8.221249.15191@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) writes:

>And I'll repeat, there =are= organizations (and we have one here in Austin)
>that are geared towards homosexuals that no longer choose to be gay.

That's right, folks!  Stroll right down to your local Scientology
office -- with a check made out to the appropriate amount, you can be
anything you want to be!  John Haugh did it!

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (The Chrome Jester)
Subject: More Baby Talk
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 00:47:04 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407

Alberto and others:

So far, all you have to say against homosexuals having families
(children, et al.) is based upon psychology textbooks from several
decades ago.

Over and over, you say that raising a child in a gay household goes
agains society's norms (whatever that is supposed to mean), and that
the child would be harmed in some vague, non-quite-understandable way.
Several other posters have repeatedly stated their own observations in
regards to children they know that were raised by homosexual parents.

My question is:  Do you have any other objections other than "society
doesn't work that way?"  If not, I'd appreciate you not repeating
endlessly the same points.  Move on to something different.  We know
society doesn't exacly smile upon homosexual unions.  However, we also
know that some areas of society WILL tolerate it.  And in order to
change society to be more accepting and tolerant, we are going to have
to show them that homosexuals do have genuine families, and that
children raised by homosexuals grow up healthy, well-adjusted, and as
normal as any other member of society.

JOhn.
-- 
/-John A Kusters, jr.----------------------------------------------------______
| jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu & phule@bbs.fubarsys.com              \    /
Silence keeps us all in darkness, we can't change things overnight!       \  /
But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovksy & Phillips
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Adream
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:50:19 GMT

In article <kusaidINN9or@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.230202.23554@wam.umd.edu> 
>aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>...
>> Real close. And, I also said that because I believe that homosexual  
>> couples follow the man-like and woman-like model that society sees as good  
>> (One dominant and one dominated), the Complex might be well resolved  
>> anyway. 
>
>I wasn't following this thread at all carefully before so I missed this.
>On what do you base this belief?  Do you even *know* any homosexual
>couples?  
>
>I'm astounded at this stupidity.

Why do you think that this is stupid?

>
>Arne


Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:1886 alt.sex:13865 soc.motss:19712
From: amitchell@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Human sexuality
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:11:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: mac.1992Apr8.091148.2393
Organization: Macalester College

In article <1992Apr7.042701.11661@cs.uow.edu.au>, g8801935@cs.uow.edu.au (The Jester) writes:
> 
>>Well,  I for one like mushroom and females (the latter not on the pizza).
>>Don't know it there is a connection there though, but my daughter does not
>>like mushrooms but boys.  Is this the sort of information you were after,
>>Jester?  Why don't you call for a poll ?-)
> 
>>All my favorite toppings were listed in an earlier post...
> 
> Ok the mushroom thing. I am alergic to mushrooms, but, I am not alergic to 
> females. In fact I quite like females. A lot. Not more than pizza though...
> I like chilli heaps. Probably as much as I like females.

But I like both mushrooms AND men!!  My favorite topping, however, is green
peppers.....
Allison
amitchell@macalstr.edu
amitchel@math.macalstr.edu

"Where's the damn pig?" -Jamie Wineberg
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Friday, 17 Apr 1992 14:34:56 EDT
From: <SDENO@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: What is this net for?

Hi.  I am just getting back into reading the nets after actually getting
work done, and started reading this one.

The title sounds interesting, but I haven't found any political discussion
going on.  Did I grossly misinterpret the purpose of this net?  Is there
another net on this topic that may have intelligent discourse on politics
and homosexuality?

Thanks in advance for your help.

                                         Lilith
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Couples
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:05:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: fido.j7gekkk
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Apr6.202611.20101@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>
>From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
>Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
>
>>Not at all... I will describe a couple to you... Can you guess if they
>>are straight or gay?  No.  You cannot.  Suddenly, however, you find that
>>both of the people are of the same gender and you start adding your own
>>facts.  Without the gender of the partners, you have to base your opinions
>>on who we are.  With the gender of the partners, you will base your opinions
>>on what you imagine us to be like.
>
>I need more information, like:
>How is the relationship with the rest of the society?

What are you asking for?

>Are their relationship based on some possible previous trauma?

None of them are based on previous trauma.

>Can they be discribed as disfunctional in a social way?

None of them can be described as disfunctional in any way.




I picked these four couples to represent because I know that we are
all socially equals.  I know all of the members of all of the couples
very well.  Aside from sexual preference, we are pretty equivalent.


Oops... I gave one away... Blair and I are one of those couples.


Now, without your sexual orientation question.  Try and find something 
different about us.


I bet you cannot.


FWA
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: tststs
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:54:07 GMT
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Apr9.173814.21046@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>dwmdwdjqwpmp

This is the most coherent anti-gay post I've seen yet.
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/        You stupid vulgar greedy ugly American death sucker
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:08:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: fido.j79ftt8
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Apr6.162712.11323@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>True, it cannot be told. But that is not the whole picture.
>You erased some important piece if evidence. In that way it is easy to
>be right.

Not at all... I will describe a couple to you... Can you guess if they
are straight or gay?  No.  You cannot.  Suddenly, however, you find that
both of the people are of the same gender and you start adding your own
facts.  Without the gender of the partners, you have to base your opinions
on who we are.  With the gender of the partners, you will base your opinions
on what you imagine us to be like.


But, okay, I will play the game by your rules.  Give me the characteristics
that make up good parents.  List as many as you would like.  However, they
must be germane to parenthood, not irrelevant.  Therefore, you can ask
any questions you like, so long as you do not say "are they homosexual or
heterosexual".  I will describe the same four couples for you, and you
can tell me which should be parents and which should not be.

After giving you all the necessary information, I still bet that you will not
be able to tell the homosexual from the heterosexual.

>>This is bigotry, plain and simple.
>>
>
>You are forcing the truth, plain and simple.


Not at all... I am showing that homosexuals have the exact same qualification
as heterosexuals when it comes to doing anything.


I'll even give you a hint.


Of those couple listed, there are the following pairings.

2 gay men
2 lesbian
1 heterosexual man, 1 heterosexual woman
1 heterosexual man, 1 lesbian


All couples are legally married, or as married as possible.



FWA
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14575 alt.politics.homosexuality:2157
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Regrets
Date: 14 Apr 1992 20:47:06 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <92105.215647HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> 
Herschel Browne <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
...
> Some of the comments in this thread have been supremely stupid.
> Such as, that Foucault was a literary theorist. Huh? Foucault
> was perhaps the single most brilliant thinker of our time, and
> his fields were history and philosophy, not literary theory.

Early modern *French* history was his field.  "Single most
brilliant thinker of our time"?  That speaks *volumes*.

> His is a tradition to cherish, not only because he was a radical
> gay activist, but because he was a genius. On the other hand,

Foucault most certainly was NOT a radical gay activist.  At least
not up until the end, and not even, really, then.

> he wasn't a Freudian, so how he got dragged into this silly argument
> is beyond me.

Foucault, like Freud, is of interest these days only to literary 
theorists and to those interested in the history of ideas.

Arne
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: Homosexualism
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:49:05 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.

John F Haugh II writes:

>You are trying (very hard) to be either dense or to recraft this into a
>semantic argument.  Now, how does an "orientation" differ from a
>"preference".  And furthermore, demonstrate that this "orientation" is
>also not a matter of choice.

As the original poster clearly stated, "preference" implies "choice".
From Webster's:  preference - the power or opportunity of choosing.
orientation - a usu. general or lasting direction of thought, inclination,
or interest.

>I've read numerous people on the net tales of their coming-out stories.  How
>they realized that men turned them on more than women, etc.  But heterosexuals
>have similiar stories - I started liking women with certain figures and don't
>care for women that look like teenage boys anymore.  Would I have sex with a
>woman that looks like a 13 year old boy?  Hell no - I've discovered a more
>mature (and self-secure) variety of women - and they have much more appealing
>shapes than the skinnier type.  Where is this "orientation" located?  How
>can I change my "body type" "orientation" so easily?

Body type orientation, isn't; it is a preference.  Your orientation is 
heterosexual, meaning your sexual predisposition is towards members of 
the opposite sex.  If you aren't bisexual, I can safely guess that you made
no conscious choice to be heterosexual; you just *are*.

Bisexuals on the other hand, may prefer homosexuality over heterosexuality,
and vice versa.

>There is very little that goes on in your head that isn't a matter of choice.
>Sexual "preference" and "orientation" certainly are two of them.  At some
>level you CHOSE to be gay, just like I chose to be a straight, conservative
>minded liker of women with well-curved bodies.

Did you wake up one day and decide to be heterosexual?

--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
From: dlu@wobble.uucp (Doug Urner)
Subject: Re: babies
Organization: dlu UNIX Consultants
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:32:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.153352.4388@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>Also, there are psychological confrontations of the child with his father
>or mother, according to the child gender, that cannot be completely 
>realized with gay/lesbian parents.

Can they be "completely realized" in a single parent family?  Seems to
me I read somewhere that there were alot of these going around these
days.  I'm not qualified to comment on the reality of these
"psychological confrontations" but it seems to me that the problem is
not at gay/straight question but a question of how we build
communities in which there are adequate resources for raising
children.

-- 
Doug Urner, dlu@wobble   "They tear down our comrades like leaves from a tree,
dlu UNIX Consulting       leaves from a tree, leaves from a tree, but the
Bellingham, WA            tree still stands, its roots locked to the land."
206/676-5759                              -- Song of the Exile,  Barry Guilder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: bn566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ward Chanley)
Subject: Re: Regrets
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 02:29:47 GMT


Re: "Maybe we can find a compromise that
will..."

No compromises.  Ever.  Les/Bi/Gay
rights and equality are far too im-
protaint to be trivialized for the
sake of compromise or politeness.
We've been polite, compromising 
homosexuals for far too long.

$.02
-- 
"Imagine a war in which everyone won..."
Pet Shop Boys, "DJ Culture"
-----------------------------------------
Ward Chanley - bn566@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@polari.com
Subject: Re: babies
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:45:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.164502.12042@wam.umd.edu>
       aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>In article <j77jpks@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>>You say that homosexuals should not have children because of society's 
>>impressions of homosexuals.  Because of this, you seem to believe that
>>there will be something inherently wrong with this child because of this
>>pressure.  What will be inherently wrong?

>A person's personality has three parts, and each plays an important role
>in his/her life.

   Despite the fact that I promised myself I was NOT going to jump
Alberto's argument with Jeff, if only because Jeff is holding his own
better than I am and most of what I would have said here I said in
my reply to article <1992Apr6.151337.8805@wam.umd.edu>, there is
something I have to point out here.

   Alberto is a hardcase Freudian, with some Skinner thrown in at
his convenience.  A Jungian would argue from the point of view of a
five-part personality, with undertones of "mass subconciousness" thrown
in for good measure.  A hardcase behaviorist would argue that
EVERYTHING is a reaction-formation programmed in from the moment of
birth or possibly even before.

   The point being made that Alberto is using discussions that, for the
most part, are strictly the opinion of the researchers he quotes, just
as much as mine are those I quote.

>The child, in his/her mind, kills the parent of the same sex, in
>this imaginary confrontation.

   Oh, gimme a break.  How ridiculous can this Oedipal cycle get?
There are HUNDREDS of cultures where the roles of male parent/female
parent are so inadequately related to our own that there's no way this
sort of formation belief can occur; yet these chilren are perfectly
socialized to their cultures.

   You have a very Heterocentric, Westernized view of your own
superiority, Alberto.

>This is not a concient act. Then, the kid will
>have sense of right and wrong, of guilt when something wrong is done.

   Guilt can be formed far more easily than through the above scenario;
And conditioning behaviors can associate incorrect acts with denial
and/or pain, far more useful inhibitors than guilt, which is a vague
and etheral emotion.

>Another point is that the kid is living a double life.

   Won't happen when society learns to accept us.

>In school, for example, he/she is thaught about relations in some way
>that usually will take homosexuality as wrong.

   Won't happen when society learns to accept us.

>Then, at home, he/she, will have a different picture.

   Won't happen when society learns to accept us.

>Peer pressure, and society's pressure, will keep the kid from
>confronting this problem in a different way than a trumatic one.

   Won't happen when society learns to accept us.

>In the case of homosexuality, society will condemn it, so it
>is not a problem with the law, it is a problem with the society.

   Won't happen when society learns to accept us.

         Elf !!!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss