HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
XXXDate: Mon, 25 Jan 93 17:11:41 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A7896D5D31010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:11:54 GMT

In article <1jpag0INNl9m@transfer.stratus.com> Mark Christensen,
markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.120809.24378@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> 
>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>>Actually, while some of it's citizens do in fact adhere to such a moral
>>code, our country adheres to a =legal= code.  That legal code has some of
>>it's roots in your moral code, as well as in many others.
>>
>As it should.  Would homosexuals then allow beastiality?  Beastiality
>is against the law, yet it isn't hurting anyone?  It sexual deviancy
>just like homosexuality.  What's the difference?  Only who your
>partner is...right.  

Wrong.  There is an important legal concept called "informed consent" that
is central to most issues of sexual conduct.  An animal (or a child, or some
mentally ill people) cannot give this kind of consent.  This may not be the
original reason for laws against child abuse and beastiality, but there is
an ethical justification for their place in our our legal code.

>Well, our laws have developed from Judeo/
>Christian morals (for the most part).  

At best, they have evolved to be generally consistant with Judeo/Christian
morality because, for the most part, that moral code is ethically sound. 
What we are debating are the exceptions to that generality.

>Why is murder wrong?  Why is child abuse wrong?  Why is theft wrong?

Because they deprive someone of something that rightfully belongs to them. 
The ethical basis for such laws are so obvious that I won't waste bandwidth
on them, unless you insist.

> Why is lying wrong?  

Interesting that you would bring that one up, since it is not illegal except
in very specific circumstances.  There are even circumstances where it is
ethically justifiable.  It is "wrong" simply because it erodes the trust
that others might be willing to place in you, but that is a practical, not
an ethical consideration.

The point is, none of these things are "wrong" because of any religious
tenets.  They are "wrong" for rational, sensible reasons.

>Because a moral code based on Judeo Christian beliefs says
>so and it has been incorporated into law.

I realize that this is a widely held misconception.  Laws exist to
facilitate interaction between people with different interests and
motivations.  I believe it is a gross misuse of law to use it to to enforce
the morality of any religion.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT                    | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172             | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243                |
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: HATE CRIMES
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:50:04 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov


In article <1993Jan22.185955.28428@netcom.com>, cjk@netcom.com writes:

|>
|>This may be a little esoteric--But why is Lady Justice pictured with a 
|>blind fold on?  If a poor man kills a man for his money, should he be
|>treated less severly than a rich man?  What is a hate crime?  Didn't the
|>poor man hate the rich man for his money?  I think its called
|>situational ethics.

No, the poor man did not hate the rich man for his money.  Hate is not
the same as envy or lust.

The motive of a crime is used in determining sentence.  Killing someone
because you hate what they are is much different than killing someone because
you want what they have.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10157 talk.religion.misc:27374 talk.politics.misc:69428
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Date: 23 Jan 93 16:43:15 GMT
	    <1993Jan22.211348.18894@s1.gov>
	    <1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu>
aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
>they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
>will be taken as men.

Ridiculous! What about the priesthood is INHERENTLY male?

>There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
>the natural differences between them.

The differences are biological, not spiritual.

>If a man can carry a baby to term, he is a woman and not a man.

But if a women chooses to have no children, is she less of a woman?

>So, the church, as an institution, has posts which are for men and 
>posts which are for women. 

What's the reason, though? Why spiritual segregation for biological
reasons?

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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10322 alt.rush-limbaugh:15209 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13880
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 26 Jan 1993 07:53:52 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan25.222927.9448@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1jv6feINNbt5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> 
>cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
>> After all, once you've "come out of the closet", you could never make
>> -any- kind of reference to being straight ever again, could you? You'd 
>> have to lie, and pretend to be gay, and pretend to be indignant when 
>> someone says a -really funny- joke about AIDS, 
>It's not necessary to be a homosexual in order to express indignation
>over a "really funny joke about AIDS".  You're giving heterosexuals
>way too little credit.  

I'm not talking about heterosexuals in general (which happen to include me);
I'm talking about Ted. Ted probably finds AIDS jokes very funny. I don't. 

>> and you'd have to pretend to be 'between boyfriends',
>I've had to pretend to be 'between girlfriends' before.

In order to keep your job? I seriously doubt it.

>> and generally have to repress your own personal beliefs because you don't 
>> want to lose your job. 
>What makes you think heterosexuals don't have to go through
>similar contortions?

Maybe it's because I'm a heterosexual who has never had to claim otherwise to
hold a job?

-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:47:59 GMT

In article <john.727896602@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>Please reread the amendment (enclosed). It denies
>>discrimination-on-the-basis-of-gay-sexual-orientations as grounds for
>>any lawsuit. It does this by, among other things, prohibiting the
>>state courts from enforcing the laws that establish such
>>discrimination as a tort.
>
>>(Also, it does not distinguish between private and government
>>discrimination and it does not prohibit laws prohibiting
>>discrimination-on-the-basis-of-a-straight-sexual-orientation.)
>
>>- Carl
>
>
>>=================
>>ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civil-liberty/amendment2.co.usa
>>=================
>>AMENDMENT 2  (AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION)
>>   "Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or
>>departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions,
>>municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce
>>any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual,
>>lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
>>relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or
>>entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
>>minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of
>>discrimination."
>
>Thank you for including the text. I see NOTHING here restricting torts.
>To me, this says that the state (and its subsidiary political creatures)
>cannot adopt a statute (law), regulation (force of law), ordinance
>(law) or policy (government practice). What does this have to do with
>lawsuits?
>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
>       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
> - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -

Judicial "policy" is set through precedent, and state courts are state
agencies.  Therefore, a state court would be forbidden to set a
precedent whereby such a claim of discrimintion might exist.

--Frank
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:19:33 GMT

In article <john.727896781@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>]Ever heard of people being outed, John?
>
>Only by other gays as a political tactic.

Somehow I'm not surprised.  Your ears remain closed to anything you
don't want to hear.

>]Right.  When the law mentions sexual preference, it's wrong unless
>]it's a context which limits the rights of queers.
>
>Only in the specific cases I gave.

Not that you seem intent on dispelling that impression any time soon.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Header-1:    Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice
X-Header-2:    about Oregon, watch out for Ohio, Idaho, Michigan, Maine, and
X-Header-3:    Florida.
X-Header-5:    Beware lunatic actuaries in the night!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:14:43 GMT

hither@yohn.Corp.Sun.COM (Thomas Yohn) writes:

>There have always been gays and lesbians in the military.

There have always been lesbians in the military?

I think that that might need to be reworded just a bit....

--
Michael D. Adams	|"Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
University of Illinois  | them from injustice?"	   -- Lillian Hellman
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	|"Computer, end program!"  -- Lt. Barkley at the end
Standard Disclaimers    | 	of ST:TNG, "Ship in a Bottle"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rossco@iastate.edu (Ross Stenersen)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:43:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.222927.9448@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1jv6feINNbt5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> 
> cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
> 
> > and you'd have to pretend to be 'between boyfriends',
> 
> I've had to pretend to be 'between girlfriends' before.
To hide the fact that you're heterosexual?  I'm confused.  What's the point.

> > and generally have to repress your own personal beliefs because you don't 
> > want to lose your job. 
> 
> What makes you think heterosexuals don't have to go through
> similar contortions?
The point is that gays have to continually hide things and lie if they want
to keep a job.  I have never worked anywhere where people had to hid the fact
that they were heterosexual to keep from getting fired.  You don't realize how
much people (esp men, it seems to me) talk about members of the opposite sex.
I'm constantly being quizzed on what I think of so-and-so and I will not lie
and pretend I have an opinion.  Most people just blow it off when I refuse
to answer but I've actually got friends who figured out that I'm gay that way.

Ross                                        "Ignorance and prejudice
                                            "And fear
rossco@iastate.edu                          "Walk hand in hand"
rossco@aol.com                                  --Rush  ("Witch Hunt")
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:48:26 GMT

In article <C1F30p.G1q@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Gregory.D.Wadlinger@dartmouth.edu (Gregory D. Wadlinger) writes:

>In article <C1E1nB.3J4.1@cs.cmu.edu>
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>> I wonder how many people who claim that there is no reason for
>> anti-discrimination legislation would be willing to write such
>> letters in the absence of that legislation.
>
>If you are gay, what do you do at work that sets you apart as gay and
>thus vulnerable to extraordinary ridicule?  

Is "extraordinary ridicule" the issue?  I thought it was job security.
But to answer the first part of your question, it could include:
wearing earrings, freedom rings, or black or pink triangle jewelry.
Or putting a picture of your lover on your desk.  Or pinning an
announcement of an LBG support group on the company bulletin board.

Your question has a slightly accusatory tone to it, one that I don't
think is warranted.

>My point is, gays don't deserve any more protection than anyone else,
>and that is what Krueger is trying to illustrate in a humorous way.

Who is asking for "more protection" than anyone else (presumably
straights)?  All of the actual anti-discrimination ordinations I have
seen prohibit "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,"
which protects gay people and straight people equally.  Or are you
simply pro-discrimination, and I missed it?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: lift ban on military for gay
Keywords: gay
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:01:34 GMT

In article <7wq3bbr@rpi.edu> leus@aix.rpi.edu (Sheua-Wan Leu) writes:
>Is the gay issue more important than domestic recession problems for 
>Mr. Clinton ? 
>
>

This issue is an Executive Order.  That means he can make these
decisions with out legislation.  So you see he is working on the
items now and eventually will send things up the hill to Congress.

And by the way....over 300 Active Duty Women became pregnant over in the Gulf
War.  Now how did those lebians do that?

Another thing......if all of you ethical and moral people out there
are honest to goodness for real....why not add to the application
into the military.....

1.  Are you or have you ever been and adulter?
2.  Have you ever been divorced?
3.  Have you ever had premaritial sex?


Do you realize that we have adulters in the Military at this very moment?
And the divorce rate in the military is high!!!!  Christ condemned
divorce.  How can we allow those perverted divocees into the military?

Bil Snodgrass

P.S.  Have any of you heard about port of call.  Well the navy is really
famous for them.  The navy pulls into a port, usually one that has
wonderful Brothels (whorehouses) and all the little navy boys jump
ship and spread their seed throughout the world!!!  Must I bring
up Amer-Asian Children in Vietnam and Korea?  Must I bring up the
fact that not only did the breeders create children they abandoned
them too!!!!  

Heaven knows why a homosexual would want to bunk with trash like breeders.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10404 soc.motss:58827
From: lmeissne@carson.u.washington.edu (Loren Meissner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: About Calling in Your Opinion on Ban
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:29:18 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

In article <1622381427011993/A14734/POSSE/1171DB963400*@mrgate.uwyo.edu> LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA) writes:
>	
>I just finished making all my calls to the many phone numbers that
>were posted (thanks to all who contributed!!).  I wanted to
>point out that it was very confusing when I called the various
>offices because some places asked me if I was "in favor or opposed
>to the ban" and other places asked me if I was "in favor or opposed
>to _lifting_ the ban." 
>
This proves my point that a WRITTEN (FAX or letter) contact is
the best way to go. When you send your opinion in writing,
it is usually fairly unambiguous, while with a phone call,
unless you listen carefully and speak carefully within a
few seconds to an often harried clerical person, your
opinion might actually be tallied in the  opposite column
from where you really want your opinion registered.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10211 alt.rush-limbaugh:15041 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13706 alt.politics.clinton:21105 alt.politics.bush:16326
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Date: 23 Jan 93 21:05:48 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <john.727819027@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>
>So could you. The Colorado amendment simply prevents the enactment of
>certain laws, which don't currently exist. It doesn't establish
This is false.  The amendment prevents state agencies including courts
from dealing with claims of discrimination based on lesbian, homosexual,
or bisexual orientation.

--Frank



I
suggest you actually read it.

--Frank
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:23:10 GMT

In article <108062@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>
>Silly me. Let's make that "Something is sexually immoral if not all parties
>involved do give conformed consent, can no longer give informed consent, or
>are not yet able to give informed consent to a sexual act."
>
>To my knowledge, prostheses don't fit into any of these three categories.
>

your problem is that you are trying to "create" a definition for
something that cannot be defined => what is immoral.
We can enumerate things that are immoral, but we cannot give a rule for
it.
So, you are playing on the hands of those who you are trying to defeat.

You want an example that will bring your definition down?

a) Let's assume that a mother, in her 40's had a son when she was
18 years old => He is older than 22 years old. Let's assume that they \
have sex and that both of them consent to it: Is it immoral anyway?

b) A dead body is not a person. You can ask for consent to someone 
who has a brain and can decide for him/herself and taking charge
for the consequences of that desicion. A dead body is like a chair,
a mattress or an orthopedic arm.

Then, so much for your definition.
What is moral or immoral is based on tradition, culture, and other
things that give no room for a definition of it.





>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.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Are you citizen Kane?

AAP
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10262 alt.rush-limbaugh:15118 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13791 alt.politics.clinton:21194 alt.politics.bush:16355
From: Gregory.D.Wadlinger@dartmouth.edu (Gregory D. Wadlinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:58:00 GMT
 <C1E1nB.3J4.1@cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b3@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <C1E1nB.3J4.1@cs.cmu.edu>
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> I wonder how many people who claim that there is no reason for
> anti-discrimination legislation would be willing to write such
> letters in the absence of that legislation.

If you are gay, what do you do at work that sets you apart as gay and
thus vulnerable to extraordinary ridicule?  
If you are fired because your boss doesn't like you (because you are
gay), you are no different from any of us who have ever been fired
because our bosses didn't like us.  I have been in this situation, and
it has made me appreciate unions more, because no employer should be
able to fire anyone unfairly.  If you are ridiculed for your sexual
preference (merely ridiculed, not threatened or otherwise endangered)
you are no more vulnerable to same than is an overweight person to fat
jokes, or a Christian to televangelist jokes.
If I were gay and someone threatened me (and I chose not to beat him to
a pulp) I would file a complaint with the police.  If someone told a
gay joke in my presence, I would have no reason to write a letter to
anyone.
My point is, gays don't deserve any more protection than anyone else,
and that is what Krueger is trying to illustrate in a humorous way.
wadlinger@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush