HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:31:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Dec31.204308.11118@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com (Brian
Douglass) wrote:
 
> 
> Well, as you will read in another post, Gays are descriminated against from
> donating blood due because of they're lifestyle has made them potentially
> dangerous to the public's health.  And this is not restricted to gays,
> there is a long list of people that are forbidden from donating because
> their lifestyle has made them potentially dangerous.  (IV drug users,
> people who pay for sex, having visited certain countries in the last year,
> etc.)  But the questionairre is very blunt, "Have you had sex with a member
> of the same sex?"  At the bottom, it says, "If you have answered YES to any
> of these questions, you must NOT donate."

Okay, okay, I was wrong.  Considering, though, that AIDS is not a disease
of homosexuals only, but is rather a *sexual* disease that is rapidly
catching up in the heterosexual population, I can't help but consider the
question somewhat outdated.  But maybe it's the best they can do at the
current time.  Anyway, my apologies for false information.

Jody

> >Stan Knight
> >|Still waiting for that secular reason|
> 
> Ahhh, now is that better?
From: jkusters@zeus.calpoly.edu (Chrome Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Why why why?!?
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:15:32 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

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?  This is something that I have noticed time and time again here.
If someone says "Homosexuals should have equal rights", the next thing I
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.

I just DON'T understand that.  *sigh*

JOhn.

-- 
/-John A Kusters, jr.--------------------------------------------------- ______
| jkusters@ares.calpoly.edu   b0- f- w g- s-- r p++                      \    /
Silence keeps us all in darkness, We can't change things overnight;       \  /
But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovsky & Phillips
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9106 alt.rush-limbaugh:13191 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11789
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 01:36:31 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

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

> In article <1993Jan4.203640.22101@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan
> >
> >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.
> 
> >wear clothing that is made from more then one type of material. Some seem to
> >think that using Leviticus as proof that "GOD hates homos" is o.k. but that
> 
> God does not 'hate' homosexuals. He 'hates' the lifestyle. That a
> woman desires a woman or a man desires a man (sexually).
> 
> If one of my children stole something from a store I would not 'hate'
> them, I would 'hate' the act of stealing.
> 
> -- 
> Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.


God does not hate anything.  The writers of the Bible hated either the 
lifestyle or Homosexuals, (depending on your interpretation.)  But this 
book was written by mere mortals.  The many contradictions in the 4 
gospels calls the trustworthiness and usefullness of the bible into very 
serious doubt.  To therefore claim that this book displays the will of 
god is probably  a view that is in doubt too.  God does not have much to 
do with the biases of the bible.  Using the bible to condemn "the 
lifestyle" is not an acceptable basis therefore to base our views and 
especially our laws on as is done now.

Pope Charles      SubGenius Pope Of Houston       Slack!

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:21:24 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Dec31.191942.9665@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com (Brian
Douglass) wrote:

stuff deleted

> 
> Homosexuals are currently discriminated from donating blood.  As are IV
> drug users, people who pay for sex, have recently visited certain
> countries, etc.  Because as a group these lifestyle choices present a public 
> health danger if they were allowed to donate.  Therefore, blood banks are
> required to screen and turn away these people, as well as laws now exist
> in most states making it a criminal offense (I believe felony here in AZ) to 
> lie about any of this conditions during screening and donate.
> 

Now, wait a minute.  I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that
blood banks screen for impurities in a donor's blood, be it the HIV virus,
syphilus, gonorrhea, etc.  This does * not* mean screening for sexual
orientation -- a gay or bisexual or lesbian has the same privacy in that
area as  a straight person.  They don't ask you to sign a form, and it's
not branded in your bloodtype.  I will grant you that, as a group, gays
*used* to run a greater  risk of having AIDS, but by now I think that
disease is just about even in both populations and gaining in the straight
one.

> >How does granting equal protection to homosexuals impact the greater good
> >of the public ?
> 
> Why is it necessary?  My employer has no idea nor needs to know my sexual
> preferences, attitudes, choices.  Why must homosexuality have protection?
> Must blonds next have protection because some hair-brained scientist shows
> that on average they have lower IQs?  Where does it stop?
> 
> Discrimination in the work place based on anything other than job
> qualifications, is discrimination.  Why must we pigeon hole everyone in
> society into these little minorities?  That does nothing by fractionalize
> society and encourage stereotyping, and the inherit prejudices that go
> along with that.  We've all heard the stories "Oh, he's black, he must have
> got here on Affirmative Action."  "Oh, look how sexy she dress, she must
> have got there on her back."  "Oh, she's the bosses daughter, she got her
> job from nepotism."  
> 
> Everytime we label another group of people under the law, we implicitly make
> them seperate but equal, and that isn't equal.
> 

Let's not ignore the fact that ideals of equality rarely work in the
workplace or the societal system without help.  The system is set up to
favor certain practices and certain ways of thinking, and those who differ
in either area need protection  if diversity is truly to be considered
okay.

Jody


> >
> >--
> >Tim Fogarty
> >Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
> >FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
From: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:04:55 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: vavau.corp.sun.com

In article 25413@wam.umd.edu, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	The present situation:  Lots of anti-homosexual violence.
>	The cure:  Self-defense classes for homosexuals (something
>		I think *everyone* regardless of sex or orientation
>		should take *anyway*)
>		   A philosophycally sound argument against gay bashing.

No.

The cures:	Self-acceptance.  A refusal to buy into victimhood. A refusal to give away power.

	"Classes" in which those who seek power over others learn to find their own
	power and overcome their greed for that of others.

>	The response: We don't need no stinkin' "sound argument"!

You may think that *you* need it, but *we* do not.

No one needs to justify one's existence to you. It is only a self-serving hunger for power that
you seek to quench, and we don't need to feed it.  Go sate your appetite somewhere else.
If you later learn to overcome your greed, come back and share with us as a friend.

>	What this accomplishes:  Jack shit.

Self-justification?
Self-validation?

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Mark Barnes, System Engineer    |  <insert standard disclaimers here>
SUN Microsystems Computer Corp. |
Corporate Technical Escalations |  I speak for myself, an individual,
Menlo Park, CA, USA             |  not for the company for which I work.
barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM      |
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:34:13 GMT

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:

>> I am perfectly aware of the references to the Christan God in the D.
>> of I.  Jefferson was a Deist, but by no stretch of the word was he a
>> Christian.  The references to "God" were common in the literature of
>> the day, and were politically correct.  They served the needs of the
>> American colonies, especially when King George III supposedly had
>> "divine providence".  Call it undermining the king's authority.

>How can you be *aware* of those references and state that they refer
>to the christian god? These men were *ALL* high ranking Masons.
>These men were *ALL* actively pursuing a State in which the exoteric
>factors where in line with the esoteric doctrine of the Masonic Fraternity,
>not christianity. The hermetic significance of Nature and Natures god 
>from a masonic POV is enough to send good christians running for the holy
>water. The inalienable rights meant are beyond the comprehension of
>people who need a holy book of revealed scripture to tell them whats
>moral and whats not.

Please re-read my above paragraph.  I am not by any means trying to
say that any of these men were Christians.  I'd be interested in
seeing proof that they were "*ALL* high ranking Masons" though.

>> However, like I said, science at least offers proof of some of its
>> basic phenomena.  Religion offers none.
> 
>What you are expected to believe on faith, *cannot* be proven.

I didn't say that it could or should.  I was responding to another's
assertion that religion and science rely equally on faith.

>> I find it amazing, though characteristic of many Christians, that you
>> see your narrow views as "what religion is about".  This goes to show
>> how little you know about it.  Several billion people would disagree
>> with you.

>In fact, heres a home work assignment.
>lets go look at the percentages.

>what percentage of the worlds population is christian?

I'm personally not interested enough to do the research.  If you want
to come up with numbers, feel free.  My point is that not all people
are Christians, and that many of them profess other religions.  The
assertion that Christians know "what religion is about" is arrogant,
and just plain incorrect.
-- 
-----------------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: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:12:53 GMT
	    <C0DG7p.6E3@world.std.com>
	    <C0Lvun.LAI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <C0Lvun.LAI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:

>In article <C0DG7p.6E3@world.std.com>
entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) writes:

>>In article <dlhanson.27.726175240@nap.amoco.com>
dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:

>>>Some forget that God is intolerant of sin; He is a God of love AND
>>>JUSTICE. More of the Lord Jesus Christ's words follow: 

>>So where does Jesus say anything about Homosexuality? 

>That's the funny thing. Jesus doesn't say a single word about homosexuality
>or abortion in the entire NT. All the anti-Gay quotes I hear are from the
>OT and from the letters and speaches of the APOSTLES. I'm not really big on
>the theory that the apostles knew the word of the Lord God better than  Jesus
>did. After all, the apostles were as human and feeble as any of us. They made
>mistakes.

Hear, hear. D. L. Hanson has told me that corruption in the Church started
in the third century. In fact it was much earlier than that, and specifically
it started with Paul, who has mistakenly been given sainthood.

To Paul's credit, though, even he has disclaimed revelations from God, and
that his epistles spring from "Christian inspiration", not divine law.
From: jackies@fc.hp.com (Jackie Sheddy X6958)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:35:21 GMT
Organization: The Edge of the Final Frontier
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.3 PL6]

Stan Knight (stank@perrault.unet.com) wrote:
: 
: 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
: what kind of bugs to eat(Eaten any bugs lately?)and that it is a sin to 
: wear clothing that is made from more then one type of material. Some seem to
: think that using Leviticus as proof that "GOD hates homos" is o.k. but that
: the latter verses are "inconsistent with our times".(I've been personally told
: this) I am curouis about this guy Leviticus. Does anyone have background info
: on him? What he says about gays does not seem to jive with the teachings of
: Jesus, as I understand them.
: 
: Stan Knight
: |This is not a .sig|
:  
:  

	My  understanding of Leviticus is that it was intended to be the
	law of the  priesthood  of the Levites.  I read the book several
	times and came to the conclusion that it dealt with  sacrifices,
	temple prostitutes and other stuff dealing with the priesthood.

--
Regards,

Jackie
jackies@hpxxx.fc.hp.com
Hate is NOT a Family Value!!
From: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 12 Jan 1993 00:43:06 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: vavau.corp.sun.com


In article 2234@wam.umd.edu, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	Any decision that an individual makes that is out of line
>	with the general populous is suspect unless there's a lot
>	of evidence or logic on the side of that decision.
 
I've seen the "general" populace at work, and I will make my own observations
and make my own conclusions, thank you.

>	I don't think most people are competent to control their 
>	credit card spending, let alone interpersonal acts like
>	sexuality.  

And so you and those who agree with you will take control of these on our behalf?
Why thank you.

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Mark Barnes, System Engineer    |  <insert standard disclaimers here>
SUN Microsystems Computer Corp. |
Corporate Technical Escalations |  I speak for myself, an individual,
Menlo Park, CA, USA             |  not for the company for which I work.
barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM      |
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 9 Jan 1993 18:47:34 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


In article <1ikq7sINN43j@hp-col.col.hp.com>,
smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

(Much material deleted)

>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.

>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.

It would seem then that "some of the gay posters" are wrong or have
even misrepresented the intent of these two books.

While this might cast a shadow over "some of the gay posters" it says
nothing about the book, and evidently to Mr. Smith the book
which he read was not objectionable despite the fact that it teaches
more than just "queers exist."

Is that the point?

The _US News & World Report_ excerpt seemed a bit crazed.  I certainly agree
that in order to teach respect for Heather as the child of a Catholic family
as the example cited that it would not be necessary to have the kiddies
read a book on "Heather Finds Peace as a Nun."  But is the point
of the Rainbow book that Heather is the child of lesbian parents or that
"Heather Finds Peace as a Gay Rights Activist"?

The US News' attempt at a parallel seems like a sophist's ride on a non
sequiter.


Jack Carroll
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: hjanules@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Any good (non-porn) gay mags?
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:10:36 EDT
Organization: Hampshire College
NNTP-Posting-Host: hamp.hampshire.edu

Good Queer Mags-
	The Advocate (found next to Playboy in my hometown-ask them if they
think it is pornography.  Now that TA has made the advertising section of each
issue an entirely separate entity (no more 900 number adds), it is a lot less
racy)-general national and international queer politics

	Out-a fashion magazine with queer beauty and lifestyle tips

	Deneuve-a fashion magazine for women (or I should say, marketed towards
women)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	These three are the only national ones that come to mind.  You might
want to check the gay groups in your area to see if any put out newsletters,
zines or the like.  Every large city (I think) has at least one queer, or
queer-friendly newspaper.  I hope this helped.

	(and for those who are looking for porn, On Our Backs for the ladies is
quite a treat!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Telling me what it is I want....
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:49:49 GMT
Reply-To: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: vavau.corp.sun.com

In article 1iujedINN4i2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton) writes:
>Why is it that I always distrust people who tell me what it is I really
>want?

Perhaps because they stand to profit from your buying it???


--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Mark Barnes, System Engineer    |  <insert standard disclaimers here>
SUN Microsystems Computer Corp. |
Corporate Technical Escalations |  I speak for myself, an individual,
Menlo Park, CA, USA             |  not for the company for which I work.
barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM      |
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:28:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan4.230333.17538@asl.dl.nec.com>,
dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> >wear clothing that is made from more then one type of material. Some seem to
> >think that using Leviticus as proof that "GOD hates homos" is o.k. but that
> 
> God does not 'hate' homosexuals. He 'hates' the lifestyle. That a
> woman desires a woman or a man desires a man (sexually).
> 
> If one of my children stole something from a store I would not 'hate'
> them, I would 'hate' the act of stealing.
> 
> -- 
> Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.

Excuse me, but isn't this a little presumptious of an individual... to
speak *for* God (Goddess/other), dictating His (hers/its) hatreds and
loves?  You're certainly entitled to do so if you honestly feel that you're
right, but just on general principles the statement makes me uneasy.

Jody
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Is sexuality chosen or inborn? A users guide.
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:04:30 GMT


In article <1992Dec31.234026.25568@nwnexus.WA.COM>, 
elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
|>
|>In article <1992Dec31.023656.13340@bsu-ucs>
|>     d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman) writes:
|>
|>>Preference vs. Orientation vs. Behavior
|>>Can people choose these things??
|>
|>   Yes.
|>
|>>Sexual orientation (the biological, uncontrollable attraction to
|>>another) is inherent.
|>
|>   And I will argue that this isn't necessarily so for all people!
|>You're pigeonholing a term.  By your argument, my sexual orientation is
|>heterosexual and my sexual preference is homosexual and my eventual
|>behavior is bisexual... and I want to know how, in this ridiculously
|>heterosexual world THAT happened?
|>
|>   Either that or I have NO sexual orientation at all, and I dictated
|>my sexual preference by choice, not conditioning.

Elf, couldnt it be that you were always biologically bisexual (something
other than a Kinsey-0 or Kinsey-6), that your behavior was for many
years exclusively straight, and that now you choose your behaviour to be
bi ?

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh