HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:24:25 GMT

In article <1ikpkbINN3uo@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>
>> One can be fired just for being homosexual almost anywhere in the country. 
>> The exception being those places which have statutes prohibiting such unfair
>> discrimination.
>
>Sounds like Colorado isn't any more a "hate state" than most anywhere 
>else, then.

Most states have not explicitly voted for heterosexual privilege; it
simply exists by default.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:32:23 GMT


In article <1993Jan6.184314.10452@wam.umd.edu>,
 rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

|>	The whole point in bringing up these other examples of animal behavior
|>	is to show what a downright pin-headed argument the animals
|>	argument (pro-homosexuality) really is.
|>

Its the other way around.  Many times on Usenet and in the real world, 
naive people new to the subject of homosexuality and gay rights have used
the arguement that "homosexuality is not natural because you never see
animals doing it."  We simply refute this statement by giving examples
that show homosexuality does occur in other animals.

--
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
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: APA and Homosexuality
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:13:23 GMT

In article <18312@autodesk.COM> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
}In article <1993Jan6.020825.2633@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}> In article <C0Aww2.M6q@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
} 
}> }As far as i know, even 
}> }anti-reason societies oppose, to varying degrees, homosexuality.
} 
}> This is false.  The ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality.  I'd think that
}> the society of Socrates and Aristotle was one of the more pro-reason ones,
}> wouldn't you?
}
}be careful with that one, the Athenians held their women in almost
}total slavery. 

Not quite, at least according to Kitto's "The Greeks."

}A better example is the Ancient Celts, who had no proscriptions against
}homosexuality one way or the other.

Good example.  Thanks!  However, since Objectivists idolize Aristotle, I
thought I'd point out that he and the rest of his buddies had the alleged
"sickness" Grossman was talking about.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 1993 18:12:19 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> So.. all other things being equal two individuals in a comitted partnership
> provide more support for a child than a single parent, even if the two 
> individuals are the same gender, right?

Correct. 

> > then I would not make any 'morality' judgements 
> > on it without doing so from a 'religion' standpoint.  
> 
> uh..
> sorta makes it a moot point when you reserve the religion angle!

It means, if you have to use religious philosophy to determine the 
morality of something, it shouln't be legislated.  Doesn't make it 
"moot", people's thoughts on morality shouldn't be looked on so 
lightly; but those views should also _not_ be forced in legislation. 

> how about respecting that some of us have different religions
> with different moral codes, and keeping our respective religious
> taboos to ourselves .. eh?

Keeping them to ourselves as in not legislating them, I'm with you 
there.  Or do you mean, don't even speak them in public? 

> Gee , I wonder if you'll answer this one, you've been ignoring all my other
> ones :-)

Nothing personal, Owen.  If I didn't respond to some of your postings, 
either I didn't see them, or I didn't find anything in them that 
called for a response.  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:59:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.021926.5712@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>
>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. 

There is something in the New testament, that a "thumber" showed me as
evidence that "the end was near."  I don't remember book, chapter or
anything, but the passage was something along the lines of:

"And men will turn to men, and women will give up their function."

Now, this speaks nothing of morality, persecution, etc towards
homosexuality, only that it as a sign of "the end" and this will occure.
Eh?  Just .02 worth.

>-- 
>Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
>The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
>Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
From: hither@yohn.Corp.Sun.COM (Thomas Yohn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 12 Jan 1993 23:04:44 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: hither@yohn.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: yohn.corp.sun.com

>
>>Please, state the name of one Christian who has killed a homosexual.
>>
>>Ted

>Adolph Hitler!

Dan White
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:36:51 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <dlhanson.30.726423550@nap.amoco.com>
dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:

>In article <kZgZwB3w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com>
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

>>The writers of the Bible hated either the lifestyle or Homosexuals,
>>(depending on your interpretation.)  But this book was written by mere
>>mortals.

>Mr. Barwell has again shown his ignorance (or is it contempt) of the Bible.
>God wrote the Bible by inspiring mortals to write what He wanted to say.

How do you know that God has not inspired Mr Barwell as well, David?

>God does indeed hate sin including sodomy, adultery and divorce.  Let no 
>reader be deceived by Mr. Barwell's "gospel". There is only one end 
>assured for followers of that "gospel".     

What, true inner peace?

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,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:03:33 GMT

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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:54:30 GMT

Ric writes:
>Notice heterosexuals are still (perversely) protected by the existing
>anti-discrimination ordinances in Colorado.

gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson) writes:

>No, they are not protected.  Legally, Heterosexuals are not a "protected
>minority", this ammendment simply says that having an "alternate" life style
>does not qualify one as a protected minority.
[...]

You are incorrect. The Aspen, Bolder, and Denver laws prohibited
discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of religion,
sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. Here is the relevant part of
Amendment 2: "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 [... a ] claim of discrimination."

If you opposed antidiscrimination laws because you were under the
mistaken impression that they discriminated, please reconsider you
position. The only discrimination-related law that I know of that
discriminates is Amendment 2. It allows straights to be protected but
forbids gays from being protected.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights in Lafayette,IN
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:45:11 GMT

00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:


>In the city of Lafayette, there is a bill that went before the Lafayette City
>Council amending pending state ordinances to allow homosexuals equal rights. 
>As of the time of this posting, the city council had tabled the bill to (I
>think) the state assembly to have THEM decide.  If the state assembly declines
>to vote on the issue, it falls back to the Lafayette City Council.  More later.

Thanks for posting this! Keep us informed. Does Indiana have ANY municipality
with a sexual orientation-inclusive Human Rights Ordinance?

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  ***Clinton-Gore '92***
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
0.5% of the U.S. population owns 48.4% of the assets. 1% owns 61.8% and 10%
owns 91.7%. -- Source: Arthur B. Kennickell,_ Demographics & Household Savings_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cjk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Homosexuality as a religion--Fu** That!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:39:36 GMT

In article <106872@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.230920.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>
>cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>
>>HOMOSEXUALITY IN *HUMANS* IS *NOT* NATURAL!
>What the hell are you babbling about?
>>It is a FACT that most molestations occur by homosexual males.
>Lie. BIG Lie. 95% of molesters molest little girls, usually
>relatives, which is why it is kept hush-hush. The other 5% are
>fixated, usually molest boys, have about 10 times more victims
>on average than those who molest girls, and are usually strangers.
>Hence they are the ones you hear about.
>You don't have the full story.
>>your mission to convert people to homosexuality and to make it an
>>acceptable lifestyle will never work.
>This is pure paranoid bullshit at its worst.
>>						Sophomore
>Evidently.
>Brian


This is what I meant by painting the most negative picture of the opposition
you can.  Everybody has their own favorite lies about homos and heteros.


Chris Kevlahan
cjk@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Giving Blood (WAS Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality))
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:07:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan5.073027.15391@anasazi.com>
briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:

>My point is NOT that gays ARE a harm to the general public, but legal
>descrimination against the individual in certain cases is allowable. [...]
>Blood donation is a specific case where people who have had sex with a
>member of the same sex, an action generally to be called gay activity are
>forbidden from donation.  It is the activity that justifies the
>disqualification, just as it does with someone who pays for sex. Same thing.  

Seems to me that, given the use of careful screening procedures of donated
blood, that the proper discrimination is in discarding tainted blood, not in
disallowing donation from a person who fits a broad characterization.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
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: 9 Jan 1993 23:38:49 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>   Next I suppose you are going to tell us that Jim Crow laws were
> just great since they only codified the discrimination that was
> already prevelent throughout society anyway. Sheesh.

Micheal, the question wasn't 'is it Ok that other states don't have 
sexual orientation clauses, or it's ok to discriminate.'  The question 
was, how is the current situation in Colorado *different* in practice 
from a state that has no sexual orientation clause? 

>   So Walter, I don't believe that I've seen you answer this one:
> are *other* anti-discrimination laws OK,

Again, the 'correctness' of having anti-discrimination laws isn't 
what is being asked.  The question is the effective difference from 
Colorado to other states without such policies, be they "good" or "bad". 
If, however, you feel there is any relative significance to my own 
personal views on such policies, I am in favor of anti-discrimination 
laws that include sexual orientation clauses.  

>   Unless you have some principle which says that as a general 
> ideology anti-discimination laws are wrong, I give you just
> about as much credence as the southerners howling about giving
> the "niggers" and "kikes" special priviliges -- like being able
> to vote. That is to say, none.

Where you got the idea I'm in favor of keeping other anti-dis clauses 
and purging the orientation ones, I don't know; unless you just knee-jerkingly 
assumed that since I was, in an UN-PC way, questioning the sacred cow 
of "hate-state" status, I must be in favor of discrimination.   

So again, how is the situation in Colorado different in practice from 
the situation in other states without anti-discrimination policies that 
include sexual orientation, where you would also have no legal recourse 
against being fired for being gay, like in the Cracker Barrel case? 

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9004 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11613 alt.politics.clinton:19657 alt.politics.bush:15580
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:24:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality

In article <C0CKpI.3J9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, 
kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
> 
>  The most important arguement against Children of the Raindow type programs 
> is the one I hear least
> expressed.  The basic fact is that Johnny ( & Janie ) can't read under 
> the current conditions.  Instead
> of taking on more responciblities, the public school system should figure 
> out current problems.  This
> lack of basic knowledge of our children is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than educating 
> them about homosexuality.
> If public school systems weren't such a complete, and total failure; then 
> they could try expanding 
> their goals.  Until they clean up current problems, I don't want to hear 
> about new programs!


well, I'm as queer as you can get, and basicly I agree with you.

Teaching kids to think critically is the best weapon against ignorance
and bigotry we could have.

I also think that the diversity programs involved in such programs
as *Rainbow* are a very small part of the overall deal.
Could it be that if we look at this program in its entirety, instead of
focusing on one or two books, we might find a program designed to help
kids develop sound critical thinking.
Could it be that the people who are keeping the focus on one or two extremely
controversial books don't want their kids to develop the ability to
think independently and critically?

> ( FLAMERS :  Go ahead, you will only show your true ignorance. ) 

the only fame you'll get from me is that I had to frob your lines
to reply. please try to set your editor to use lines of less than 80
characters.

LUX ./. owen



--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, owen@autodesk.com
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
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 00:48:47 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: vavau.corp.sun.com

In article 7747@wam.umd.edu, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	On the other hand, I have been *asking*, repeatedly, for a good
>	argument in favor of homosexuality...

Why should anyone justify her/himself to *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
From: rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:01:22 GMT

In article <1infnuINNdks@hp-col.col.hp.com> 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? 

In the first place, insisting on talking about the current situation
misses one of the points.  While many places have not forbidden
discrimination, Colorado has explicitly legalized it.  For those of us
who favor outlawing discrimination, one is a sin of omission, the other
a sin of commission.

In the second place, here is a difference.  CO2 prevents any court's
enforcing a policy that protects non-straight people from
discrimination.  I don't have the text in front of me, but the language
is not explicitly limited to governmental policies.  Suppose I work for
a company enlightened enough to have a policy protecting employees from
being fired for being gay, but for a manager unenlightened enough to do
it anyway, and I am fired for being gay.  I can go to court in any
state but Colorado to compel the company to follow its policy, under
contract law, but CO2 denies me that access.

A stranger difference is the following:  Aspen, Denver, and Boulder
have ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.  CO2 prohibits the enforcement of these insofar as they
protect homo- or bisexual people, but, bizarrely, leaves them in force
with respect to heterosexual people.  So in those cities you still can't
be fired by your (presumably non-straight) employer for being straight.
In fact--unintentionally, I'm sure--CO2 does create "legalized
privilege".

--Rich
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:29:09 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan10.174837.26171@wam.umd.edu>
rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>>> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs) writes:

>>>>BTW, ever see a "Kill a Queer For Christ" bumper sticker? They're
>>>>very popular down in the South..

>	Is this for real?  

There were similar signs carried by onlookers at last year's St Patrick's
day parade, when a GLB contingent marched by...you know, the standard
"GOD HATES FAGS" placards.

The most disturbing image I saw was what appeared to be three generations
of females, from precious little granddaughters to Mom and her sisters, and
let's not forget Granny. Granny was actually jeering as much as the hordes
of teenage boys around her, and appeared to be instructing her granddaughters
to throw rocks at and spit at the GLB marchers.

Lovely, just lovely. The family that hates together.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush