HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
XXXDate: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:01:57 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A773019526040614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 08 Jan 93 17:02:41 GMT

In article <MDL.93Jan7161052@ak.cypress.com> Matt Landrum, mdl@cypress.com
writes:
>Can one be fired strictly for being homosexual in Colorado?

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.  Denver, Boulder and Vail Colorado used to be such places,
but the recently passed Amendment 2 might change that, if it stands up to
constitutional challenges.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
From: hjanules@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: New on the net:saying hello
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:15:31 EDT
Organization: Hampshire College
NNTP-Posting-Host: hamp.hampshire.edu

Hello,
	I am new to the net, and a bit depressed.  I have read a lot of the
back discussions of this newsgroup, and am discouraged by the intense conflict
and insult.  "Living the life" as I do, I know it is hard and difficult, but I
feel, at least today, quite joyous and excited about being a BIG FUCKING QUEER.
	I am a body-piercing, neck-shaving, mostly-vegan byke/dyke: a
lithuanian little number with legs like a tree and a vocabulary that wont quit.
I am desperately in love with my little missus of eight months, and in
appreciation for my friends and parents who support me in my resident state of
New Hampshire and the state of my college, Massachusetts.  any others from the
granite state?  any one else in love?  THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL.
	Maybe I sound like a little New age geek, but I think there is more to
queer politics than death and destruction. Let me warn you however-if ANYONE
posts nasty letters about me or my lifestyle, I have no qualms about playing
another tune.  On that note, I will leave you and return to the bliss of my
deviance...

																				
						fezzer
From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:40:46 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 <1993Jan3.075724.27802@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec30.234500.21163@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
> 
> >Tell that to a smoker.  Clearly this is a lifestyle choice, and yet
> >non-smokers have persecuted them out of most public places.  Why?  Because
> >non-smokers find smoking offensive, smelly, and possibly dangerous to their
> >health.
> 
> Yes.  I object violently to people smoking in such a fashion so as to force
> me to partake of their habit.  But:
> 
> 1) I don't mind if you do it in your home
> 2) I don't mind if you exhibit "smokers behavior" in public
> 3) I wouldn't mind you smoking in public if I had to watch you doing it BUT
> 	as long as you keep your smoke off of my body.
> 
> Using your analogy for homosexuals;
> 
> 1) I don't mind what they do in their homes
> 2) I don't mind them exhibiting "gay traits" in public
> 3) I wouldn't mind them kissing, etc., in public, as long as they don't
> 	grab my tushy.
> 
> (My rule of thumb is;  if I wouldn't mind seeing a male/female couple doing 
> this in public, why should I care if two females or two males do it?)

Hear, hear!  

Jody
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9259 alt.rush-limbaugh:13492 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12083
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 23:57:52 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:
> 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.  

Either way you look at it, in a state where there is no inclusion of 
sexual orientation in the anti-discrimination statutes, the discrimination 
is legal.   As for Colorado "legalizing" it, that is true in three instances; 
Denver, Boulder, and Aspen; who had such orientation inclusions, and where 
such discrimination was explicitly _illegal_.  These towns were actually 
ahead of most of the country on protecting the rights of homosexuals. 
Now, those have been reversed, and the situation there has been reduced 
to being _on par_ with most of the rest of the country, which has no 
such sexual orientation clauses; where discrimination based on sexual 
orientation is *not* illegal.  (and thus, legal) As the Cracker Barrel 
case showed.   

> 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.

If the state in question doesn't have sexual orientation in the state's 
anti-discrimination codes, on what basis will you be approaching them 
legally?  If there is nothing in the law to protect you, you have no 
legal recourse.  And your example only even has meaning if the company 
you work for has such inclusion in _its_ policy.  What if it doesn't? 
Again, you're in the exact same legal situation as in Colorado.  

> 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".

Yes, in that instance, in those three cities, you're right.  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military
XXXDate: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:31:54 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76F768A02034519@oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 05 Jan 93 23:28:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.062700.14113@anasazi.com> Brian Douglass,
briand@anasazi.com writes:
>Basically
>giving homosexuals a chance to openly prove themselves (they have done so
>privately for centuries), while alleviating the perceived threat to
>privacy, masculinity, and unit cohesion?   As many have stated, being gay
>does not equate to being a raving sexual maniac, and their ability to
hold
>their libidos in check and be professional is just the same as the
>hetrosexual soldiers holding in check desires to fraternize with soldiers
>of the opposite sex.  Such a "cool" period, while absurd to many here,
>could provide the compromise to slowly, but inexorbly integrate open gays
>into the military.
>
>Comments?

This is precisely the argument I've been making here from day one.  It is
also the inevitable consequence of Clinton's executive order to lift the
ban on gays.

The predicted dire consequences are, as I see it, only so much smoke to
obscure a fear that homosexuals are becoming tolerated, and (dare I say
it?) even accepted by our society.  We've already accepted witches (i.e.
pagans), extramarital sex, and displays of human flesh in the cinema. 
It's just one more sign that we're all going to hell in a bucket.  And,
if that weren't enough, some of us have the unmitigated gall to enjoy the
ride!

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:43:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, Ca.
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

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

   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.  

I'll leave it to others to respond to the rest.  In the meantime, I'll
ask you what you mean by "some of the gay posters have claimed"?

The most active person I know of in this group on this subject is
straight.

Presumptions, presumptions, presumptions.
--

  - Ronald Hayden

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
   | Documentation Manager, Oracle Toolkit Group                    |
   | Co-chair of Oracle Lambda, Oracle's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual group |
   | Writer, magician, and various other things                     |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: asparrow@mcs213a.cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:13:50 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

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
>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

There are condemnationbs of homosexuality in Romans.  Along
with condemnations of many other sins.  

Leviticus is one of the Books of Moses.  It contains much of the Law.
However, Christians are no longer under the Law, but under Grace.
(See Hebrews for an example, using the story of Abraham)

A good example of how to approach the question of Law and Grace
is to consider the following:

A man cooked a large piece of meat until it was very tender.
He tried lifting it out of the pot with a fork, but the tines
just pulled right through the meat, shredding it.  Then he took
out a spatula and placed it under the meat, lifting it up. 

The meat is our sin-soft souls, the fork  is the Law and 
the spatula is Grace.  We cannot make it to Heaven by the Law
because no one can keep all of the Law.

Set sermonette off

Anyway, the Old Testament is useful mainly as History and
not as a pattern for our lives.  See _A Clockwork Orange_
for an understanding of the differences.

Angel, eclectic to the core.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9215 alt.rush-limbaugh:13394 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11985 alt.politics.clinton:19908 alt.politics.bush:15720
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: 8 Jan 1993 20:53:31 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

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.  And that for practical purposes, the situation in Colorado 
is no worse than in other states, unless you're overstating the situation 
elsewhere. 

Walter
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,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))
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:11:11 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

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

Well, here's the deal.  There's a lot of unplanned pregnancies, and
a lot of sexually transmitted diseases out there.  In order for us
to help protect our children from these nasties, we must educate
them about these things.  If we don't, they'll find out anyway, and
will be more likely to make the wrong choice.  And, once pregnant,
or infected with HIV, there is no second chance.

However, in order to help curb "I'm not normal" teenage suicides,
we must show homosexuality in at least a neutral light [ie:  homo-
sexuality exists, it's ok, there's nothing wrong with it, blah blah]
in these sex-ed classes.

Sex ed these days is a matter of survival.  "2+2 = 4" is not.  Although
it's good to know.  And, proper education is essential for a child
in order to form a good value system.  You can't just become a 
moral clone of your parents.

Get your priorities together, friend.

cpk
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:52:13 GMT

In article <dlhanson.30.726423550@nap.amoco.com> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
>
>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.
>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".     
>
>Signature follows:
>"Jesus saith unto him, I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life: NO MAN
>cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME"  John 14:6
>=========================================================================
>David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
>Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
>Any opinions expressed are my own!

Why do some Biblical Christians insist on quoting the KJV with its archaic
language and severe mistranslations?  Have they read _John_ in Greek?  Have
they read the Torah in Hebrew?

God's word mistranslated is _not_ God's word.

--Frank

Peace on earth toward people of good will.
(Literal translation from the Greek.)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9266 alt.rush-limbaugh:13500 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12090
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Date: 10 Jan 1993 01:40:42 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:
> 	(1) discrimination is forbidden by law
> 	(2) discrimination is not addressed by law
> 	(3) a law forbidding discrimination is prohibited
> You are correct that the effects of (2) and (3) on an individual's
> rights are the same.  Still, many people who favor laws prohibiting
> discrimination find changing from (1) or (2) to (3) much more
> reprehensible than simply being in state (2).

On that, I agree.  Being reprehesible was contrary to the point, though. 
Looking at it from a strictly functional view, the end result, even 
though one is more reprehensible than the other, is the same. 

> >If the state in question doesn't have sexual orientation in the state's 
> >anti-discrimination codes, on what basis will you be approaching them 
> >legally?  If there is nothing in the law to protect you, you have no 
> >legal recourse.
> 
> I will approach them under contract law.  A stated company policy has
> the force of a contract.  Thus if I am fired in violation of a company
> policy I will sue the company for breach of contract.  But in Colorado
> the court is prohibited from enforcing the company's policy.

I've got the text of the amendment, and I don't see anything there 
that would interfere with a breech-of-contract suit.  If such a 
reading were the case, companies in Colorado would have to have 
their anti-discrimination policies overturned, as in Denver, Boulder, 
and Aspen.  But that is not the case.  If a company (like mine) of its 
own will, grants such protections, #2 doesn't reverse them.  If you 
could sue for breach of contract elsewhere, you could there, too. 
 
Walter

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: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:19:52 GMT

In article <1inuqqINNj0v@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter
Smith) writes:

[In response to my hypothetical case of an employee fired despite a nondiscrimination policy:]
>rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:

>> >If the state in question doesn't have sexual orientation in the state's 
>> >anti-discrimination codes, on what basis will you be approaching them 
>> >legally?  If there is nothing in the law to protect you, you have no 
>> >legal recourse.
>> 
>> I will approach them under contract law.  A stated company policy has
>> the force of a contract.  Thus if I am fired in violation of a company
>> policy I will sue the company for breach of contract.  But in Colorado
>> the court is prohibited from enforcing the company's policy.
>
>I've got the text of the amendment, and I don't see anything there 
>that would interfere with a breech-of-contract suit.

"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."

It is not obvious to me that the text
	"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its agencies,
	political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts,
	shall ... enforce any ... 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"
does not forbid a court to enforce a policy under contract law.

>If such a 
>reading were the case, companies in Colorado would have to have 
>their anti-discrimination policies overturned, as in Denver, Boulder, 
>and Aspen.

Not overturned; just made unenforceable.  Similarly, a meretricious
contract (one which includes sexual acts among its terms) is not
"overturned", in the sense that one may not keep it; it is simply
unenforceable.

--Rich
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:07:06 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.

Vince Manis addressed this subject in soc.motss some time ago.  This
particular line of homophobic reasoning is really astonishingly
airtight, for it goes like this:

   A: Homosexuality is a perversion!  It has never been observed in
      nature and should not be considered natural.

   B: Of course it has!  It's been observed in dogs, in rats, in cats,
      gulls, geese, sheep, wildebeest ....

   A: Why, that's just my point!  We should consider ourselves *better*
      than the animals!

See?  Try to refute this argument.  I bet you can't.  Actually, no one
who has even the slightest grasp of logic can refute an argument like
this one.

"I think that the really excellent homophobes should be preserved in
Lucite so that future generations can marvel at them."  -- Vince Manis

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8922 alt.rush-limbaugh:12975 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11475 alt.politics.clinton:19579 alt.politics.bush:15500
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,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: 4 Jan 93 20:53:41 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


 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!

( FLAMERS :  Go ahead, you will only show your true ignorance. ) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality