HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjensen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mountain Man)
Subject: Quit Bashing Colorado
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:54:15 GMT

Some thoughts,

Homosexuals decide to be gay.  A woman has her kids and gets
tired of her husband's crap and tries a woman.  This is
choice.  Why does one lesbian in a couple try to be a man,
but that is another topic.

The people that voted FOR #2 in Colorado love the boycott.
None of them are in the travel business.  What do they care.
You can only hurt them by not eating corn, wheat or beef.
For them it means short lift lines, hardly any rental cars
screwing up traffic on the freeways, and most of all, it
hurts the homosexuals the most.  The travel industry in
Colorado employees a lot of gays.  Why not include a boycott
against changing planes at Denver's Stapleton Airport.  That
would clean up the airport.  The people being hurt by the
boycott are the cities of Denver, Vail, Boulder and Aspen
(cities that voted against #2) and the gays.  When the ski
lifts grind to a stop and go out of business, if you want to
continue skiing, you better like Vermont or Utah.

IMHO, it is asinine for a state like Georgia with a severe
sodomy law, to boycott Colorado.  This really chaps my ass.
Gays in Colorado can live in peace without being arrested.
Don't try that in Atlanta.  It is time for a reality check.

Worse of all, is the polarization of the gays, gay
sympathizers and the red-necks.  Many people that voted
against special rights for gays didn't really care what gays
did to each other until the gays started this "hate" thing.
Any hate was all on the side of the gays.  They are such
cry-babies.  All gays think about is hurting people that
don't agree with them.  They are hysterical heterophobics.
And such crying, I can't believe what I am hearing.

I saw a bumper sticker that said "Hate is NOT a family value"
Where did this person grow up.  Must have been an only child.
He/She/It must have had a special relationship with their
parents.  Most teenagers say "I hate my parents, they don't
understand me."  These people must have been out in the sun
too long to put something like that on their car.

I am convinced that the two groups will do anything to piss
each other off.  I just hope the gays don't push it until it
gets physical.  Seems like every time someone looks at a gay
in they report harassment.  These are very sensitive thin-
skinned people.  A person must have to be really touchy to
qualify to be gay.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mountain Man, Colorado, USA | MMMMMMMM | How many fingers am I holding up? |
| gjensen@nyx.cs.du.edu       | MMMMMMMM | Did you say "Just one?            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:49:43 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

The hiring of minorities is not nepotism.  Unless, of course, all of
the other workers, except for the white male, is a relative or close
friend of the Manager.  That is going a little too far.  The Manager
has every right to hire whomever he chooses.  He doesn't have to hire
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
your brother based on intelligence or prior experience.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What better criteria should you use? (This is only for a 'burger jockey'     
type job)  This is the type of thinking that make  people scream about
Equal Opportunity. If employers aren't looking at qualifications for
potential employees, then no wonder things are going to hell in a 
hand basket!


Either the kid was a total jerk or the manager didn't want a white
boy working there.

Tim.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Are women morally superior to men?
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:25:53 GMT

There is an interesting article in the 28 Dec 92 issue of "The Nation"
on page 799 titled "Are Women Morally Superior to Men?"  It seems to
be a reasonably good ventilation of the issue.

Dale

Dale Worley		Dept. of Math., MIT		drw@math.mit.edu
--
Captain's Log, Star-date 6701.9:  The weather is fine.  Beam down Yeoman
Rand and a six-pack.
From: keller@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Margaret Keller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Check OTHER
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:51:15 GMT
Reply-To: keller@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Margaret Keller)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Oops! Make that descendant and illicit drugs.  My sister the linguist
is going to punish me enough for that faux pas, so no flames, please!

				       keller@oasys.dt.navy.mil
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:12:10 GMT
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany

In article <1993Jan4.183518.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>
cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:


>All I can say is that while no group of citizens of this country
>deserves to be disciminated against, I hope that the issue of discrimination
>will not be twisted around.  Let's face it, it almost looks like the
>heterosexual white male is being heavily discriminated against.

If white heterosexual males are being discriminated against on the
basis of their race, sex, or sexual orientation then
anti-discrimination legislation applies.  Of course, for this to work
it is best if actual discrimination exists and can be proven.
Paranoid beliefs that discrimination exists don't count.

>For one, nepotism is back.  I went to the Jack-In-The-Box in my city.
>The Manager is Mexican.  So is every worker but one.  He is their
>(token?)  white.  My brother (who is white) tried to work there last
>summer and did not get in.  He is quite intelligent--and he even had
>prior fast food experience at Taco Bell the summer before!

>Additionally, if a gay person applies for a job and doesn't get it, it
>seems that they are beginning to immediately cry discrimination more
>frequesntly.

What is your point--that people like your brother do not take advantage of
anti-discrimination laws, but gay people do?  Do you have any evidence
for this or any other claim?

>Now, don't get me wrong.  Although I am a heterosexual male, I am not
>100% white.  Additionally, although I don't CONDONE homosexuality
>(because I am Catholic and also don't believe in it--and I find some
>aspects disgusting), I will not judge a person's CHARACTER by his/her
>sexual orientation.  If I was a manager and hired a heterosexual man
>and a homosexual man, all would be fine.

While I don't *condone* Catholicism, finding some aspects of it a 
disgusting perversion of Christianity, I will not judge a
person's CHARACTER by his/her religious orientation.

>If this bill is genuinely fair, then no problem...but most bills have
>trick clauses that make them a problem.

Examples?  Evidence?

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: drw@riesz.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:44:59 GMT
	<1993Jan4.183518.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>
	<1993Jan5.213758.9671@nevada.edu> <6b2ak99@Unify.Com>
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA


   The Manager
   has every right to hire whomever he chooses.  He doesn't have to hire
						 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   your brother based on intelligence or prior experience.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   What better criteria should you use?

Well, if we want to maximize "freedom", we should allow the manager to
hire whomever he choses.  Certainly, I'd consider "honesty", "common
sense", "obediance", and "dilligence" as far more important than
intelligence or experience in an employee.

The problem comes when *everybody* discriminates the *same way*, not
when somebody discriminates in a particular way.  (Perhaps we
should outlaw discrimination against the ethically impaired?)

Dale

Dale Worley		Dept. of Math., MIT		drw@math.mit.edu
--
The pleasure of satisfying a savage instinct, undomesticated by the ego,   
is uncomparably much more intense than one of satisfying a tamed instinct.
Reason is becoming the enemy that prevents us from a lot of possibilities  
of pleasure.	-- S. Freud
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
From: cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:54:46 PST
 <1993Jan5.171210.16938@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> <4836@moscom.com>
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvafy006

In article <4836@moscom.com>, jp@moscom.com (Jim Palmeri) writes:
> Some one wrote:
> ..........
>>>Now, don't get me wrong.  Although I am a heterosexual male, I am not
>>>100% white.  Additionally, although I don't CONDONE homosexuality
>>>(because I am Catholic and also don't believe in it--and I find some
>>>aspects disgusting), I will not judge a person's CHARACTER by his/her
>>>sexual orientation.  If I was a manager and hired a heterosexual man
>>>and a homosexual man, all would be fine.
> 
> Gene Ward Smith replied:
> ........
>>While I don't *condone* Catholicism, finding some aspects of it a 
>>disgusting perversion of Christianity, I will not judge a
>>person's CHARACTER by his/her religious orientation.
> 
>  
> 
> A very well done reply by Gene Ward Smith.  I would have liked to be able
> to put the point across as clearly as he did.  Thank you Gene.
> 
> The post to which Gene replied demonstrates what happens when a
> person writes before thoroughly thinking through an issue. 
> 
> It has happened to me plenty of times.  You get fired up by an issue,
> bang off a reply based on emotion and your personal predjudices, and 
> then the rest of the net sees that you either did not take the time
> to think, or didn't have the capacity to think.
> 
> Then when someone who does think clearly puts the issue into
> perspective, all you can do is say "whoops", and then try to do 
> better next time.
> 
> Thanks again Gene, keep up the good work.
> 
> -- 
> Jim P.   (jp@moscom.com)


	No, I HAVE thought it over thoroughly.  The parts that disgust me are
the sexual and reproductive parts -- they just weren't meant to happen (ie,
male-male, female-female).  Gene is also entitled to be disgusted by aspects of
Catholicism.  It's his view--just as I stated mine.  No, I'm not going to post
an oops--just to reaffirm and clear up the fact:  I have thought my view over
and that's how I feel. :)
From: jp@moscom.com (Jim Palmeri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:04:22 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY

Some one wrote:
..........
>>Now, don't get me wrong.  Although I am a heterosexual male, I am not
>>100% white.  Additionally, although I don't CONDONE homosexuality
>>(because I am Catholic and also don't believe in it--and I find some
>>aspects disgusting), I will not judge a person's CHARACTER by his/her
>>sexual orientation.  If I was a manager and hired a heterosexual man
>>and a homosexual man, all would be fine.

Gene Ward Smith replied:
........
>While I don't *condone* Catholicism, finding some aspects of it a 
>disgusting perversion of Christianity, I will not judge a
>person's CHARACTER by his/her religious orientation.

 

A very well done reply by Gene Ward Smith.  I would have liked to be able
to put the point across as clearly as he did.  Thank you Gene.

The post to which Gene replied demonstrates what happens when a
person writes before thoroughly thinking through an issue. 

It has happened to me plenty of times.  You get fired up by an issue,
bang off a reply based on emotion and your personal predjudices, and 
then the rest of the net sees that you either did not take the time
to think, or didn't have the capacity to think.

Then when someone who does think clearly puts the issue into
perspective, all you can do is say "whoops", and then try to do 
better next time.

Thanks again Gene, keep up the good work.

-- 
Jim P.   (jp@moscom.com)
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:29:52 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan5.184552.346@newsgate.sps.mot.com> hawk@hawk.sps.mot.com (George Hawkins) writes:
>As a Christian, I have been struggling frequently with the notion of rights for
>gays/lesbians, however, your letter just helped make my decision easier.  
>Lady, 
>you're talking about my hometown, so assuming you read my entire letter, here's
>what my position is (and I hope the majority of the folks still in Lafayette).
>The Bible is clear about homosexual behavior.  Yea, gays claim that people
>use the Bible just to thump gays/lesbian lifestyles, however, there is no
>misinterpretation that the Bible declares that type of lifestyle WRONG!
>I'm not in the business of using the Bible to thump gays, but still "fear" God 
>and don't want to be judged accordingly. It is still my society that will be 
>affected if gays/lesbian lifestyles become open & commonplace.  Did you ever
>hear of Sodom & Gomorah??  Also, I don't want my daughter or future children 
>getting influenced by someone else's idea of "alternative lifestyles".  If
>this type of lifestyle is approved by society, the odds of it affected future
>generations will be just that much more.

This letter perfectly illustrates why Church and State need to be 
rigorously separated. First of all, let us point out that many
Christian churches and movements either support or have no problem
with legislation of the type under discussion here. Second, the
Bible condemns other types of behavior such as "idolatry" and in
fact often demands extreme measures to counter such behavior. Why
should an idolatrous spouse be entitled to employment benefits
but not a gay one? Since you are so concerned about the role models,
would you allow the city to fire or refuse employment to known
idolaters? If so, are you about to empanel a board to decide whether
Mormons, Hindus, Budhists, Santerians, Satanists, etc belong
among your particular sect's definition of idolater?

-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Quit Bashing Colorado
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1993Jan12.150035.23293@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:56:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.150035.23293@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
   In article <1993Jan11.225415.9546@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, 
   gjensen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mountain Man) said:
   > Homosexuals decide to be gay.  

   Is there any reason to read this guy's article past this point?

There are a lot of people who are bisexual (at least in terms of the
sort of sexual lifestyle they could successfully maintain), probably
larger than the number of people who are intrinsically gay.  To a
considerable degree, the bisexuals have a choice as to what sort of
sexual lifestyle thay have.

Dale
From: robert@aero.org (R. S. Statsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:35:03 GMT
Organization: Your Guess Is As Good As Mine...
NNTP-Posting-Host: halcyon.aero.org

In article <1993Jan5.184552.346@newsgate.sps.mot.com> hawk@hawk.sps.mot.com (George Hawkins) writes:
>
> [fascist Bible-thumping omitted]
>

Finally, someone worth trashing again.

I love the way these Neo-Nazis try to hide their intolerance behind
the Bible. HELLO, GEORGE, the way this country is run is specified in
the CONSTITUTION, NOT THE BIBLE.

|affected if gays/lesbian lifestyles become open & commonplace.  Did you ever
|hear of Sodom & Gomorah??  

Did you ever hear of the separation of church and state?

|As a Christian, I have been struggling frequently with the notion of rights for
|gays/lesbians, however, your letter just helped make my decision easier.  Lady, 
|you're talking about my hometown, so assuming you read my entire letter, here's
|what my position is [...]

I'm sure we're all very touched by your obviously deep soul-searching, George.

			R.S.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Lafayette and Gay rights
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:47:48 GMT

In article <C0D4L3.4Hn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
   I have lost all respect for this communities leaders, because they
   have refused to come out either for or against it.  Leaders are
   intended to lead.  That is why we vote for them.  If we disagree
   with their decisions, we retain the right to vote them out of
   office the next election.

What planet are you from?  Leaders are supposed to lead, but democracy
elects followers, not leaders.  Leaders annoy the voters, and thus
don't get reelected.  It's a very good bet that the ambivalence of the
city council is an accurate reflection of the ambivalence of the
city's voters.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1993Jan4.183518.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:56:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.183518.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
   All I can say is that while no group of citizens of this country
   deserves to be disciminated against, I hope that the issue of discrimination
   will not be twisted around.

No *person* deserves to be discriminated against.  But whether that
means that discrimination based on certain traits should be outlawed
is another question.  (And to what degree it should be outlawed --
anti-discrimination laws are quite different from affirmative action.)
(And what does "discrimination" really mean?  Should women's public
bathrooms have more stalls than mens?)

Dale
From: keller@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Margaret Keller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Check OTHER
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:31:11 GMT
Reply-To: keller@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Margaret Keller)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Sorry I don't know which group this ought to go in, and it has as little
to do with alt.politics.sex as the bit about white power, but I wanted
to share a couple comments from my sister, Tisha Voss (50% chinese,
50% white pioneer/pilgrim/William the Conquerer decendant):

Check Other!!!!!

Racism is to geneology as drugs are to medicine.

				  Ciao',

				  Meg Keller
				  keller@oasys.dt.navy.mil

P.S.  The only thing I have against homosexuals is that I wouldn't be
able to give blood after having sex with one.  But since I'm a monogamous,
within the bonds of matrimony - type of person, this hasn't been too
great of an issue.  Hugs all.

*Obviously my opinions have nothing to do with my employer*
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Being Gay
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:45:16 GMT

In article <C0q1DL.J36@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
   My objection to the legislation in Colorado is based on a firm
   belief that America is a nation for everyone.  That America is a
   country that cannot legislate hetred.  That America is a nation
   where you are accepted for whomever you are, white or black,
   Catholic or Jew, U.S. born or immigrant, straight or gay.

Sounds good, but what about another minority:  violent people.
Certainly, there are wide differences between people in the number and
intensity of violent impulses they have.  Should the public not be
concerned with whether they act on them?

The issue always boils down to the fact that the public will concern
itself with those impulses and practices which it thinks harm society.
Of course, it's hard to determine what "harming society" really is,
but that never stops anybody.  And of course, no two people agree
exactly on the matter.  Often, they are diametrically opposed.  But
usually, people never think that acting on the impulses *they* have is
harmful to society, although they often think that the impulses that
*others* have is.

(BTW, I think you're going a little hard on the Catholics.  As far as
I know, they don't consider homosexual *impulses* to be sinful, only
acting upon them.)

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Lafayette and Gay rights
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:03:03 GMT

      Well, tonight is January 4th.  The city council met and the 
resolution regarding sexual orientation rights was addressed.  Unfortunatley,
(oops...misspelled) the city council lacks backbone.  I do not mean to imply
that they killed the resolution.  They did not.  Nor did they pass it.
They voted to table it "until such time as the means of moving this issue
as a referendum has been fully explored."
      What hogwash!!  I can respect a Christian for being against the
referendum.  I can respect a homosexual for being in favor of it.  I have
lost all respect for this communities leaders, because they have refused
to come out either for or against it.  Leaders are intended to lead.  That is
why we vote for them.  If we disagree with their decisions, we retain the
right to vote them out of office the next election.  I shall not vote for
any of those who now serve on the Lafayette City Council again.  They have
cast aside their responsibilities to act on our behalf.  They have refused to
lead.
      I shall not place my confidence in the hands of any leader who does not
possess belief and conviction.  Without faith, belief, conviction, these
people can not be effective leaders.  They have shown this to be the case
tonight.
      I received a letter from somone deploring the "gay rights" from a
Christian perspective.  While I could easily cite a number of Christian 
reasons to protect gays from the largely homophobic community in which I live,
I will not.  I do wish to point out that a person who acts on Christian grounds
is at least someone who has the courage to stand for what he/she believes in.
      God wrote in the Bible (yes, I'm a lesbian who believes in God and the 
Bible) about the lukewarm Christian.  The person without strong faith.  Those
who hear the word but do not grow with it and in it.  These are the dangerous
people.  These are the politicians who say and do anything to get elected.
These are the Christians who get drunk on Friday and Saturday, yet smile
at all of their friends in Church on Sunday.  And these, unfortunately, are
the people Lafayette had the misfortune of voting into office for the
City Council.  
      If the leaders do not lead, who then can be expected to follow?

                                                   Karen