HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: WHY?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 21:23:34 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Friends of Lenny Bruce

        >chimpanzees, dolphins, even seagulls exhibit homosexual behavior.  
        
Only because some of them are STUPID.  I remember earlier this year that        
some flamingo at the San Diego Zoo was in love with a bush that was 
trimmed to look like a bird.  He humped it every day, and it was on the
news.  Real smart bird.  A fine example of propagation if ever I saw one.
        
        >Why do men like to stick it up other men's poopshoots....<eeewwww!>

Excellent question!   I second the <eeewwww!> part, too.

I don't believe in sex before marriage, and I'm none too sure about it
afterward, either !!!

        >Why do men like to stick anything up women's assholes?  
        
They don't.  The only men that do this are closet queers.        

        >Because it feels good, because it's fun!  
        
No, fun is pulling the blankets up over your wife's face and FARTING        
under the covers.  Poop-shooting is NOT fun.  It's dirty and NASTY.

        >And writing "eeewwww" won't do you a whole lot of good because, 
        >after all, I can prove that five times as many straight women 
        >as gay men like being on the receiving end of anal sex.

Does this mean that all the coprophiliacs, er homosexuals, fight over
who gets to be the "man" each night?  Not tonight honey, my butt has
a big ZIT on it <eeeewwww!>.  :)

                >Why am I straight and your not....

        >Because you have no sense of adventure!

AIDS is certainly an adventure, if nothing else.

--Philip Stromer The Great (peewee@infoserv.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:26:25 GMT

In article <1gr4mdINNsok@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <1gq3hrINNerp@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|>
>|> > Why are they trying to prevent this information from getting out?
>|> 
>|> The information that there are families with 2 parents of the same
>|> gender, or that the 2 parents of the same gender sleep together?
>
>My parents slept in the same bedroom.   I imagine that most people's
>do.

But ssh!  don't tell anyone!

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,sci.psychology
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Recognition of object-of-affection.
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:27:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec13.111733.23296@u.washington.edu> lamontg@stein.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
| Elf, for the past 6 years at least, I've been open-mindedly considering
| if I have any bisexual tendencies at all, and I haven't hit one yet.  I
| haven't yet seen a male that I felt was "attractive" -- they all appear
| sexually neutral.

Try watching the "Air-otica" dance sequence from "All That Jazz".  Yum.

I used to feel the same way.  I then started playing with the idea that
I *could* be sexually attracted to men, and decided to watch men in
the hallway, etc., instead of just women.

For me, at least, there seems to have been a lot of just not running 
men through the "is this person attractive" filter in the brain.  I do 
not know
how much of that is "hard-wired" and how much is programming.  I have
gone, in my self-identification, from "het" to "bi with limited
experience".
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:16:44 GMT

In article <1gnd36INNsh6@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden) writes:
> > A curriculum of tolerance goes against what most parents want.  Does
> > that mean we shouldn't teach it?
> > 
> > I don't think so.
 
> You really think most people are against tolerance?  If that were the 
> case, there would be exponentially more violence against minorities 
> than there already is.  A curriculum of tolerance is something most 
> parents would favor.  

Well Walter, lets look at the words 
according to my dictionary (Oxford American)

tolerate
1) to permit without protest or interference. 2) to bear (pain etc.)
to be able to take ( a medicine) or undergo (radiation etc.) without harm.

tolerance
1) willingness or ability to tolerate a person or thing. the permitted
variation in the measurement or weight of an object.

tolerant
1) having or showing tolerance.


So Walter are your complaints showing tolerance. 
Are you willing to tolerate the process that is required to extend
equitable treatment to queers, to teach our future citizens the 
real menaing of tolerance?
or have you been protesting all along while you are under the impression
that you are being tolerant.


> Teaching that homosexuality is "OK" is *not* the same thing as
> teaching "tolerence".  "Tolerence" is about accepting things you 
> may *not* see as "OK".  People just aren't going to agree on a 
> *lot* of things, and homosexuality is one of the ones that is
> the hardest to agree on.  

As I have shown tolerance is about things which you do not agree with.

I understand that homosexuality is not OK for you, but it IS OK for me 
Walter.

I understand that keeping the status quo of only allowing queers to exist 
as long as they stay invisible and out of your sight is OK with you,
but thats not OK with me.

I have tolerated the situation of being a second class citizen long enough,
it is time for you to tolerate the process which will remedy that situation.

> You have religion teaching that it is
> wrong, and you have a lot of people, who are not very into religion,
> thinking it is just plain disgusting; a real 'gut' feeling.  But 
> if they can "tolerate" other's wishes to be homosexual, can you
> "tolerate" their right to view it as "bad"? 

yes I can tolerate that, but I can no longer tolerate the situation which
perpetuates a social climate of fear and discrimination. 
 

LUX ./. owen


--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
From: may@hpcesma.ce.hp.com (Elaine May)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Colorado Measure
Date: 15 Dec 1992 02:43:40 GMT
Organization: HP Corporate Engineering - Palo Alto, CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: may@hpcesma.ce.hp.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpcesmi.ce.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Steve Connelly (steve.connelly@synapse.org) wrote:
: WP>The Apartment Association said that while the largest percentage of out
: WP>of state owners were homosexual or bisexual, the largest percentage of
: WP>owners of apartment complexes that were evicting people on the basis of
: WP>heterosexuality were heterosexual themselves.  Of the heterosexuals
: WP>evicted, the largest percentage were African-americans, and the second
: WP>largest group was religious fundamentalists.
Wait a sec.  This doesn't make sense to me.  You're saying that in
Colorado Springs, that 1700 hets have been evicted in the 1 month since
Amendment 2 passed *because* they're het?  Having been to Colorado Springs,
I find this a little hard to believe.  

Could you please elaborate since I'm sure I'm misreading this posting?

Thanks,
Elaine May                               Hewlett-Packard Corporate Engineering
may@hpcesma.ce.hp.com		         Palo Alto, California
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Katherine Osterman Dead
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:43:10 GMT

Those of you who are from Chicago will probably know the name Catherine
Osterman. In 1988 she fought hard to pass Chicago's Human Rights Ordinance,
facing very heavy opposition from religious groups and some of her peers
in the Chicago City Council. I was interning with her at the time, and I
remember the hearings on this ordinance, during which I heard many hateful
things said about the gay community in Chicago. I still remember one
Reverend Crawford talk about how the Wrath of God was going to fall upon
the City of Chicago if the ordinance was passed, to which she responded,
"The God I Know Loves Everyone."

The ordinance failled; later on, Mary Ann Smith, Osterman's appointed
successor, proposed a similar ordinance and it passed 37-12 with one
abstention.

Since then Kathy Osterman served as part of Mayor Richard Daley's staff
until December 9, 1992, when she died of cancer at the age of 48. Those
of us who were her friends will miss her. I will always remember her for
my first vision of what Gay Rights is really all about. May she walk
with the light of God.

In Mortis, Pax.


Sorry for the wasted bandwidth.
Lost Boy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: One last comment on Funny Boiz in Military
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:43:18 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <15DEC199207001807@zeus.tamu.edu> Zeke@Gays.should.be.in.the.military.so.they.can.be.casualties.of.war writes:

    [homophobic ranting deleted]

>The bad thing about the BAN is that it DOES indirectly protect homos from
>serving in the military. I think that HOMOS should have an equal chance at
>getting their ass shot off.  At least when their ass is shot off, Daddy
>has one less place to put his pee-pee.

    *Yawn*  More flamebait.  Is it my imagination, or are more of these
twits coming out of the woodwork than usual?

>---------------------------------------------------------------
>|The Zekester, PRO HETERO and proud of it!!                   |

    Not proud enough to use your name, though, you cowardly closet case.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
From: aaronm@ccmail.orst.edu (Mithran Aaron)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Military service and 'special rights'
Date: 17 Dec 1992 04:28:06 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University Libraries
NNTP-Posting-Host: standdx26.kerr.orst.edu


I like that idea! Who is going to start the ball rolling?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:57:58 GMT

Walter Smith (smithw@col.hp.com) wrote:
> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> > 
> > Segregation's ostensible reason for separating children in education
> > was that blacks had "certain characteristics" which would interfere
> > with the education of white children.   Once black and white children
> > began to be integrated, those characteristics were shown to be myth.
> 
> While there are similarities between this and the current subject, 
> there are a lot of differences.  No one (except maybe those 
> on the extreme right) want to segregate children of gay parents from
> other kids.   
> 
> > What's really going on here is not that people think too much information
> > is confusing.   The real issue is a competition about who will supply
> > that information.     
> 
> Partially, you;re right.  And you are trying to compete with parents about 
> what their children will be taught.  Are you *sure* this is a good idea? 
> What is going to happen when a kid is taught at school that it is OK, 
> and at home they are taught it is wrong?   
	Probably the same thing that happens when children learn about the 
Big Bang in school, and then their parents and chruch teaches them the earth
was hatched by a giant chicken, or whatever the hell they're saying these
days. Since I have not seen a logical, clear, and concise reason that 
homosexuality is morally inferior to heterosexuality that didn't have 
something to do with religious belief (separation of chruch in state in 
schools, remember?) there seems no reason that it shouldn't be taught about.
	I would also like to say that, although I disagree with most everything
Walter Smith has to say, he has remained remarkably polite throughout all this.

							-Skippy
> 
> Walter Smith
> smithw@cs.itc.hp.com
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: WHY?
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:38:05 GMT

In article <92352.003601KXS137@psuvm.psu.edu>
     <KXS137@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>Why are we the only animals that are attracted to the same sex...

   Actually, we're not.  In fact, chimpanzees, dolphins, even seagulls
exhibit homosexual behavior.  David Attenborough (sp?), a zoologist
with the Smithsonian Institution, noted that "The only mammal that does
not, to my knowledge, engage in homosexual behavior is the pig."
Somehow, I think that says something about fundamentalists who want to
force man into being the second animal...

>Why do men like to stick it up other men's poopshoots....<eeewwww!>

   Why do men like to stick anything up women's assholes?  Because it
feels good, because it's fun!  And writing "eeewwww" won't do you a
whole lot of good because, after all, I can prove that five times as
many straight women as gay men like being on the receiving end of anal
sex.

>Why am I straight and your not....

   Because you have no sense of adventure!

            Elf !!!
--
Elf Sternberg.   (elf@halcyon.com)
Due to a bureaucratic error, you are offered the job of county coroner.
You seriously consider accepting the job because it offers:          __
A. Unclaimed watches and wedding rings.                              \/
B. Gold fillings and bridges.
C. Free blood.
D. A constantly changing array of new friends who aren't at all stuffy
   about what happens to their genitalia.
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: God i hate you all
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:33:58 GMT

In article <rmcgrath.724074535@unix1.tcd.ie> rmcgrath@unix1.tcd.ie (robert patrick mcgrath) writes:
>This is a really god awful group.

Well, you seem to ba a  god-awful poster, so we're even!

>
>God will burn you all.

Gee...maybe I should fireproof my house! I'd better alter my fire insurace
too. I don't get enough coverage for "Acts of God," you know. Besides,
my girlfriend just got *HER* place burned down, and I don't need two fires
in a row!

>
>A hot pokerup the ass is the order of the day!!

Man, you have some WEIRD sex habits! If you really like that, though, I'm
sure some prostitute will do it for enough money.

>
>
>I hate you all and I will see you all go to hell

Sounds cool. I'll see you there!!!!


Lost Boy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: tcarlin@athena.mit.edu (Thomas B Carlin)
Subject: RE: CO Boycott -- Take Two
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:44:36 GMT

=================================

>>So -- in light of that belief -- they quite naturally want to have all
>>of their people support Colorado -- financially and otherwise. They
>>want *their people* to visit here, open businesses here and hold 
>>their conventions here. 

>>The implications of that, of course, is that as more of them move here
>>and start businesses here, the more power they will have. 

(1)

While the logic of this is reasonably sound, the practice in other
examples makes this premise foolish.

Example: Did all, some, or - for that fact - ANY one who is opposed to
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day move to Arizona when that state voted
against having that day as a holiday.

Name one.

Arizona was severely hurt economically and prestige wise by the boycott,
and all this during a repressive, anti-civil-rights administration.  

(2)

Is the loss of ONE state all that bad (well, yes, of course, but
consider the advantage of having all these people concentrated in one
area -- why, the power of the US Government to declare CO as THE ONE AND
ONLY TOXIC WASTE DUMP would solve two problems at once) if it weakens
the power of these people in the other 49?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Has anyone HERE changed? (WAS: Analogy betwixt....
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:07:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.072615.1068@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com writes:
>In article <92351.124708ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu>
>     The Dreamer <ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>  I just wanted to know if anyone who posts here WAS a homosexual and now
>>IS a heterosexual?
>
>   No, but I know of a few heterosexuals who've become bisexual because
>of their interaction with usenet...
>

And I myself know about one person (me) who thought he was bi and is now
quite sure that he is hetero.

>         Elf !!!

Lost Boy
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 17 Dec 1992 14:40:59 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> Why are they trying to prevent this information from getting out?    What's
> their motive?

The information that there are families with 2 parents of the same
gender, or that the 2 parents of the same gender sleep together?

> I'm competing with some parents when I tell their children that African
> American kids are just the same as they are.
> Do I have to stop doing that because some parent, or some Minister from
> a segregated Baptist Church - of which there are still a few - comes
> to me and insists that they teach their children something else at home,
> and I'm just confusing them.

In what context are you doing that?  You're not a schoolteacher, are you? 
Maybe you *are* overstepping your bounds if you go around telling things 
to other people's kids. 

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:58:37 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gssqvINNgrq@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > Pardon me?   Can it be possible that you think that this argument depends
|> > on whether Jon Livesey in particular is a schoolteacher?
|> 
|> Yeah, you bet.  If you're not a teacher, and you're going around 
|> telling other people's kids what is right and wrong, you're WAY out 
|> of line.  

I already commented on this from Mr Smith, but I am going to spell
something out a bit more fully.

This discussion started when Mr Smith asked if we ought to "compete"
with the information given to children by their parents.

I replied:

	"I'm competing with some parents when I tell their children 
	that African American kids are just the same as they are."

Mr Smith chose to interpret this as having something to do with me
talking to other people's children as a private person, and told me
that I would be "way out of line" doing this.

Just in case Mr Smith has succeeded in confusing anyone, I would like
to point out the full context here.

Me	"What's really going on here is not that people think too much 
	information is confusing.   The real issue is a competition about 
	who will supply that information.

Mr Smith:   "And you are trying to compete with parents about what their 
	children will be taught.  Are you *sure* this is a good idea? 
	What is going to happen when a kid is taught at school that it is 
	OK,  and at home they are taught it is wrong?

Me:	"I'm competing with some parents when I tell their children that 
	African American kids are just the same as they are."

		<1govmjINNi86@fido.asd.sgi.com>

I hope everyone can see what is happening here.   Mr Smith uses the
general "you", and I simply follow him.    But then he seizes on this
and tries to make it into the personal "I".    Apparently to make it 
appear that I am *personally* involving myself with other peoples' 
children, which is not the case.

Given the sensitiviities of the issue, I have to say that I feel 
that this is one of the questionable examples of inserting an insinuation
into a debate that I have seen for a long time.   I'd like Mr Smith
to explain exactly what he's up to.

jon.
From: clamen@epas.utoronto.ca (Mark Clamen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: to Howard Black a.k.a Mr. Chemistry (Re: WHY?)
Summary: jews, gays, choice
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:16:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS


 
>>     This particular person has implied that ethnic discrimination of Jews and
>>Nazis is equivalent to sexual discrimination of heteros and homos.  This is
>>also a very dangerous implication because a Jew has a sense of moral judgement
>>handed to him by Yahweh through his commandments and laws.  Thus, to equate an
>>atheistic society bent on the destruction and genocide of an entire people, that
>>have been chosen by God, to the afore mentioned sexual discrimination is
>>nothing but pure rubbish.
>
>What are you saying?  That because the Jews were religious, it was bad
>to wipe them out?  Whereas in the PRO HETERO case, it is the PRO HETEROs
>who are religious and have morals on their side, and the queers who are
>the moral-less atheists?  You're saying discrimination against queers is
>morally better than discrimination against Jews?  Even though Jews _can_
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>choose not to be Jewish?
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>-- 
>Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
>robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
>robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
>uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_

>>  refers to words posted by someone (whose sig. I lost somewhere.
>>Sorry.) named Zekester.

I don't want to take this thread where it doesn't want to go, so
consider this a sidenote, not an attempt to re-direct the discussion
away from the issues at hand.

The case of the Nazis against the Jews is perhaps much more
appropriate to the discussion than might be evident.  In that case of
anit-semitism, contrary to most that preceded it throughout history,
the Jews involved COULD NOT choice to not be Jewish.  (Unlike say, the
Spanish Inquisition- where all a Jew had to do to save his/her life
and the life of their family was to renounce their G-d, their
traditions, and their history.  Nazis weren't quite so understanding.
It was a question of blood purity.  Jews could choose not to PRACTICE
Judaism, but in the eyes of the Stormtroopers, Jews were Jews because
they were born Jews, or because one of their grandparents was born
Jewish, etc.  The hate was not directed at Judaism or ANY of its
related practices, but to JEWS.  It was a 'racial cleansing' - no
question of choose was involved.

(Not quite sure how relevant, if at all, this is now that I've typed
it.  I hope to not be equating the heterosexual majority with Nazism,
but rather to relate the issues and situations being experienced by
gays today (and in the past) with those suffered by people in Nazi
Germany.  Is there a distinction there?  I hope so...)

- Happy Holidays!

---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Clamen

"Magic is afoot."  - L. Cohen (from BEAUTIFUL LOSERS)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality