HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:45:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.184618.4946@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Hey!  I'm a conservative republican, charismatic christian, white male 
>of european heritage, working in a leftist university.  I already know 
>what it feels like to be discriminated against every day.

So writing a letter to your employer explaining that you're gay
wouldn't be much of a change, would it?

So why not do it?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:30:02 GMT

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>Please reread the amendment (enclosed). It denies
>discrimination-on-the-basis-of-gay-sexual-orientations as grounds for
>any lawsuit. It does this by, among other things, prohibiting the
>state courts from enforcing the laws that establish such
>discrimination as a tort.

>(Also, it does not distinguish between private and government
>discrimination and it does not prohibit laws prohibiting
>discrimination-on-the-basis-of-a-straight-sexual-orientation.)

>- Carl


>=================
>ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civil-liberty/amendment2.co.usa
>=================
>AMENDMENT 2  (AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION)
>   "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 have or claim any
>minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of
>discrimination."

Thank you for including the text. I see NOTHING here restricting torts.
To me, this says that the state (and its subsidiary political creatures)
cannot adopt a statute (law), regulation (force of law), ordinance
(law) or policy (government practice). What does this have to do with
lawsuits?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: information please
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:09:47 GMT

In article <1jftq5INNbcv@titan.ucs.umass.edu>
     quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes:

>In article <1993Jan19.020721.21041@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:

>>am looking for any credible reports or studies on physical characteristics of
>>homosexuals.  By credible I mean that the people doing them have used
>>generally acceptable scientific methods.

>P.S. "cjk" really ought to get her/his head examined... it really
>doesn't seem to be working very well.

   It's rather obvious what d... I mean, cjk is trying to do.  He's
desperately trying to find a way of demonstrating that homosexuality is
a "voluntary" designation because homosexuals, like religious people,
are indistinguishable from the "general population."

   His rationale is an amusing piece of tortured logic, but I see no
reason to continue arguing with him on this point; I think both the
religious folks and the pro-liberty folks arguing the points here on
alt.politics.homosexuality would find an equation of homosexuality with
religion offensive and, to be labor a point, pointless.

   The aim of this painful segue is to get a mention of homosexuality
out of public schooling.  But, this particular argument is already
doomed to failure and I see no point in discussing it with d... I mean,
cjk again.

         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10427 alt.rush-limbaugh:15386 alt.politics.clinton:21483 alt.politics.bush:16420
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:37:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan25.121155.23816@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>In article <1jpag0INNl9m@transfer.stratus.com> Mark Christensen,
>markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.120809.24378@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> 
>>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>>>Actually, while some of it's citizens do in fact adhere to such a moral
>>>code, our country adheres to a =legal= code.  That legal code has some of
>>>it's roots in your moral code, as well as in many others.
>>>
>>As it should.  Would homosexuals then allow beastiality?  Beastiality
>>is against the law, yet it isn't hurting anyone?  It sexual deviancy
>>just like homosexuality.  What's the difference?  Only who your
>>partner is...right.  
>
>Wrong.  There is an important legal concept called "informed consent" that
>is central to most issues of sexual conduct.  An animal (or a child, or some
>mentally ill people) cannot give this kind of consent.  This may not be the
>original reason for laws against child abuse and beastiality, but there is
>an ethical justification for their place in our our legal code.
>
Let me ask you Greg, are you in favor of informed consent for women who 
are about to have an abortion?  It's funny (I'll give Greg a chance to 
remove himself from the group I am going to sweepingly generalize about) 
but "those from the left" are generally against informed consent on abortion, 
but now Greg is telling us that it should be the guiding light on sex crimes?

Is it possible for these positions to be consistent with one another?  Help 
me out here Greg.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:46:21 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
> 
>     OK so far.  Of course, being homosexual isn't illegal.  Since you agree
> with Brian "from a legal...point of view", does that mean you also feel
> that gay marriage shouldn't be illegal?

Correct.  

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10433 alt.discrimination:5706
From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.discrimination,nmsu.general
Subject: Re: warning about *Heartlands* (fwd)
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:30:05 GMT
Organization: Computing Research Lab



consider posting in readable format.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Flaws with "Biological Difference"
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:09:54 GMT

In article <1jg5miINNd97@titan.ucs.umass.edu>
     quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes:

>However, Levay's work (at least on this) is basically devoid of merit.

   You know, Lulu, normally I agree with you, but I think this time
you're going way out of your way to belabor a point that is in essence
inaccurate.

   In LeVay's sample, as in the followup study done at UCLA, only 4/5th
of the "self-identified life-long homosexuals" demonstrated the physical
markers that LeVay, et. al., predicted would exist as prevalant.

   LeVay's work demonstrated that there may be, for some individuals, a
predicated physical drive to be homosexual.  His work does not require
that all homosexuals have this *particular* drive.  The fact that 20%
of his sample did not have the physical brain structures indicates that
even "self-identified life-long homosexuals" do not come from the same
source.

   LeVay, UCLA, Occam (1/2 smiley), et. al., even a recent study of
"DS-type Rams" conducted by the U.S. Agricultural Dept., indicate that
for some members of a given mammilian species (in this case, humans),
an intrinsic inability to find the opposite sex arousing may well be
biological and pre-natally inclined.

>But that won't stop his work from being used as *PROOF* of biological
>differences of sexuality.

   Which is sheer idiocy, I agree.  There's nothing small about MY
hypothalumus... just ask my wife.  The attempt to draw a line at where
a 'homosexual' (as a distinct class) begins and ends because of a
single biological marker does horrific violence to the concepts of
tolerance we are trying to engender, just as trying to draw a line at
what makes a "religion" by defining a given act (praying at home,
attending a given architectural structure, sacrificing small children)
does equal violence to religious tolerance.

>Queers who try to comfort themselves with biological "givens" are just
>deluding themselves.

   Not necessarily.  And sometimes, delusions are functional and
necessary.  As Heinlein once said, "A mother's delusions about her
newborn child's intelligence, strength, what have you, stop her from
drowning him at birth."

         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Subject: Re: About Calling in Your Opinion on Ban
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:59:15 GMT

In article <1622381427011993/A14734/POSSE/1171DB963400*@mrgate.uwyo.edu> LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA) writes:
>Finally, did anyone else get a cold response at the Pentagon's
>number after saying you were against the ban (for lifting it)?
>I may have imagined it, but it seemed cold.  Also, when I called there, 
>I said I wanted to register my opinion about the ban, and the woman
>said, "So are you for the ban?" and I said no.  I thought that
>was clearly not a neutral way to ask the question, but she was
>off the phone before I could verbalize my thoughts.

I haven't been able to get through to them yet but I got a very
strange reaction from Dole's office. The person answered and after
I said I opposed the ban they kept saying they couldn't here me (although
the connection was perfect). I called back and got the same thing,
so either I got the same broken line twice or they are making sure they
don't get any calls against the ban?!

Hopefully it was innocent, but has the same thing happened to anyone
else calling Dole?

-- 
------  Linux, Religion, and electronic shopping all in one place!
\    / Repent of Bean eating, MS-DOS, OS/2, and windows NT, no sales man
 \  / will hassle you, no priest will sacrifice you. Free 9600 baud download.
  \/ Call the Virtual World Information Systems BBS at 508-793-9568
From: Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: APA and homosexuality,AIDS
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 14:28:18 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1993Jan15.103816.17505@genie.slhs.udel.edu> <C0x02H.I4E@umassd.edu>
  <1993Jan16.173052.12238@midway.uchicago.edu>

... lesbians are far less likely than het women to get AIDS..

Not true among white women because Lesbians have a higher rate of
IV drug abuse and partners at risk. Black women is a differnet
story becuase of prevalence of HIV and partners who are IV drug
users.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (C.J.K.)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:51:28 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Many of these things are outlets for you to express your personality
>and individuality at work.  In many ways, heterosexuals do not have 
>a right to express themselves freely at work, although they do 
>have more leeway in 'exposing' their sexuality than homosexuals,
>such as putting a picture of their lover on the desk.  But I have
...

>I can recognize the inherent 'unfairness' of being forced to suppress 
>your sexual orientation.  But you must understand that some heterosexuals 
>may be forced to suppress a key element of their personality at work too.
>It may not be associated with sexual orientation, but it may not be any 
>less important to them.  Sexual orientation is not necessarily the most 
>essential element of a person's identity.  Perhaps it would be helpful
>if people defined what they see as the purpose of the law in this area.

I think a very essential element of a person's identity is his or
her family.  Many people like to have pictures of their families,
small gifts from spouse or children, etc. around them at work.
As you pointed out, this is not necessarily accepted for everyone
unfortunately.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What I write does not necessarily represent the view of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Prototypical Gay?????
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:40:30 GMT

Not to inteject a religious arguement into talk.religion.misc
but this is part of the discussion.

Contrary to popular opinion - not all fundies are raving
maniacs, just as drieux is not always humourous, sane, or
entertaining.

Amoungst certian branches of the body of christ, it is the
teaching that the idividual is responsible for what they do,
is to lead a pure life style and concentrate their attentions
on the uplifting and spiritual aspects of their life. (In
simple words - no 'dirty' jokes, no inuendo.)  The admonition
is to take note of what is pure and think on these things.

Because 'chasity in thought and act' is such a novel concept
few people recognize it when they meet it, nor respect it.
'Whatzamattah boy, ain't you a MAhn?'  as if the only way to
express masculinity was to wave the distiguishing feature about.

As to where they find Miss(Mr) Right - it is not in the
secular workplace.  They are not going to be yoked with
unbelievers (good for both members), they are looking for
like minded individuals, and at church they are more likely
to find someone with similar values.  Besides - there truely
is an alternative culture amoungst the church goers, and
those who are/were not part of it haven't a clew.

chus
pyotr

p.s. the enclosed is for refence.

 


ac999273@umbc.edu (ac999273) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.055945.19584@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

>[Stuff about gay guys not dating women in the office deleted]

>>What if the Above Stereotypical behavior is
>>done by a celibate het male who is not into sexism?
>>
>>I hate to scare you or anything, but some of the
>>male persons whom I respect as being actual 'christians'
>>would fit into the above profile.
>>
>	How do these "actual Christians" find a mate?  These are people 
>who don't date, and somehow still wind up happily married someday?! I think
>not.  They probably have some orientation other than straight.  They could be
>Aesexual, or gay.  I have met gays who claim they are religious when questioned
>about their dating practices.  Ever think that could be what those people are
>doing?
>	Or, perhaps they are gay, and don't care to admit it to themselves,
>so they act like fundamentalist Christians, and pretend everything is
>going to be o.k.   I have met examples if that as well.   
>	If they are straight, the would at least turn their head when an 
>attractive woman walked by...  All straight people have the same kind of
>urges.  Perhaps some can control them better or chose to control them better,
>but the urges are still there.



-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Nothing says loving like a bun in the oven.
EOF
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:50:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.122654.5155@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.233547.11972@microsoft.com>,
>fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>
>> My 5 year old is being rote-taught the pledge of allegience, along with
>> all of the other 5 year olds in kindergarten.  This is contrary to my
>> value system and that of my wife.
>
>How specifically?  If it's the part about "under God", that was Congress'
>doing. :)  If you object to the pledge as a whole, perhaps you can
>sympathize with those parents who object to the COTR curriculum.
>Or do you think "multiculturalism" is a good idea?

i object to it on several grounds, actually.  first of all, 
i *do* object to the "under God".  my children are from a 
non-christian background, and we don't accept that this 
nation is any more favored by a deity than nazi germany was.  

i also object to political indoctrination of children to 
say that *they* *believe* in god and that *they* *promise*
to not only do that, but stay loyal to a *flag* fer
chrissakes, as an emblem of a nation.  a pledge is a 
promise, and as an adult i'm rarely willing to pledge 
"allegiance" to much of anything.  kids don't even understand --
for them it's just rote.  if it doesn't matter that they don't 
understand, then why recite it.  if it means soemthing, then
it shouldn't be recited until they are old enough to not only
understand it, but believe it.  

but learning all about the pledge, what it means, where it 
came from, and why people recite it is an excellent idea.  
does that answer the "multiculturalism" part?

>So you would prefer that the pledge be presented later, say during
>the Super Bowl, or an Inauguration?  "Deconstructed" by a federally funded
>professor of feminist literature as a tool of WASP oppression of the masses,
>perhaps?  Scrapped altogether because of its effect on "family values"?

huh?  quite an interesting and paranoid train of thought, 
that.  you must be very afraid of people different than
yourself...

the pledge should be presented to/said by adults who are
in one way or another going to serve our country, to those 
who emigrate in, and perhaps at other appropriate state 
ceremonies (like the inauguration).  and let's take out the
"under god" bit and replace it with a promise to vote.  

peg

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:10:11 GMT

In article <john.727896781@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>]In article <john.727818510@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>
>]>So what? Those who are not openly gay are not going to be discriminated
>]>against for their sexual preference!
>
>]Ever heard of people being outed, John?
>
>Only by other gays as a political tactic. Are you telling me we should
>protect gays from each others' outing tactics?

Ever heard of gossip, guilt by association, employers asking personal
questions on applications, or of the assumption that someone is gay merely
because one defends the rights of gay people?

--Frank
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett)
Subject: Re: Military Ban on Gays/ FAX NUMBERS
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 22:55:47 GMT

I just wanted to say that people should not get too carried away with
the FAXes.  This is the US Government and the FAX numbers are a
priviledge (just as email will soon be).

If they wanted to, the US Government would have absolutely no problem
in tracking down and charging a harassing FAXer (and it would be a
horrific Federal Crime).  Also, obviously if you sit there and program
your system to send FAXes to these people all day, they will simply
disconnect the number.

Take time, compose your letter, FAX it, and then send the copy in the
mail.  There will be more issues for another day and we certainly want
the avenues of communication to be left open.

-- 
|Tom Barrett (TDBear), Sr. Engineer|tom.barrett@amd.com|v:512-462-6856 |
|AMD PCD MS-520 | 5900 E. Ben White|Austin, TX  78741  |f:512-462-5155 |
|"No is yes, And we're all free" ---Tracy Chapman, "Why?"              |
|My views are my own and may not be the same as the company of origin  |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush