HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crr4574@summa.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: THE FINAL WORD ON TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 10:12 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: summa.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1h5nqgINNd0m@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
>In article <1992Dec21.231401.9926@netcom.com>, robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>|> In article <21DEC199215423972@venus.tamu.edu> crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
>|> >I think you completely miss the point I am trying to make.  I just think that
>|> >trying to compare animal behavior to that of humans is irrelevant.
>|> 
>|> Fine.
>|> 
>|> >My belief is that homosexuality is wrong.
>|> 
>|> On what evidence do you base that belief?  You have gotten off to an OK
>|> start by asserting the biological argument is irrelevant.  Given that,
>|> why do you still think homosexuality is wrong?  Present your reasons and
>|> we will be happy to discuss them.
> 
>And even if he thinks homosexuality is "wrong", why does he think
>that it's OK the discriminate against Gays?

You know Jon, it's people like you who really piss me off.  Please refer me
back to the post where I said that it's OK to discriminate against Gays.  Can't
find it?  I didn't think so.  Do your homework before you spout off.  My belief
that homosexuality is wrong is based on the morals that I learned growing up. 
I have had different beliefs at different times in my life, depending upon how
much I knew about a particular subject.  For example, I used to believe as a
child that evolution could not have occurred because it was inconsistent with
the Bible.  This is what I had been taught.  This did not stop me from learning
about evolution as I got older and revising my beliefs.  You could not convince
me now that evolution never occurred.

My point is this.  If you want to convince people that homosexuality is not
wrong you must give evidence that it is not.  Spouting off doesn't get it done.
Picking out small parts of my posts (as several of you have done) without
looking at the whole context accomplishes nothing.  You seem to have a chip on
your shoulder.  You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.  Go back
and read my old posts and maybe you will understand that I do not try to bash
you but I try to understand you so that I will not despise you.  Believe me,
people despise you, people hate you, and people wish you dead.  The only way to
change the way people feel is to make them understand why you are this way.
If you don't care, fine.  Nobody wishes me dead because of my sexual orientation
so the problem is yours.  If you have never been bashed, then I guess you don't
have a problem.  So far, some people have contributed to my understanding, but 
you are not one of them.


Charley
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Lincoln Documentary: Cavalier Omissions
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:43:50 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

The recent airing of "Lincoln", which palled in comparison with Burns'
"Civil War", neglected to mention Lincoln's bisexuality, nor his
segregationalist politics.

Was this merely a pictorial exaltation with no attempt to uncover the
complexity of the man?

How many others were disappointed?

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:12:44 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <21DEC199215423972@venus.tamu.edu>, crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
>
>  If you want to convince people that there is nothing wrong with
> what you do, you must present evidence in your favor.  If you could 
> care less what other people think, then don't bitch when you are 
> discriminated against.

Sounds like a Charter For Bigots to me.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: Gays In The News
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:55:11 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Dec19.162915.10617@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:

>It is kind of interesting.  Before, it seemed homosexuals were almost
>invisible.  Now, if you are news junkie like myself, they seem to
>be LITERALLY everywhere:)!

Nothing like a dose of reality, eh?

--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Zeke, READ THIS (was GOOD NEWS)
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:36:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <30DEC199202252599@zeus.tamu.edu>, olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:
>>The law bars discrimination in housing, credit, employment, education
>>and public access on the grounds of physical or mental disability,
>>race, religion, family status and sexual orientation.
> 
> Its good to know that all of our brothers and sisters that are 
> Homosexuals,Necrophiles, Pedophiles, and *Bestia-philes*
> are included in this anti-discrimination legislation.

Zeke,

Please consult a lawyer for the legal difinition of "sexual orientation."
Dictionaries of the English language will not suffice:

Example: Tomato
Dictionary Definition: A fruit.
U.S. Legal Definition: A vegetable.

Your ignorance of the legal system is appalling. Until you do some basic
homework, your arguments are undermined by your ignorance.

Age discrimination: Zeke, do you honestly want to see 5-year-old exotic
dancers???? Sometimes age discrimination is a good thing.

> 
> She is correct about "It is not a gay-rights thing", it should be about
> an "EQUAL-rights thing" for all of us. That includes homos, heteros, whites,
> blacks, jews, pedophiles, necrophiles, senior citizens, bestia-philes, and the
> list goes on!!

Please document this with sources. If you don't know where to find them, try
the library. Or call the U.S. Commission n Civil Rights (202)376-8312.
The commission, set up by the Civil Rights act of 1957 disagrees with every
claim you've stated.

> 
> Am I making too much sense??
> The Zekester

You have made no sense, legally or otherwise. Face it, you're having
intellectual conversations totally unarmed.  Go away until you can stop making
wild, inaccurate claims.

If you genuinely want to talk some sense I suggest you get the following tools:
1. A 1993 World Almanac (for facts anf figures) 1992 will work.
2. A public library (a university library is better)
3. A telephone to call experts.
4. A notepad to transfer sources to give ourself credibility

You need all of these because be the shocking ignorance you have displayed with
this posting, I'm sickened that an accredited university may actually award a
degree to someone so ill-equipped to do basic research.                        

David Speakman
From: peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: WHY?
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:41:44 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Friends of Lenny Bruce

        >At one time I thought that sticking my tongue into another 
        >person's mouth was the grossest thing I'd ever heard of.  
        
You were close, but several things are more gross, namely:        

1. Sticking your tongue up someone's ANUS
2. Sticking your tongue up a DOG'S anus
3. Being a homosexual

        >But y'know, kissing turns out to be a lot of fun.

So is sex, but it ain't worth the risk of AIDS.  I advocate
that everyone STOP having sex, right now.  That goes for
everyone, singles and married persons.  It will also fix
the over population problem.  I favor negative population
growth.

        >quit trying to tell *other* people how to carry out an 
        >activity that you have no interest in!

I'm not telling ROOTSLURPERS not to do it.  I'm just saying that
it's ... eeewwww!!!  :)

        >most of the male population is "closet queers".  I suggest 
        >that you do some reading.  *Most* men have tried anal sex.

NOT!  Most men will tell you "eeewwww!!!" at the thought of anal
sex.  But thanx for playing.  Better luck next time.

        >Guess what, *most* homosexuals are more interested in *oral* 
        >sex than anal sex.  Substantial numbers aren't even interested 
        >in anal sex.

Oral sex?   EEEWWWW!!!

        >I suggest that you try finding out *facts* before the next 
        >time you start expressing an opinion that is based on falsehoods 
        >and ignorance. 
        
I'm too stupid to learn, so why should I bother to read?  Gimme a break!        

        >You've quite obviously decided that gays are "bad" because they 
        >do things you think are sick. 
        
EEEWWWW!!!  GIF!!!  GIF!!!        

--Philip Stromer "King Hetero" (peewee@infoserv.com)
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Just a question!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:27:07 GMT

In article <1has1eINN87a@pith.uoregon.edu> dise@oregon.uoregon.edu writes:

>they  
>completely disregarded his homosexuality and expected him to act like a  
>breeder

A lot of bisexuals and women have serious problems with this term.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8902 alt.rush-limbaugh:12945 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11442 alt.politics.clinton:19560 alt.politics.bush:15473
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Sexuality
From: jkusters@zeus.calpoly.edu (Chrome Jester)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 18:27:39 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) divulges:
->
->1st, Persecution of Gays does not have a biblical baisis.

Well, I take *slight* exception to this assertation.  I have read the bible
several times cover to cover, a couple of different versions.  I have read
it from the atheists point of view.  Now, in several readings of this book,
I have come across references in Leviticus that says that men who lie with
men as with women should be put to death (something about them being an
abomination).  If this is not encouragement of persecution, I don't know
what is.

Or is Leviticus no longer considered part of the bible?

JOhn.
-- 
/-John A Kusters, jr.--------------------------------------------------- ______
| jkusters@ares.calpoly.edu   b0- f- w g- s-- r p++                      \    /
Silence keeps us all in darkness, We can't change things overnight;       \  /
But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovsky & Phillips
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: JON the bigot, Steve Giammarco an enlightened one ,(Re: ,,,)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:04:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: QueerNet
Keywords: elf jon rob Mr. Chemistry

Pez... those are those plastic things with the hollow heads, out of which comes
stuff of no noticeable value, right?
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:14:01 GMT

In article <21DEC199215423972@venus.tamu.edu> crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
>I think you completely miss the point I am trying to make.  I just think that
>trying to compare animal behavior to that of humans is irrelevant.

Fine.

>My belief is that homosexuality is wrong.

On what evidence do you base that belief?  You have gotten off to an OK
start by asserting the biological argument is irrelevant.  Given that,
why do you still think homosexuality is wrong?  Present your reasons and
we will be happy to discuss them.

-- 
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_
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 aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
XXXDate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:45:24 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A7689BE498010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:46:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.154105.13916@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> david.j.rea,
djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com writes:
> Physically, a kiss on the lips or making love with another in a show
> of affection is o.k. as long as the body parts are used for what they
> exist for. 

An interesting assumption there, that the lips "exist for" kissing.  Just
how do you reach that conclusion?  It serves no necessary purpose...
certainly none of the purposes that the mouth is needed for.

>The rear end is strictly for output, that is, it is for
> waste management only. This is were my problem comes in. I do not think
> ANYONE should practice this act(Homosexual or Bisexual or Hetrosexual).

As long as you are willing to limit your vehemence to voicing an opinion,
then you will be well within your rights.  Try to stop, or actively
discourage, someone and we might have a problem.

> I do not practice this act and never have. 

Me, neither.

>This is were I say, "It makes
> me sick to think people do this."

Well, then, try very hard not to think about it... or make it a point to
carry an moisture resistant bag with you at all times.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | 
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
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:20:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.101634.17150@netcom.com> teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.203931.9252@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>>In article <1h7t7cINNklb@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>
>>Did I say that he said that?
>>
>>>
>>>And that just leaves us with Gays, kids, and Boy Scouts.   So what are
>>>you saying, Mr Pinkas? 
>>>
>>
>>Exactly what I said before.
>>
>>
>>
>
>If you are saying that all Gays are pedophiles, then you have your facts
>wrong.  The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals and are
>frequently closely related to the child.  By vast, I believe the number is
>somewhere near 90%.
>

If you wanted to know what I said, you could have read it before editing.
I am not sure why you do this. You have my comment there, but you choose
to erase it and put your own idea as mine.
I would have to start believing Mr. Cramer's speech about Gays and honesty...

Go back, read the piece you deleted, and then you will find that I NEVER
said anything about Gays being pedophiles.





>
>Ciao!
>	John S. :^)
>	teddybur@netcom.com
>__
>

AAP
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: walter smith
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:14:16 GMT

In article <1h9t5lINNj7o@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> > It looks like Walter tired of us.
> > Perhaps I asked to many hard questions.
> > LUX ./. owen
> 
> Or maybe I had a few days off, and didn't see the need in dialing 
> in from home for this discussion?  Nah....

I considered that possibility, but I only wound up using one worm on the
hook.

> >That was absolutely sincere Walter.
> >if you don't believe me when i say that then there is no point in replying
> >to me at all.
 
> You know, you have a good point there.  

Thats what *I* figured.
:-)

> >your move walter.
 
> Owen, consider it taken, Owen.
> (you sure you weren't a Jehovah's Witness at some point? You use their 
> "first-name" approach pretty well...) 

OOooooh.
did I trip over one of your hot buttons?

No I was never a J W , I've eaten a few for lunch though :-)

Actually, When I was news/sys admin at hpda back in the arly 80's
I worked with Bob Desinger who was a devout JW.
the people in the dept would get a double barreled load of anti-xmas
flak from our corner of the room this time of year. :-)

Its funny how I fell into using your name like that, it was a whim.
I've never used it as an ontological device like that before.

Tell you what, I'll drop that device, if you'll come back and deal with me
on a peer level.

now, we get a vacation here until Jan 4 and I'll probably be dialing into my
netcom acct for news access .

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! "
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:36:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.182739.106978@zeus.calpoly.edu> jkusters@zeus.calpoly.edu (Chrome Jester) writes:
>Well, I take *slight* exception to this assertation.  I have read the bible
>several times cover to cover, a couple of different versions.  I have read
>it from the atheists point of view.  Now, in several readings of this book,
>I have come across references in Leviticus that says that men who lie with
>men as with women should be put to death (something about them being an
>abomination).  If this is not encouragement of persecution, I don't know
>what is.

>Or is Leviticus no longer considered part of the bible?

>JOhn.

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
|This is not a .sig|
 
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: buckmr@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Gays In The News
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:38:06 GMT

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:


>Did anyone catch the little news item today about the dozen or so
>openly Gay members of Gov. Bill's transition team?

No, I didn't. Where was the report or do you remember any of the names of
the people on the transition team?

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``D.C. in 93!''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
In 1988, the Presidential election turnout was 50.2%. Source: The Village Voice
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: stupid boycott mentality
Date: 31 Dec 1992 22:17:32 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

 (Jody Norman) writes:
> You know, I think it might be a good idea if we asked exactly what are
> =special= rights vs =equal= ones.  Quotas are a frequent concern for those
> who see gays as asking for minority status, not because gays have
> specifically asked for them (at least, as far as my limited knowledge
> goes), but because it's a common concern with minority groups.  But quotas
> are not what I think of, as a bi female concerned with equal rights.  When
> I say I want equal rights, I mean I would like to be able to buy a car with
> my partner, or have a joint bank account, or credit card, or... and so on. 
> The =legal= rights granted to heterosexual couples in this country without
> a second thought.  And though I'll admit that I don't =know= if these
> rights are actually illegal, I can tell you from experience that they're
> ones a couple doesn't dare to ask for fear of discrimination (i.e., joint
> insurance -- if your agent doesn't agree with your lifestyle, they can make
> living rather difficult, and a couple may not be able to afford that). 


> I'd like to hear others' opinions on this issue, because it seems to
> me that that's where some of the difficulties with quotas seem to be coming
> from.

Good thinking.  As a straight male who has no contact with anyone 
who he can talk to about these issues (yet), here's what I see as
"special" vs "equal". 

SPECIAL
-------
Minority status (like race) 
Quotas (hiring, promotion) 


EQUAL 
-----
Ability to marry (and assoc. bennies, like some of the things you list above) 
Freedom from discrimination in housing and employment.  While these may not 
   be considered "rights" by some in the strictest sense, the idea is that 
   people should be judged on who they are as a person, and what they do; 
   not on prejudices.  You should get hired/promoted based on how well you 
   can do the job, not based on your sexual orientation/habits/whatever. 
   There's no need for that to even come into the equation.  There are some 
   instances that might need to be exempted.  For example, it would be 
   appropraite for a church that teaches homosexuality is wrong to reject 
   a gay candidate for pastor; not that such a person would even want the 
   job in the first place.  
Freedom from harassment.  Again, may not be a "right" in the strictest 
   sense, but it is a basic respect issue. 

I'm sure I missed some.......but thanks for the chance to express them 
in a calm manner...

Walter