HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:40:18 GMT

In article <1gttqnINNfo@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> Cynicism is stylish, but you'll never know till you try, right? 
> What do you lose by trying?   (side note, not all the people 
> who are unsure of the quota things are neccesarily "religious") 
> I can tell you one thing; had there been a clearly known position 
> that the gay-rights movement had no desire for that, either 
> Col#2 would have had to have been worded very differently, or 
> else it would not have had a prayer of passing.  

This is the same Walter Smith who gets so offended when he is accused of
having a secret agenda?

Clearly, Mr. Smith, you have been paying no attention, since there have
been more statements in the news media saying that the gay-rights
movement did not want quotas than people fed with the fishes and
loaves.  If you heard none of them, it must be because no one
personally walked up top your door, ran, your bell, and said, "Excuse
me, Mr. Smith, but I represent the Gay Rights Movement, and I want to
make sure you know we don't want quotas."

It is clear you are a hopeless case--it doesn't matter what anyone says,
because we all have a secret agenda.  If you cared, you would find the
books in question and read them.  Clearly even this basic research is
beyond you.  So this is my last word in this discussion.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:08:44 GMT

In article <Bz5tE7.K0t@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <Bz5r1K.9wK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>>Except for an occasional screw-up (play on words unintended), the
>>military has not knowingly drafted, enlisted, or commissioned anyone whom
>>they knew to be homosexual.  Those who are later found to be such are quickly
>>separated.

>Separated from what?  See the film BEFORE STONEWALL if you really
>believe this.

Or consider the recent war on the people of Iraq, where gay
people who came out to their commanding officers during the
war were retained until the fighting ended, at which time
they were given dishonorable discharges.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8136 talk.politics.mideast:23631
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.mideast
From: rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden)
Subject: Re: stupid propaganda
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, Ca.
	<1ge96vINN8lr@fido.asd.sgi.com>
	<1992Dec16.032516.25996@wyvern.twuug.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:27:48 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Dec16.032516.25996@wyvern.twuug.com> asoper@wyvern.twuug.com (Aubrey Soper) writes:

   >One: that excluding HIV positive immigrants "protects" anyone.

   What makes you think that not increasing the number of people
   with a communicable, fatal disease differs from protection?

An extremely difficult to catch virus that either party can make much
much more difficult to catch?  Who's not being protected?  If you
aren't having safe-sex, you're the one putting yourself at risk.

--

  - Ronald Hayden

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
   | Documentation Manager, Oracle Toolkit Group                    |
   | Co-chair of Oracle Lambda, Oracle's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual group |
   | Writer, magician, and various other things                     |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: stupid propaganda
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:15:09 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec16.032516.25996@wyvern.twuug.com>, asoper@wyvern.twuug.com (Aubrey Soper) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Dec12.183520.13969@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
|> >>
|> >>	[of a proposed regulation]
|> >>
|> >> It is the right of any country to protect its citizens. 
|> >> This is done as a rutine on any countryt of the world, or at least, \
|> >> most of them.
|> 
|> >Great.   Now all you have to do is to establish two things.
|> 
|> >One: that excluding HIV positive immigrants "protects" anyone.
|> 
|> What makes you think that not increasing the number of people
|> with a communicable, fatal disease differs from protection?

The poster asks how "not increasing the number of people
with a communicable, fatal disease" differs from "protection".

Well, let's think.   Making people wear purple pointed hats probably
results in "not increasing the number of people with a communicable, 
fatal disease".   Would passing a law to make people wear purple
pointed hats amount to "protection"?

Making people send all their money to the Church of Ubizmo would
be a case of "not increasing the number of people with a communicable, 
fatal disease".   Would passing a law to make people send their
money to the Church of Ubizmo be "protection"?

The point that this poster has missed is that there are many things
which by themselves amount to "not increasing the number of people
...etc", but which are in fact quite irrelevant to protecting anyone.

Excluding HIV-positive visitors from a country is one of them.  It's
not the mere presence of an HIV-positive visitor in a country that
results in more or fewer of the citizens of that country becoming
HIV-positive themselves.

|> 
|> 
|> >Two: if one country does something, that makes it right for other
|> >	countries to do the same thing.
|> 
|> That's just as silly.

I couldn't agree more.   Why don't you take it up with Mr Pinkas?
He was the one who raised it.

jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 19 Dec 1992 01:05:49 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gtoisINNmfq@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
> The religious right claims that gays want "minority status", in the sense 
> that they want quotas similar to race quotas.  Because of the analogy that 
> is often made between gays and blacks, a lot of people believe it.  Before 
> I heard  people here deny it, *I* believed it.  This puts the  religious 
> right in a great position to exploit the situation, and the unknown.  Write 
> an amendment that denies what people see as a likely want (quotas) and tack
> on the end the freedom to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  And 
> what have you got?  Col#2.  What else have you got?  basically the same 
> amendment that is likely to be presented in more states.  So how do you 
> diffuse the situation, and kill the wording of the amendment, that will be 
> coming up in more states?     Make it clear to all, the more demonstrative 
> the better, that this is *not* a goal of the gay-rights movement.  In fact, 
> if the gay-rights movement, when they march on Washington next year, present 
> some legislation that says "no quotas based on sexual orientation", what 
> would the religious right be left with?  Nothing, except to come right out 
> and say that the only point of the amendments is to discriminate.  And 
> most people will want no part of that, and they'll get voted down 
> overwhelmingly.  Get the picture?

Sure I get the picture.   We'll say we don't want quotas, and all over
the country newly awakened ex-religious bigots will slap their foreheads 
and say "Oh, how could we have been so foolish" and everyone will live 
happily ever after.

Wanna buy a bridge?

jon.
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 1992 15:54:21 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> > Owen,
> > Don't beat around the bush, spell it out.  Am I Clayton in disguise?  
> 
> And since you invite me to spell it out ..
> I will.
[and at the end of the article:]
> Why don't you just tell us, and we'll go from there.

No, Owen, you've implied that I have some secret agenda that I am 
trying to hide.  You say you'll spell it out, then you don't. 
I'm tired of this 'guilt by implication' bull.  If you can't spell 
out what you think my secret little agenda is, then keep your
insinuations to yourself. 

Walter 
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: to Howard Black a.k.a Mr. Chemistry (Re: WHY?)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:21:07 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec19.070718.23582@netcom.com> robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>
>Either way, the Zekester is one of the biggest idiots to dump his shit
>in alt.politics.homosexuality since djk.

    No argument there.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:7930 sci.psychology:4780
From: lamontg@stein.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Recognition of object-of-affection.
Date: 13 Dec 92 11:17:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec13.111733.23296
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'

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.  I haven't yet felt emotionally attracted to a male,
ever -- quite often I feel negative emotions towards them.  In locker
rooms, the only thought I feel is "damn guys look silly when they're
naked".  And, I do have a bit of hard time relating to guys that are
gay because I just don't get it (its not a homophobic thing, its more
like our "styles clash").  As for just physical sex, it would be
less attractive to me than masturbation, because I'd be sexually interacting
with someone else with no emotional involvement which I wouldn't feel
good about.  You might get me to change this last aspect so that I'd
feel okay about sex with absolutely no emotional involvement, but I
wouldn't really consider that switching my sexuality from het to bi.

Okay, so here's another theory...  Do you know how some mammals imprint
very early, on those they grown up around and then search out mates that
are elsewhere?  How about a theory of where your stimulus from both
male + female playmates and parents at an early age causes you to imprint
on them, and then search out mates of the opposite sex.  It therefore
wouldn't be genetic or be the product of conventional socialization, but
something very ingrained in the stimulus-response level of our brain at
an early age.

Of course, if you really want my opinion, I think its an assortment of genetic
factors which influence both personality and sexuality *AND* its based on
early imprinting *AND* its based on socialization through life experiences
and social environment.  If someone is borderline bisexual both genetically
and through imprinting, then maybe you can cause them to flip between
different sexualities.  But, from my perspective, it seems that the
explanation for my sexuality must be primarily from genetic factors or
be psychologically at a level *lower* than unconscious or simple behavioral
factors.

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu
  "When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases."
                                      -- Robert Anton Wilson
From: mitch@novavax.UUCP (Mitch Silverman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Has anyone HERE changed? (WAS: Analogy betwixt....
Date: 19 Dec 92 18:15:31 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@cfraix.cfr.usf.edu (Mitch Silverman)
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

In article <92351.124708ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu> ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu (The Dreamer) writes:

>     I just wanted to know if anyone who posts here WAS a homosexual and now
>IS a heterosexual?
>     Before I accepted myself for who I was, I tried to change...I dated women,
>made out with them, etc... I was so full of hate for myself that I thought I
>had to change, no matter what the cost.
>     Well, the change came...I accepted the fact that I am gay and there is
>nothing that I can do about it...there is nothing that I want to do about it.
>As far as I am concerned, I am gay.  To be non-gay would mean to be non-me.
>
>     All of this is IMHO, no flames please...I'm sensitive :-)
>
>     Love and Peace and Self-Acceptance,
>                 -The Dreamer-
>
>The Dreamer: Praying to God for an intelligent discussion on this topic
>             instead of the usual flinging of insults and morality.


All I can say to you is "Good for you, man, good for you."  Self-
acceptance isn't that easy to come by, with paranoids of every stripe
yammering away about the "evils" of an un-Godly or unnatural lifestyle.
The words are different, but they encode xenophobia, heterosexism, and
self-loathing just as well.

I like what New York Times columnist Anna Quindlen has to say today
(but then, I usually do.)  Writing about a public school (P.S. 291)
in the Bronx, and specifically about New York City's proposed
multicultural curriculum, Quindlen says:

>In the battle over the [Children of the] Rainbow curriculum,
>contempt and fear focus on gay people, the heirs to to the communist
>threat in the minds of those who believe in evil empires and conversion
>conspiracies. 

An interesting connection, eh?  Homosexuality at the far-right's
replacement for Communism?  Who'd'a thunk it?

I'm not sure how much good praying to God[ess] for intelligent discussion
will do.  Myself, I think I'll just venerate Eris and see whether anything
interesting happens.  8-}  (N.B.  Do NOT pray to Eris--worship the Goddess
of Discord and you may get what you ask for.)

Rev. Dkr. Mitch, KSC
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 16 Dec 1992 13:56:34 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

kkenny@gems.vcu.edu writes:
> In article <1gdl85INN1qe@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> > Do we need to teach "daddy
> > and his roommate sleep together" to teach tolerance? 
> 
> To first graders, "sleep together" does not invoke the same
> images that that phrase does to _you_, a sexually aware peson.
> What makes you think that telling first graders that two adults
> care for one another means that they will come away with visions
> of sexual acts?  

They won't.  I didn't think they would, at that age.  
What I was questioning was the need to show "daddy and his 
roommate" going to sleep together at all, to 1st graders. 

> As you continue to make your point, to me it is clear that
> you are aware of your own tolerance limitations.  

In a sense, yes.  

> You embrace a
> "all people/families/family situations are valuable" doctrine, but
> then balk when that doctrine ceases to be doctrine and becomes
> reality, included in the school curriculum.

Close.  I embrace a "all people are valuable" doctrine.  And that what 
consenting adults chose to do in their own home is their own business.  I don't
recognize that all family situations are good; for example, a family 
where incest is the "norm".  Would you recognize that as a "good" family
situation?   Why/why not?  
> 
> Karen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:7879 alt.politics.clinton:18449
From: key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Is it actually 10%??
Date: 20 Dec 1992 02:52:25 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


ya know?  a christian dictum goes, "either you for me or against me"

peter li'ir key, who is paraphrasing
key@soda.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Subject: Re: A Mother Speaks
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:36:05 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1386.1652.uupcb@synapse.org> steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly)  writes:

>Can anyone give me the address or fax/phone of 
>Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays?  Is there a Canadian
>equivalent or branch of this organisation?
>Thanks in advance.

Hope these will be helpful. (For additional info you might call
your local Gay & Lesbian Hotline.)

Parents FLAG c/o GLCCE, Box 1852, Edmonton, T5J 2P2  437 6954.

Parents FLAG, POB 30502, Brentwood Postal Outlet, 201-4567 Lougheed
Hwy, Burnaby, Vanvouver V5C 2A0  255 4429.

Families of Gays, POB 1912, Winnipeg, R3C 3R2  284 5208, 474 0212;
Fax 478 1160.

Fredericton Lesbians & Gays (FLAG), POB 1556, Stn A, E3B 5G2.

Parents FLAG, c/o Ann McPhee, 60 Galbraith Court, Bowmanville, 
Ontario L1C 4P6  623 6995.

Parents FLAG, c/o Anne Rutledge, 52 Essex St, Goderich, Ontario
N7A 2H4  524 4879.

Parents FLAG, 48 Garfield Ave, London, Ont, N6C 2B5  432 4581.

Parents Resource Network, c/o Lesbian & Gay Youth/Ottawa-Hull, 
Box 2919, Stn D, Ottawa K1P 5W9  238 1717.

Parents FLAG, POB 92509, 160 Main St South, Brampton, Ontario
L6W 4R1 456 4570 (Toronto).

Parents FLAG, National Office, POB 27605, Washington, DC 20038
(202) 638 4200.

Yours in Liberation,

Roy
 
 
-- 
Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: to Howard Black a.k.a Mr. Chemistry (Re: WHY?)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:07:18 GMT

In article <18DEC199218011528@zeus.tamu.edu> Zeke@homo.is.the.way.to.go.to.get.a.piece.of.pucker.hole.edu writes:
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>|The Zekester, PRO HETERO and proud of it!!                   |
>|       **********         They call me homophobic,           |
>|    ***          ***      They call me bigotted,             |
>|  **<-------------****    They call me close-minded,         |
>| **  \          **** **   They call me intolerant,           |
>|**    \      ****/    **  They blame me for their problems,  |
>|**     \  ****  /     **  They cannot tolerate me,           |
>|**     ****    /      **  They cannot respect me,            |
>| ** **** \    /      **   They do not know me,               |
>|  ****    \  /      **         yet they judge me.            |
>|    ***    \/   ***                                          |
>|       **********         They must be heterophobes!!        |
>---------------------------------------------------------------

I just figured out what this asshole reminds me of:

A Ku Klux Klan member who's whining that blacks are bigoted against him.

Or a Nazi who's bemoaning the prejudice Jews have against him.

Either way, the Zekester is one of the biggest idiots to dump his shit
in alt.politics.homosexuality since djk.

-- 
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
From: tom@flood.com (Tom Chatt)
Subject: Re: Group in CO Springs to fight #2
Organization: The Flood Group, Inc.  Torrance, Ca.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 07:46:13 GMT

rgordon@convex.com (Rob Gordon) writes:
| Amendment 2 is due to go into effect on the first business day of January 1993.
| Governor Romer's signature is required for Amendment 2 to become law.

Can you clarify that? The governor's signature is required for a
referendum to become law??? Does that mean he has veto power? Romer
has already stated that he is personally against the measure.

-- 
Tom Chatt                        \   Don't take offense, take action.
Internet: tom@flood.com           \    Speak up. When we remain silent,
UUCP: ...!uunet!flood!tom        / \     we oppress ourselves.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:47:08 EST
From: The Dreamer <ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Has anyone HERE changed? (WAS: Analogy betwixt....

     I just wanted to know if anyone who posts here WAS a homosexual and now
IS a heterosexual?
     Before I accepted myself for who I was, I tried to change...I dated women,
made out with them, etc... I was so full of hate for myself that I thought I
had to change, no matter what the cost.
     Well, the change came...I accepted the fact that I am gay and there is
nothing that I can do about it...there is nothing that I want to do about it.
As far as I am concerned, I am gay.  To be non-gay would mean to be non-me.

     All of this is IMHO, no flames please...I'm sensitive :-)

     Love and Peace and Self-Acceptance,
                 -The Dreamer-

The Dreamer: Praying to God for an intelligent discussion on this topic
             instead of the usual flinging of insults and morality.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Military Alternative Lifestyles??
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:41:28 GMT

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:

>All this stuff about Queers in the military is a dodge.
>There always have been queers in the military, there always will be.
>All that is being proposed is that we don't throw out people.
>The Military will not see a flood of queers showing up to be signed
>up, all that will happen is that the government will be recognising a
>reality.

Wrong.  They already recognize the reality by prohibiting it.  What the
Bozone Brothers want to do is force the military to unconditionally accept
homosexuality as a normal and perfectly acceptable lifestyle.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|