HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:36:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Dec31.152403.14397@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
(Howard Black) wrote:
> 
> In article <1hv22dINN4ie@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> >>      Once again - "Practice" has nothing to do with bisexuality.
> >> Bisexuality is a sexual identity just like heterosexuality is.
> >> You can be a celibate bisexual.
> >
> >maybe what we need is a better set of terms, that differentiate 
> >better between orientation and practice.  I know myself, and probobly 
> >a lot of 'straight' people, are lacking in understanding in that 
> >area...
> 
>     Actually, I think Phil stated it about as clearly as it can be.  In
> fact, your own terms "orientation" and "practice" also are perfectly
> descriptive.  
>     You are het by orientation, so, if you have sex, it will probably be
> with the opposite sex.  A bi is oriented toward either sex.  Acting on the
> orientation is the way it's expressed, so acting in a manner contrary to
> one's orientation feels unnatural because it is.
> -- 
>    ******************************************************************
>      Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
>      Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 


I tend to agree with the above -- that is, a bisexual doesn't necessarily
practice sex with both sexes at the same time, but is instead open to doing
so.  
I'm 95% sure that I'm bisexual, but I'm quite happily monogamous -- it's
just
that I can and do enjoy looking at attractive men while having a
relationship
with a woman.  My guess is that I'm fairly typical in this respect -- the
only 
way I'd have sex with two people at the same time, whatever their gender or

orientation, is if both of them understood and cared about each other and
me.  
But I can appreciate the confusion such practices or orientations could 
generate in either hets or bi-gay-les.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: THE FINAL WORD ON TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:35:37 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <22DEC199210124698@summa.tamu.edu>, crr4574@summa.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
|> 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.


Here you go.

	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.

Had you forgotten that you wrote that?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:39:21 GMT

In article <21DEC199211565333@venus.tamu.edu>
     crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:

>Someone did or they wouldn't have made the argument in first place.  I care,
>because if you are going to try and use this kind of logic to prove that
>homosexuality is natural, I say do it scientifically and look at facts. 

   Okay.  "Homosexuality is natural because it has been observed in
humans."  It's a mistake to assume that man and his dams is any less a
part of "nature" than a beaver and his.

>The belief is a moral one. Just as every person has certain moral beliefs,
>so do I.  If my moral beliefs appear to me to be incorrect, I change them.
>Maybe my beliefs are based on not understanding your behavior.

   My fundamental beleif is that it is wrong to attempt to control
someone else's behavior without their permission.  If someone else
tries to control my behavior, the same rule applies, and I will protect
my right to dictate my own behavior, *with equivalent force, up to and
including deadly force if necessary*.

   I do consent to people becoming a part of my life, and I will change
my behavior for them, but only because I want to.  By saying
"Homosexuality is wrong" and following through with that belief with
legislation, you are attempting to control me.  And I push back.  Since
you do so with a vote, I push back with a vote.  And with education.
And hope.  And prayer.  I can only hope to convince you that, at the
very least, my desire to be left alone, to be allowed to be myself, and
my desire that others should have the same right, be tolerated.

         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.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:18:52 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec22.161223.23548@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec22.103116.11450@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
|> 
|> >   Personally, someone who collect Simeon Smith art or Bodil doesn't
|> >bother me in the least.  I might be a little leery of letting him/her
|> >near my kids and/or dog, but then I'd be a little leery of letting even
|> >friendly Mormons near my kids and/or dog, too...
|> 
|> I would guess that if some people "might be a little leery of letting
|> friendly Gays near their kids", and then they act on that feeling by
|> not allowing Gays to be in the Boy Scouts or maybe in some other places,
|> like in schools as teachers, you and some of your friends would start
|> crying: DISCRIMINATION, DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!  

Well, if I heard Mr Sternberg proposing to ban Mormons from the Boy
Scouts, I would certainly think it discriminatory.   But I don't hear
him saying that, do you?

And that just leaves us with Gays, kids, and Boy Scouts.   So what are
you saying, Mr Pinkas? 

jon.
From: crr4574@summa.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: THE FINAL WORD ON TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 10:57 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 <1h7fcjINNrfc@agate.berkeley.edu>, key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key) writes...
> 
>1)	you say that homosexuality is wrong, and ask for proof
>	that it is not wrong.
>2)	i say that homosexuality is not wrong, and that there is no
>	proof needed.  but...
> 
>if you can 'justify' your statement that homosexuality is wrong,
>then i will 'justify' my statement.

This is exactly what I was talking about.  Everything I said was completely
taken out of context.  I said I believe that it is wrong.  I said that if you
don't want to be discriminated against, you need to educate people.  I have no
reason for justifying my statement other than to say this is my belief.  I do
not have to deal with discrimination everyday for my belief, but you do for
your belief.  If I had to deal with discrimination everyday for what I believe
then I would have to explain why I feel this way.  But once again, you missed
the point completely.  Go back and look at the evolution analogy again and
maybe you will finally understand what I am trying to say.

Charley
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: Mon, 4 Jan 93 18:28:02 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DCFC2FF040614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 18:29:01 GMT

In article <C057uF.5xB@news.iastate.edu> Ross Stenersen, rossco@iastate.edu
writes:
>Again, there is a reason for this "discrimination" against homosexuals: 
this
>act is potentially very dangerous to OTHER people.

Woah!!!  Waitaminit!!  Back Up!!

I've wondered some people actually believed this, but it's pretty rare to
hear someone actually =say= it!

Just what is it about a homosexual act that is dangerous to =anybody=, much
less a nonparticipant.  Spreading diseases?  No more so than heterosexual
sex.

Don't just toss out an offhand absurdity like this and expect it to go
unchallenged!

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | tFreedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you offa.
From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: to Howard Black a.k.a Mr. Chemistry (Re: WHY?)
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:45:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <5Nk3VB1w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:
>        >You're one of the only heterosexual people I know that's 
>        >enough of a jerk to post the crap we've seen from you.  
>Don't forget about ME.        

Oh, rats.  I'd almost succeeded in doing just that.

>        >All psychological studies agree that sexual orientation is in 
>        >most cases not a voluntary choice 
>Psychology is a bunch of baloney.

Yep.  Sure set me straight there.

>        >why _should_ they choose not to be homosexual?  
>Uh, because it greatly reduces their chance of contracting AIDS?        

You're useful for one thing, Phil: you give me a reason to keep making
the following point.  According to the Center for Disease Control,
homosexuals are no longer the group that is at greatest risk for
contracting AIDS in the USA.  Young heterosexual males, ages 18 to 22,
are.  Of course people have said this to you many times and you ignore
it each time, but that's because you'd rather babble like an idiot.

>        >What are the _exact reasons_ homosexuality is inferior to 
>        >heterosexuality as a sexual orientation?
>o AIDS

Wrong, as above.

>o Popularity

You mean being gay means being unpopular with you and the Zekester
and Pat Robertson and the OCA?  Sounds excellent to me.

>o Good-looking chicks

Real mature attitude towards the opposite sex ya got there, Phil.  I
bet you have no better luck in your love life than you do in your
career.  How was it to get fired from Sun for being such a net.idiot,
anyway?

>o Reproduction

Ho hum.  Gays can adopt, lesbians can use artificial insemination.
Homosexuals can have kids.  There are plenty of straight people who
are infertile, too.

>o Coolness

Cool like you, huh, Phil?

>o Feel free to add anything else that comes to mind

Like maybe some actual facts?  Oh, I forgot, you don't have any.

-- 
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_
From: d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Is sexuality chosen or inborn? A users guide.
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:36:55 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

Preference vs. Orientation vs. Behavior
Can people choose these things??
let's set some ground rules.

Sexual orientation (the biological, uncontrollable attraction to another) is
inherent.

Sexual Preference (the desire for a particular behavior pattern) is a the
product of societal conditioning.

Sexual Behavior (the actions taking in expressing sexuality) is chosen
individually.

The three concepts are interrelated, but totally separate in practice and can
be in any combination of known sexualities.

David
-- 
---\"Faster than //\\//\\/David Speakman\//\\//\\ .---------------------------.
----\ a speeding \00daspeakman@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu/ | S5/8 bg-l-y+zno+x+auv+j+  |
----/\ Lambda.." //\\/hocake@bsu-cs.bsu.edu\\//\\ |        B0/1 t+k+s-        |
---/  \          \\d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu\// `---------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:24:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.161223.23548@wam.umd.edu>
     aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.103116.11450@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>>necrophile.  It *is* unreasonable *to rape* a child or an unwilling
>>animal.  

>It would be quite interesting to see how Mr. Sternberg can determine if the
>animal is willing or unwilling to be part of the rape.

   Okay, poor grammar.  "To rape a child or animal" would have been
better.  Besides, the issue of "can an animal consent?" is an old one
that's been hashed out on alt.sex.bestiality over a dozen times.  Since
nobody can give a fer-shure answer, it's a real grey area.  As far as
I'm concerned, animals didn't give their consent to be our slaves or
our dinner, but we do it to 'em anyway.  Why not make them our sex toys
as well?  Or is sex more horrible than death and dinner?

      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
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:16:34 GMT

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%.


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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Gays In The News
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:33:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.211539.26986@news.ysu.edu>
     ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:

>In a previous article, sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) says:

>>I't seems like many political issues concerning homosexuals have cropped
>>up in the news over the past several months.

>Kinda makes you hopeful about the phrase, "The GAY 90's", don't it!!

   More to the point, if one in ten articles on the news is casually
representative of homosexuality, it can only prove the point.

   WE *ARE* EVERYWHERE.

         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.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:26:57 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <22DEC199212063217@zeus.tamu.edu>, crr4574@zeus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
>
> Also, to answer another post, yes I do know statistics.  Among other things, I
> have a degree in Math.  So yes, I understand how statistics work.  I also
> understand that 10% means 1 in 10.  In my experience the number is definitely
> high.  I have gone through my high school annual and calculated the percentage
> who are known homosexuals.  It is about 1%.  Sure, there may be some that I
> don't about, but I know most of these people pretty well.  So maybe there were
> twice as many homosexuals in my high school.  This makes about 2%.


For all your claims to understand statistics, you seem to be pretty much
hopelessaly confused on the subject.   Sometimes you are talking about
self-declared Gays, sometimes exclusively Gay people, and sometimes about
what other people think the proportion is, with whatever defintion of the
word "Gay" that they happen to be using.

If this is such an important topic to you as it seems to be, don't you
think that the first, very elementary, step ought to be to clear up
for yourself what defintion of the word "Gay" you are using.

jon.
From: key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: THE FINAL WORD ON TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 23 Dec 1992 04:21:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


In article <22DEC199210575764@summa.tamu.edu> 
	crr4574@summa.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
>In article <1h7fcjINNrfc@agate.berkeley.edu>, key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key) writes...

>>1)	you say that homosexuality is wrong, and ask for proof
>>	that it is not wrong.
>>2)	i say that homosexuality is not wrong, and that there is no
>>	proof needed.  but...

>>if you can 'justify' your statement that homosexuality is wrong,
>>then i will 'justify' my statement.

>This is exactly what I was talking about.  Everything I said was completely
>taken out of context.  I said I believe that it is wrong.  I said that if you
>don't want to be discriminated against, you need to educate people.  I have no
>reason for justifying my statement other than to say this is my belief.  I do
>not have to deal with discrimination everyday for my belief, but you do for
>your belief.  If I had to deal with discrimination everyday for what I believe
>then I would have to explain why I feel this way.  But once again, you missed
>the point completely.  Go back and look at the evolution analogy again and
>maybe you will finally understand what I am trying to say.

>Charley

i think you missed my point and most of the other posters' points.
i will not argue to a closed mind.  if you do not demostrate
that your mind is even marginally open, then i will not waste my
breath on you.

you are being arrogant to assume that i cannot read.
if you will not grant me the courtesy of openning a dialogue
then i will not grant you that same courtesty.

i do not justify my life to fool.
my life and dignity need no justification.
but perhaps your willful ignorance does.

peter li'ir key, like it or lump it
key@soda.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Bisexuals
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 08:03:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.181518.4303@fuug.fi> an265@anon.penet.fi writes:

>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

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

>>>"breeder"

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

>And that is the least of the problems bisexuals have.

   Oh?  Care to explain this problem?  Is this a postive or negative
expression?  Come on...

         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.
From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re:  stupid boycott mentality
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:46:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

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). 
Etc.  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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright)
Subject: Re: Has anyone HERE changed? (WAS: Analogy betwixt....
Organization: The Cabal
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:21:29 GMT

In article <BzGswK.K37@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu 
(Lost Boy) writes:
...
>And I myself know about one person (me) who thought he was bi and is now
>quite sure that he is hetero.
...

If you were wrong about yourself once before, you could be wrong about
yourself again!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality