HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:24:10 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <AekBghK00iUy87Qa8u@andrew.cmu.edu> ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes:
>
>Someone wrote me:

That would be me...

>
>> So, if you were fired from your job because your boss didn't like the
>> way you acted with women, i.e. _fucked_ them and _because_ you were 
>> heterosexual and your boss was neither het nor homo nor bi, a 
>> unic, then you wouldn't care, huh?
>
>I can see that there's nothing I'll be able to say to convince you of
>this, but let my try.  I believe completely and totally in the
>individual's right to control his own affairst.  The answer is yes, I

Boy, you do have some strange ideas...
>> 
>> You wouldn't take him to court because there was no law protecting you
>> that said since you were a heterosexual you couldn't be fired for
>> that reason alone.
>In my view, there should be no laws like that at all, not to mention any
>frivolous lawsuits from people who just happen to be pissed about
>something somebody did even though it is completely and totally legal
>(or in this case, should be.)  The answer is no.  I would go find
>another job.

Would you ever approach the employer and ask as to why he fired you.
Imagine, and from what you've been saying, I presume you have _little_
problem doing that, that you were gay.
Now, that's probably a stretch for you but, regardless...
You're walking down the street...
A few tall, blond Arian-race types see you from across the street...
They're carrying clubs because there's no laws anymore and are out looking
for trouble...
You, of course, have a pink triangle on your t-shirt and you see 
them running up to you...
Then, out of nowhere, a cop pulls up and stops them before they get to you...
Tells them to beat it...
Comes over to you...    

Takes his club out

And bashes you on the head because he thinks it's the right thing to do
because all gays do is waste their lives and cause disease.

You can't take him to court - there's no law.

Let me get this straight, um, let me get this queer ;)
You _want_ our society to be this way?

Oh, wait, this isn't a dream, it's the way it is already!

sorry.

back to your regularly scheduled nightmare.

later.

andy

oh, and BTW, Erik _himler_ Witte, since you didn't expect to have me 
agree with you, after we've taken it to email, why post my message to u?

hm.
>> 
>> You bite.
>
>Why thank you.
>
>Erik Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ringo@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Ringo)
Subject: Re: NO FLAMES: REASON FORTHCOMING
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:57:06 GMT

blackman@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cancholech) writes:


>	A friend of mine and I were talking the other day about my
>bisexuality and he claims that bisexuality, in opposition to
>homosexuality, is a choice and not biologically predetermined. I
>disagree with him. I said that I feel that they are both biologically
>determined and not a choice.  So I thought I would post and find out
>what others think. I am interested in both sides.

I'm pretty sure that I don't have a choice in the matter of my bisexuality.
A lot of my friends who are of a more liberal nature feel that they would
like to be bisexual, but simply can't. They feel it isn't a choice. It's 
just the way they are. I've never met anyone who says "Golly, I think I'll
be bi today!" and suddenly they are. We don't choose what turns us on, and
we can't decide whom we want to live. Bisexuality isn't a 'choice.' 
---John Rescigno
Clarkson University
Nowhere, NY

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<UejDREu00WBLQ3reUz@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Sep21.140115.16502@Princeton.EDU>
	<4ejvN3q00UhW89fHRR@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:59:04 GMT

In article <4ejvN3q00UhW89fHRR@andrew.cmu.edu> Erik Karl Witte
<ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

- 1.  Families are the center of the entire cultural war.  If anyone
- disputes that having a mother and father is conducive to having good
- kids with values and morals, they ought to try telling some parents that.
 
Knowing that you can get married when you grow up, as a gay kid you
will be happier and healthier too.
- 2.  If people don't have kids, there is no state anymore.  I'd say it's
- helpful for the long-term health of a community to have reproduction. 
- Think about it.
 
When the exclusively-gay population suddenly tops 50% of the
population, maybe I start listening to concerns about reproduction.

--
Andrew Werling on Planet Yip    awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Get out your cross and dance!"  --Gruntruck, "Crucifunkin'"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss,soc.bi
From: orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Ministry of Skritching
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:28:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.201245.15730@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
|  People, for better or worse, tend to give their leaders credence
|when none may in fact be due.

   And therein lies the fatal flaw in Libertarianism.  The proof is
trivial and will be left to the student.
                ____
  david parsons \bi/ orc@pell.chi.il.us
		 \/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:6262 soc.motss:40804 soc.bi:13158
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss,soc.bi
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:55:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Sep28.135516.29013
Organization: insert anything here

fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:

>Equality is not, for most libertarians, high on the list of priorities.

	Ah - I think it can be summed up right here.

>Freedom from naked coercion is.  

	As opposed to?  

	Seems the choices are "deal with a government that is flawed"
or "deal with a scaled-down government and a near-infinite number of
despots who control various socio-economic portions of my life".

>Now, you may not like those priorities,
>and that is fine.  But, please don't misrepresent libertarians as
>loose-cannon bigots... it annoys us and doesn't do you any good, anyways.

	Sort of like trying to teach a pig to sing?

	I never called Libertarians bigots.  I did say that
bigots will have a field day under any sort of Libertarian system.
Despite what best intentions I think most Libertarians have.  I admit
that there are some really good aspects to it, but they assume that
everyone treats people equally already and pretty much has the same
take on a lot of issues.  That's not a valid assumption.  The dowwn
side to this is that we get stuck with a meddling controlling huge
government.  But perhaps that's all we can do in our current phase
of political evolution.   Perhaps by the time of Star Trek, we'll
be "ready" for libertarianism.

BBC
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:26:23 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep28.192324.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.183729.4617@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep25.002336.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>
>>>     All it takes for me to illustrate my contention (that the Bible
>>>is not entirely symbolic) is to show one counterexample; but for
>>>your contention (that the Bible is entirely symbolic), you must
>>>prove that every verse is symbolic.
>> 
>>      I made no such assertion - I merely questioned your statement
>> that only portions of the Bible are symbolic.
>            ^^^^^^^^
>
>     Look at the text of what you deleted.  Here is your quote:
>
>     "My claim is: the entire text of the Bible is symbolic." 
>                       ^^^^^^
>What does this mean?  Was I supposed to take this claim as symbolic? :-)

     It means that I forgot that I wrote that.  Poor move on my part.
It will be quite difficult for me to prove that claim.  It will also
be quite difficult for you to disprove it, which was the original
challenge.


>>>     Deut 5:19 - Neither shalt thou steal.
>>>
>>>I claim that this can be taken at face value.
>> 
>>      I agree that it can be taken at face value.  To prove your
>> claim, however, you need to show that it _cannot_ be taken symbolically.
>
>     That is a good point!  There are some verses in the Bible
>that have both a literal interpretation and a symbolic interpretation
>(e.g. the temple of God).  This verse could possibly have a
>symbolic interpretation also, though I do not see it.  Why don't
>you help me out and show me the symbolic interpretation.

     I could wave my hands all day and come up with symbolic
interpretations of that particular passage - stealing could be a
metaphor for loss of purity in the soul, etc.  That said, it's a bad
choice for argument.  A much easier selection might be a statement of
fact, and not opinion - a confirmed piece of history within the text of
the Bible.
     (Just to help you out even more with this...)

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: will@mindvox.phantom.com (Will Kinnona)
Subject: Gay Intolerance OR Politcal Correctness in the Age of AIDS
Organization: [Phantom Access] / the MindVox system
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:22:47 GMT

	I see quite a lot of (valid) complaints regarding societies
intolerance of homosexuality.  I seem to be in the reverse situation from
most of you.  I am a young hetersexual male, and I work as a waiter in NYC
for catering companies.  Most of my co-workers (and almost all of my
bosses) are gay.  This has at times caused problems.  I've repeatedly been
subject to the legal definition of sexual harrassment, by unsympathetic
homosexual men.  I can fend off an advance as well as anyone else so it
never really bothered me UNTIL last night.
	As many of you have no doubt read in various gossip columns (Suzy,
Liz Smith, etc) there was a large AIDS benefit in NYC last night. 
Attending were Donna Karan, Ralph Lauren, Donald Trump, etc.  I was a
waiter at this event.   It was a very simple dinner to serve, the guests
were polite and most of them left before desert.  What I found to be
unacceptable however is that the hostess _insisted_ that all of the waiters
wear red ribbons to show AIDS awareness.  I at first refused to wear the
ribbon and only agreed at the risk of losing my job.
	I thought OK, no problem, she's crazy, right?  But when I began
talking with the other waiters (mostly homosexual) they didn't seem to have a
problem with it.  All of these people complaining about intolerance and
they can't understand what's wrong with _forcing_ someone to make an
insincere political statement?  
	All of this brings me to my point.  I hear a lot of talk from
people at Act-Up about "tolerance" and having an "open mind."  But if you
start having a _medical_ discussion with these people about AIDS and
suggest that perhaps their figures are inaccurate they look at you like
your nose is being eaten by worms.  I've had people who know _nothing_
about AIDS beyond what they've read in a pamphlet call me a bigot because
I quoted a medical study that contradicted their propaganda.
	Oy, it's 4am and I've done enough raving for one night...  Just
remember just because you're gay doesn't mean you aren't a bigot.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss,soc.bi
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:18:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep28.135516.29013@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
| fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
| 
| >Equality is not, for most libertarians, high on the list of priorities.
| 
| 	Ah - I think it can be summed up right here.

Yes.

| 	Seems the choices are "deal with a government that is flawed"
| or "deal with a scaled-down government and a near-infinite number of
| despots who control various socio-economic portions of my life".

Or, one can switch the adjectives and get...

 Seems the choices are "deal with a despotic government" or "deal with
a small government and a large number of people, some of whom are
flawed".

So, why did you put the adjectives where you did?  You seem to assume
that, for the most part, politicians will be fairer than business-
owners.  Why?

Interesting example...

Remember Dan Quayle?  He wouldn't want to promote homosexuality, now would
he?  But... the Arizona Republican, a paper owned by him and his family,
sells personal ads for "Male seeking Male" and "Female seeking Female".
So, at least in one case, we have a politico who is more tolerant in
his private-sector dealings than in his government dealings.  After
all, money is all green.

And that is the point.  Money is all green.  If the Arizona Republican
did not carry gay ads, they would lose revenue, and some other paper
would get the ads and the revenue.  If, however, the government bans
all gay personal ads as a "threat to the family" or something, then
the cost of discrimination is lessened, because no other paper could
pick up the business.

| 	I never called Libertarians bigots.  I did say that
| bigots will have a field day under any sort of Libertarian system.

You sort of ignored my question about Oregon.  Democracy empowers
bigots at least as much (and usually more) than a market -- because
government can spew bigotry without cost.

The same government regulatory powers that can provide better access
for gayfolk to economic opportunity can be, and have been, used to
step on gayfolk.

I'm not talking about "rights" to this or that -- I think that "rights"
belong in the same class of noun as "thought of a unicorn".  I am talking
about power and force.

   Fritz

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: buckmr@lib110.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Bad day for Sheldon,etc. :-)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:03:57 GMT

entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) writes:


>I just read Clarinet and apparently governor Wilson in CA just signed
>one of the gay rights bills. 
He signed AB2601, which is an EMPLOYMENT bill, only! AB-101 also included 
housing. What is interesting to me, and i have never really thought about before
 is what about CREDIT, PUBLIC ACCOMODATIONS and other things that are found in
the Vermont law?

Does anyone know if discrimination in these other areas are illegal in the 
state of California?

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``Clinton-Gore 92!''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"Straight White Male Privilege is like bad breath: no one notices they have it,
but if you point it out you're an asshole." -- G. Dauphin, _Village Voice_
From: blackman@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cancholech)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: NO FLAMES: REASON FORTHCOMING
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:04:17 GMT
Organization: UB


	A friend of mine and I were talking the other day about my
bisexuality and he claims that bisexuality, in opposition to
homosexuality, is a choice and not biologically predetermined. I
disagree with him. I said that I feel that they are both biologically
determined and not a choice.  So I thought I would post and find out
what others think. I am interested in both sides.
	Either post here in response or reply by email.





-- 
Hormones are BAD!!!!! 
Hormones WILL get you in trouble.
rutgers!ub!blackman blackman@acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Subject: Re: News from Oregon: Re: Worse than I thought :( OCA sucks
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:15:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.094956.24328@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>One was a white gay man and the other was a black gay woman.  The confusion
>is whether the crime was because the people were in appearance a mixed race
>couple or if it occured because they were gay.  
>
>Oh, the FBI is looking into the case.

The first good news I've heard in a long time.
Lets hope some stolen mailing lists, and the connections between the OCA and
local nazi scum are discovered in the investigation...

I remember hearing something about the FBI stopping a neo-nazi group
from blowing up a gay bar, I think it may have been in Portland.





-- 
----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
\  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
 \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/
     Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568
From: blackman@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cancholech)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: NO FLAMES: KINDOF A REASON: NEW ANGLE
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:49:36 GMT
Organization: UB



	Ok folks maybe I phrased my statement poorly, no obviously I
did otherwise I would have gotten the response I was looking for which
is:
	This conversation that I had with my friend took place a short
while ago. He (this is a universal he maybe it would be better if I
said s/he) (i try to protect the innocent from the guilty) has since
left for school exchange in europe and has no internet access that I
know about yet. I would like to be able to have some serious
arguments for why s/he would believe what s/he does.  It is a mind
frame that I just can't seem to slip into. Please help me to
understand how someone, well educated and intelligent, could have a
belief like this. Thanks

				
-- 
Hormones are BAD!!!!! 
Hormones WILL get you in trouble.
rutgers!ub!blackman blackman@acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett)
Subject: Re: THE ADVOCATE's Second Outing: U.S. Rep JIM MCRERY (R-LA)
Organization: Tandon Corporation, Moorpark, CA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:10:46 GMT

In article <9209242055.AA02423@client.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>
>The Advocate has outed Congressman Jim McRery from the 4th Congressional
>District, which is in Louisiana. He is a conservative, "family values"
>Republican congressman.

YES!  Speaking as a Tech alumni and as a former resident... I
couldn't be happier!  Not only did they out someone who seems
to have need to be outed, they also [gasp] noted that Jimmy
boy had meet one of his boyfriends at [gasp] a frat reunion
party at Tech.  Now, any "normal" Techster knows that there
just ain't any of them people on campus... certainly not any
from the College of Engineering... certainly none from the
Department of Electrical Engineering... certainly none who have
ever [deep gasp] taught in the department... certainly no one
who has graduated with honors... [big grin]

BTW, Tech is suppose to be on the net by now... anyone out
there?
-- 
Tom Barrett (TDBear)    tdbear@tandon.com          voice: 805-378-6207
Tandon Corporation      609 Science Drive          Moorpark, CA  93021 
Sr. HW Design Engineer  "War is Peace, No is Yes, And We're All Free!" 
-=>NOTE:  The feed to tdbear@tandon.com may be interrupted in Sept.<=-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 02:14:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.135516.29013@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>
>>Equality is not, for most libertarians, high on the list of priorities.
>
>	Ah - I think it can be summed up right here.
>
>>Freedom from naked coercion is.  
>
>	As opposed to?  
>
>	Seems the choices are "deal with a government that is flawed"
>or "deal with a scaled-down government and a near-infinite number of
>despots who control various socio-economic portions of my life".

This is the best summary of Libertarianism that I've read.  And
Donahue has expressed exactly why I'll never vote Libertarian.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss,soc.bi
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.discrimination,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Genes, Categorical Hypostatization, and You
Date: 3 Oct 92 12:18:59 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

The possible biological cause of homosexuality is of great
interest to scientists, you want to understand everything,
and the causes of everything.  I'm one.  It's fun.  If one
only discovered the probable correlation between these
biological structures and homosexuality, that would also
be fun to discover.

The problem is that this truth is irrelevant

As a thought experiment, assume that you could get a head-scan,
similar to an X-ray, which could determine whether you had
the ``homosexual biological structure''.

So you and your lover show up to get the scan.

You pass with flying colours.  You are a certifiable Flaming
Queer.  Your lover does not pass at all.  There is no
evidence for her or his homosexuality, except for the
fact that she or he has been your glorious lover for
a number of years.

What are you going to do?  Pitch your relationship
because it doesn't pass this test?

--------

People don't hate homosexuals because they don't
believe there is a genetic reason for queers to
be queers.  They will continue to hate queers
because they are queers.  Hatred first,
rationalisation later.


-- 
    Since Ryan White was buried in April 1990, his grave has been vandalized
    four times.

    (this news courtesy Rod Williams rjwill6@pacbell.com)

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality