HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: DO SOMETHING!!!
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:58:43 GMT

gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:


>Hi folks,

>	People have been talking about the OCA and other groups
>who are fighting to take any rights we might have, or ever get.

>	Here is the text of Oregon Proposition 9 and a group that you
>can donate to if you want to help out.

...

Well, it's nice to know that law-and-order conservatives don't mind
trashing the 14th Amendment. I hope this is declared unconstitutional if
Oregonians are narrow-minded enough to approve this bulls**t.

It seems to me that gays are being made into this year's Willie Horton
by conservatives. If you believe that homosexuality is inborn, then how
can you condemn it? If you believe that homosexuality is a conscious decision
made by gays, then why will you deny them the freedom of choice.

While acts associated with homosexuality are illegal (anal sex), just being
gay is not against the law. Rape is a crime committed by heterosexuals but
govt doesn't allow this sort of discrimination against straight people.
		
You shouldn't be able to discriminate against someone UNTIL they break
the law not because they MIGHT break the law (not that I agree with the
sodomy laws which are a violation of the privacy rights).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	is a liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU
CLARKSON '95	     
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

When two people CHOOSE to have sex, they CHOOSE to accept the consequences
of their actions. (yes, there is such a thing as a pro-life liberal. Please 
send flames to the above address)	

 						

	
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Vote, Baby, VOTE! (Are You Registered, Baby?)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:06:35 -0500
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA12996; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:13:53 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA13618; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:13:01 -0700
X-Received: from sub.its.rpi.edu (marcus.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB32);id AA15384; Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:12:48 EDT for alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by sub.its.rpi.edu (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/RPI-ITS-SUB13-AIXV3);id AA13172; Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:06:36 -0400 for bisexu-l@brownvm.brown.edu@rpi.edu
X-To: gaynet@athena.mit.edu
X-Cc: alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet

This is a copy of a brilliant post to soc.motss I thought I'd share:

Michelle writes":


This isn't just "Clinton vs. Bush".

This is a referendum: "Freedom vs. Hate" -- superficially limited,
at the moment, to hatred of homosexuals.  But don't be fooled; the
hatred is a hatred of freedom.  A hatred of everything but the "right"
way, the "christian" way.

If you sit out "Clinton vs. Bush", you also sit out "Freedom vs. Hate".

Whoever thinks that she can sit out this election; whoever justifies
inaction and inattention with empty rhetoric about how "it doesn't make
a difference who wins"; whoever retreats from the world political
at this *particular crucial moment*:

There is NOTHING else.  This is the Big Showdown.  Now or never.
Judgment Day.

Not melodrama, but a perfectly appropriate pitch of discourse to
describe the situation we face.

We cannot afford to view the world as "all that stuff that complicates
my important life".  If we care at all for the 5,000,000,000 people
who share our planet, we must stop the escalation of hate.

At least 6,000,000 Jewish people were killed in Germany because a
plurality of a nation placed it's hopes in a man who told them that
the grave economic problems they faced were caused by a monster
within.  In 1932, the monster was the Jews.  In 1992, the monster
is us.  Gay people.

We have had 60 years to analyze this disaster.  Can we *please* act
*now*, before 6 million of *us* are dead, too?  It can happen here.
We are not immune from hate.  America is only as good as the people
who keep it good.  If we, good people, sit out this election, we
may die.

Your vote is one weapon in this fight.  Use it.


Michelle, who is absolutely dead, cold serious
---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``D.C., April 25 1993''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"Jane." --Lily Tomlin, when asked "Who's your family in LA?"
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: observation
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:53:35 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


In past elections, homosexuality was not an issue.  There
was no gay bashing by republicans, there was no defense of
homosexuality by democrats.  There was no visibility of
homosexuals at all.

Four years later homosexuality has become a major point in
both republican and democratic politics.  Yes, it sucks that
the republicans are gay bashing in their convention, but it
does bring to light one thing.  We have made a giant step forward;
we exist.  We cannot be ignored.  This is the first step towards
a greater acceptance.  First one must exist.  Now, we exist in the
minds of all of america.

This, at least, is progress.


FWA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Why?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 19:52:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.143409.21558@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> sej5g@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Susan Elizabeth Juroff) writes:
>How much participation in a known gay-friendly BSA do you think there
>would be?  And would it not come under attack from all sides?
>I am not saying these are reasons not to try...I just think
>that the opposition would be overwhelming and the poor boys
>undergoing the ridicule would not find the support that the
>group was intended to provide...

I remember hearing a news story a couple of months ago about a San
Francisco Bay area troop that did declare itself gay-friendly.
Apparently the scoutleader and the scouts even wrote a letter to the
national office saying exactly that.  When asked if the troop would
allow gay/bisexual scoutleaders, the scoutleader said that they would
take applications, but they didn't need any leaders right now.

I don't know how the scouts were treated, but they seemed happy and
upbeat in the story.

>  Of course, I've not heard of
>an uproar in the Girl Scouts as there has been one in the BSA,
>but frankly I think that is because at least half if not most
>of those in high office are lesbians or well accustomed to
>working with lesbians.

I've wondered about this myself.  I'm glad that the GSA seems to be
more enlightened about this, but I've wondered why the religious right
hasn't made the same fuss as they have about the boy scouts.  My own
bias suggests that girls just don't matter to the religious right
unless they're breeding, but...
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: privacy
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:42:49 GMT
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park


in article <5110@news.duke.edu>, infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante) writes:
> 
> Individuals who do _anything_ in the privacy of their own home, short of
> murder, rape, and other _hurtful_ crimes (and no, _homesexuality and 
> drug use is not hurtful_) is their _own_ business.


However, the point in all of this goes in another direction.
Whatever individuals do in the privacy of their home is their own bussines.
But, what we are talking here is not about keeping homosexuality in private,
which is waht is called "in the closet", but making it a public matter.
We are not talking here about the right to do whatever you want in the 
privacy of your home, but the right to do something in public without losing
your other rights.
We are talking here about homosexuals being able to holD hands or kiss in 
public, or about marriage, which is a public contract. 
That is the point: to be able to be homosexual in their public life as
they are in their private like.
Besides, to be an homosexual, and I am gessing here, is something more than 
"doing" something in the privacy of your home. It is like saying: having sex
with a person of your same sex is "being homosexual". I guess that being 
homosexual is that: Being homosexual, which is a lot more of whatever an 
homosexual does in the privacy of his/her home. And that confusion: Being an 
homosexual is "doing" some particular things, is the root of the problem here.

So, the argument about privacy is the same as keeping the subject in the closet,
making it a public matter is the point.

AAP
 




> 
> Selling drugs, or for that matter, yourself, out of your home, especially
> in a neighborhood where _FAMILY VALUES_ are of the utmost importance, 
> could be construed as hurtful.
> 
> BTW, did anyone see the polls out from CNN about the family values issue?
> 
> It seems that quite a few people actually believe in this crap.
> 
> wake up.
> family values means "believe what I believe and we'll all be happy"
> 
> fuck that.
> 
> later.
> 
> andy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:20:31 CDT

In article <1874@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <AWERLING.92Aug31172210@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>>I keep saying this, but oh well...AMEN!  What a great story!  The GOP
>>propaganda tool they dub "traditional family values" has nothing to do
>>with values...it has everything to do with *rejecting* members of the
>>family who don't happen to be straight, don't happen to be
>>"conservative," don't happen to feel "Christian" all the time.
>
> Reread Bill Bennets speech at the convention. Family Values means relying on
>your family members and surrounding neighbors for support, counsel and guid-
>ance and not expecting a big government socialist program to cure all the
>problems you have. It also means establishing a set of traditions or values
>within your family which you think are important. 
> These values can vary from family to family but must be based on a foundation
>of ideals. These ideals can be very simple. Dont steal, murder, use racism etc.
>etc. The family unit can pass its value system along with is fortune down to
>succeding members. Eventually the family becomes economically secure and might
>even free itself from the bondage of labor. They still will have to pay taxes
>though. At least for now.
>

What?  Advocate personal responsibility?  Why should anyone be responsible
for themselves when they have a sugar daddy like Uncle Sam to take care
of them??


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell)
Subject: Re: Heredity of homosexuality
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 18:24:50 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <p545a7s@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>
>2.Why is it that people who know nothing about homosexuality keep saying it
>is a choice, while almost every homosexual I have ever met say that it was
>not.  Why do people assume that we know nothing about ourselves?
>
>FWA

For me, being a lesbian is not a choice, but simply something that I am. The
majority of the gays and lesbians that I know agree that it is not a matter of
choice.  There are a few lesbians I know who have chosen to be lesbians for
political reasons, and they admit that it was their choice.

I, also, would like to address the above issue.  I don't believe that there is
anyone, gay or straight, who is qualified to *tell* me about *my* sexuality.
Yes, there are doctors and scientist and others doing research on the subject,  and people who have studied the subject of sexuality.  But, does this know-
ledge give them the right to tell me things about myself that I should know
better than anyone else.            

How would those who are heterosexual feel if I were to tell you that your
sexuality is simply a matter of choice and if you so choose you can change it.
The majority of straight men I know would just throw a fit.  Of course, it is
not a matter of choice for them, they could *never* do *that* with another
*guy*. YUCK!  Well, as a lesbian, I pretty much feel the same way, I could
*never* do *that* with a *guy*. YUCK!

I think the difference is, as a lesbian, *that* is more than just a sexual
act.  *That* includes all areas of intimacy, friendship, sexuality, and (yes)
even politics.  It's all tied up together for me.  And I don't need any of
you telling me that I should or could change it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Gayla M. Worrell            *      "The future will be better tomorrow"         
UNM - Mental Health Center  *          		   --Vice President Dan Quayle 
Albuquerque	            *							* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,rec.scouting,alt.athiesm
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Levis Drops Boy Scouts...
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:28:50 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug18.221441.8981@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu 
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> A clarification. Discrimination in employment, housing, and public
> accommodation
> 
> on the basis of:                                   is generally:
> -----------------                                  ------------
> religious belief (including lack of belief)        illegal
> political belief                                   legal
> sexual orientation                                 legal but illegal in
>                                                    some places.
> 
> So, you can be legally fired from your job in Peoria, Illinois, for
> being gay, but not in Urbana, Illinois. You can be legally fired for
> being a Republican (or Democrat), but not for being a Jew (or a
> Christian, or an athieist).

I would be quite surprised if one can be fired because of their political
orientation legally without further cause.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: Why?
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:21:22 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 <1992Aug25.171338.7943@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>Why would gays want to get into the BSA?

They're already there, igmo.

--
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
From: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Dartmouth condemns Oregon anti-gay and -lesbian referendum
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:07:50 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Aug26.094041.26228@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Student.Assembly@dartmouth.edu (Student Assembly) writes:
>
>Right now, it is legal in all 50 states to evict gay and
>lesbian tenants, fire gay and lesbian employees...

Not in Hawai'i it isn't.  Nor is it in Vermont, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Wisconsin and one other state (Minnesota?)

--John


-- 
John Flanagan                          ||"Pretty boys
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           || with the sunshine faces
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| <mumble mumble>..."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    ||            -- My Bloody Valentine
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: M22614@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:00:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.152031.15220@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
 
>
>In article <1874@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>>In article <AWERLING.92Aug31172210@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>
>What?  Advocate personal responsibility?  Why should anyone be responsible
>for themselves when they have a sugar daddy like Uncle Sam to take care
>of them??
>
>
>sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
>sean@cae.wisc.edu
>
I agree, but this extends beyond economic care.  Why should anybody be
responsible for themselves while we have government, at all levels,
dictating moral choices (e.g., gambling, prostitution, drugs, pornography).
If we have come to expect government to make decisions regarding our
bodies, our property and our personal lives, and essentially assume
the role of parents, why should we not also expect government to put
food on the table?  Don't get me wrong; I am agreeing with your presumed
criticism of reliance on government.  But I also believe that a return
to individual responsibility, as a national value, must be far more
all encompassing and consistent to be successfull.  If, when my son
turns 18 I continue to make personal choices for him, I anticipate
that he will expect me to continue feeding, clothing and sheltering
him as well.
 
    ***Michael
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Why?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:09:39 GMT

In article <p171cqs@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.171338.7943@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>>Why would gays want to get into the BSA?
>
>A young man has been in the scouts since he was 10 (started as a cub scout).
>He keeps at scouting until he becomes an eagle scout.  He is very into 
>scouting.  When he is 21, he wants to become a scout master.
>
>Oh, BTW, somewhere in here, he comes to a realization about his sexuality.
>
>Alternate answer:
>
>Why would heterosexuals want to get into the BSA?
>

I agree, this is an anternative answer. 
I would have never know that BSA discrimnates against atheists because I 
never even tried to get there.
The way I see this: IF I realize that my sexuality is segregated by BSA,
I would just say fuck them and go away. Let them keep their stupid organization.
I was born a Jew and in my country to be a scout you have to be Catholic.
So, my mother taught me: If they think like that, we do not want to be with
them. 
Make Gay Scouts or something like that, and that is it.



>
>
>
>FWA
>
>

AAp
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Why?
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:46:00 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Aug25.171338.7943@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>Why would gays want to get into the BSA?

A young man has been in the scouts since he was 10 (started as a cub scout).
He keeps at scouting until he becomes an eagle scout.  He is very into 
scouting.  When he is 21, he wants to become a scout master.

Oh, BTW, somewhere in here, he comes to a realization about his sexuality.

Alternate answer:

Why would heterosexuals want to get into the BSA?




FWA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mstrange@alfred.carleton.ca (N E N Strangelove)
Subject: Moderated?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:54:22 GMT

I am compiling a directory of networked resources [2nd edition] for
social work studies. I would like to include alt.politics.homosexuality.

I need to know if the newsgroup is moderated, and woul appreciate a
*brief* description as well.

Cheers, 

Natalie Strangelove

PS\Please email me directly, as I am not subscribed to this newsgroup.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.atheism,alt.discrimination,rec.scouting
From: germain%sanctum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (H. James de St. Germain)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
In-reply-to: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu's message of Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:28:32 GMT
Organization: U of Utah
	<jhansen.714756271@convex.convex.com>
	<1992Aug25.195700.11665@spdc.ti.com>
	<1992Aug26.160214.23988@maths.tcd.ie>
	<1992Aug26.172832.11713@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:21:25


> 
>    [...]
> >No argument there. Let's drop this thread. Seems inappropriate for this 
> >newsgroup. I would be glad to reply by e-mail if desired.
> [...]
> 
> It is natural for BSA supporters to dislike publicity. The light of
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> publicity points up their violation of many of their donor's
> antidiscrimination policies. It makes it harder to have the convenient
> understandings/misunderstandings that allow the BSA to be program that
> can violate policy and still get a share of the money.
> 

This comment seems a little narrow minded.  I think it should be noted
that just because a few individuals from both sides have allowed (in
many cases) this argument to become one of name calling, etc, it does
not mean that majority of readers have to fall to this level.

I also think that by labeling all BSA supporters as close minded, who would
have this issue carefully hidden away, is stereotypical.  Another point
should be made about the BSA versus The BSA National Administration.  When I
talk about the boy scouts of america i tend to think of all the youth
and devoted leaders.  Obviously, this is not the group you are criticizing
(or at least I hope it is not.)  Criticizing National Policy is an entirely
different issue, and should be explicitly represented as such.

I also find that many of the posts to rec.scouting are inappropriate to
the group, not because they address the very relevant issue of homosexuality
in scouting and in society, but because they are presented in a hostile,
demeaning, derogatory style that is not only counter productive, but would
seem to be easily miss interpreted by the (hopefully many) younger readers
of the news group. (I also believe them to be counter productive on the other
news groups.)

I can understand emotional feelings about this issue, I cannot understand
posts that are filled with wishful facts,  fiction represented as fact,
name calling, and outright stupidity.  If you are going to put your thoughts
before hundreds if not thousands of readers, try to give the reader some
reason to respect you and your words, and some conviction that what
you say has a factual base.

For those of you with well written, informative articles, I thank you.

jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. James de St. Germain       	Department of Computer Science
germain@asylum.utah.edu		University of Utah