HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rickc@agora.rain.com (Rick Coates)
Subject: News from Oregon: Re: Worse than I thought :( OCA sucks
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:05:36 GMT

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

>I just called the Oregon Governors office (503-378-3111) to express
>concern about #9. I mentioned the article from the QN mailing list
>about the machine gun attack on two Lesbians, asked if I meant a recent
>molotov cocktail attack where two people where killed. 

A basement apartment was fire-bombed; two people were killed, one black
and one gay.  The Oregonian (92-9-30) article included a quote
from a friend of the alleged skinheads being held in connection with
the incident: "they weren't the violent type", even though they
had previously been caught (after defacing a state park with white
supremacist slogans) with a shotgun and switchblade in their car.

From The Oregonian:

	"They were white supremacists", Turner <a friend> said ...
	Although the two <suspects> didn't like gays and minorities,
	they "didn't go and start anything for no reason," he said.

	"They were really mellow with everybody," Turner said. He
	made the comments from a downtown Salem alley where he and
	several friends hang out.


>Did both happen or did NPR just mix up there story?

I haven't heard of machine guns, but there has been an increase
in hate crimes since the OCA started petition gathering efforts
(per the Portland Police).

>How many people have been killed by the OCA terrorists? This is the first
>I've heard. 

>Why do "Christian" terrorists get special treatment, if these where Muslims
>Bush would be sending in the Marines.

I'll let you figure it out.  The Oregonian article went on to talk
about how the people who were killed 'had loud parties'.

>If you haven't called Oregon yet please do, atleast if the Governors office
>can't stop #9 from passing they still can put pressure on the police to do
>something.

One of the serious consequences of this action is the increase in hate
crimes.  While the police should do everything possible, it's tough
to stop crimes that have no reason.  If the culture supports efforts
to disenfranchise segments of the population, those who are filled
with violence and hatred will use those segments as 'legitimate' targets.

Here's another quote from the same issue of the Oregonian, in an
article about the economic impact of measure 9:

	And Mabon <head of the OCA> predicted that groups
	avoiding Oregon because of opposition to OCA's agenda
	on homosexuality will soon find there are few other places
	to go.
	
	"If they think the battle over viewing these bahaviors <sic>
	as a civil-rights classification for minority status is going
	to end with Measure 9 or Oregeon, they are sadly mistaken,"
	Mabon said.  "By the end of this decade, these liberal groups
	may find the only places to go are Massachusetts or San
	Francisco, if they are looking to avoid pro-family states."



It's pretty grim in Oregon.


Rick
rickc@agora.rain.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: buckmr@lib110.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Call Toll Free Oregon Tourism Office - Voice Measure 9 Opinion
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:52:01 GMT

mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:



>I would just as soon write a letter to the Oregon Department of
>Tourism telling them how much I enjoyed my stay there this summer
>and that I would not have made the trip had a law like Measure 9
>been in effect at that time.
Cool!

>In addition to the phone numbers--
>  800--547-7842 is the general number
>  503-373-1270 is the number to register an opinion on this
>    [query:  is it _just_ on Measure 9?]

>does anyone have an address?
For the Board of Tourism or to register opinion?

And anyone have info on a similar deal for Colorado?? That is, an 800 number
for the Boad of Tourism as well as it's address.

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE
Association to Promote the Apotheosis of Mariah Carey
11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Gay Intolerance OR Politcal Correctness in the Age of AIDS
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:56:07 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Oct1.223739.15826@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:

>  I think that your employer has every reason to expect you to wear
>the ribbon. This *was* an AIDS fund raiser for goodness sake. Replace
>your unhappiness with the ribbon with complaining that you don't 
>like the uniforms they make you wear and see how well that would
>go over. Your choice in both scenarios is to quit, but don't expect
>to much sympathy...

I do not believe that they are the same. You do not make a political statement
with a waiter uniform. You make one wearing the ribbon.
He is employed, hi is not a slave. 




>-- 
>
>		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
>	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
>		-- Hobbes to Calvin
>		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
>		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)

AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: Re: NO FLAMES: REASON FORTHCOMING
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:49:04 GMT

In article <BvEKv5.J5w@acsu.buffalo.edu> 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.
>	Either post here in response or reply by email.

It all depends on what you mean by "bisexuality". If a "bisexual"
is someone who is attracted to both sexes, then no, it isn't a
choice (although a person might, I suppose, make an effort to
cultivate an attraction to both sexes...).

If by "bisexual" you mean someone who has intercourse with people
of both sexes, then yes, it is a choice. Similarly, if by "gay"
you mean someone who has sex with people of the same sex, then
being gay is a choice.

I suspect you are using the term in the first sense, and your
friend is using it in the second sense.

I think your friend is right in thinking it's more of a choice
than homosexuality, since most people who are attracted (in some
degree) to both sexes identify as either straight or gay.
Identifying as a bisexual seems to involve an active choosing of
that label, instead of defaulting to one of the other two.
-- 
Andrew M. Solovay       "Work is the curse of the drinking class."
solovay@netcom.com			--Wilde

#include <disclaimer.h>
From: Alan.Moorman@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Alan Moorman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: How many Christian Gods
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:37:16 GMT


DAS>  I can tolerate you, but not the things you do, that's the difference.

Sounds like a serious cop-out, to me.

Why don't you just straighten out your thinking, and accept the
correctness of accepting other lifestyles 'n things, (give
love and respect between the people) and stop feeling that
you have to mask your dislike in some platitude?

Sorry,

  Fido.

 * OLX 2.2 * Mental Floss prevents Moral Decay.

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.discrimination,soc.motss
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Genes, Categorical Hypostatization, and You
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 14:54:56 GMT

In article <36167@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:

>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?


Not at all.  You go out and get a grant, do a pilot study, present a 
paper at an internationally attended conference, get tenure, and buy a
house.  You and your lover move in and raise cats together.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Subject: Worse than I thought :(   OCA sucks
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:35:53 GMT

I just called the Oregon Governors office (503-378-3111) to express
concern about #9. I mentioned the article from the QN mailing list
about the machine gun attack on two Lesbians, asked if I meant a recent
molotov cocktail attack where two people where killed. 

Did both happen or did NPR just mix up there story?

How many people have been killed by the OCA terrorists? This is the first
I've heard. 

Why do "Christian" terrorists get special treatment, if these where Muslims
Bush would be sending in the Marines.

If you haven't called Oregon yet please do, atleast if the Governors office
can't stop #9 from passing they still can put pressure on the police to do
something.






-- 
----          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        
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss,soc.bi
From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:38:42 GMT

A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is
now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a
note to Michael (msagosta@cs.unlv.edu), who along with JBLIII authored
the Mac stack.

John Mallery
Join the Clinton/Gore '92
         Volunteer Email Campaign
Send To: CLINTON-WINS@Mail.Clinton-Gore.ORG
Subject: Volunteer Info
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Gay Intolerance OR Politcal Correctness in the Age of AIDS
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:42:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct1.223739.15826@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> In article <ooFyRB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>, will@mindvox.phantom.com (Will Kinnona) writes:
> > 	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. 
> >                                             ....  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 think that the mistake you are making is that it was a political
> statement on your part alone. This is false. The statement was being
> made by your employer not necessarily by you. You may or may not agree
> with your employers views (just like the real world) but you were on 
> their time last night. 
>   I think that your employer has every reason to expect you to wear
> the ribbon. This *was* an AIDS fund raiser for goodness sake.

So if his restaurant is chosen to serve a fund-raiser for the Catholic
Church, he should be forced to wear a cross?  If his restaurant is
chosen to serve a fund-raiser for pro-lifers, he should be forced to
wear a pro-life button?

Sorry, he's the hired help.  He has not chosen to attend this
fund-raiser.  IMHO, the management can tell the waiters *not* to wear
buttons that say "AIDS is God's punishment for gays" but it cannot tell
him that he must wear something that represents something he doesn't
believe in.  If they can do that, then they are taking all meaning away
from the red ribbons.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"IQ describes how big your gas tank is, but it doesn't tell if you're
running on empty." -- Harvey Newstrom (hnewstro@x102c.ess.harris.com)
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:05:51 -0400 
From: Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
	<UejDREu00WBLQ3reUz@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Sep21.140115.16502@Princeton.EDU>
	<4ejvN3q00UhW89fHRR@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<AWERLING.92Sep26175904@dante.nmsu.edu>

> - 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.

Congratulations on completely missing the point of both arguments.  The
reason why these were brought up in the first place goes back to Sep 21
and Marshall Flax's post in which he wrote:

> 1. Courts recognize a "state interest" in encouraging people to marry
> 2. Courts recognize a "state interest" in encouraging people to have kids

I wrote this to explain why there is a state interest in encouraging
marriages and breeding.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rhiann@milton.u.washington.edu (Sandra Hereld)
Subject: Re: 20 to 106 times?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:31:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.200457.21326@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>   Oh, all, right, let's do a breakdown:
>
>   1990: 2 female
>   1991: 3 female, 2 male
>   1992: 3 female, 5 male
>
>   Bummer; nowhere near the 20 to 106 that FOF is accusing me of.
>Where are all these homosexuals and why are they having more fun than I
>am?
>
Yeah, Elf, but look at the trend...:-)

>         Elf !!!


Sandy		--pale--bitter--stout--
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:6287 alt.discrimination:4504 soc.motss:41075
From: Alan.Moorman@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Alan Moorman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Genes, Categorical Hypos
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:32:14 GMT


  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: Genes, Categorical Hypost      Conf: (35) Alt.Politi
___------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your stunningly rational post!

It is (unfortunately) quite a wonderment to see such a
statement, here. I've printed it out and will hope that
we don't have to discuss the matter any more. (Ha Ha)

Thanks, again.

  Alan Moorman

 * OLX 2.2 * Unable to locate Chocolate!  Operator halted.

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu
Subject: Re: NO FLAMES: KINDOF A REASON: NEW ANGLE
Organization: The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:26:13 GMT

In article <BvGEuo.67v@acsu.buffalo.edu>
blackman@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cancholech) writes:
 
>
>
>
> 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
>--
I'm gonna get the flaming of my life for this (it would be the most excitement
I've ever had) but here goes. You don't say whether your friend is gay or strai
ght, but maybe it doesn't matter. The truth is, misunderstanding and/or revulsi
on of other people's sexual orientation is a very primal thing, and that's why
many people can't imagine why, for example, a woman could be attracted to ot
her women or a man could be attracted to both sexes, etc. Your friend, as you s
ay, is perfectly intelligent, but sometimes hormones speak louder than brain ce
lls. Since he can't picture himself going both ways, he can't imagine that it w
ould come naturally to you; therefore, you must be this way on purpose. Of cour
se, there are gays who believe bisexuals have at least more choice about how th
ey will live their lives; if you met and fell in love with a woman, you could c
hoose, at least for a while, to live your life as a straight male. Or you could
 choose, as you say, to shut out one half of your life and restrict yourself to
 women. But I don't think anyone who has a non-traditional sexual orientation
could believe that you can consciously choose who turns you on. Well, enough of
 my rambling...
>Hormones are BAD!!!!!
>Hormones WILL get you in trouble.
>rutgers!ub!blackman blackman@acsu.buffalo.edu
 _______________________________________________________________________
|    "Be frank and explicit with your lawyer...It is his business to    |
|             confuse the issue afterwards." -- J.R. Solly              |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
__ Tracey McCartney            University of Alabama School of Law __ |
|_/______________________tmccart3@ua1vm.ua.edu______________________/_|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: SILVERI@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Silver Tiger)
Subject: A call for statistics on child abuse
Organization: Queens University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:29:42 GMT

I'm in need of some good strong nation-wide (for the US or Canada, or both)
stastical evidence that comes to some sort of conclusion about the sexual
orientation of the abusers.
 
What I've got is a bunch of phobes on a local network implying that with most
cases of sexual abuse against children, the abusers are gay males.
 
I would like to smash that myth, and would appreciate any help any of you folk
can offer.
 
--
|  ..   Ian Silver/Silver Tiger/AgTiger      | Modem:  1-613-542-5110    ..
| .OO.  Email: SILVERI@QUCDN.QueensU.CA      | Landmail: PO BOX 333     .OO.
| O/\O  ____   Fido:  1:249/2 | 69:3005/4    |           Fineview, NY   O/\O
|  --   \/\/   NBCS:  B7ft+g(+)k+(+)s+(+)vmp |           13640-0333      --
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.discrimination,soc.motss
From: Richard Kennaway <jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Genes, Categorical Hypostatization, and You
Organization: SYS, Univ. of E. Anglia, Norwich, UK
X-Xxdate: Sun, 4 Oct 92 18:53:57 GMT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6F4EE454001041E@jrk.sys.uea.ac.uk>
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 17:53:15 GMT
X-Posted-From: jrk.sys.uea.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <36167@hoptoad.uucp> Laura Creighton, laura@hoptoad.uucp writes:
>What are you going to do?  Pitch your relationship
>because it doesn't pass this test?

Pitch the test because it doesn't pass the relationship.

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Gay Intolerance OR Politcal Correctness in the Age of AIDS
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:37:39 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <ooFyRB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>, will@mindvox.phantom.com (Will Kinnona) writes:
> 	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?  

  I think that the mistake you are making is that it was a political
statement on your part alone. This is false. The statement was being
made by your employer not necessarily by you. You may or may not agree
with your employers views (just like the real world) but you were on 
their time last night. 
  I think that your employer has every reason to expect you to wear
the ribbon. This *was* an AIDS fund raiser for goodness sake. Replace
your unhappiness with the ribbon with complaining that you don't 
like the uniforms they make you wear and see how well that would
go over. Your choice in both scenarios is to quit, but don't expect
to much sympathy...
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:6319 alt.discrimination:4509 soc.motss:41433
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:28:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.173122.15439@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>	I've talked to libertarians...  I've heard the wildest things.
>
>"Well, we're for equal rights for gays."
>"But what about anti-discrimination?"
>"Well, that would be a private matter."
>"But what about the tacit widespread public homophobia?  Certainly
>people being assaulted on the street is not a private matter!"
>"Well, if most people don't like gays then that has to be respected.
>The government shouldn't get involved."
>"But these people aren't doing anything wrong!"
>"Yeah, but if they dind't act gay in the open, no one would know...
>It's a private thing."
>
>	Gack.
>
>	Libertarianism *is* anti-equality.  Politics at a 4-year-old
>level.
>
>BBC

	I have heard no Libertarian refuse to address the issue of assault
on the street in the way that you explained in this dialogue.  It is
exactly the government's responsibility, according to Libertarianism, to
defend the rights of those who have been assaulted.  
	This misrepresentation casts doubt on your credibility.
-- 
Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
	   		THE NEXT GENERATION, "The Offspring"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen)
Subject: Re: News from Oregon: Re: Worse than I thought :( OCA sucks
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 06:38:38 GMT

In article <BvGCtF.I4E@agora.rain.com> rickc@agora.rain.com (Rick
Coates) writes:
>
>A basement apartment was fire-bombed; two people were killed, one black
>and one gay.  [...]

Why "one black and one gay"?  If race and sexual orientation matter, I
can understand "one black and one white", or "one straight and one gay",
or "one black and straight and one gay and white".  But the phrasing
above makes it sound like "both differing from the standard, one by
being black and the other by being gay".

--Rich, also differing from the standard
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss