HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Regrets
Date: 16 Apr 1992 17:24:21 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <92106.210844HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> 
Herschel Browne <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
| In article <kun9pqINN3fk@mizar.usc.edu>, adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
| says:
|  [of Foucault]
| >
| >Early modern *French* history was his field.  "Single most
| >brilliant thinker of our time"?  That speaks *volumes*.
|
| I'm so glad that you are able to tell dead scholars what their
| fields were, even though they clearly had different notions than
| you do. Your dismissal of Foucault speaks *volumes* too. So what?

Foucault was the first to admit he knew *nothing* about ancient
history until he did his (highly selective) research for the
multi-volume History of Sexuality.  So he went to UC Berkeley, for
some reason, to learn about ancient Greece and Rome.  His training
was in early modern French history.

| >Foucault, like Freud, is of interest these days only to literary
| >theorists and to those interested in the history of ideas.
|
| I gave you a counterexample, Peter Gay, who is neither a literary
| theorist nor a historian of ideas. Therefore your statement here
| is false and your argument fails.

Peter Gay is a, or didn't you know, psychoanalyst on top of being
a historian. 

Arne
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Regrets
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 14:53:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.075116.25831@cs.uow.edu.au> g8801935@cs.uow.edu.au  
(The Jester) writes:

> The problem with that is this is global, and we don't have the first
> amendment everywhere. He can't exercise rights he doesn't have. To be
> fair he has a right to his opinion. He doesn't, however, have the right  
to
> enforce it on everyone else. 

He is not enforcing anything. If you want you read, if you do not want,  
you don't read.

> 
> He doesn't have to change his mind, merely express his opinions in a  
more
> constructive manner. Mr. Karnes is an incarnation that infests nearly
> all newsgroups. Face it there are radicals in every facet of life.

How about the way you express yours?
What is more constructive?

> -- 
> \ /  /    / /  /\   | First the man takes a drink,
>  \\/ \/\ /\ \/ \/_  | then the drink takes a drink,
>  / \/  /   \ \/ \   | then the drink takes the man.
> g8801935@cs.uow.edu.au		--Japanese proverb.

AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ai210@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Josh Steier)
Subject: Argentina
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 03:07:58 GMT


Mr Pinkas, you seem to me to believe that being Argentinian gives you a 
better perspective on gay rights issues. Believe it or not, I knew a gay
Argintinian, who escaped from Argentina during the period of military
government in the late 70's.

At that time, the government of Argentina had a policy of harrasing
jewish Argentinian citizens, to create suitable scapegoats to take
people's mind off of the political situation.


1) Was this a legitimate policy? a majority of Argintinians at that time
either hated jews or didn'
t care one way or another. 
2) If it is not legitimate, how can you opposite it and still support
restrictive policies against gays?


be well
josh
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: babies
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:45:02 GMT

In article <j77jpks@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.035412.10382@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>>In article <j3p30ic@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>You say that homosexuals should not have children because of society's 
>impressions of homosexuals.  Because of this, you seem to believe that
>there will be something inherently wrong with this child because of this
>pressure.  What will be inherently wrong?
>
>I don't think that you can come up with a reason...

Actually I can.
There are certain processes in the formation of a child's personality that
are related with a confrontation with her/his parents, and where the 
gender of a parents plays a fundamental role.
Society does not work as it does by some miracle. There is a direct relation
about how society works and how or psyche is constructed. Otherwise, ther 
would be no "communication" among society and individuals.
A person's personality has three parts, and each plays an important role in
his/her life. One of them is developed in a confrontation of the child
with the parent of the same gender for the possession of the parent of the
same gender. The child, in his/her mind, kills the parent of the same sex, in
this imaginary confrontation. Then, he/she fells remorse, and the sense of
guilt is formed in his mind. This is not a concient act. Then, the kid will
have sense of right and wrong, of guilt when something wrong is done.
Society, which is bassicaly repressive, will be based on that part of our
personality.
Clearly, this is not an absolute act, and the lack of a same gender parent,
for example, will modify the relation, bringing traumatic consecuences for 
the person in his/her growing.
Another point is that the kid is living a double life. In school, for
example, he/she is thaught about relations in some way that usually will
take homosexuality as wrong. Then, at home, he/she, will have a different
picture. Peer pressure, and society's pressure, will keep the kid from 
confronting this problem in a different way than a trumatic one.
For example, in my country, separation was legal but not to get marry again.
But, most kids were growing up in houses where their parents could not get
married because they were divorced already. This double standard creates a 
big problem for the kids: What is right and what is wrong in society,
what is legal and illegal. I am actually against any kind of marriage, and
I am for people just living toghether. But, this case, in my country, was
easy to solve, because society will not see divorce as wrong, will see the
law as wrong. In the case of homosexuality, society will condemn it, so it
is not a problem with the law, it is a problem with the society.

AAP
>
>FWA


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:54:17 GMT

In article <j8hk4sg@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <4ZHViB1w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>>> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.
>>
>>Poor kids. :(

mine don't seem to think so.  they think it's kind of neat.  

>>Sure there is. Plant a flower for each hunted looking little
>>child I see being drug around like a prize puppy dog by some
>>swaggering snorting 'queer lady'.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

>Have you ever seen this?

highly unlikely.  queer parents generally *really* want their kids.  
and, because they have to worry about losing their kids just because 
they are queer, they are much less likely to risk being abusive in
public.  

>I have seen many worse things from the heterosexual "community"
>than your scenario here (which I have never seen from a homosexual
>parent).

amen.  although most heterosexuals aren't like this either.  

>>To inflict that life on someone who has no choice is a crime
>>against humanity.
 
why?  

>To inflict a lot of things on a child who has no choice is crime
>against humanity.  However, treating children poorly is still 
>a heterosexually manned and operated enterprise.  Not because of
>any inherent problem with heterosexuals, but just due to the fact
>that a vast majority of parents are, in fact, heterosexual.

it's a numbers thang...

>If you were really concerned with children, you would be worrying about
>the big problems of poor education, child abuse, and so on... Not about
>a lesbian couple having children.

and raising happy healthy smart beautiful kids.  i know a bunch.  
do you?  

peg

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 23:29:49 EDT
From: dave wilson <DCW112@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Adoption Rights

     I have a general request..
     I plan on giving a speech for my speech communications class promoting
equal adoption rights for gay men / lesbian women. I would request that
you email me if you have any ideas for sources or angles on this issue.
Even if you just want to tell me how you feel about the idea, please I need
all the help I can get.
     Please also keep in mind that this will be given at Penn State and the
alot of the audience will be hostile toward the subject. Just makes it
a little more of a challenge, thats all.
     Any comments or ideas will be greatly appreiciated.

                                   Thank you in advance,
                                        Dave.
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Adream
Date: 16 Apr 1992 18:30:53 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Apr16.230202.23554@wam.umd.edu> 
aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
...
> Real close. And, I also said that because I believe that homosexual  
> couples follow the man-like and woman-like model that society sees as good  
> (One dominant and one dominated), the Complex might be well resolved  
> anyway. 

I wasn't following this thread at all carefully before so I missed this.
On what do you base this belief?  Do you even *know* any homosexual
couples?  

I'm astounded at this stupidity.

Arne
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: Re: In response to "SHIT WORSHIPPING HOMO..."
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:30:02 GMT

fellers@utkvx2.utk.edu (Michael Fellers, University of Tennessee) writes:


>	Personally, I think the guy was equally as sick as you do.  If he is,
>in fact, guilty of what he is charged with (which he probably is), then he
>should be hung/drawn/quartered/poisoned/strangled/etc.  It is disgusting and
>gross and thoughtless.
>	However, I found the article you posted to be slightly offensive.  It
>gave the impression that you were blaming all homosexuals for this guy's
>crime.  Please don't do this.  He was just one person who happened to be gay
>AND thoughtless/careless/sick/etc.
>	We are not all guilty by association, you know.

Agreed. If we were all guilty by association, then the heterosexual community
could be blamed for the actions of rapists like Mike Tyson and murderers
like Ted Bundy and general pyschos like Charles Manson.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95		FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most violent element of society is ignorance."
	---Emma Goldman	(possibly refering to Jesse Helms)

"Political campaigns now are so simplistic and superficial, Mr Candidate.
 In the 20 seconds we have left, could you tell us why?"
	---Political cartoon		
 
"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
	---Johnny Carson
From: fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: How about we meet half way? --->Dark Knight
Date: 6 Apr 92 09:02:05 GMT

fingerhu@ircam.fr (Michel Fingerhut) writes:
>Eric, you again?
>How pathetic.

Oh of course!

I've been racking my brain all over. It fits perfectly!

So he posts drivel, thinks things through halfway, decides he knows best
and then tells us it is Jeff's & co. own fault that they got bombed, by him.

And this brillinat thinker can't figure out where .nl is. Let me give you a
clue (actually I already gave it): 50 years ago a war started here that raged
half a decade and killed millions, started by a man who decided that he knew
the solutions and didn't have to account to anyone, feeding on the ignorance
and fear of his people, refusing to think. If you still don't know, try looking
up the word 'endlo"sung.'

Go for the mailbombs when you don't like the message. And then tell us how
peacefull and rational you are. Sure. I bet you don't even see the
contradiction.
							FJ!!
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Sexuality and religion
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:34:34 GMT

From time to time, we witness a debate about (Homo)sexuality Vs. the Bible.

In general, the debate goes from calling homosexuals siners, to homosexuals
talking against the Bible (just a fiction book), or accusing the religious
person a nazi, or something like that.
It would be interesting to know how representative of each group is each
one of them (the religious in terms of all religious people, and the 
homosexuals in terms of all the homosexual community).
It sounds like some GBL (mostly those who post regularly), have somehow
achieve a strong affirmation of their own sexuality. And, it seems, as we 
read in some post during the las few days, that them just disregard the 
Bible.
Usualy, political movements, are composed of very vocal people, and usualy,
these people, are just a minority among their communities. The majority is 
usualy silent. So, those more militant seems to be more representative than
they actually are.
Then, what would happen if, for example, a religious person is homosexual, and
does not know how to come to terms with this. If he/she reads the post here
saying that the Bible is this and that, or that some of his/her fellow
Christians are Nazis, or other things like that, would that help him/her
to solve his/her problem, or would it confuse her/him even more?
Accusations such as: Get your swastica, or you are a fascit, or Jedaism 
is blood-thirsty, are quite dangerous.
And, the debates are reduced to just nothing.

AAP
l
A
because they do something
uld 
that i
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dlu@wobble.uucp (Doug Urner)
Subject: Re: I'm not your man...
Organization: dlu UNIX Consultants
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:08:55 GMT

In article <5H9TiB1w164w@Bogus.COM>, punk@Bogus.COM (Jack C. Royce) writes...
>twpierce@amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> 
>> If they have made a CHOICE not to procreate, that doesn't mean
>> they CAN'T.
> 
>You keep twisting me words around.  What I said, and I will say it again,
>two male lovers cannot procreate and pass on BOTH of their DNA to the child.

Unless of course one of the male lovers has a sister who is willing to
donate the use of her uterus to a good cause.

>Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to have a natural child.

Depends on what you call natural.

>The same for lesbians.

Unless of course one of the lesbians has a brother who is willing to
donate some sperm to a good cause.

I still don't get this obsession with DNA.
-- 
Doug Urner, dlu@wobble   "They tear down our comrades like leaves from a tree,
dlu UNIX Consulting       leaves from a tree, leaves from a tree, but the
Bellingham, WA            tree still stands, its roots locked to the land."
206/676-5759                              -- Song of the Exile,  Barry Guilder
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:2074 soc.motss:20195
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 15:15:34 EDT
From: Ailsa N.T. Murphy <IO81409@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Sharon Kowalski Comes Home
 <1992Apr7.002407.9798@spool.cs.wisc.edu>

she was just here (karen, not sharon; sharon was sick).
my goddess, what a speaker!  anyone in charge of classes
that do that sort of thing should make listening to her speech
mandatory (and subject to a quiz afterward).  she said a lot
of stuff that would make the average clueless type think.
i'm going to be the Official Campus Lesbian (even Official
Campus Homosexual, as none of the guys have volunteered) for
a couple of interpersonal communication classes, but i wish i
could have sent them to listen to her instead.

                                        -ailsa
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: soc.motss
Keywords: Help a homophobe come out today :-)
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:59:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.113608.13816@umbc3.umbc.edu> burton@umbc5.umbc.edu (Mr. Joel Burton; PUBLICAT (U)) writes:

>Hi there. Have been reading some of the 'phobic drivel, and was wondering:
>Exactly how do you (if it is possible) add a persons name to my kill file?
>For example, if Jeffrey Q. Homophobe keeps writing meaningly messages that
>give his crushed het ego some room to whimper, and I'm tired of it, how do
>I fix it so I don't have to look at this?

Good question.  If you're using rn (or trn, I believe) create a
subdirectory ~/News/soc/motss and create a file called KILL (note the
capitals) containing the following line:

/^From: djk@Nitro\.CtEdge\.Com/h:j

You can use the same pattern for any other particular person.  And if
you want to ignore anyone from the same site, for example:

/^From: .*@b-cpu/h:j
/^From: .*@psuvm/h:j

It works wonders.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
From: rhialto@falu.sneakernet (Olaf Seibert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.bi
Subject: Re:  The (proposed) alt.politics.homosexuality FAQ list
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:20:56 GMT
Organization: Intravenous News Addicts

In article <31065@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>My personal problem with the Christian interpretations is that
>whether some act is against the deity or not is not the problem, but
>the imposition of that interpretation on those who are
>non-believers.

I absolutely agree with this. And this is not only true for
Christanism, but for all other religions as well. Especially on those who
choose not to have a religion at all.

> The Jews may have made a real-estate deal to impose a
>set of laws on themselves, but the Christians have no such edict,
>except to be witnesses to the world, not conquerors. Any benefit of
>being a Christian is ultimately realized in the next world.

And atheists are of course not bound by any scripture that is called holy
by those who like it to be. Good for them, but not for me. It makes the
whole discussion a lot more simple on my part. On the other hand, those
who wish to argue about the "wrongness" of being queer won't easily be
stopped by such an argument, I'm afraid. And I'll get an additional
discussion for free...

>John Clark
-Olaf.
--
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert      B4f+-t-w--g+k+(+)svmrp+  rhialto@cs.kun.nl
\X/ How can you be so stupid if you're identical to me? -Robert Silverberg
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: Jeff Dauber's Flawed Arguments
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:54:07 GMT

In article <9204061351.AA03354@Compuserve.Com> 70750.2052@Compuserve.Com ("Ronnie Jr.") writes:
>The local militant "FWA", dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>   (describes four couples without revealing gender, and asks
>	daniel to predict which would make good parents)  
> 
>This is absolutely ridiculous.  If any of the four couples above were
>gay, THAT is what makes them abnormal.  Not any of the stuff you posted.
>
>>The point of this is fairly simple.  You cannot tell a homosexual
>>couple from a heterosexual couple if, in my descriptions, I do not
>>tell you the gender of the partners involved.  Can you tell, by my
>>descriptions, which couples should have children, and which should
>>not?
> 
>OK, Jeff.  Here is a quiz to show you the BLATANT fallacy in your argument:
>
>Here are three people, tell me which should or should not be allowed
>to adopt a child:
>
>1)  32 yr. old female, Lawyer.
>2)  35 yr. old male, Engineer.
>3)  27 yr. old male, Doctor.
>
>You can't tell me, can you? 

nope.  not enough info.  

>>However, as soon as I tell you the 
>>sexuality of these couples, you seem to have an opinion, with no
>>extra information.
> 
>However, as soon as I tell you that the woman listed as #1 has been
>convicted twice on child molestation charges, you would develop an
>opinion, with no extra information.

absolutely.  but i can offer a lot of proof that a known child
moletser/abuser will most likely be detrimental to a child's 
healthy development.  

can you do the same for homosexual parents?  i do mean *proof*, 
evidence, real cases, now.  not opinion.  

>Is it?  Or do you say that she is not suitable to adopt because it is
>not a HEALTHY environment for the child?  Same goes for my argument
>against homos adopting children.
>
>Read that quiz again, Jeff.  It's an EXACT analog to yours.  See the
>flaws in your reasoning?

no, it isn't.  i can clearly show that abusers have and do 
harm children.  but no-one has yet shown that homosexuality
and abuse are equal, or even similar in harmful potential.  

>>FWA
>
>Ronnie Jr.
>"Doing my best to de-bunk all this pro-homosexual propaganda."

if this is your best, then you're a pretty sad example.  go 
take a logic class!  

peg

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Adream
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:12:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.193711.9974@rat.csc.calpoly.edu>  
jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (The Chrome Jester) writes:


> Funny, when I say that I know what it feels like to be gay, you say
> "experience is not knowledges" (I'm paraphrasing).

Yes, I said that you know how it feels, which is not the same as to know  
why and how.

> Should we take
> your word on what it's like to be heterosexual, or should we just pull
> out some crusty old books on what your problems are?

You can take my word about how it feels as a matter of personal saying,  
and not as a generalization. Then, you can go and look at old the books  
you want to see why I feel like I do.
I cannot give you a scientific explanation about that. I can tell what I  
guess from what I know. Also, I have no idea why I am heterosexual. So,  
you can go and get all the books you think that you need, if you want to  
research on that.

> 
> JOhn.


AAP