HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Military Ban on Gays/ FAX NUMBERS
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:29:20 GMT

In article <1k23qdINN59n@hpscit.sc.hp.com> may@hpcesma.ce.hp.com writes:

>[Disclaimer: I know that not all straight men are afraid of gay men coming
>on to them.  I also know that most of them *don't* sexually harass women.]

Same here.  Why do I get the funny feeling, however, that there's an
awfully close correspondence between those men who worry about queers
coming on to them, and those men who don't see a problem with het
sexual harassment?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:34:01 GMT

>>kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>> With regard to your recent question to Tim Pierce, "What is sexual
>>> immorality?", this is quite easy to answer:
>>> 
>>> Something is sexually immoral if not all parties involved do or can
>>> give informed consent. Thus bestiality, child molestation, necrophilia,
>>> and rape are all sexually immoral.
>>> 

OK. Let's assume that some male has lost one arm in an accident, and 
that he got an orthopedic arm instead.
Let's assume that such a person is masturbating with his artificial arm.
Ergo, his arm did not consent to have sex with him!
Is that immoral?????????

AAP

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:44:17 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

[...]
>The Colorado amendment simply prevents the enactment of
>certain laws, which don't currently exist. It doesn't establish
>any grounds for lawsuits and it doesn't deny them.
[...]

Please reread the amendment (enclosed). It denies
discrimination-on-the-basis-of-gay-sexual-orientations as grounds for
any lawsuit. It does this by, among other things, prohibiting the
state courts from enforcing the laws that establish such
discrimination as a tort.

(Also, it does not distinguish between private and government
discrimination and it does not prohibit laws prohibiting
discrimination-on-the-basis-of-a-straight-sexual-orientation.)

- Carl


=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civil-liberty/amendment2.co.usa
=================
AMENDMENT 2  (AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION)
   "Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or
departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions,
municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce
any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual,
lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or
entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of
discrimination."
[...]
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:07:16 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
> >Something is sexually immoral if not all parties involved do or can
> >give informed consent. Thus bestiality, child molestation, necrophilia,
> >and rape are all sexually immoral.
> >
> >Homosexuality between consenting adults does NOT fall into this category.
> 
>     I couldn't have stated it any better.
> 
>     Walter, you asked; how do you respond?
 
Gez, Howard; give me a few minutes to respond, eh?  That hot to hear 
the answer?  I posted my article before lunch, went out and heated 
some spaghetti in the microwave, came back and found his article, 
and responded.  Get a grip, dude.  If you're that hot to hear the 
answer, maybe you need to find a hobby or something...

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Re: Conservative Republican Sen. D'Amato supports gays in military
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:59:20 GMT

gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff) writes:

>From my bit of familiary with NY politics, D'Amato is quite
>conservative and not a typical ally of gay people.  He won
>by a very thin margin again Bob Avrams, a long-time ally of
>the gay community (but new-found enemy of the
>Italian-American community in New York).

Yes, he was running against Abrams, who he called "Hopelessly
liberal" in commercials. Perhaps the only thing that could've surprised
me more than DAmato supporting Clinton on this issue would have been
if Jesse Helms had done the same (or my congressman Jerry Solomon).

DAmato is about as conservative on most things as they come.
Too bad he's not particularly ethical. (was investigated by
Senate Ethics Committee). But I was pleasantly shocked that he
supported Clinton on this issue and called his office to register
my suport.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	Get involved (or shut up)
CLARKSON '95				Majority rule doesnt mean mob rule 
============================================================================
"But to risk we must, for the greatest hazard in life is to risk
 nothing. For the man or woman who risks nothing, has nothing, does
 nothing, is nothing."
	---Eulogy for Christa McAuliffe

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: buckmr@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Conservative Republican Sen. D'Amato supports gays in military
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:42:48 GMT

gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff) writes:


>Dow Jones News Service reported that not all Republican are
>supporting the ban.  In fact, Sen. D'Amato announced on the
>Senate floor that he supports Clinton's efforts to lift the
>ban.
Yeah, I saw Al on TV. Al wants to be Governor of New York State.
Al will SAY ANYTHING to be elected.

>From my bit of familiary with NY politics, D'Amato is quite
>conservative and not a typical ally of gay people.  He won
>by a very thin margin again Bob Avrams, a long-time ally of
>the gay community (but new-found enemy of the
>Italian-American community in New York).

Right before the election [DAYS] Al D'Amato finally said that he support
equal rights for gays. He has been an outspoken homophobe previously. He was 
named Pro-Life Senator of the Year a few years ago.

He's a thieving sleaze. [his brother was indicted 17 times for selling access
to the Senator]

>I don't think Congress could override a Clinton veto; I also
>think that Clinton would veto any legislation that tries to
>impose the ban.  This issue goes far beyond gay rights.  The
>president is the commander of the military, not the Joint
>Chiefs of Staff and not Congress.

It might pass the override in the Senate--that's what Clinton wants to
avoid. It wouldn't pass in the House.
-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  ``BOYCOTT COLORADO!''
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"I'm so bad I can suck my own dick!"  -- L.L. Cool J
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10432 soc.motss:58896
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: About Calling in Your Opinion on Ban
Date: 28 Jan 1993 13:26:21 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab24.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1622381427011993/A14734/POSSE/1171DB963400*@mrgate.uwyo.edu>, LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA) writes:
|> 	
|>  Anyway, I thought I would warn anyone who
|> hadn't called yet because those operators sure are in a rush to
|> move on to the next call!  (I didn't have too much trouble getting 
|> through, either.) 
|> 
Yeah, the operators seemed a bit overworked.  When I called the Pentagon,
she asked me whether I had a complaint or a helpful comment.  I said
"well, I hope it's a helpful comment."  Her response was; "well, since
you're not sure..."

|> Finally, did anyone else get a cold response at the Pentagon's
|> number after saying you were against the ban (for lifting it)?
|> I may have imagined it, but it seemed cold. 

No.  The operator I got sounded very tired and uninterested until I
said that I favored lifting the ban.  Then her voice lit up like I had
just made her day.  Must have been different operators.
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:07:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.210548.16383@Princeton.EDU> elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>In article <john.727819027@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>
>>So could you. The Colorado amendment simply prevents the enactment of
>>certain laws, which don't currently exist. It doesn't establish
>
>This is false.  The amendment prevents state agencies including courts
>from dealing with claims of discrimination based on lesbian, homosexual,
>or bisexual orientation.

it is also false to say those laws didn't exist.  boulder, 
denver and aspen had passed laws protecting gays, lesbians 
and bisexuals from discrimination in housing, employment, etc.  
the amendment invalidated them.  why should bigots in colorado
springs have the right to overturn laws in other cities that
don't even affect them?  

>I
>suggest you actually read it.
>
good idea.  
peg
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:05:06 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> With regard to your recent question to Tim Pierce, "What is sexual
> immorality?", this is quite easy to answer:
> 
> Something is sexually immoral if not all parties involved do or can
> give informed consent. Thus bestiality, child molestation, necrophilia,
> and rape are all sexually immoral.
> 
> Homosexuality between consenting adults does NOT fall into this category.

And from a legal/legislative point of view, I'm with you 100% here.  
Homosexuality should not be illegal, while the other things should be. 
My question to Tim Pierce was asked from a religious-point--of-view; 
what in his view is sexual immorality from that vantage. 

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10041 alt.rush-limbaugh:14844 alt.politics.clinton:20953 alt.politics.bush:16259
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:22:08 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: eomer.hw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan21.120809.24378@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>Actually, while some of it's citizens do in fact adhere to such a moral
>code, our country adheres to a =legal= code.  That legal code has some of
>it's roots in your moral code, as well as in many others.
>
As it should.  Would homosexuals then allow beastiality?  Beastiality
is against the law, yet it isn't hurting anyone?  It sexual deviancy
just like homosexuality.  What's the difference?  Only who your
partner is...right.  Well, our laws have developed from Judeo/
Christian morals (for the most part).  Why is murder 
wrong?  Why is child abuse wrong?  Why is theft wrong?  Why is lying
wrong?  Because a moral code based on Judeo Christian beliefs says
so and it has been incorporated into law.

>>Only in the past 30 or so years have we started down
>>the path of total decadence. 
>
>30 years???  Christian Moralists have been saying that for as long as there
>have been Christian Moralists.  
>
Not just decadence...that has been occurring since Adam and Eve sinned.
TOTAL depravity...as in NO GOOD found.  As in Sodom and Gomorrah.

For someone who opened himself up for you to refute, you sure had little to
say.  Except for the above comments, you left everything else 
unanswered.

mc
From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: E-Catacomb for those burned here w/ allegations of God's intolerance
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:40:15 GMT
Reply-To: <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Weary of wearing your asbestos pumps in the fiery furnace of allegations
that God is intolerant?

Join the 88 persons now participating in LUTI:  An E-Catacomb for Lesbigay
Christians!

Lutibelle's Mailbag is discussion group for Lesbigay Christian Issues.  
At the moment, most of us are lesbigay Episcopalians, but we certify neither 
plumbing nor creed.   We welcome others:  

LUTI is a catacomb of our own for lesbigay Christians and our friends 
(plus lurkers who want to inform themselves with primary evidence).    

Luti is not a venue in which to defend lesbigay Christians' right to exist.  
That hetero conversation belongs, if anywhere, elsewhere.  Nor is Luti the
venue in which to fight UNholy doctrinal wars.  

To participate, send a one-line message to lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu saying
'Sign me up for LUTI.'  As soon as possible, I will add you to the list and 
notify you how to post directly to it. 

If you introduce yourself, I will forward your signon message to others on 
the list; otherwise, your identity will remain confidential (but not 
rigorously so).  Do not presume that all discussants are lesbigay; and do not 
presume all heterosexual participants to be so insecure as to need to tell you 
so.

H.M.H. Quean Lutibelle (a.k.a. Louie Crew, Li Min Hua, Br. Thorn-in-the-Flesh)
Founder of Integrity:  The Justice Ministry of Lesbigay Episcopalians (1974)
Co-Organizer of the Lesbigay Caucus of the National Council of Teachers of 
   English (1974) 

P.S.

I maintain several other groups as well, so be sure to specify LUTI or 
E-Catacomb!

Kisses in the name of George Gordon Lord Byron, whose fear of hetero-
repressive measures in England drove him to boys on the Isles of Greece,
and to organize the battle for Grecian Independence.  Byron's 205th
birthday was yesterday.

Lutibelle

-- 
  ==========================================================================
  Louie Crew, Academic Foundations Department, Rutgers University, NWK 07102
  lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu                                   201-485-4503
                   Preferred:  P. O. Box 30, Newark, NJ 07101
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:40:09 GMT

In article <john.727896501@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>
>>In article <john.727819027@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>>
>>>So could you. The Colorado amendment simply prevents the enactment of
>>>certain laws, which don't currently exist. It doesn't establish
>>This is false.  The amendment prevents state agencies including courts
>>from dealing with claims of discrimination based on lesbian, homosexual,
>>or bisexual orientation.
>I did read it. I didn't see that. Do you have the text? By the way, will
>the courts currently deal with claims of discrimination based on
>heterosexual orientation? If not, what's the fuss?

According to the text of the amendment, heterosexuals are not forbidden
from filing such claims, but homosexuals and bisexuals are _explicitly_
forbidden.  This is the problem.  When you read the amendment, look to
the section that says "no claim of discrimination."

>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
> - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
> - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:16:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.194232.18972@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>>We abandon part of our humanity if we accept things without question.
>
>So, I will qustion your assumption that we abandon part of our 
>humanity if we accept things without question.

Who shaves the barber?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.religion.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Speaking of the AntiCatholic thing
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:45:38 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan25.041222.16631@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
]shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
]] In article <john.727478714@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]] 
]] >Did you ever see Catholics pushing for a law that you couldn't discriminate
]] >against them? 
]] 
]] Yup.  I don't know how well you know your history, but
]] there's a strong tradition of American anti-Catholicism.
]] Before and during the first year or so of the War Between
]] the States there were anti-Catholic riots in many major
]] American cities (part and parcel of general anti-foreigner
]] sentiment).  As a result, the very first civil rights laws
]] covered race, religion, creed, and national origin.
But not Catholicism per-se.
]
]
]The Other Amusing part is that folks seem to
]forget that a part of the struggle against
]JFK had to do with his being a Roman Catholic,
]and HENCE of Questionable Loyalty, should he
]be elected to Presidency.
I haven't forgotten that. There was the question: would he give his
first loyalty to the country or the pope. Of course, anyone who knows
anything about catholicism realizes how silly the question was.
]
]But I guess that was a long time ago, and folks
]sort of forget that the KKK was still ranting 
]about the Catholic Threat.... as well as the
]Jewish Threat, and the Black threat....

But so what. The KKK still rants about that.
]
]And Now that the Roman Catholics are supporting
]the Oppression of persons who want to exercise
]their rights to abortion, it just NATURALLY
]has to follow that they have always been a
]part of the "Correct Group" all along, and
]have finally finished the process of assimilation.

No, the Catholics are supporting the Rights of persons who have
yet to be born.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:27:15 GMT

In article <108060@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.194232.18972@wam.umd.edu>
>aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>
>>In article <107980@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>
>>>We abandon part of our humanity if we accept things without question.
>
>>So, I will qustion your assumption that we abandon part of our 
>>humanity if we accept things without question.
>
>Have you bothered to follow through the logical consequences of this silly
>argument? Or are you just trying to be funny with your "endless loop"
>style of arguing?

Yeah, sure, you bring the argument and now I am guilty for using it.
If you do not want loops, then, do not use arguments that open loops,
after all, YOU are the one who used the argument in the first place.
Now, my "endless loop" style of arguing?????
What happened? There is a sale of beer around there????



>
>Brian
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
>Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
>ones true self.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Military Ban on Gays/ FAX NUMBERS
Organization: Real/Time Communications
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:08:21 GMT

LASAGA (LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu) wrote:
: 
: Rep. Thomas Foley, Speaker of the House  fax unlisted
: 
...Now this is _completely_ without proof, but I heard from good
sources that Foley is, well, YOU know.
From: zeng@mth.msu.edu (Zhonggang Zeng)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: A question about gays in military
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:26:02 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: nemo.mth.msu.edu

If the armed forces open some divisions to homosexuals, and ban them in
the remaining units. Does the homosexual community accept that solution?

To me, this is the only fair solution. Homosexuals would not be discharged
and straight soldiers would not be forced to sleep next to a gay either.

I'm ready to be enlighted if somebody give good reason that I'm wrong.
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:29:14 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> 
> You don't seem to understand  that some fundamentalist groups want to
> make this a christian fundamentalist nation, with the bible as the 
> ultimate authority for civil rule.

You don't seem to understand that no one here is calling fo making 
homosexuality illegal; you hear someone say that they don't think 
homosexuality is OK, and all sanity goes out the window.  You paint 
anyone who claims to be Christian, and who thinks homosexuality is 
not ok (which is most Christians) as these "fundies".  

Walter