HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:54:58 GMT

In article <21DEC199216443512@zeus.tamu.edu> olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:

>So, ROBBiepoo, (racial issues)!=(religious issues)!=(sexual issues).
>The only thing that can be associated between these issues is that 
>discrimination occurs. Discrimination is discrimination! Whether it is
>reverse discrimination or what ever.  But to equate anti-gay and anti-Jewish
>discrimination is wrong because the issues facing the Jews, Blacks, and 
>HOMO's is different.

All of that is true (though I would argue with you over the question
of "reverse discrimination").  Furthermore, I don't think anyone is
attempting to say that bigotry based on sexual orientation is
*equivalent* to that based on religion.  Do you?  Please show us some
examples.  Very similar, yes, and based on closely-related motives,
yes, and both morally wrong, yes.  Identical?  Not that I know of.

You certainly haven't demonstrated that discrimination based on sexual
orientation should be taken less seriously than other forms of
discrimination, which is what you've implied in past posts.  Care to
elaborate?

>Heterosexuality is the _sexual orientation_ for *opposite* sex based 
>relationships, is it not?
>
>Homosexuality is the _sexual orintation_ for *same* sex based 
>relationships, is it not?

No.  I have relationships with members of the same sex and members of
the opposite sex, but my sexual orientation is neither heterosexual
nor homosexual.

>Many time I have seen, the term CONSENTING ADULTS.  This at first glance
>seems to add validity to the HOMO's argument for anti-discr. legislation.
>In fact it adds a degree of vagueness!!!
>
>If a an ADULT dog runs up to you and mount's your leg and tries to *do* you.

Oh, for God's sake.  If you absolutely insist that "human" be attached
to the term "consenting adults," then assume that it is implicitly
present.  This sort of "debate" is beneath discussion.

>If your lover (assuming he/she is an ADULT) by the power of attornet, WILL's 
>their corpse PRE-MORTUM to you(assuming you are an adult) so that you may 
>engage in sexual activity with the body.  Is this not sexual consent among 
>ADULTS?? Should it not be protected by law?

I don't see why not.  I also haven't seen evidence that people who
engage in such activity feel strongly enough about it to desire legal
protection.

>And By the way, why hasn't any one asked my to state my true and honest
>opinion about GAY's??

Because it's plain as the warts on your face.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: dise@decoy.uoregon.edu (David Casti)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:26:21 GMT
Reply-To: dise@oregon.uoregon.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line67.uoregon.edu

In article <1992Dec23.183439.17001@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian  
Douglass) writes:
> BTW, in some services, hetro soldiers can still be prosecuted for consential 
> sodomy or oral copulation with a women while on base.  Should Clinton repeal 
> this ban also, while he repeals it for homosexuals?

I don't think you will find a single gay or lesbian person who supports sodomy  
laws in any of their guises -- including this one.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: doctor@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (Jonathan Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,ne.motss,alt.sex.motss
Subject: Request Take 2
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:11:54 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: yoyodyne.wpi.edu

Did not get a resonse last time si I will try again
	sorry if you get multiple copies I messed uplast time.

Hello Everyone

	I am sorry to say that I will be going to visit Family in the
Denver Area with my Boyfriend over New Years. I know I should not go 
but planns have been made and we are looking forward to seeing our 
family. Could someone in the Area please drop me a line (email) and 
let me what kind of fun there is in the City of Denver. 
You know what Clubs are Kool Etc.. We will be in the 
city of Denver over a weekend and just want to have some fun 
and support the local Community. 

				Thanks in Advance.

					Jon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
XXXDate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:21:31 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A768883B1B010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:22:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.192133.8061@asl.dl.nec.com> Doug Dillhoff,
dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>The point is, I don't want someone teaching my children values that
>do not reflect the christian values that this country was founded on.

Christians may share many of the values that this country was founded on. 
Please keep in mind, however, that this is coincidental, not by intent.  Our
founding fathers were =not= predominantly Christian, nor is our system based
on Christianity.  It is based on, allows, and even promotes =diversity= of
belief.

Please refrain from projecting your fantasies on my country.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | 
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:34:24 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec21.231401.9926@netcom.com>, robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
|> In article <21DEC199215423972@venus.tamu.edu> crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
|> >I think you completely miss the point I am trying to make.  I just think that
|> >trying to compare animal behavior to that of humans is irrelevant.
|> 
|> Fine.
|> 
|> >My belief is that homosexuality is wrong.
|> 
|> On what evidence do you base that belief?  You have gotten off to an OK
|> start by asserting the biological argument is irrelevant.  Given that,
|> why do you still think homosexuality is wrong?  Present your reasons and
|> we will be happy to discuss them.

And even if he thinks homosexuality is "wrong", why does he think
that it's OK the discriminate against Gays?

I think that people who listen to Wayne Newton are hopelessly evil
and corrupt, but I don't propose that we throw them out of their 
homes and jobs.

jon.
From: crr4574@zeus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 12:06 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <ZBDM0C.92Dec22102223@curry.curry.trc.amoco.com>, bmoe@trc.amoco.com writes...
> 
>In article <21DEC199211565333@venus.tamu.edu> crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
>> In article <1gu05dINN15b@mizar.usc.edu>, adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes...
>>
>>> And move where?  *Texas*?  I'd rather set myself on fire
>>> than live in Texas.
>>
>> Texas is not so bad.  You wouldn't like it in College Station
>> because the gay community, I believe, is pretty small.  Austin on
>> the other hand, reputedly has a much larger one.
> 
>I've heard it said by both rednecks and, ah, non-rednecks
>that Austin isn't _in_ Texas, it's _surrounded_ by Texas.
> 
>Sadly, Tulsa and Oklahoma do not have a similar relationship.

Funny you would say that.  I am from Oklahoma.  I was born and raised there and
lived the first 21 years of my life there.

Also, to answer another post, yes I do know statistics.  Among other things, I
have a degree in Math.  So yes, I understand how statistics work.  I also
understand that 10% means 1 in 10.  In my experience the number is definitely
high.  I have gone through my high school annual and calculated the percentage
who are known homosexuals.  It is about 1%.  Sure, there may be some that I
don't about, but I know most of these people pretty well.  So maybe there were
twice as many homosexuals in my high school.  This makes about 2%.  I am
looking only at high school juniors and seniors and pretty much know what they
are all doing now, 7 years after graduation.  Is this a representative sample? 
I think so.  There were about 300 people in this sample.  This means between 3
and 6 people in these classes is gay.  I am confident that no more than 6 were
gay.  I know for certain that 2 were.  I am not certain that as many as 6 were.
The point is that the sample should be fairly representative.  These people had
not yet had the chance to move to an area where there more homosexuals.  Sure,
there may be places where more than 10% are gay.  Only because they moved
there and made the percentage that high.

As for blacks.  As a matter of fact, until I got to high school I went to a
mostly black school.  The percentage of blacks in my part of OKLA. is indeed
higher than the national average.  Yes, the percentage of people I know
includes a greater percentage of blacks than the national average.  So, your
facts, indeed are incorrect.

Charley

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody i
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:57:03 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <92353.025806MXW135@psuvm.psu.edu> <MXW135@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
| 
| In article <18132@autodesk.COM>, owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) says:
| 
| 
| >>       Do the Gays who are currently showering with Hetero men in the
| >> military get turned on?
| 
| I sure hope not...but just as a precaution, I propose that we put up warning
| signs in the showers that say something like this: WARNING bending over to
| pick up dropped soap at your OWN RISK!
| 
| >>       What about you?  Have you ever showered "public" with the gender
| >> to which you're attracted?
| 
| That would be a wet dream and a half cum true for me.

Ah, callow youth.

I have had many showering experiences with the appropriate gender/s. There
are erotic showers and there are showers.  Erotic showers are great, as long
as you don't slip and crack your head open on the tile.  Showers get you
clean. At most, you might file an image or two away in your mind for later
masturbation material.

Perhaps a lot of the university-based concerns about hetero men showering
with gay men are based on the apprehensions of freshmen that they will be
unable to physically control themselves if they ever get a chance to see
a naked woman.  They then figure that most gays are as sexually
uncontrollable as they imagine themselves to be.

   Fritz



Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:52:54 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <casivils.726095832@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>
>1st, Persecution of Gays does not have a biblical baisis.
>     -----------
>     Christ spent a lot of his time with prostitutes, tax collectors and others
>     who lived "undesirable" lifestyles during their time period.
>     Granted, the Bible is clear that Homosexuality is a sin.  However, so
>     is lying, and everyone has lied.  Man places degrees on sin, not God.

    We all know this, Craig.  I'm aware that the persecution of gays has no
biblical basis...that's why it gets me when people use biblical references
to support their bigotry, especially when they freely disregard other bible
directions when it doesn't suit them.

>2nd, Calling all Christians bigots is yet another "intolerance"
>     I have seen several generalizations and expressions that the "Christian
>     Attitude" is wrong.  Am I to assume then that you don't associate with
>     Christians being as you can't condem someones actions/beliefs and 
>     still respect ther precious rights.  Is tolorance only for the
>     politicaly correct?  

    I don't remember reading anyone's claim that all xians are bigots.
Unfortunately, few of the tolerant ones out there bother getting into net
discussions, and the flaming "xian" 'phobes who do give the rest a bad
name.  That is unfortunate, since I know many xians who really are tolerant
and open-minded.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: hessel@soc.umn.edu (Denise Hesselton)
Subject: religion and homosexuality
Organization: Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 17:36:12 GMT

I have a friend (no, really, I'm serious) who just recently came out to her 
family.  She has known she is a lesbian for years (she's 31), but has never 
had a lover.  The reason is because she is also a very devout Lutheran, and 
is having a great deal of difficulty reconciling her attraction to women 
with what the Bible and her church have to say about it.  Because she 
believes much of what her religion teaches her about her sexual preference, 
she is, needless to say, miserable.

I'm agnostic, and so I have no personal insight to offer her on the 
subject.  So, I'm appealing to members of this newsgroup for some advice/
words of wisdom which I can pass on to her.  Please e-mail me directly; no 
need to clutter up this newsgroup with stuff that's been covered before.

[As an aside, there was a recent post entitled "A Mother Speaks" on this 
subject; if someone could forward me a copy of that post, I'd appreciate it.]

Thanks much!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.143507.12684@qiclab.scn.rain.com> Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org writes:

>And don't forget, the 10% includes *bi*-sexuals.

Kinsey's numbers didn't.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: dise@decoy.uoregon.edu (David Casti)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Just a question!
Date: 27 Dec 1992 06:45:06 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dise@oregon.uoregon.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line35.uoregon.edu

In article <Bzrxt9.9tB@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim  
Pierce) writes:
> In article <1has1eINN87a@pith.uoregon.edu> dise@oregon.uoregon.edu writes:
> >breeder
> 
> A lot of bisexuals and women have serious problems with this term.

Well, is the subtext here that breeding is somehow a bad thing, or are you  
saying that homosexuals and men don't have children...?

Anyone who goes looking for an insult will find one.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: WHY?
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:08:56 GMT

peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:

>        >Why do men like to stick it up other men's poopshoots....<eeewwww!>

>Excellent question!   I second the <eeewwww!> part, too.

So? At one time I thought that sticking my tongue into another person's
mouth was the grossest thing I'd ever heard of. But y'know, kissing turns
out to be a lot of fun.

>I don't believe in sex before marriage, and I'm none too sure about it
>afterward, either !!!

Then quit trying to tell *other* people how to carry out an activity that
you have no interest in!

>        >Why do men like to stick anything up women's assholes?  
>        
>They don't.  The only men that do this are closet queers.        

In which case most of the male population is "closet queers". I 
suggest that you do some reading. *Most* men have tried anal sex.

>        >And writing "eeewwww" won't do you a whole lot of good because, 
>        >after all, I can prove that five times as many straight women 
>        >as gay men like being on the receiving end of anal sex.

>Does this mean that all the coprophiliacs, er homosexuals, fight over
>who gets to be the "man" each night?  Not tonight honey, my butt has
>a big ZIT on it <eeeewwww!>.  :)

Guess what, *most* homosexuals are more interested in *oral* sex 
than anal sex. Substantial numbers aren't even interested in anal sex.

I suggest that you try finding out *facts* before the next time
you start expressing an opinion that is based on falsehoods and
ignorance. You've quite obviously decided that gays are "bad" because
they do things you think are sick. Only trouble is, what you *think*
they do doesn't bear a lot of resemblance to reality.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:42:03 GMT

In article <1h9qluINNjbv@leela.CS.ORST.EDU> bob@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (robert s. richardson) writes:
>
>In article <21DEC199210521002@venus.tamu.edu> crr4574@venus.tamu.edu writes:
>
>Getting back to your question, I have given a lot of thought to this in
>the past.  The only reason I would become straight, if I could, would be
>to escape society's persecution of gays, but I wouldnt be able to live
>with myself if I did that for "selling out" to the cause--It'd be like
>a black person being offered the chance of changing their skin color to
>white.  

This makes me remember an aunt of my mother who was asked why she was
so proud of being Jewish. She answered: Because if were not proud, I
would be Jewish the same.
If you assume that you are Gay and that there is nothing you can do about
it, then you will think that you do not want to be other things. But this is
because you have no real choice.
However, you say something about "selling out". What would happen if a black
person just likes to be white? 
I know a lot of people who went through plastic surgery because they wanted
a different nose, for example, or others who use colored  contact lenses.
Did they sell out? We, people with big noses should call them traidors?
This is as racist/homophobic as those who are saying that blacks/homosexuals
are inferiors, because it closes the door for people to choose how they want
to be.
You are happy being Gay, so be Gay.
Someone would be happier being haterosexual, so let him be heterosexual 
(assuming there is a pill that allows you become one).
Someone is happy being black, so let him be black.
Someone would be happier beinh white, let him become white.

Saying that s/he sold out the cause is closing the door for his/her individual
choice.




      __   __  ___
     /  \ /  \|   \
    |____|____|___/
    |    |    |
    aap@wam.umd.edu




>
>Bob Richardson
>bob@atlantis.cs.orst.edu
>
>


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:46:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.202409.14243@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>In article <BzoACo.2qD@unix.amherst.edu>
>     twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>Kinsey's numbers didn't [include bisexuals].
>
>   Actually, I beleive they did.  Kinsey stated that 3% to 4% of men
>were life-long homosexuals, but that an additional 6% to 11% of the
>population had had "significant consensual homosexual behavior" for
>"several years" or "had a history of repeated homosexual encounters,"
>i.e. bisexuality of some sort.

Kinsey's 10% figure represented men in his survey in the 5-6 range.
Including people from Kinsey 2 on up to 6, the percentage skyrocketed.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 21 Dec 1992 11:56 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1gu05dINN15b@mizar.usc.edu>, adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes...

>> What species has members that engage in exclusively homosexual behavior? 
> 
>Who cares?
Someone did or they wouldn't have made the argument in first place.  I care,
because if you are going to try and use this kind of logic to prove that
homosexuality is natural, I say do it scientifically and look at facts. 

>> If there are, give me some solid references.  I don't have a closed
>> mind, I just believe that the animal example is ridiculous for the reasons I
>> have stated.
>>     I do believe that homosexuality is wrong. 
> 
>Didn't you just write that you "don't have a closed mind"?

The belief is a moral one. Just as every person has certain moral beliefs,
so do I.  If my moral beliefs appear to me to be incorrect, I change them.
Maybe my beliefs are based on not understanding your behavior.

>> Before you judge me as a gay bashing homophobe, let me assure you 
>> that I am not trying to bash you.  I just do not understand
>> you and I think many times you distort facts to justify your behavior.

>I don't justify my behavior to anyone.

O.K.  Maybe justify was not the word I was looking for.  I just thought it was
a stupid argument to use to explain homosexuality as natural. 

>>  I cannot imagine any place in the country where 10% of the 
>> people are gay. 

>> I know several who are but I would say no more than
>> 1%.  Do any of you actually believe this 10% figure?

>No, I don't believe it.  I think the percentage of men who
>self-identify as homosexual is probably closer to 3 or 4.
>But what does it matter?

It is suprising that you would say that (though I am glad to hear someone say
it).  Most gays insist that the figure is higher than 10%.  Since I personally
know of no person who believes this, it damages the credibility of the gay 
community.  That is why it matters.

>> If you do, I would have to say move back to reality and out 
>> of la-la land.  
> 
>And move where?  *Texas*?  I'd rather set myself on fire
>than live in Texas.

Texas is not so bad.  You wouldn't like it in College Station because the gay
community, I believe, is pretty small.  Austin on the other hand, reputedly has
a much larger one.

>>  This is not meant to put anyone down,

>But of course it isn't.

Actually, it really wasn't.  I was pretty irritated at the time so maybe it
came out kind of strong.

Charley
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality