HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 19 Dec 1992 01:27:51 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> Sure I get the picture.   We'll say we don't want quotas, and all over
> the country newly awakened ex-religious bigots will slap their foreheads 
> and say "Oh, how could we have been so foolish" and everyone will live 
> happily ever after.
> 
> Wanna buy a bridge?
> 
> jon.   

Cynicism is stylish, but you'll never know till you try, right? 
What do you lose by trying?   (side note, not all the people 
who are unsure of the quota things are neccesarily "religious") 
I can tell you one thing; had there been a clearly known position 
that the gay-rights movement had no desire for that, either 
Col#2 would have had to have been worded very differently, or 
else it would not have had a prayer of passing.  

And no thanks, I have plenty of bridges already...goes well 
with my S.Florida ski resort...really ought to get down there
one of these days and try it out, huh? :-)

Walter
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 1992 21:17:03 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gssa9INNgds@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > 
|> > Let them go to churches that teach up is down and black is white, for
|> > all I care, but it's nonsense to propose that we ought to change
|> > the public school system to accomodate them.
|> > 
|> > jon.
|> 
|> Jon, 
|> 
|> You realize this is the *exact* same argument people *against* COTR 
|> could use?  "Why change the public school system to accomodate them".

No, it's not the same argument.   Have you forgotten that the Supreme
Court has forbidden the establishment of separate facilities?   So far,
at least, it has also sauid that religious advocacy - and that is what
this is, no matter how people try to fudge it - have no place in the
Public Schools.

I appreciate your eagerness to try to establish some form of symmetry,
but there is no symmetry between trying to eastablish equality and trying
to perpetuate inequality.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: tom@flood.com (Tom Chatt)
Subject: Re: Colorado Measure
Organization: The Flood Group, Inc.  Torrance, Ca.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 07:52:03 GMT

steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly)  writes:
| WP>5. The plan of action in response to the new amendment is to
| WP>   file a lawsuit.  To be added to the list of people on the adjoining
| WP>   amicus brief call the City of Boulder at (303) 441-3090 (you need
| WP>   not be a Colorado resident).

This piece of info is about a month out of date.
The City of Boulder has already filed its brief, and is not
collecting any lists of people as indicated above.

Skip "step 5" in this otherwise commendable plan of action
and proceed directly to step 6 (write your congressman)...

-- 
Tom Chatt                        \   Don't take offense, take action.
Internet: tom@flood.com           \    Speak up. When we remain silent,
UUCP: ...!uunet!flood!tom        / \     we oppress ourselves.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:24:01 GMT

In article <1ge0mvINNfph@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>How will the kids (the ones teasing) know that the other kid's parents
>are gay?  I don't recall ever hearing a kid when I was young saying, 
>"your parents are fags" or anything like that.

One of the girls who went to high school with me lived with her mother
and her mother's girlfriend.  Sometimes the mother came to pick her
up, sometimes the lover.  It was pretty clear what was going on.
Things get out.  Kids go over to one another's houses, parents come to
pick them up, the word spreads through the grapevine.  First-grade
Heather, who has two mommies and has never thought twice about it,
mentions during Show and Tell that one of her mommies is a police
officer and the other is a broker.  There are plenty of ways.

>Not to mention the fact that in a lot of schools
>nationally, small ones away from cities, I'd guess there are plenty 
>of schools where there *are* no kids who come from homosexual 
>households.  What is the reason for the curriculum there, or are 
>you advocating it there?  

I'm advocating it anywhere, partly because the number of gay
households is on the rise all over the country, and partly because
families move, kids mature, they come into contact with other people
in other cities, and so on.

>> >There's something that doesn't fit here, either.  From "Heather 
>> >has 2 mommies" kids aren't supposed to pick up on any sexual/gay
>> >overtones, just that heather has 2 mommies that love each other
>> >and her?
>> 
>> That's not it.  No sexual overtones, but I think that the "gay"
>> overtones are meant to be clear, at least insofar as it's clear that
>> Heather's mommies love each other romantically.  
>
>Which is what I meant.

I think we're not communicating on something here.  I think that kids
generally understand "love" (as in eros) to the extent that their
parents are closer to one another than to other people.  They
understand "love" to the extent that they form crushes on other kids
in their class.  They don't understand sex, and "Heather Has Two
Mommies" isn't attempting to introduce them to sex.  Only to love, and
the fact that it can take many different forms.

>> The book simply addresses the fact that people of the same gender
>> can love each other, ignoring the questions of what those people
>> actually *do* with each other in bed.
>
>But that question *will* come up,

Probably around the same time that the question of what Mommy and
Daddy do in bed.  Probably later than first grade.

>Also, a first-grader, whom this curriculum is aimed at, is capable
>of dealing with issues like gender and race, but not sexual orientation.

Why do you think so?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:15:38 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <11DEC199223082388@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>
>	Many Homosexual parents and non-parents would also balk at
>teaching sex education to first graders.

    True.

>	I'm not familiar with the Rainbow Program.  Is it actually
>teaching sex, or just that there can be family units comprised of
>two people of the same gender?

    The latter.  The most recent issue of Time has a two-page article on
the program.
    In a nutshell, the main objection seems to be that it presents same-sex
parents in a non-judgemental manner - as a fact of life in this society.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
From: Zeke@homo.is.the.way.to.go.to.get.a.piece.of.pucker.hole.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: to Howard Black a.k.a Mr. Chemistry (Re: WHY?)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:01 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

>    This, more than anything I've seen, explains the attitudes you exhibit
>on the net.  I'd like to feel sorry for you, but you're too much of a
>bigotted jerk.
> 
>-- 
>   ******************************************************************
>     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
>     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 

Yo Mr. Chemistry,
      You seem to have a problem with a hetero having his own opinion.
Sounds like you are closed minded to the struggle of the hetero movement and
cannot accept this hetero for what he is (regardless if he is or is not
"bigotted"). How dare you judge any one until you can reach that higher echelon
of thinking and accept this lowly hetero into society.  My God man, he is human
just like you.

Mr. Chemistry, It appears that you are nothing but a lowly heterophobe!
Maybe your latent heterosexual tendencies are the driving force behind this
antagonistic hostility towards heteros.

Mr. Chemistry, I feel sorry for you and I hope that you can find it within
your heart to forgive this man for his choice of a hetero-lifestyle.


---------------------------------------------------------------
|The Zekester, PRO HETERO and proud of it!!                   |
|       **********         They call me homophobic,           |
|    ***          ***      They call me bigotted,             |
|  **<-------------****    They call me close-minded,         |
| **  \          **** **   They call me intolerant,           |
|**    \      ****/    **  They blame me for their problems,  |
|**     \  ****  /     **  They cannot tolerate me,           |
|**     ****    /      **  They cannot respect me,            |
| ** **** \    /      **   They do not know me,               |
|  ****    \  /      **         yet they judge me.            |
|    ***    \/   ***                                          |
|       **********         They must be heterophobes!!        |
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: esm@june.che.utexas.edu (Edward Scott Meadows)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:52:28 GMT
Organization: UT Department of Chemical Engineering

In article <gsh.724352981@hela.iti.org> gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:
>wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:

>     Another story which I believe I read in the "Navy Times" was about the 
>Marine who won the "Marine of the year" award, not just unit/battallion but 
>Marine Corps wide.  This Marine "came out of the closet" after winning.
>The story has a humorous side as I recall.  They couldn't kick him out until
>they could prove he had broken a law.  Just claiming to be homosexual wasn't
>enough.  His dilemma was that in order to prove he was homosexual, he had to
>commit an illegal act and be caught.  Again, I don't know what ending this 
>story had.  

No illegal acts are necessary for an individual to be "separated" from
the military for homosexuality.  In the case of Joseph Steffan,
Federal Judge Lawrence Gasch (sp?) acknowledged that there was no
evidence that Mr. Steffan had ever performed a homosexual act, yet it
was acceptable to separate him from the Navy.

Please re-read the Navy Times article and clarify what actually
happened.  I would be interested in finding out the complete story.
-- 
Edward S. Meadows
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Texas
Austin TX 78721-1062
From: crr4574@zeus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 18 Dec 1992 17:41 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

I have many times seen dogs mount people's legs.  Does this mean that dogs are 
into bestiality.  NO!  The twisted attempts to justify human homesexuality by
comparing it to the behavior of animals is absurd.  As a scientist, I am sick
and tired of the "facts" that get thrown around in this argument.  Here are 
the facts.  An excited animal will mount practically anything moving.  To 
compare this behavior to that of humans is irresponsible.  
     A more appropriate question would be the following.  What species has
members that engage in exclusively homosexual behavior?  Or are there any 
examples of animals which mate for life engaging in exclusive homosexual 
behavior?  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.  Tell me why I am wrong to
believe this.  Tell me why I have no right to this opinion. The reason I even 
mention this is based on the fact that most of the PRO HETERO (not necessarily
ANTI-GAY) posts on this group have resulted in nothing but petty flaming of
that individual or individuals. 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.
     Another example of this which comes to mind is the study which said that 
roughly 10% of the population is gay.  I do not have this article, but I would
like to read it.  I cannot imagine any place in the country where 10% of the 
people are gay.  I probably know several thousand people and I know damn well 
10% of them aren't gay.  I know several who are but I would say no more than
1%.  Do any of you actually believe this 10% figure?  If you do, I would have
to say move back to reality and out of la-la land.  
     By the way, I am very comfortable with my own sexuality, so don't
try that latent homosexual copout.  This is not meant to put anyone down, I 
just think this echoes how the general population feels.  I also feel that you
need solid references if you want to be taken seriously.  If you have answers, 
I am willing to listen.  If you feel the need to flame, flame on and you will
simply be ignored.


Charley
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:35:46 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gssqvINNgrq@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > Pardon me?   Can it be possible that you think that this argument depends
|> > on whether Jon Livesey in particular is a schoolteacher?
|> 
|> Yeah, you bet.  If you're not a teacher, and you're going around 
|> telling other people's kids what is right and wrong, you're WAY out 
|> of line.  

Mr Smith.   It's really boring when you play dumb.

I'm saying that there could easily be cases where I conflicted with the
beliefs of parents by teaching that African American kids are just kids,
*were I their teacher*.

To answer your insinuation, no, I do not give moral instruction to
children.

|> 
|> > In case you think that, no it doesn't.   Just go through, adding "were
|> > I their teacher" after each place where I wrote "I".
|> 
|> Oh, it was one of those *hypothetical* thingies..sometimes hypotheticals
|> aren't very useful.  

No, it's not one of those hypothetical thingies.   Teachers teaching that
African American kids are just kids has been going on for years, and if
you know anything about American history - which I am beginning to doubt -
you know that many parents over the years have protested such teaching.  

In fact, they have protested their children even being in school with
African American shildren, to the point that troops sometimes had to be
used to enforce integration.

I have to ask this.   Do you really expect us to believe that you didn't
know tht schools taught equality, and that this sometimes conflicted with
parents' beliefs?

jon.
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 00:04:04 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> Equality before the law has nothing to do with insisting that people
> make public declarations that they disavow goals.  

And
> 
> Sure, the CFV can tell all the lies it wants about what Gays want
> or do not want.   That does not mean that the onus is on Gays to
> disprove these lies.

No, it is not.  And it is a shame that such a situation exists.
And you are well within your rights to remain silent while CFV,
Focus on the Family, etc convince people that you want things 
you do not want.  It may not be productive, however, and it is 
a simple thing to do.  And doing something that there should be
no need to have to do would only reinforce the position of 
being on the "moral high ground".  

Walter
From: ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu (The Dreamer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:36:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Penn State University

>My wife works in HR, and companies are very aware of "representative" hiring;
>they don't want to let there be *any* chance of appearing to discriminate,
>so they will sometimes take *other* than the best candidate for a job to
>maintain that.
>
     Walter, your wife's company could be sued by someone who is not hired
if he/she is more qualified.  A better solution to this problem would be for
your wife's Human Resources department to take the best candidate in all
situations and document their selection proceedure VERY well, relying on
objective criteria (like test scores, GPA, degree, experience, etc...).
For those criteria that are subjective, they should use multiple raters
who use ojbective scales to rate the applicant's performance.
     I am NOT kidding here.  I wouldn't want your wife to lose her job because
of an incorrect assumption that she and her department have a quota to fill.

>>      What we ask for is that, all other things considered, we have the same
>> chance as anyone else to be hired.
>
>No one can argue with that approach.  Has there been any discussion of adding
>this to an official statement-of-position by the gay-rights lobby?

Can anyone help me out here...I really don't know the answer to this one.  I
just assumed that we were not asking for anything like quotas, just for
the right to equal employment, housing, etc...  I think that the plight of
Black people has been the focus of equal opportinity recruitment measures
because, in this society, they have to overcome racial AND economic barriers
whereas queer people come from all levels of society.  (No, I am not saying
anything like "All Black people are poor").

Personally, I think that the idea of quotas is just about the worst solution
to the problem.  How do we achieve equality by not treating everyone equally?

>If it were
>made crystal-clear that there was no desire for minority status (and quotas)
>that would effectively obsolete the wording of Col#2, which is likely to be
>used in other states.

I think that you are confusing minority status with the quota issue.
I think that queer people ARE a legitimate minority.  The situation should
be handled more like it is for Jewish people though...employers should not
ask if you are Jewish (queer), should not care if you are Jewish (queer),
and should not fire you if they find out that you are Jewish (queer).

>
>Walter Smith
>smithw@cs.itc.hp.com
>
     Love and Peace and Breaking Down The Barriers,
                    -The Dreamer-

The Dreamer: Swimming upstream and making slow but steady progress.
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:27:08 GMT

In article <1gndkcINNslg@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> > I'm thrilled that you feel principled enough that you can choke out the 
> > "they should not be harassed or discriminated against for it." part, but
> > the fact that you have engaged in this dialogue to the degree you have shows
> > me two things. One that while you phrase your postings as questions, you
> > are not paying much attention to the answers you are being given. Two,
> > that this is a very important issue to you and statements you made in other
> > newsgroups support suspicion that you have an agenda you are not showing
> > to us in thsi newsgroup.
 
> Owen,
> Don't beat around the bush, spell it out.  Am I Clayton in disguise?  

No, Clayton has no tolerance whatsoever.

And since you invite me to spell it out ..
I will.

> What is the agena I'm so earnestly trying to hide from you?  Let's see,
> you say that I ask questions but don't listen to the answers, (or maybe
> I just don't accept things to your satisfaction?) and the issue is very 

Right on walter, it is not satisfactory to me that I tell you my sexual
orientation is intrinsic to my nature, and you reply with statements to the
effect that you don't believe me.

It is not satisfactory to me that I point out your use of loaded language
and you ignore the point.

The loaded language you use is the same language that we hear from
those whose bias against homosexuality is based on religion.

You seem to rail against fundamentalist christians yourself, but have not
made it clear whether your motivation for being concerned with this issue
is based on religious proscriptions.
What is it Walter, are you a fundamentalist christian yourself.

> and the issue is very important to me.  

It must be Walter, you have expended considerable energy and time to 
disscussing it with us over the last week.

> So what's my agenda?  (Hey, this could make a good
> game show; "I can name that agenda in 4 inuendoes"...)  Must be good..

Why don't you just tell us, and we'll go from there.

I can tell you my agenda Walter.
its

Equality, nothing more , nothing less.

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:08:33 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gq3hrINNerp@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> > I'm competing with some parents when I tell their children that African
|> > American kids are just the same as they are.
|> > Do I have to stop doing that because some parent, or some Minister from
|> > a segregated Baptist Church - of which there are still a few - comes
|> > to me and insists that they teach their children something else at home,
|> > and I'm just confusing them.
|> 
|> In what context are you doing that?  You're not a schoolteacher, are you? 
|> Maybe you *are* overstepping your bounds if you go around telling things 
|> to other people's kids. 

Pardon me?   Can it be possible that you think that this argument depends
on whether Jon Livesey in particular is a schoolteacher?

In case you think that, no it doesn't.   Just go through, adding "were
I their teacher" after each place where I wrote "I".

jon.