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 14:26:12 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> however it codifies us as a minority denied the same status as other
> minorities. Thus mandating and codifying bigotry against us.
> Hardly the kind of distinction that I find worthy of praise.

Codifies, yes; *mandates*?  No.  No one is forced to discriminate by Col#2. 
And I hope you don't think I'm *praising* it.  

> > The ironic thing is that some people I know thought a yes vote
> > for #2 was actually anti-discrimination...
> 
> It is for reasons like this that I have serious reservations about the 
> iniative process. I would like to see more input from the citizenry,
> and less beurocratic fluff from paid govt people, but honestly
> some sort of standard needs to be applied to the wording and 
> *sense* of ballot initiatives

I can see your point, but it might be hard to do.  What would have been 
good would have been for someone to see how bad the wording was on the
amendment, and submit a parallel amendment that cleared it up.  There 
were several similar gambling amendments on the ballot this year; if 
someone had submitted an amendment saying "no quotas" based on sexual 
orientation, and *no* discrimination based on sexual orientation, I 
suspect it would have won overwhelmingly, and that it would have 
caused #2 to fail. 

Walter
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 1992 00:52:36 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.48.150.6

In article <1gnd36INNsh6@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden) writes:
|> 
|> Teaching that homosexuality is "OK" is *not* the same thing as
|> teaching "tolerence".  

And teaching that Black is beautiful is not the same thing as saying
that Blacks are tolerable as long as they stay on their own side of
the tracks.

|> "Tolerence" is about accepting things you  may *not* see as "OK".

But what do you mean by "accept"?   So far, it seems that your notion
of "accepting" something means not teaching children about it.

|> People just aren't going to agree on a  *lot* of things, and 
|> homosexuality is one of the ones that is the hardest to agree on.  

Hardly.   Vanilla versus chocolate chip is the real toughie.

|> You have religion teaching that it is wrong, and you have a lot of 
|> people, who are not very into religion, thinking it is just plain 
|> disgusting; a real 'gut' feeling.  But if they can "tolerate" 
|> other's wishes to be homosexual, can you "tolerate" their right to 
|> view it as "bad"? 

All you are saying here is that the world contains bigots.

Before the Second World War, there were people who professed to find
it disgusting when Christians and Jews married, and who tried to
sanitize their feelings by insisting that this had nothing to do with
religion.

After the Second World War, there were people in the US who professed
to finding inter-racial marriage disgusting, and who insisted that
this had nothing to do with racism.

As we speak, there are South Africans who profess to find the notion
of Blacks in Government frightening and dangerous.   Not from racism
you understand.   Tut tut.   Dear me, no.    Simply because they fear 
"chaos".

In every generation, there are people who find someone or something 
"different" gives them gastric distress, and who insist that their 
feelings are "natural" or "rational" and untainted by any bigotry.

So what?   Are the rest of us obliged to go along with the scam?
We may let them alone in their bigotry, but there is no reason to
organize society around it.

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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: SILVERI@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Silver Tiger)
Subject: Re: Has anyone HERE changed? (WAS: Analogy betwixt....
Organization: Queens University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:36:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.213801.13710@nwnexus.WA.COM>
elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
 
>
>In article <92352.112810ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu>
>     The Dreamer <ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>     Perhaps they were bisexuals all along and just realized it after
>>interacting with usenet.
>
>   *Sigh*  Here we go again.  No, Dreamer, there are people who chose,
>on a rational basis, to experiment with homosexuality and, having tried
>it, discovered they liked it.  These people *chose* their bisexuality,
>they did not "realize" they were bisexual.
 
I'm going to have to echo what Elf said above, since I'm one of those
people.  I thought about my sexuality, realized that heterosexuality,
although a good option, was going to get to the point where it wouldn't
likely serve me anymore.
 
Regarding interaction with another man:  I tried it, I *liked* it.
Over time, my automatic response to the male of the species is
improving, and equalizing with my response to the female of the
species.  *chuckle*  And I'm catching myself drooling...er...
aesthetically appreciating males a lot more.
 
I can say without any doubt at all, that years back, I was indeed
heterosexual, knew it, identified as such, and was happy as that.
Now I'm bisexual, and happy with that _choice_.
 
I have a theory that some people are very aware of what their
sexuality is early on.  Another group of people may have a very large
amount of orientation inertia, ie, they're fairly unlikely to change.
If you combine these groups, you get someone who likely adheres
pretty well to the 'born that way' argument.  It's perfectly valid,
and I accept it as such.  However, I seem to have been born hetero,
identified as such, but didn't have a lot of inertia sticking my
orientation in one fixed area of the Kinsey Scale.
 
>   Homosexuality and bisexuality have to be judged on their own merit
>and not on a deterministic etiology.  Those of us who *chose* to be
>bisexual deserve as much respect, and for all the same reasons, that
>born queers do.
 
Thanks Elf, ditto what you said there.
 
--
|  ..   Ian Silver/Silver Tiger/AgTiger      | Modem:  1-613-542-5110    ..
| .OO.  Email: SILVERI@QUCDN.QueensU.CA      | Landmail: PO BOX 333     .OO.
| O/\O  ____   Fido:  1:249/2 | 69:3005/4    |           Fineview, NY   O/\O
|  --   \/\/   NBCS:  B7ft+g(+)k+(+)s+(+)vmp |           13640-0333      --
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 19 Dec 1992 00:55:39 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> Just in case Mr Smith has succeeded in confusing anyone, I would like
> to point out the full context here.

Jon,
I wasn't trying to intentionally confuse you or anyone else.  When we
communicate with writing and not verbal words, it's easy to get confused.
I thought you were saying *you* personally did what you were 
hypothetically saying.  Once you cleared that up, there is no more
confusion on it.  Cool your shorts. 

> Given the sensitiviities of the issue, I have to say that I feel 
> that this is one of the questionable examples of inserting an insinuation
> into a debate that I have seen for a long time.   I'd like Mr Smith
> to explain exactly what he's up to.

Hopefully what I just said answered that.  Now, would you, Mr. Livesey,
like to explain what I should be careful about? 

Walter
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 20 Dec 1992 05:07:22 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gtrubINNr26@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > Just in case Mr Smith has succeeded in confusing anyone, I would like
|> > to point out the full context here.
|> 
|> Jon,
|> I wasn't trying to intentionally confuse you or anyone else.  When we
|> communicate with writing and not verbal words, it's easy to get confused.
|> I thought you were saying *you* personally did what you were 
|> hypothetically saying.  Once you cleared that up, there is no more
|> confusion on it.  Cool your shorts. 

Well, that's not quite correct, now is it?   You actually carried on 
this little game for two complete turns.   First asking me if I was
a teacher, and then, even after I explained quite fully what I was
saying, insisting on telling me I was out of line if I was giving moral
lessons to other people's children.

|> 
|> > Given the sensitiviities of the issue, I have to say that I feel 
|> > that this is one of the questionable examples of inserting an insinuation
|> > into a debate that I have seen for a long time.   I'd like Mr Smith
|> > to explain exactly what he's up to.
|> 
|> Hopefully what I just said answered that.  Now, would you, Mr. Livesey,
|> like to explain what I should be careful about? 

With pleasure.   You should be very careful not to insert this kind
of insinuation into a debate.    After you asked me if I was a teacher,
and I replied that what I was talking about was the kind of conflict that
might arise "were I a teacher", there really was no excuse at all for
continuing to play dumb.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Anybody named BOB
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:00:57 GMT

In article <1gqvghINN4i5@life.ai.mit.edu> ric@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Graffiti 404-972-4999) writes:
>In article <92352.002955KXS137@psuvm.psu.edu> <KXS137@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>? do U call A GaY NamEd Bob
>>
>> Oral Roberts
>
>And what is Oral's nickname?
>
>                                          Blow-job Bob.
>
>("I don't hate televangelists, I just like making fun of them....")
What do you call a televangelist with no pecker?
Oral Roberts

Ever wonder why they call those pills that make you slow and dull a
QUAYLElude?

What do you call a gay man wearing a leisure suit?
Hetero.

Sorry guys, I could not resist.

Lost Boy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Has anyone HERE changed? (WAS: Analogy betwixt....
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:38:01 GMT

In article <92352.112810ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu>
     The Dreamer <ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>>>  I just wanted to know if anyone who posts here WAS a homosexual and now
>>>IS a heterosexual?

>>   No, but I know of a few heterosexuals who've become bisexual because
>>of their interaction with usenet...

>     Perhaps they were bisexuals all along and just realized it after
>interacting with usenet.

   *Sigh*  Here we go again.  No, Dreamer, there are people who chose,
on a rational basis, to experiment with homosexuality and, having tried
it, discovered they liked it.  These people *chose* their bisexuality,
they did not "realize" they were bisexual.

>This entire question of choice/no-choice is clouded due to the
>existence of bisexuals.

   And well it should be.  Arguing that "I can't help it" doesn't do
you any good; it sounds like whining and whining doesn't get you much
respect from your enemies.  And, someday soon, if we really are homing
in on the biological aspects of homosexuality, someone will be able to
put a hand around your shoulder and say "But we can help you."

   Homosexuality and bisexuality have to be judged on their own merit
and not on a deterministic etiology.  Those of us who *chose* to be
bisexual deserve as much respect, and for all the same reasons, that
born queers do.

         Elf !!!
--
Elf Sternberg.   (elf@halcyon.com)
Due to a bureaucratic error, you are offered the job of county coroner.
You seriously consider accepting the job because it offers:          __
A. Unclaimed watches and wedding rings.                              \/
B. Gold fillings and bridges.
C. Free blood.
D. A constantly changing array of new friends who aren't at all stuffy
   about what happens to their genitalia.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:58:06 EST
From: <MXW135@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody i
Distribution: usa
 <11DEC199211232238@zeus.tamu.edu> <18132@autodesk.COM>


In article <18132@autodesk.COM>, owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) says:

>In article <11DEC199211232238@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Dec8.232542.24540@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>,
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes...

>>       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.
From: ric@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Graffiti 404-972-4999)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: WHY?
Date: 19 Dec 1992 03:10:10 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

Why are some of you even reading this group if homosexuality is "ewwww"?

-- 
 -Ric     __                       __                                 __
          \/   ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu  \/   Graffiti BBS  404 972-4999    \/
                 GEnie: GRAFFITI      PO Box 3176, Lithonia GA 30058
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:24:49 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <BzExnu.n0K@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>Actually, I don't think I know of anyone who says that racism and
>heterosexism are equally bad.  Comparable, yes.  Equally bad in a
>*moral* sense, yes.  IMHO, the effects of racism are presently far
>more severe than those of heterosexism.

Economically, perhaps, but not socially.  It's probably the rare gay person
who has no hesitation coming out of the closet.  The fact that we even need
the term "coming out of the closet" implies that society as a whole is
uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality.  There is a tremendous pressure
on gays to conform, at least outwardly, with the heterosexual norm, which in
my opinion is an extremely serious problem.  The fear and hostility which is
so often exhibited toward gays is far greater and frequent than is shown
towards racial minorities.  The norm in our society today is to consider
racism a bad thing, while homophobia is still largely considered normal.  The
development of a tolerant attitude in society towards gays has come a long
way and is still moving in the right direction, but it's not nearly as far
along as tolerance between races.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Is it actually 10%??
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:28:47 GMT

In article <1h0jo5INNk2j@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>> >What you need to understand about that is, most 'mainstream' Christians 
>> >are not into "vigorous and vehement opposition", in either direction.
>> 
>> That's why they're part of the problem, rather than part of the
>> solution.
>
>Of course, calling them "part of the problem" as a way of encouraging 
>them to get involved isn't terribly effective.  Logical, yes; effective,
>no.  And *that* is part of the problem.  

If I understood your analysis of this situation (posted in soc.motss),
mainstream Christians aren't *going* to get involved.

>> Of course they do.  They remain silent while their faith is wielded as
>> a weapon by a group of anti-gay zealots.  
>
>When people view *both* sides of a debate as "zealots", they tend to 
>just step back and not want to be involved. 

My point is that I'd think they *would* want to be involved if they
thought that they were being misrepresented.

>> If they really felt that it
>> was wrong to persecute people on the basis of their sexual
>> orientation, they would do something about the people who were
>> maligning their good name.
>
>*if* they did, they would; but they don't; so you must think 
>that they don't really feel that persecution is wrong?

I think that they must not object to the views that are being put
forth in the name of "Christianity."  I have difficulty seeing how
they could object, given the circumstances.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard for Libertarians
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:42:14 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) writes:

| I notice in the platform that the NLP is advocating the gold
| standard. Why don't they do the libertarian thing and have no
| national currency? Have banks and private institutions 
| provide their own currencies. 

From the platform:

We recognize that  government control over  money and banking  is  the
primary cause of  inflation and depression.   Individuals  engaged  in
voluntary exchange should  be  free  to  use  as  money  any  mutually
agreeable commodity or  item, such as  gold coins denominated by units
of weight.  We  therefore call for the repeal of all legal tender laws
and of all  compulsory governmental units  of account.  We support the
right to private  ownership of and  contracts for gold.  We  favor the
elimination of all  government fiat money  and all  government  minted
coins.  All restrictions  upon the private  minting of coins should be
abolished so that  minting will be open to the competition of the free
market.

As I read this, there would be no national currency, and no government
production of currency.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Date: 15 Dec 1992 02:08:06 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg8.corp.sun.com

In article lS@engin.umich.edu, positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
> When money was backed by gold, it had a definite value. 

In gold only. 

The demand for currency and gold fluctuated then at differing rates
just as it would today. However, the financial damaged that will occur
with this government-enforced policy will be multiplied by the
corresponding difference in the size of the business cycle.

> had two big advantages: First, it had a strong foundation. People were
> confident that they could always trade their money for a fixed quantity
> of gold. Now, they have no such assurance. Our money system is like
> a skyscraper built on a foundation of sand. 

What was the last financial catastrophy credited to the absence of
a gold standard?

The only market participants that are uncomfotable with a currency
that has no inherent value are the liberatarians, an admitted minority
of the marketplace.

Kris
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Gold Standard? No! (Was: Re: Views? :)
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:22:08 GMT

Hey folks... Been away from the group for awhile.  Here are my thoughts on
the gold standard:

1) In less developed nations with problems of spiraling inflation, having a
gold standard can lend credibility to a currency that might never be taken
seriously otherwise, however conservative the government intends to be. 
Or, they could simply tie their currency to a more stable one.

2) The LAST thing we, in the United States, with virtually no inflation or
deflation, need is to base our national currency on a commodity found
primarily in South Africa and the former Soviet Union.  These two areas are
certainly not among the most stable, nor among the most friendly to our
interests...  The United States cannot afford to have its inflation levels
set by these areas either intentionally or through breakdown of these
societies.

3) Having a truly stable currency is best achieved by a conservative Fed that
doesn't try to manipulate the real interest rate.  So IF your primary goal
is currency stability, you're best off pushing for strict regulations on
Fed policy regarding money growth.  That way, there is no discrepancy between
expected and actual inflation.  Also, this approach is more flexible in that
it allows for a real debate on how the money supply should grow.  There are
many conservative economists who are appalled by the gold standard, because
they believe the money supply should grow evenly with the economy - like
keeping an even level of grease in an expanding machine... In either case,
there are better remedies than commodity standards, especially foreign
commodities.

-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis)
Subject: Re: libertarian societies
Keywords: libertarian, somalia
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:47:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.175253.13032@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:
>From: albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea)
>Subject: Re: libertarian societies
>Keywords: libertarian, somalia
>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:52:53 GMT
>In article <1992Dec8.180133.635@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, lbs@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (lester.b.shupe) writes:
>|> Someone earlier in this newsgroup was looking for
>|> examples of libertarian societies.  Is the country
>|> once known as Somalia the closest example?
>|> 
>|> After reading the 1992 National Platform of the
>|> Libertarian Party it seems to be the closest match.
>|> If not, then why not?
>|> 
>|> Les
>|> 
>
>What Somalia resembles most closely is the ultimate unraveling of society
>so eloquently illustrated in by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.  Somalia is
>a perfect example of a society where reverence for the notion of personal 
>property has been eradicated and the use of force i.e. government has 
>become the norm for achieving goals.
>
>Non-libertarians tend to have a hard time dealing with changing systems
>and "process".  Stasis is always an illusion - a society is always moving
>in some direction.  People that ask, as this questioner does, for
>examples of libertarian societies are exihibiting a typical misunderstanding.
>Libertarianism is not about an end state as are utopian systems.
>Libertarianism is about the rules of order for a civil society as it
>evolves and discovers its path.  

Let me rephrase the question then. Which states currently operate according 
to Libertarian principles and/or implement policies both social and 
economical that are consistent with Libertarianism? 

Admittedly stasis would be a inconsistent with Libertarian ideas that state 
everything should be left to individuals. But unless Libertarianism would 
fail change would be largely of a non-political nature, with the underlying 
political principle remaining largely unchanged.

Reinder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian