HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: A Few Questions
Date: 21 Dec 1992 10:52 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

I am trying to gain some insight into the subject of homosexuality because I
do not understand you.  I am not trying to be offensive, I just do not know the
answers to my questions.
1.  Would you be heterosexual if you had a choice?
2.  What terms do you find offensive?  I thought I knew until I heard of Queer
    Nation.
3.  I never understood what the problem was with Perot's comments in the
    election.  He said that he did not want gays in his cabinet because he 
    wanted to avoid controversy.  After this he was insulted and shouted down
    several times.  I felt this did not look good for the homosexual community,
    that someone should have asked him to clarify his position instead of 
    insulting him.  Can someone comment on this?
4.  Finally, are you able to have heterosexual sex and enjoy it?

Once again, I am not trying to be offensive and I am not doing any type of
study.  I ask these questions merely because I do not understand.

Charley



Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Just a question!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 08:19:58 GMT

In article <1hjjdiINN2i7@pith.uoregon.edu> dise@oregon.uoregon.edu writes:

>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,

How could you argue otherwise?  If the use of the term does not mean
to suggest that it's bad, then it's not much of an insult, is it?

>or are you  
>saying that homosexuals and men don't have children...?

I'm saying that objections are frequently raised to its usage,
primarily by bisexuals and women.  (Most male homosexuals I know don't
find it offensive.)  

>Anyone who goes looking for an insult will find one.

Perhaps, but the conclusion is not that nothing is insulting.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Friday, 1 Jan 1993 12:28:51 EST
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject:    Lifestyle Choices

Sorry, deleted the attribution.

>It has been widely observed that the Sea Otter demonstrates
>such behavior.  I was at the San Diego Sea World Sea Otter exhibit and
>observed along with about 40 other people, the servivors of the Exxon
>Valdiz disaster freely performing felatio on each other while
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>floating around on their backs in their tank.

And when they start charging for these services and placing ads in
the Advocate they will then have selected one out of the many, many
lifestyles available to homosexuals.

Jack Carroll
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.tasteless,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:46:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1haritINN7vc@pith.uoregon.edu> dise@oregon.uoregon.edu writes:
>In article <21DEC199210521002@venus.tamu.edu> crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE,  
>CHARLES L.) writes:
>> 1.  Would you be heterosexual if you had a choice?
>

I have never wanted to be heterosexual.  I didn't know about
my homosexuality, well the whole picture, until I was 25 yrs.
old, but in all that time I couldn't even pretend to be something
I knew I was not.  So I guess I knew long that I was NOT heterosexual
long before I knew I was gay.



>
>> 2.  What terms do you find offensive? 

I find the term 'tolerated' to be the most offensive word
in the book.

I hate homosexual and perfer to be called gay.  Actually I perfer,
if you are going to call me anything to be called, that handsome fat
man with the nice eyes.......who is also gay.

>
>> 3.  I never understood what the problem was with Perot...
>

Perot was a quiter.......I really think there are many more 
reasons not to understand Perot than just the gay issue.

>
>> 4.  Finally, are you able to have heterosexual sex and enjoy it?


Never have had it and will never have it.  One woman I know has talked
with me about having a child and me being the father.  We agree on
most of the subject except I will not do it the heterosexual way.  I
just cannot.  That is something I have never been.  So when I do father
a child it will be the dixie cup way.

>
>One more thing, Charlie.  Reading the replies to your message, I notice very  
>few people actually answered your question -- they spent all their time  
>talking about "the community" and how "gay people" think and feel.  This  
>community doesn't have a spokesman and isn't very homogenous... take any  
>expansive comments with a grain of salt.

Charlie.......a question, are you able to have homosexual sex and 
enjoy it?

>
>David.


Bil Snodgrass III
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: WHY?
Date: 25 Dec 92 04:47:23 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <0Fm8VB1w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:
>        >At one time I thought that sticking my tongue into another 
>        >person's mouth was the grossest thing I'd ever heard of.  
>You were close, but several things are more gross, namely:        
>1. Sticking your tongue up someone's ANUS
>2. Sticking your tongue up a DOG'S anus
>3. Being a homosexual

4. Being Phillip Stromer

>        >But y'know, kissing turns out to be a lot of fun.
>So is sex, but it ain't worth the risk of AIDS.  I advocate
>that everyone STOP having sex, right now.  That goes for
>everyone, singles and married persons.  It will also fix
>the over population problem.  I favor negative population
>growth.

Good idea. Why don't you start things off and kill yourself? 

(Actually, I'm kind of glad that Phillip here isn't going to be breeding....)

>NOT!  Most men will tell you "eeewwww!!!" at the thought of anal
>sex.  But thanx for playing.  Better luck next time.

That's funny, I and a couple of my (female) SO's very much enjoyed anal sex. 
And explain the rather substantial amount of it in mainstream pornography?

>Oral sex?   EEEWWWW!!!

Now, before this, during the weeks I've been reading this froup, I had simply
thought that Herr Stromer didn't like homosexuals. Now I find out that he has
no taste (so to speak) when it comes to heterosexual acts as well.

Ya learn something new every day.
 
>I'm too stupid to learn, so why should I bother to read?  Gimme a break! 

You said it, we didn't......

>        >You've quite obviously decided that gays are "bad" because they 
>        >do things you think are sick. 
>EEEWWWW!!!  GIF!!!  GIF!!!        

Try alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.

-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8808 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11225
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:49:23 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody i

In article <1992Dec31.153208.6085@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
says:
>
>]Gays constitute about ten percent of the population.  This is a very
>]significant percentage.
>
>This is a bogus number, also. It is based on a Kinsey study where the
>subjects were self-selected, and where gayness was defined as anyone
>who admitted any single instance in their life of any homosexual
>activity.

Utterly untrue. Do you just make this stuff up?

>A better number is 2 - 2.5%.

"Better" because you like it more?

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University, or use-ta be
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 aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 18:21:03 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DCE1F81030614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 18:22:08 GMT

In article <1hvo7gINNc62@hpcol.col.hp.com> Walter Smith, smithw@col.hp.com
writes:
>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>> 
>> An interesting parallel, but incompletely stated.  Smokers are not
>> persecuted, they are only prohibited from engaging in the act in public. 
If
>> homosexuals were treated as the same way, then there would be no problem. 
>> By smoking in my presence I am, in effect, being forced to smoke.  This is
>> the fundamental justification for the ban on public smoking, and there is
no
>> parallel in the issue of homosexuality.  Therefor, the parallel does not
>> apply.
>
>I agree with what you're saying here.  What has me confused is the
difference 
>between what you're saying (let us do it in private without discrimination) 
>and what some of the other gay posters have said; that 'toleration' is 
>a 4letter word.  

I've not gotten that sense from the posts that I have read, but I know that
the sentiment is out there.

I'm an advocate of the form of tolerance that says "Do what thou wilt, but
do no harm."  

Many think that to be tolerant somehow implies encouraging something they
find distasteful, or even immoral... That they are justified in actively
discouraging that behavior.

Those gays that are unsatisfied with being tolerated are just as intolerant
as those who won't tolerate them.  I believe that you have to allow for
other people's attitudes up to the point where they hurt someone directly
(either as an individual or as a group), or otherwise treat them unfairly.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | tFreedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you offa.
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 aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
XXXDate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 22:40:42 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A768C4FA80030614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:41:59 GMT

In article <1269@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
> Simply placing homosexuality along side heterosexuality in an "equal time"
> is a defacto value assessment.

That is a position that could only be taken by one who considers the absence
of a negative "value assessment" to be unacceptable.

> By giving equal time you're in effect
> saying there is no difference in the two.

Of course there are differences between the two, that couldn't be more
obvious.  By teaching that both exist your are teaching that there is a
difference.  What they =aren't= teaching is anything about "value"
judgements of them.

The only people I hear making a fuss are those who only want their kids
exposed to the concept of homosexuality if it can have a =negative= judgment
attached to it.

> Why do we cover heterosexuality in these courses?  In the hopes of
preventing
> unwanted pregnancies, see kids stick this in here get a baby  bad, don't
do
> it, if you do wrap this in one of these before before you stick  not great
> but better than nothing.  Can't cover the subject without talking about
> heterosexual behavior, it's that simple.  

You are mixing apples and oranges here.  The "Children of the Rainbow"
curriculum (and others like it) is =not= a sex education class.  It is a
course of study designed to reduce the level of irrational hatred and
prejudice.  That's as different as biology and social studies.

What amazes me is that so many people have the nerve to publically say, in
effect, "But, it's making it impossible for me to teach the =right=
prejudices to my children."  Even if it were (it isn't), it's a little scary
that so many people are comfortable with fighting so publically for their
right to do so. I think is shows how little regard they have for anybody's
values but their own.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | tFreedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you offa.
From: jbibb@eng.auburn.edu (John S. Bibb)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Reply-To: jbibb@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:19:30 GMT

In article 726175240@nap.amoco.com, dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.152437.28128@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) write
> 	 
> >
> Some forget that God is intolerant of sin; He is a God of love AND
> JUSTICE. 
> =========================================================================
> David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
> Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
> Any opinions expressed are my own!



An it harm none shall be the whole of the Law.

Love gives freely of itself, intolerance gives nothing, it only takes away.

J.
From: an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Date: 24 Dec 1992 16:54:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) says:

>1.  Would you be heterosexual if you had a choice?

No.

>2.  What terms do you find offensive?  I thought I knew until I heard of Queer
>    Nation.

Any use of language that condemns one people in order to make another
feel somehow morally superior or better than anyone else. Celebrate our
diversity, don't put us down for being different.

>3.  I never understood what the problem was with Perot's comments in the
>    election.  He said that he did not want gays in his cabinet because he 
>    wanted to avoid controversy.  After this he was insulted and shouted down
>    several times.  I felt this did not look good for the homosexual community,
>    that someone should have asked him to clarify his position instead of 
>    insulting him.  Can someone comment on this?

Let's not have Jews on the Cabinet either... you know how testy they
get. And women... oh, Lord, that time of the month, you know.... and how
about anyone not Christian? We can't have squabbles over that! Heavens!
And African-Americans? ("You people.") Controversy.... <tsk><tsk> Why,
let's just be safe and nominate only middle-aged-to-elder white anglo
protestant men.
                        <note for the humor impaired: this is sarcasm>

>4.  Finally, are you able to have heterosexual sex and enjoy it?

Tell ya what, I'll try het sex if you will let me show you how great sex
with a man can be. Write for my phone number....

 __
 \/ Ric
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:39:31 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1h7t7cINNklb@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.161223.23548@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec22.103116.11450@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>|> 
>|> >   Personally, someone who collect Simeon Smith art or Bodil doesn't
>|> >bother me in the least.  I might be a little leery of letting him/her
>|> >near my kids and/or dog, but then I'd be a little leery of letting even
>|> >friendly Mormons near my kids and/or dog, too...
>|> 
>|> I would guess that if some people "might be a little leery of letting
>|> friendly Gays near their kids", and then they act on that feeling by
>|> not allowing Gays to be in the Boy Scouts or maybe in some other places,
>|> like in schools as teachers, you and some of your friends would start
>|> crying: DISCRIMINATION, DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!  
>
>Well, if I heard Mr Sternberg proposing to ban Mormons from the Boy
>Scouts, I would certainly think it discriminatory.   But I don't hear
>him saying that, do you?

Did I say that he said that?

>
>And that just leaves us with Gays, kids, and Boy Scouts.   So what are
>you saying, Mr Pinkas? 
>

Exactly what I said before.



>jon.

aap
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS: St. Louis Law
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:24:37 GMT

In article <C02tCq.Inx@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <30DEC199202252599@zeus.tamu.edu> olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:
>
>>Am I making too much sense??
>
>Oh, no.  Trust me, you're in *no* danger there.


Trust Pierce on this one. He is talking from experience.



>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 

AAP
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Gays, Straights, Harassment, and the Military
Date: 26 Dec 92 13:50:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

A question to all those who feel that the (possible) harassment of
straights by gays is a good reason to bar gays from the military:

Why is the (actual) harassment of women by straight men (Tailhook and
many other documented cases) not a good reason to bar straight men from
the military?

Anyone who agrees that straight men *should* be barred from the
military is at least being consistent, but I figure the chances of
actually finding someone who takes this stand are about the same as
actually changing someone's mind on Usenet--namely, nil.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Raises a new question (Re: Is sexuality chosen or inborn?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:37:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.151006.19429@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <31DEC199221142256@zeus.tamu.edu> olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:
>>
>>        How come I see no attempts to define _consenting adults_ with respect
>>        to homosexual behaviour.  This qualifier is seems to be a weak attempt
>>        to say that Heteros, and Homos are the only allowable _sexual
>>	orientations_ thus implies the ability to discriminate against other
>>        "alternative" _sexual orientations_ such as bestiality, necrophilia,
>>        and most of all pedophilia. I wonder what label a person would have
>>        if his _orientation_ is "makin' luv" to a beehive?? And would (or
>>        should) this _orientation_ be protected by law??
>
>    Only if it's being discriminated against.


	Many gays complain that their orientation is discriminated against
	by omission--that is, since there aren't homosexual characters in
	books,movies, whatever--they are being discriminated against.

	Likewise, you don't see much talk of animal/man sex, molestation,
	etc.  In other words,this doesn't hold water.



>    My problem with people being sexual with children or animals is that
>its consensuality is very suspect.  As for necrophilia, it's not for me,
>but that's as far as my concern goes.


	What about post-mortem (it's still your corpse).


>>        Is doin' a beehive a preference or orientation?
>>        How could one decide what to protect, preference or orientation, or
>>        both with respect to anti-discrimination laws?
>
>    For me, the criterion is whether it's consensual and whether no one is
>harmed.


	Well,that's the rub, isn't it?  A lot of people feel that
	homosexuals are mentally ill (and the rabble at the pride marches
	doesn't help) and are *unable to give consent*.  

	Plus, there are people who feel that children *can* give consent. 
	Mostly, these are people who want to legitimize raping children.
	Likewise, people who claim that homosexuals are not ill and
	can give consent tend to be homosexuals.

-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---

		   	     Pain teaches.
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: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:30:38 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec31.221705.19612@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>I have never condemned anyone in this discussion. I have
>condemned certain lifestyles as being wrong not people. There is
>a big difference.

    This justification by you and Walter, along with many others, is
getting really old.  Many other posters have pointed out the hypocrisy in
claiming this belief.  IMHO, it is just a tool to let you feel more
justified in your prejudicial feelings.

    However...I, personally, don't care if you think this orientation is
wrong ("orientation is wrong" ... it even sounds bizzare).  To me,
"tolerance" is not the "four-letter word" Walter attributes to many gays.
You can hate and/or condemn us from afar, once we have the same - not
special - rights that you take for granted.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.