HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rks@cscns.com (gisle j benediktsson)
Subject: Colorado Boycott -- Take Two
Organization: Community_News_Service
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:31:01 GMT

Just a few thoughts on the Colorado boycott --

As one who lives in Colorado Springs, I can attest to the preponderance
of right-wing, fundie nutbags in this area and I agree that their 
actions deserve a response. 

However, those who are supporting the boycott seem to have skipped
one relevant point. That point is the reason why I am *not* supporting
the boycott -- even though I was opposed to Amendement 2 and believe it
should be repealed. 

I recently got my hands on some of the fundamentalist newsletters and
so on. All these people consider the passing of amendment 2 to be a 
real victory for God and country -- and of course from the pervasive
decadence that they all seem to feel is so threatening. They feel 
*very* good about what happened in Colorado and yearn for more of the
same. They believe that the Colorado vote was a message from their God --
showing them that they are on the right track. As time goes on, they 
say, other states will likewise see the light and take their state
for the Lord. (hmmm. gag. puke.)

So -- in light of that belief -- they quite naturally want to have all
of their people support Colorado -- financially and otherwise. They
want *their people* to visit here, open businesses here and hold 
their conventions here. 

The implications of that, of course, is that as more of them move here
and start businesses here, the more power they will have. 

Imagine this: Colorado becomes the cornerstone of their hatred, giving
even *more* legitimacy to their creepy legislation and their mission
of converting everyone to their way of thought. As it happens in Colorado,
it will have even more legitimacy throughout the nation. The hatemongers
will come out of the woodwork and start passing the same kind of shit
all over the country. 

It seems that a more logical approach would be to target business owners
in the Colorado Springs area (that is where the majority of the
support came from) and boycott *those* people. Once the prominent names
are known (such as Will Perkins of CFV) and their business connections
are known, it will impact those who are deserving of the boycott. It 
also follows that out-of-state people (fundies and other such scum) are
not going to bother doing their business all the way in Colorado. This
is something that would have to be done *within* the state. 

I, for one, intend to start investigating these people and make as much 
noise as possible in both the media and other public events, letting
people know who they are and what they are up to. Focus on the Family, 
just to cite one group, have involved themselves in a myriad of local
issues and businesses and that needs to be addressed within this 
community. 

The boycott in general is painting everyone with the same tar and ultimately
will affect the "good guys" as well as the bad. That seems counterproductive
at best and stupid at worst. 


gisle jb


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: One last comment on Funny Boiz in Military
Summary: He's just been outed :-)
Organization: The Sharpstown Liberation Army
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:37:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.144318.48536@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <15DEC199207001807@zeus.tamu.edu> Zeke@Gays.should.be.in.the.military.so.they.can.be.casualties.of.war writes:
>
>    [homophobic ranting deleted]
>
>>The bad thing about the BAN is that it DOES indirectly protect homos from
>>serving in the military. I think that HOMOS should have an equal chance at
>>getting their ass shot off.  At least when their ass is shot off, Daddy
>>has one less place to put his pee-pee.
>
>    *Yawn*  More flamebait.  Is it my imagination, or are more of these
>twits coming out of the woodwork than usual?
>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>|The Zekester, PRO HETERO and proud of it!!                   |
>
>    Not proud enough to use your name, though, you cowardly closet case.

Not proud enough to even hide his name, either -- using the "v" option in
rn, it's easy to see we're dealing with one olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu, a/k/a
Zeke E. Pez.  I wouldn't recommend mail-bombing him, or anything similarly
juvenile, though -- he has a right to his opinion, however regressive it is,
and besides, why shouldn't we sit back and let *him* do all the work of
destroying what little credibility he has in this newsgroup?  I know I have
other more important things to attend to than the homophobic ravings of some
wet-behind-the-ears Corps wanna-be...




-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
  (These are *my* opinions, not Rice's.  Rice University has their own ideas,
  and they'd have to pay me a *lot* more if they wanted me to speak for 'em.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lambertn@tirith.carleton.edu (Alas, my love, you do me wrong...)
Subject: Re: God I hate you all
Organization: Carleton College
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:06:00 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.40    
Reply-To: LAMBERTN@CARLETON.EDU
X-Posted-From: tirith.acc.carleton.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

rmcgrath@unix1.tcd.ie (robert patrick mcgrath) writes:


>This is a really god awful group.

Yes. I imagine it would seem awful to the kind of god a person like you would
have.

>God will burn you all.

Ha.  My Goddess would rip your God's cosmic testicles off before he got
anywhere near me.

>A hot pokerup the ass is the order of the day!!

You want fries with that? 

>I hate you all and I will see you all go to hell

How sweet.  We've just met, and already you're inviting me home with you.  

~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
| Nikita "Kii" Lambert           |        LOVE IS THE LAW  --Queer Nation     |
| major: Classical Studies       ~--------------------------------------------~
~--------------------------------~   Gin I were a baron's heir,               |
|lambertn@morgul.acc.carleton.edu|   And could I braid wi' gems your hair,    |
~--------------------------------~   And make ye brauw as ye are fair,        |
|"O I forbid ye, maidens a'      |   Lassie, would you lo'e me?               |
| That wear gowd in your hair    ~--------------------------------------------~ 
| To come or gae by Carterhaugh  |  Love and scandal are the best sweeteners  | 
| For young Tam Lin is there..." |      of tea.                               |
~--------------------------------~--------------------------------------------~
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:29:07 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gnajuINNrj6@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > 
|> > Segregation's ostensible reason for separating children in education
|> > was that blacks had "certain characteristics" which would interfere
|> > with the education of white children.   Once black and white children
|> > began to be integrated, those characteristics were shown to be myth.
|> 
|> While there are similarities between this and the current subject, 
|> there are a lot of differences.  No one (except maybe those 
|> on the extreme right) want to segregate children of gay parents from
|> other kids.   

But they do want to segregate these "other kids" - parenthetically, do we
*really* know which are which? - from information about how all the world 
is not just a mommy and a daddy.

Why are they trying to prevent this information from getting out?    What's
their motive?

|> 
|> > What's really going on here is not that people think too much information
|> > is confusing.   The real issue is a competition about who will supply
|> > that information.     
|> 
|> Partially, you;re right.  And you are trying to compete with parents about 
|> what their children will be taught.  Are you *sure* this is a good idea? 
|> What is going to happen when a kid is taught at school that it is OK, 
|> and at home they are taught it is wrong?   

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.

I think that you may be underestimating the ability of children to
discriminate among differing sources of information.   I was politely
thrown out of Sunday School at the age of five for asking embarassing
questions.    I found their Cosmology lame and childish compared to
what I was hearing from my High School siblings, and said so.   Should
I have been denied access to High School information on the grounds that
it would just "confuse" me?

jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: One last comment on Funny Boiz in Military
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:32:08 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <15DEC199207001807@zeus.tamu.edu>, Zeke@Gays.should.be.in.the.military.so.they.can.be.casualties.of.war writes:
|> 
|> 
|> I can see some good and bad things associated with the current ban on
|> homos in the military.
|> 
|> The good thing is that it now gives any man (hetero or homo) the choice
|> to join the military or not join the military.

Right, segregation had its good points, too.   Banning blacks
from the front of the bus gave them the opportunity to ride in
the back.

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8178 alt.politics.clinton:18874 alt.rush-limbaugh:11925
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 18 Dec 1992 17:11 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1gthssINNciu@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
| 
|NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.
|Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,
|nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
|districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statue, regulation, ordinance
|or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
|practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of,
|or enable any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
|status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.
|This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

	Doesn't this, in a round-a-bout way, imply that homosexuals 
/cannot/ be discriminated against, since by singling out a person as Homosexual
automatically classifies them in a minority group.

	I gives them the status of an /unprotected/ minority, but still a
minority.  Therefore, while the ammendment tries to prevent minority
status, it actually codifies it.

	If the ammendment said something like, "no one may be distinguished
based on sexual orientation (hetero, homo, or bi), for any legal or hiring
purposes," then it would effectively remove minority status from people
based on sexual orientation.

Gadson
From: esm@ward.che.utexas.edu (Edward Scott Meadows)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A Mother Speaks
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:50:54 GMT
Organization: UT Department of Chemical Engineering

Can someone re-post the original or email it to me.  Somehow I missed
it.  Thanks.
-- 
Edward S. Meadows
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Texas
Austin TX 78721-1062
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 1992 15:55:53 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

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".

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: buckmr@vccsouth19.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: QUEER THEORY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:17:11 GMT

v108jqur@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (ANTHONY PAUL AVERY) writes:

>Hi everyone, I am a graduate student at the State University of New York
>at Buffalo (UB) in American Studies and I am interested in doing some
>research and possibly my thesis on QUEER THEORY or some aspect of it.
>I am requesting help from those of you who have information or know 
>where I can find information (i.e., secondary sources, etc.). Thanks
>a lot.

Well there is an annual CONVENTION on gay studies held every year. I think
there is information on the last one in the Queer Resources Directory at
nifty.andrew.cmu.edu, /pub/QRD/qrd.


-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. 
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"Show me a Black man who is not bitter and I will show you a nigger in need of 
 psychiatric help." --James Baldwin.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Colorado Measure
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:31:13 GMT

	On the subject of the enormous amount of convictions (my damn computer
doesn't let me quote - sorry) : I am under the impression that, since you can 
evict someone on basis of their sexual orientation now, "no questions asked,"
landlords are using this golden opportunity to get rid of everyone that they
don't like. Wacky, huh?

						-jesse fuchs
From: v108jqur@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (ANTHONY PAUL AVERY)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: QUEER THEORY
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:33:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Hi everyone, I am a graduate student at the State University of New York
at Buffalo (UB) in American Studies and I am interested in doing some
research and possibly my thesis on QUEER THEORY or some aspect of it.
I am requesting help from those of you who have information or know 
where I can find information (i.e., secondary sources, etc.). Thanks
a lot.
From: key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 19 Dec 1992 02:37:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


1)  from whence does your definition of right and wrong derive?
	does it have a scientific basis?  is it rational?

2)  ever been in san francisco?  many computer companies?
	la?  most college campuses?

peter li'ir key, just this queer with a few questions
key@soda.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Re: Owen Layne Watson should stop flaming! Because its not nice!
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:58:36 GMT

In article <15DEC199214142736@rigel.tamu.edu>
     olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (WATSON, OWEN LAYNE) writes:

>     Because I re-twist the twisted logic of PRO HOMO propaganda
>into justification for necrophilia, pedophilia, *"beast"-o-philia*
>and other sicko stuff (thus proooovvvvinnng that most of this PRO HOMO
>garbage is nothing more than two-bit logic).

   It's "bestialitity," Owen, dear.  And I have yet to see you
successfully twist the "pro-homosexual" argument to justify
paedophilia, necrophilia, or bestiality.  If you want some *good*
arguments defending necrophilia and bestiality, I've got them, but they
have nothing to do with the right of living humans to interact with one
another however they so choose.

>You weirdo freaks need to realize that if you cannot take my crap that
>I dish out here, then how in the hell do you think you will fair against
>any one who opposes your convictions.

   Oh, we can take it, Owen.  Compared to Clayton Cramer and Daniel J.
Karnes, you're nothing but a two-bit operator in your own right.  And
calling your postmaster *is* dealing with your crap.  By Any Means
Necessary, as the phrase goes.

            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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: WHY?
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:14:13 GMT


In a previous article, ric@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Graffiti 404-972-4999) says:

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

Oh, I think that's simple enough, Ric...

It's because this wimpy assholes don't have the balls to walk up to a 
real live queer and spout their garbage...

The panty-waisted little candyasses perfer the reletive anonimity of the
net, because they are gutless.

>-- 
> -Ric     __                       __                                 __
>          \/   ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu  \/   Graffiti BBS  404 972-4999    \/
>                 GEnie: GRAFFITI      PO Box 3176, Lithonia GA 30058
>
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   HATE IS NOT A  *         
*                    Kelley L. Miller  / /  \  FAMILY VALUE   *            
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  / /____\                *  
*     GIGO: Gospel In--Garbage Out   /______\                 *
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 16 Dec 1992 14:05:26 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden) writes:
> A curriculum of tolerance goes against what most parents want.  Does
> that mean we shouldn't teach it?
> 
> I don't think so.

You really think most people are against tolerance?  If that were the 
case, there would be exponentially more violence against minorities 
than there already is.  A curriculum of tolerance is something most 
parents would favor.  

Teaching that homosexuality is "OK" is *not* the same thing as
teaching "tolerence".  "Tolerence" is about accepting things you 
may *not* see as "OK".  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.  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"? 

Walter
From: ric@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Graffiti 404-972-4999)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Military Service and 'special rights'
Date: 17 Dec 1992 01:00:45 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu
Summary: If we tried to pass a law....



You know..... if we got together, drafted a bill exempting homosexuals
from military service, and tried to pass it in the legislature....

...Lou Sheldon, Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh would all cry about
how the ho-mo-seck-shu-als were trying to get 'special rights' and
try to shoot it down.

-- 
 -Ric     __                       __                                 __
          \/   ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu  \/   Graffiti BBS  404 972-4999    \/
                 GEnie: GRAFFITI      PO Box 3176, Lithonia GA 30058
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 20 Dec 1992 05:25:26 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gttqnINNfo@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> 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? 

Mr Smith never stops trying, does he?   Now he's trying to insert
into the debate the assumption that Gays haven't tried.

Havn't tried to do what, exactly?

|>                                    (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.

Here we go again.    The religious groups allege that Gays want
quotas.    That's a lie.   Even Mr Smith admits it's a lie (see
<1gtoisINNmfq@hp-col.col.hp.com>).   Mr Smith also admits that
whatever gays say is likely to have little effect on groups like
CFV

	"Yes, CFV made up their own version.  Yes, they used that 
	in their propaganda. And YES, a lot of people bought it.  And 
	yes, they are certainly unlikely to change their claims about 
	what Gays want. That's the whole point, if you would listen 
	and not have it so clear in your mind what I'm saying before 
	I say it."

And we know this is true, because during the election, Gays said 
over and over that what CFV claimed was untrue, and CFV simply went
on making the same claims.   In other words, they *did* try, and it
was ultimately ineffective.

And yet now Mr Smith says that the real problem is that Gays need
to "try".   Apparently, a group like CFV can say what they like about 
Gays, and then it's up to us to disprove it, even though such denials
are likely to be effective.


Reminds me of an old story about LBJ.   During one close election
back in Texas, he told his Campaign Manager to put the word out
that his opponent was sleeping with his farm animals.

"Jeesus, Lyndon" the Manager replied "We'll never get away with
something like that".    "Shit, I know" replied LBJ "I just want
everyone to hear the son of a bitch on the radio trying to deny it.

jon.