HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: "Gay-Bashing" 
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:57:36 GMT

In article <BxyCuE.AB@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:

>To me, laws against "hate-crimes" only serve to try someone on
>the basis of their ideological beliefs, rather than on their criminal
>behavior.

No one is being tried solely for believing that queers are an
abomination upon the earth.  Engaging in physical assault as a
consequence of that belief, however, is another story.

>But to
>charge them based, not on the character of their actions, but on its
>motivation, seems like a dangerous infringement of freedom of thought.

The same way that classifying manslaughter seperately from
first-degree murder infringes on freedom of thought, I suppose.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
Subject: Re: Don't Promote it as a lifestyle
Keywords: idiot, wrong, bible
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:45:50 GMT

In article <Bxxys6.Cw@world.std.com> entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) writes:
>
>Any one want to send that bozo a direct translation from hebrew from
>the verses about David's relationship :-)

Could someone send me this? I have a feeling I'd appreciate it a lot
more than Pat Robertson.. OR any clown...
>
>-- 
>------  Linux, Religion, and electronic shopping all in one place!
>\    / Repent of Bean eating, MS-DOS, OS/2, and windows NT, no sales man
> \  / will hassle you, no priest will sacrifice you. Free 9600 baud download.
>  \/ Call the Virtual World Information Systems BBS at 508-793-9568
From: jfl@panix.com (Jeff Lipton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Jesus was gay and John was his lover. (NOT!)
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:19:45 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC


Actually, Jesus was a lesbian, and Mary Magdalene was her lover.

	- Jeff (in a particularly iconoclastic mood this morning)

-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeffrey F. Lipton, M.D. (jfl@panix.com) |   (212)-982-1219 (home)          |
| 353 E. 17th, #19-E  NY, NY 10003        | "Disobedience was Man's First    |
+------------------------------------------------ Virtue" (Oscar Wilde) -----+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmolinari@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Re: Don't Promote it as a lifestyle
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:35:49 GMT

> In article <BxxAvH.4tF@acsu.buffalo.edu> v115r4q5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey) writes:
>   I understand that homosexuals in today's society face widespread discrimina-
>tion and abuse, but instead of taking a hint, it seems to make the gay commun-
>ity want to be in limelight even more.  America does not wish to see gay pro-
>testors fighting for gay rights and preaching their platform to those who give
>them the time.  While physically assaulting a homosexual may be wrong, these 
>acts are only encouraged by the homosexuals themselves.  If they would take the
>time to realize that their way of living is wrong and more importantly that 
>society doesn't want to hear it falsely declared a lifestyle, they would realize
>the way to combat this discrimination is to adopt a normal kind of lifestyle and
>stop corrupting others.  


> See Old Testament, Leviticus 20:13

	Let's see....

	"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable.  They must be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads."

	Hum... pretty bloody... But, what's this... there's MORE!

	[Leviticus 20:9]
	"If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.  He
has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on hos own head."

	Gee, if we killed everybody that ever said "Goddammit, mom, why can't I
go to the party?", we wouldn't have to worry about queers OR straights!  *-)


	Another thought:  If religious people are so intent on following rules
by the letter, why is it that jail populations are comprised of almost NO
atheists?
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: President Clinton- Does He Really Read Our Letters?
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:23:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

<TOMBOY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes...
>Does anyone know if Newly elected President Clinton really reads
>the letters he receives at the White House? 

Likely better to catch him at the Governor's mansion. Better yet
write his spouse. Come to think of it, it might be better to write
to the their pet Cat "Socks." Might get some attention.

>Why is lifting the ban such a big, scary deal to some?

I've often asked myself why people like to watch horror movies as
well. 

>                                Terry Ash
> 
>******************************************************************************
>The above is my opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the Stanford
>Linear Accelerator Center.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These are the really scary things. I mean we wouldn't be studying matter
if we knew all about it. Split some hither-to-unrecognized binding force
in some stringy wisp of a boson and poof... God knows what might unravel.
<brrrr...>

"Net Work"

I spin my web inexorably
Warp imperceptible,
Woof sublime.

These chosen chains enmesh 
a Fate,
a Birthing to Light Divine.

And from such thoughts
my Being wrought,
of Screaming Star and Blooded Stone...

But, in Time's End
this Flyer's Shape,
shall Know, at last, Hiz home

-- Sdt
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:53:08 GMT

In article <Nov19.020457.19357@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> wallsj@CS.ColoState.EDU (jeffrey joel walls) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.012210.18165@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>>
>>That's a pretty narrow view.  Your state paved the way for
>>other states to enact similar legislation.  Your state just
>>voted my rights away.  It matters to me a great deal, and
>>it does have an impact on my life.  I urge you to read a
>>history of the civil rights movement.
>
> Melinda, I lived in Mississippi for 15+ years.  I was raised there.
> I know first hand (FIRST HAND) that blacks are *still* discriminated
> against.  Sure, the protests and boycotts of the 60's helped at the
> time, but tell that to black people that *still* endure hate crimes.

I suspect that they would point out that Jim Crow laws are dead and
segregated buses, bathrooms, drinking fountains, schools,
neighborhoods ... (ad nauseam) ... no longer exist.  To suggest that
the actions of the time had no lasting effect is lunacy.

> Your boycott may (MAY) be effective in overturning the amendment (but
> I doubt it). However, I can assure you that just because the amendment is
> gone, people won't immediately start accepting gays/lesbians openly.  
> No, change simply does NOT happen that fast, and you are crazy to 
> think that it will.  

You are honestly crazy to think that she thinks this will happen.

>    Yes, there DOES have to be a first step, but I think you should
> brace yourself for the future...it will be a long one.

Thank you, Mr. Wizard.

>>And for those (straight and gay alike) who are not
>>participating in a boycott, I think it would be great if
>>you all would write or stamp "GAY $$$" on your paper money
>>(no, it's not illegal) and write it on your checks if you
>>spend money in Colorado.
>
> No, that would imply that I am gay, and I am definitely straight!

As a Certified Faggot [tm], I give you full permission to write "GAY
MONEY" on your tender.  That makes two of us who have encouraged you
to do so.  Trust me -- no queer is going to be offended by it. :-)

> Wouldn't it be interesting
> if these people actually boycotted their OWN states

How would you propose that someone go about doing that?

> until THEIR states
> obtained Amendments to THEIR state constitutions that would give 
> protected status to gays/lesbians.

I'll do no such thing.  I oppose protected status for gays or
lesbians.  Or even bisexuals, Ghod forbid.

> I bet that such an amendment would
> fail in many of the states.

Fortunately, it already passed in Massachusetts (not to mention
Wisconsin, Hawaii, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont [?]).

> Jeff (just some thoughts)

Really?  Where?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy)
Subject: Re: new ROTC policy includes threat of refund
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:50:42 GMT



> ROTC

It has been one of the underreported bargains in higher education for
some time.  Sign up for ROTC, get them to pay for college, and then,
gosh, remember that you're gay as you're enlisting.  Until now, the
government has threatened but hasn't, to my knowledge, sought to recover
college tuition from anyone who has done this.

Of course, this practice has been going on for some time, so I expect
that the lame-duck timing of this is just a shot fired over the
president-elect's bow because of his position on ending orientation
discrimination in the military.
-- 
-------------------
Daniel A. Murphy        Net:         murphy@well.sf.ca.us
San Francisco, CA       GEnie:       D.MURPHY11
U.S.A.                  MCI Mail:    377-7947
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:45:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

kenw@teal.csn.org (Ken Waletzki) writes:
> Look, I don't care what sexual orientation anybody is. Amendment #2 is
> worng BECAUSE to pass a law that prohibits passing other laws, regardless
> of what it is about, is just wrong.

Amendment #2 is an issue that is confusing a lot of people.  Amendment #1
to the Constitution of the United States begins:

	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...

OH NO!!  THE US CONSTITUTION HAS AN AMENDMENT PROHIBITING PASSING OF OTHER
LAWS!!!  OH NO!!  WE'RE ALL DOOMED!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!

BTW, amendment #2 is just that, an amendment to the Colorado Constitution,
not a law.

Dan Kary
-- 
"And that, my leige, is how we know the earth to be banana shaped."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality is normal?
Keywords: homosexuality
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:39:56 GMT

jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence) writes:

>I was reading an article by Frank Pittman, M.D, in the Jan/Feb 1992 _The
>Family Therapy Networker_ entitled "It's not my Fault" and I thought
>that it might be interesting to all the readers of this newsgroup.

>    "There are efforts afoot to blame all of human behavior on some
>biological factor outside our control, even one's choice of sexual
>partners. Homosexuality has always struck me as a perfectly normal
>capacity of the human animal, something anybody could no and many people
>have done, as adolescents know. Because of the very real horrors of
>homophobic persecution, there has been a frantic search for some
>biological explanation fro this normal activity. From time to time a
>researcher will come up with a finding that might hint that homosexual
>males are biologically different from heterosexual males. The latest
>discovery is that some gay men lack some cells straight men have in
>their hypothalamus, an area that is connected with sexual
>aggressiveness. However flimsy the evidence, biological theories make
>heterosexual males feel safely "normal" and certifiably different from
>homosexual men, who can in turn feel safely "not at fault" for doing
>what feels normal.
>    Theories of biological determinism may be P.C. and may relieve
>adults who have already declared their sexual preference for life, but
>these either/or theories create therapeutic problems for young people
>who discover their normal and universal homosexual capacity before they
>have gotten comfortable with their normal and universal heterosexual
>capacity. They man panic, thinking they have no option but to lead a gay
>life, when they might prefer a straight one. I find people often switch
>back and forth between gay and straight, or both, and homosexuality is a
>common, if not routine, phase of growing up. I is not P.C. to mention
>this because it makes sexual preference seem a controllable choice."

My first inclination is to disagree with this posting. My second inclination
to is to say, even if this is true, so what? What business is it of
yours what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes?
Why should you care if those two adults are two men, two women, or one
man and one woman? Why should it be any of your concern? That's all I
want to know.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
CLARKSON '95			
HOBBES: Why do we play war not peace? 	CALVIN: Too few role models.
===========================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men... not from men who feared to write,
to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the time, 
unpopular."		----Edward R Murrow
  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: Bryan J. Blumberg <bjb@macsch.com>
Subject: Re: CWA letter for monetary support
X-Xxdate: Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:42:17 GMT
Organization: Systems Integration Branch
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:45:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.181602.22479@fcom.cc.utah.edu> rodney james freier,
freier@mail.physics.utah.edu writes:
>Wait.... Somebody help me out here.  What does the Senate Bill 574 (or the
House
>version) SAY?  
>
>If it's far to long to post, please give a summary.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Rod

S 574 and H.R. 1430 are bills in the congress of the United States
which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add "affectional
or sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes against
discrimination.

You can order of copy of S. 574 by writing to:
Senate Document Room
SH-B 04, SHOB
Washington, DC   20510

You can order a copy of H.R. 1430 by writing to:
House Document Room
B-18, Annex #2
Washington, DC   20515

They are free.  And it only takes about one and a half weeks
to receive from the day you drop your one sentence request
in the mail.

========================================
Bryan  J. Blumberg, The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation
815 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, California  90041-1777
(213) 259-4914, B_BLUMBERG@MACSCH.COM
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: koffron@staff.tc.umn.edu (Pete Koffron)
Subject: 1993 March on Washington
Keywords: bi, gay, lesbian, transgender equal rights 
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:11:23 GMT

Greetings from Minnesota!

Just a short note to see if others want to start a news group that deals
specifically with the March On Washington (MOW) scheduled for April 25, 1993.

Since this gathering in DC will be at least 1.5 million strong, I think we
may like to have some info on this.  As part of the planning committee on a
regional level (Region 12 - includes N/S Dakota, Minn and Wisc) I have some
information, but would like to network with other groups both nationally and
worldwide on what they are doing for this event.

Constructive thoughts, comments and ideas are welcome . . . .
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:32:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.224948.11472@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>   Divine revelation un-necessary, unless you consider the Dallas Gay
>>   News divine revelation.  Reference:  "Gays, AIDS and You" by Enrique
>>   Rueda page 17.  1983, before blood screening, Robert Schwab, now
>>   dead of AIDS suggested in the Dallas Gay News that all gay males
>>   should give blood, whatever it takes to gain national suupport 
>>   for AIDS research; if that includes blood terrorism, so be it.

>    If I recall correctly, 1983 was before anybody knew what caused
>AIDS. It was not known what caused it, and we definitely did not know
>the vector.

We didn't know for sure, but there was (as I recall) an unproven 
_fear_ that an exchange of blood could cause it.
 
>Therefore, I can only deduce that your source is a complete
>fabrication. Also, unless saw the *original* paper, I would doubt the
>source as well. Bald faced lying is well within the province of morality
>when fundies start prattling on about gay people.

This sounds, more than anything else, like an excuse to deny you were
mistaken. He gave a reference: If you think he made it up, why don't
you go to a library and look it up. Instead, you demand a nearly impossible
standard of proof (providing you with an original copy), and make wild
claims about lying. It would seem you are more interested in accusations
than finding out the facts.

>I'm sure you wouldn't care to be tarred as being another Torquemada,
>but suggesting that all gay people (or even a signinficant minority) 
>wanted to poison the blood supply is like saying all Christians are
>bloody murderers.

I haven't seen anyone claim that "all gay people" suggested anything
of the sort. The assertion was, as I recall, that _some_ gays were
willing to go to extremes to promote their position, and a (very
extreme) example was given. In fact, your seem to have intentionally
ignored a disclamer to that effect.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Re: CWA letter for monetary support
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 18:16:02 GMT

Wait.... Somebody help me out here.  What does the Senate Bill 574 (or the House
version) SAY?  

If it's far to long to post, please give a summary.

Thanks.

Rod
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:07:42 GMT

: It seems to me that if the Christian fund-
: amentalists, Mormans, or whoever, want to play the political game, and
: have the ability to propose changes to the state constitution, then
: they should also pay taxes like everyone else.

There is precedent for this.  See the suit filed against Pete Peters church in
Laporte.  Pete, about as virulent a homophobe as has ever existed (much more so
than anyone I know of involved with CFV), took out some newspapers
advertisements using church funds to speak out against some proposed gay rights
legislation in Fort Collins a few years ago.  The state argued that this made
them a temporary policital action committee and required them to file financial
disclosures for the year.  Peters refused, and the fine levied against him has
been steadily increasing ever since.  When the case came to court, Peters tried
to claim "Jesus Christ" as his legal counsel, which the judge threw out.  Last
month the state finally garnished funds directly from church accounts in
partial payment of the fines.  Peters is suing the state in return.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
From: jlajka@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jason Michael Lajka)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Why I hate Homos
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:13:08 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

greco@elec.uq.oz.au (The Gereat White Hooter Hunter) writes:

>I just do, alright.

Is this that "greco" guy who was on earlier?

Thanks for your insight.  The intelligence your post conveys in overwhelming.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:57:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.161145.23915@news.duc.auburn.edu> jbibb@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>
>In article 4882@dragon.acadiau.ca, 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>> 
>> >happened.  There have also been recent discussions of college men
>> >doing things like getting women drunk and having sexual relations with
>> >them while they were not sober enough to consent.


Excuse me!  Aren't these women adults yet.  If not and if they allow others
to get them drunk (tie them down and make them chug gallons of beer?!)
then these women need to be at home with their parents.  They aren't 
RESPONSIBLE enough for themselves to be out in the real world!!!!

>> 
>> If she knows that she's drinking enough to impare her judgement, beforehand,
>> then she IS giving consent; knowing she won't give it later.

When one drinks "THEY" and only they are responsible for their actions....

So if the man is drunk then he isn't responsible for his actions either?
(He is!)


>> 
>> -Doc

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: greco@elec.uq.oz.au (The Gereat White Hooter Hunter)
Subject: Why I hate Homos
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:51:18 GMT

I just do, alright.