HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: citer@jetson.uh.edu (Sanders, Raymond L.)
Subject: Re: Jesus was gay and John was his lover. (NOT!)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:30:00 GMT

In article <9NOV92.15554756@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu>, smothers@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu writes...> 
>     Actually, in response to the previous post, I too have heard this
>sentiment, though not written so bluntly from liberal scholars. I have
>also heard the reason that Paul was so hard on women was that the
>"thorn in his flesh" was homosexuality. I am surprised that the source
>of this ludicrous statement this time supposedly comes from a
>catholic priest.
> 
>     As a dabbler in Christian apologetics, I can tell you that all such
>statements fall out of the bounds of reasonableness. Jesus severely pointed
>out sin when he saw it. (Sorry to be politically incoreect but within the
>Jewish/Christian/Hindu/Islam framework that is how homosexual acts (not
>homosexual attraction) is defined. All such statements should be taken with
>a grain of salt as they lack basis in historical/social fact.
> 
>    I would like to apologize for all the homosexual bashing by someone
>on this net who feels its his mission in life to offend you guys/girls using
>scripture as justification. Actually most of the christians I know are
>offended more at homosexuals wanted extra rights without actually qualifying
>as a legitimate minority. (I must stop being politically incorrect, this is
>as a legitimate minority. (I must stop being politically incorrect, this is
> 
>mark
>----
>College of Business
>Northern Arizona University
>Flagstaff, AZ  86001
Ray Sanders (citer@jetson.uh.edu)
But remember WE put the word into the mouth of Jesus.  There is evidence
of his compassion (woman caught in adultery, etc.) but no condemnation of
sexuality.  Paul is another issue.  But then is it the CHRISTian religion
or the PAULine religion?  Just an observation...what was the band of men
without wives (for the most part) doing in a land where marriage was a major
social responsibility?
From: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: "Gay rights group fil
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:29:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 

OM> Gays dont have any rights. Gays are product of Evil , and
OM> it's no wonder they try to get rid of christianity, i think
OM> this is a ridiculous story , but it is the kind of story UPI
OM> and news network like to wide-spread. Gays people brain lies
OM> mostly between their legs. Right, they have the right to be
OM> animals , may they take it an enjoy it.

If you are so "Christian" why do you preach and practice hate?
Why do you preach intolerance.  If you sat down and actually read
what Jesus said you would NOT call yourself a Christian (He IS the
final word for you, not the apostles, not that idiot bigot Leviticus)
....I think the correct term that you would use on yourself would
be "BIGOT" IF you have the guts to face it.

You obviously don't know ANYTHING about gays...probably, you don't care
to...all in the name of bigotry, right???
---
 . DeLuxe. 1.21 #777sa . Nuclear war has broken out....story at 11......
From: rminor@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?  II
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:46:59 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

The usual homophobic stuff inserted in this chain has gotten us off
the point of my initial question.  Can we get back to it?

From all the discussions that relate to the initial query, I conclude
that:
(1) The insertion of "sexual orientation" in non-discrimination laws
protects both heterosexuals and homosexuals from discrimination on the
basis of their sexual orientations.  Thus, these laws are not giving
special status to homosexuals.
(2) The Collorado ammendment gives special rights to heterosexuals
because one can have "sexual oreintation" in non-discrimination laws
but the ammendment does not allow it to apply to a certain class of
people, homosexuals.  Thus, someone could be prosecuted for excluding
people because they are heterosexual, but not becuuse they are
homosexuals.
(3)  Why do heterosexuals want a special status?  Fear?  --phobia?

Am I following this line correctly?

Just a question of clarification
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ag055@yfn.ysu.edu (Ward Chanley)
Subject: Re: why call it hate?
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:00:57 GMT


Mark:

The logic of your statement eludes me:

"There is no difference between myself and a black 
person except skin color, there is no difference 
between myself and a Jew except religion, there 
is no difference between myself and a Gay person 
except sexual orientation (you said preference, which 
I feel is incorrect).  Race, religion and sexuality
are three unrelated things"

Your last statement pokes holes in the other three...
if they ARE unrelated then why are you drawing 
relationships between them and your own status 
as a white, prsumably christian heterosexual?

I know you probably buy the conservative agrument 
that suppourts things like Oregon's measure 9,that
the Government shouldn't be interfering in the 
private lives of citizens -- which ideally protects
both Gays and anti-Gay bigots, but the problem 
with 9 is that it's not in the conservative 
spirit of smaller government, it does EXACTLY what
conservatives accuse liberals of doing all the time:

It pokes government's nose into the private lives 
of a select group of citizens it deems "wrong",
or to use the terminology of 9, folk it deems 
unnatural and perverse.

It is beyond me how anyone, Gay or straight, who 
claims to have no desire to suppourt hatred of 
homosexuals could suppourt a measure like 9.
If all it said was "Don't enact laws which 
mention sexuality", that would be in line with the 
conservative train of thought I mentioned (though
I'd still disagree with it), but 9 doesn't stop 
there: by declaring homosexuality to be unnatural
and morally wrong, it places a negative judgement on
homosexuality and on all Gay people.  If you 
don't suppourt that line of thinking, you shouldn't 
have voted for the measure.

If you DO suppourt that kind of thinking, I'd 
say you deserve the ire you've aroused here.

--
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: extremism
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:55:36 GMT

In <921107#119#005326_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu> Nathan J. Mehl wrote:
> More pointedly though, since when does how you got a disease bear any
> relation to your right to be treated for it?  People who eat sushi
> often develop intestinal parasites - does the fact that they eat
> sushi anyways bar them from getting treated when they do contract
> tapeworm?  People who leave their homes during the winter will often
> contract serious influenza - should we leave them all to die, since
> they could have just stayed home?  Think a little about this.  Subsidized
> health care is either for everyone or no one.

Right.  I think it's for no one.
 
> >That isn't right.  You can live the way you want, but pay your own freight.
> 
> Do you eat red meat?  Do you exercise less than 30 minutes a day?  Do
> you live or work around smokers?  Do you smoke yourself?  Do you live
> in a city with a lot of automobiles?
> 
> Then don't come crying to me when you have a heart attack.

I don't intend to.  I don't claim a right to "public" (that is, extorted)
money for *my* health care either.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: extremism
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:51:45 GMT

Do extremists hurt the credibility of the gay rights movement?

I say, "yes". You see, the bigots are much more subtle. They
make their "logical" arguments and point to the few extermists
on the other side and say, "Look at what they want." (ie:
Clayton Cramer with NAMBLA) and try to convince everyone that
all gay rights proponents want the same thing. All most gr
proponents want is respect. Most may not expect heterosexuals
to agree with their lifestyle or to promote it, but they DO
want to be left alone. All they want is to be treated like
human beings, just like everyone else. Most bigots ignore the
mainstream viewpoint and focus in on those who want to sanction
this and thatand apply that to everyone. Bigots also assume
that if you support gay rights you must be gay. I just get so
frustrated listening to those people who want to give different
sets of rights to different sets of people. The Constitution/Declaration
of INdeopendence applies to everyone except if you're _____.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will")
CLARKSON '95			 	   
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"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,co.politics
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:56:39 GMT

In article <BxnAD0.K5@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>Followups directed out of soc.motss.
>
>In article <1992Nov12.191913.8438@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>
>* (Attn: the phrase "like yourself" is the operative phrase here.  I
>know many straight white men who are sympathetic to discrimination, so
>hence this paragraph thus does not apply to them.  I mean to address
>only the mindset which this society nurtures in straights, whites, and
>men, which Strand seems hell-bent on embracing.)

That's ok.  Myself, and others like me, intend to boycott any Colorado
product, including touring the state, skiing, and "hard" products produced in
the state until this Ammendment is repealed, CFV is resoundingly trounced
and their "coalition" is driven from the legislative process in the state.

CFV and others who think like Tim are free to pass laws and Ammendments like 
this.  I, and others like me, are free to take our business elsewhere.
Given the state of the economy, can Colorado AFFORD to lose 5, 10 or even
20% of its business to people who think as I do and just won't spend our
hard-earned dollars there?

And yes, I am one of those straight white males.  I just can't support a
state or city which officially promotes or turns a blind eye to bigotry 
in any of its forms.  The "unofficial" forms are bad enough.

--
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: beezer@cc.utah.edu (BEEZER)
Subject: [REGARDING]: John Greco is an asshole(was: I don't like homos)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Salt Lick, UT
Date: 13 Nov 1992 00:27 MST  

>In a previous article, greco@elec.uq.oz.au (John Greco) says:
> 
>Statement of Fact.
> 
>   John Greco is an asshole
> 
>The End.

Reads better this way...  {grin}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:13:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.183711.16866@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.153425.15414@midway.uchicago.edu>
>nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>
>>I might make one more point here.  A teenager makes the statement,
>>"I'm going to be a prostitue one day because if you're really good
>>and can make the right connections you can make a lot of money and
>>have a very comfortable life."  What constitutes an appropriate
>>response to this remark?  Should we say, "that's great, go for it!"?
>
>You might point out why it is a bad idea.  If you don't know
>why it is a bad idea, then what is your point?

I'll grant you that there may be no objective argument against prostitution.
But this doesn't that societies have not legitimate basis for restricting it.

Unless you're willing to argue from a libertarian position, that all government
intervention into private affairs is unwarrented (including laws such as those 
which force individuals to hire those they do not wish to hire, or to hand over
their property at gunpoint to the tax collector, etc), then it seems that you 
have no argument at all.

>>The point is that societies have always sanctioned some forms of
>>conduct and constrained others in order to maintain what might be
>>called the social fabric.
>
>I don't see what the social fabric has to do with it.  Are you going to
>tell the teenager not to be a prostitute in order to maintain the
>social fabric?  I doubt you would get much respect for that argument,
>and would deserve none.

The teenager may not be mature enough to understand why becoming a prostitute
is not a healthy road to pursue.  So, we tell them that it's an undignified
profession, not worthy of their talent and effort.  This is perhaps not
the type of answer you would prefer, but it is the type of answer that reflects
what we do in our society:  we give young people answers they can understand and
believe in, which must hold them up until they are mature enough to understand
the more subtle nuances of society.
>

>Incidentally, prostitution is legal here in Germany.  As a result,
>there is less of it and it is less visible (because it is regulated
>and localized.)
>

Incidently, if we wanted to be Germany we could have done this along time
ago.  We are the United States, and love it or not, we do things differently.

Roger Shouse
University of Chicago


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: llatwood@unix.amherst.edu (LAURA LINSON ATWOOD)
Subject: Re: I don't like homos
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:47:42 GMT

John Greco (greco@elec.uq.oz.au) wrote:
> Statement of Fact.
> 
>    I don't like homos
> 
> The End


Statement of Fact.

   I don't like you

The End



Question:

   _How_ can you find it in you, amidst such crap, to like yourself?

Think hard.
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A Gay Republican Voice
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:25:53 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Nov5.192658.2682@umr.edu> wdechent@usenet.umr.edu (William L. Dechent) writes:

>I believe the GOP will change for the better; one of my
>premises is that true Conservatism does not discriminate.  True Conservatism
>will be around in the future when people look back on today and ask
>"How come they thought homosexuals were different?  All that matters
>is bringing people together and maintaining a good economy!"

    Although I have been a Democrat as long as I can remember, there is
some truth to the above.  I was amazed and gladdened that Barry Goldwater,
one of the "inventors" of modern conservatism, has come out strongly in
favor of gay-rights legislation.  I can't remember the exact words, but it
was something to the effect that if Republicans really believe in the
non-intrusiveness of government into citizens' private lives, then it is
non of the government's business whether or not people are gay.
    It's too bad that the religious fanatical right has such a stranglehold
on the Republicans.  It seems to me that true Republicans would support gay
rights, drug legalization, abortion rights, etc.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
From: kjc7435@ultb.isc.rit.edu (K.J. Cater)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Someone PLEASE post the outcomes of No. 9 and Colorado events!!
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:01:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Originator: kjc7435@ultb

Someone out there, PLEASE post these!!!  and hurry up!!
You'd think on a community newsgroup like this one, info like this
would be posted this morning!!!

Thanks!!

K. Cater.
e-mail:"kjc7435@ritvax.isc.rit.edu".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: why call it hate?
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:36:27 PST

In article <1992Nov11.180233.3516@lclark.edu>, on 11 Nov 1992 18:02:33 GMT,
harrison@lclark.edu (Mark Harrison) writes:

>>>>>I can't speak for the original poster, but I was for 9.
>>>>>... 
>>>>>I think 9 had LOTS of hate in it.
>
>Here is my main point.  I DON'T think the measure's only purpose was the
>incitement of hate.  I know you disagree, but that's the conclusion I came
>to.  I don't mind you thinking my decision was wrong.  I just want people
>to realize that I did what I thought was right and it had nothing to do
>with hate.
>
You know, I've observed in all of your posts that you've never actually
stated a single reason why you thought that voting for measure 9 *was*
the right thing to do -- despite your acknowledgement that it was
motivated by hate.

Why not enlighten everybody and tell us just what you think was so good
about it?

>--
>=============================================================================
>Mark Harrison           |  "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx
>harrison@sun.lclark.edu |   Our great computers fill the hallowed halls."
>              -- Me     |                                    -- Rush
>
        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: wdechent@usenet.umr.edu (William L. Dechent)
Subject: A Gay Republican Voice 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:26:58 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri -- Rolla

   >"A gay Republican makes as much sense as a Jewish Nazi"

Hmmm...  A Jewish Nazi doesn't make sense, but a Jew could be a member of
a National Socialist party that didn't include discrimination as a plank
in the party platform.

Gay Republican is not an oxy-moron.  Do you think the GOP belongs to the
far right?  I don't.  Granted, I was a Clinton Republican this time 
around.  I believe the GOP will change for the better; one of my
premises is that true Conservatism does not discriminate.  True Conservatism
will be around in the future when people look back on today and ask
"How come they thought homosexuals were different?  All that matters
is bringing people together and maintaining a good economy!"
 
--
wdechent@clciris.chem.umr.edu    "I know I'm a flamboyant person.  But I don't
lie, I would never steal a penny from you.  I'm a good person."  -Cher
(taken from Larry King Live on CNN, 10-26-92)   

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightm
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:09:27 GMT

In article <287.1652.uupcb@synapse.org> steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) writes:
>RS>In article <1992Oct28.200409.2473@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>One misconception you clearly *do* have is that this wildly
>>cross-posted claptrap is of any interest in soc.motss.  We
>>are really not interested in the views of ignorant straight
>>boyz.  Keep it outta *here*, please.
>
>RS>I love this.  There can be no dissent.  Opposing views cannot be
>RS>tolerated.  There is only one acceptable view on homosexuality.
>RS>Fall in line or get "outta here".
>
>Who are you (**) to decide that no one was interested.  Have you not seen 
>the dialogue.  Obviously YOU are wrong.  Anti-het is equally as wrong
>as anti-gay!

And both of you (Steve and Roger) don't seem to be able to read.  Jess
was telling you to keep the pro-gay/anti-gay debate OUT OF SOC.MOTSS
ONLY.  soc.motss is a newsgroup FOR gay people, NOT a newsgroup for
DEBATING about gay people.  Would you debate abortion rights in 
talk.politics.guns?  That's what newsgroups are for, to provide
particular places for particular topics.

Jess wasn't telling you that no one on the net is interested.  He was
telling you that no one _in soc.motss_ is interested.  And he's right.
Next time, don't let your knee jerk so hard it plants your foot in
your mouth.


-- 
Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: extremism
Date: 09 Nov 92 20:38:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1jNYlS#3FvHQ81HrG5G9wr6pm9FlqDL=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
| 
| The gay rights extremists don't seem to want to stop there, though.  First,
| they seem to want to secure legal privileges for gays that I don't have ---
| like the "right" to be employed by people who dislike my sexual preference.

Whoa.

First, all sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws that I have seen
are orientation-neutral.  In other words, they could be used to protect
a heterosexual working for a gay-owned firm.

Now, one can certainly argue that anti-discrimination laws, as a class,
are improper exercises of government power, etc.  I am sure that this is
your position. IMO, anti-discrimination laws should be viewed as a class.
As long as the society has them, sexual-orientation is at least as valid
a criterion as race or religion -- all three categories have been the
rationale for violence and destruction.
 
| Second, they want to force me to subsidize gay behavior by paying the medical
| expenses of AIDS victims through taxes extorted from me.

Eric, HIV is, at this time, an incurable infectious disease.  I can think
of few things that are more useful for the government to do than to get
a grip on it.

Eric, when I see people making headway on getting the Medicare benefits of
lung-cancer victims cut (because they smoked), or of heart-disease victims
cut (because they ate a lot of fatty foods), then maybe I will be impressed
with the logic wrt AIDS victims.

| (You watch.  Someone will call me a homophobe for saying that.)

You know, Eric, I'm a libertarian of sorts, and, IMO, you are cruising
pretty close to that edge.

   Fritz