HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Jeff Dauber's Flawed Arguments
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:20:19 GMT

In article <9204061351.AA03354@Compuserve.Com> 70750.2052@Compuserve.Com ("Ronnie Jr.") writes:
>The local militant "FWA", dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>
>>You are stretching here.  Let's look at the following example of a
>>couple.
>>
>>[four descriptions of couple sans sexual orientations deleted]
>>
>>Now Daniel, can you tell me which of these couples is "normal"
>>and which is not?  Give it a try, if you guess correctly, I will
>>be impressed.
>
>This is absolutely ridiculous.  If any of the four couples above were
>gay, THAT is what makes them abnormal.  Not any of the stuff you posted.

Listen to this guy calling OTHER people "absolutely ridiculous."  I
suggest that if you are going to label these couples "abnormal," you
present some evidence for thinking so apart from "they're gay."  If a
couple is made up of two people of the same sex, but looks, talks, and
acts in every respect as normal as any heterosexual couple, who are
you to say they're "abnormal?"  Maybe they've just got a clue and
you're the "abnormal" one.

>>The point of this is fairly simple.  You cannot tell a homosexual
>>couple from a heterosexual couple if, in my descriptions, I do not
>>tell you the gender of the partners involved.  Can you tell, by my
>>descriptions, which couples should have children, and which should
>>not?
>
>OK, Jeff.  Here is a quiz to show you the BLATANT fallacy in your argument:
>
>Here are three people, tell me which should or should not be allowed
>to adopt a child:
>
>1)  32 yr. old female, Lawyer.
>2)  35 yr. old male, Engineer.
>3)  27 yr. old male, Doctor.
>
>You can't tell me, can you? 

As a matter of fact, this is precisely Jeff's point ... not that you'd
be able to figure it out, of course.  Being gay is just as irrelevant
to whether or not you should be permitted to adopt as your age or
profession.

>>However, as soon as I tell you the 
>>sexuality of these couples, you seem to have an opinion, with no
>>extra information.
>
>However, as soon as I tell you that the woman listed as #1 has been
>convicted twice on child molestation charges, you would develop an
>opinion, with no extra information.

The distinction, again, is left as an exercise for the careful reader.

>>FWA
>>
>Well, Jeff, do you take your "hubby" to the Silicon Graphics Christmas
>Party or not? 

Gee, Ronnie, must be awful hard to read news from CIS, huh?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: To be or not to be.
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:14:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.224645.7601@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.184506.10466@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>
>>I advised Adolpho to read some modern American books on
>>psychology.  It doesn't matter much which one.
>
>And, gain, you are wrong. I read yesterday a modern American Book, called:
>"Psychoanalitic Reflections on Current Issues", and they just say the 
>opposite to what you say. Moreover, among the new adquisitions here,
>at the library, they have quite a few new books that go against your 
>position.

Of course they do.  A book that is about psychoanalysis is not likely
to say "psychoanalysis is full of crap."

>Even more, in most of the world, psychoanalysis, and its practices
>are not only common, but highly respected.

So's astrology.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,sci.psychology,soc.motss
From: g8801935@cs.uow.edu.au (The Jester)
Subject: Re: Human sexuality
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:27:01 GMT


In soc.motss, Subject: soc.motss statistics for March 1992,
    article <2630@pyrrot.UUCP>, jimmy@pyra.co.uk (Jimmy Aitken) wrote:

[Stuff deleted...]

>Subject Top 30 (size)
>---------------------
> 1  240500 195 Human sexuality                      [----]

[Stuff deleted...]

>Subject Top 30 (Subject)
>------------------------
> 1  240500 195 Human sexuality                      [----]

[Stuff deleted...]

>>>I think a lot of the arguing that has been going on might be because
>>>of this misunderstanding... I can't think of any other reason.

>>If you want to post in this thread you must comment on the significance of the pizza

>Well,  I for one like mushroom and females (the latter not on the pizza).
>Don't know it there is a connection there though, but my daughter does not
>like mushrooms but boys.  Is this the sort of information you were after,
>Jester?  Why don't you call for a poll ?-)

>All my favorite toppings were listed in an earlier post...

Ok the mushroom thing. I am alergic to mushrooms, but, I am not alergic to 
females. In fact I quite like females. A lot. Not more than pizza though...
I like chilli heaps. Probably as much as I like females.

So far no poll results, but I am waiting.
-- 
\ /  /    / /  /\   | I trapped all alone in the gas station of love,
 \\/ \/\ /\ \/ \/_  | and I have to use the self-service pumps.
 / \/  /   \ \/ \   | 	--"Weird Al" Yankovic.
g8801935@cs.uow.edu.au
From: aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: A dream
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:10:01 GMT

In article <92107.185037QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu>  
writes:
> 
> You didn't have to think about your sexuality by default, IMHO
> GLB people were forced to understand theirs because they were
> raised in a heterocentric society.
> 

I agree, although, when I asked the answer did not show that GLB knew  
about it.

>> I'll avoid the Oedipus Complex stuff (I think it's bunk, but that's my
> opinion)  BUT - you're expecting gay/lesbian couples to "copy" the
> het model (i.e., masc./fem. roles) of relationships?  Puh-leeeeease.

No, I do not expect them to copy. I think that they do it. And I think  
that they do it because it is hard to break with the society where you  
were raised.
After all, my idea of the Oedipus Complex is that it is "historic". Its  
basics are the same in functioning, but its components are changing all  
the time.

> I would be curious just what use you'd make of the "answer" to
> "what causes homosexuality?".  
I do not know.

>  Are any of these things
> reason to not grant GBL people the same rights as others?

I do not have a reason. But, anyway, from my experience I say that there  
is no reason to not grant GBL equal rigths as others.

> (If they're not, then why would you want to spend money to find
> an answer to a question, when the answer is useless anyway)
> Are you going to insist on research to find out why I'm left-handed?
> Think.  Works for me.

I believe that the reasons for all should be investigated. The more we  
know the better we are. The more we know about ourself and the Universe,  
the most we can get from them.

> 
> >I am heterosexual and I do not know why.
> 
> See above - WHO CARES!  Why do you want to spend money to find
> out why.

Why not?
I want to understant the most thing I can.

> Oh - look, Blue Light Special - Clues are available at 50%
> off - better rush to K-Mart now.. :)

OK, here I go.

> 
> -Tim

AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: References
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:54:34 GMT

Just to show to you that I did not invent it, here are some references
from the university's library.
I found that the right spelling is: Oedipus.
I included some comments in some books references.
AAP
___________________________________________


 AUTHOR:  Freud, Sigmund, 1856-1939.
 TITLE:   ego and the id /
 IMPRINT: London : Hogarth Press ; The Institute of Psycho-analysis, 1957.

____________

 AUTHOR:  Freud, Sigmund, 1856-1939.
 TITLE:   general introduction to psychoanalysis.
 IMPRINT: New York, Washington Square Press [1952]
____________

 AUTHOR:  Freud, Sigmund, 1856-1939.
 TITLE:   Moses and monotheism /
 IMPRINT: New York : Knopf, 1947, c1939.

This is interesting in learning about the duel\where the father id killed.
____________
 AUTHOR:  Freud, Sigmund, 1856-1939.
 TITLE:   Leonardo da Vinci and a memory of his childhood.
 EDITION: [1st American ed.]
 IMPRINT: New York, Norton [1964]

Interesting study about homosexuality
________________
 AUTHOR:  Lacan, Jacques, 1901- * Lacan, Jacques, 1901-
 TITLE:   ego in Freud's theory and in the technique of psychoanalysis, 1954-1>
 IMPRINT: New York, N.Y. : W.W. Norton, 1988.

_________________

 AUTHOR:  Freud, Sigmund, 1856-1939.
 TITLE:   Civilization and its discontents.
 EDITION: [1st American ed.]
 IMPRINT: New York, W. W. Norton [1962, c1961]

Interesting about how society works.

_________________

 AUTHOR:  Freud, Anna, 1895- * Freud, Anna, 1895-
 TITLE:   ego and the mechanisms of defense.
 EDITION: Rev. ed.
 IMPRINT: New York, International Universities Press [1967, c1966]
-----------------

 AUTHOR:  Adler, Alfred, 1870-1937.
 TITLE:   Social interest, a challenge to mankind.
 IMPRINT: New York, Capricorn Books [1964]

_________________

 AUTHOR:  Badcock, C. R.
 TITLE:   Oedipus in evolution : a new theory of sex /
 IMPRINT: Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, Mass., USA : Blackwell, 1990.

_____________________
 AUTHOR:  Hamilton, Victoria.
 TITLE:   Narcissus and Oedipus : the children of psychoanalysis /
 IMPRINT: London ; Boston : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982.
_____________________
AUTHOR:  Mullahy, Patrick, 1912-
 TITLE:   Oedipus: myth and complex; a review of psychoanalytic theory.
 EDITION: [Evergreen ed.]
 IMPRINT: New York, Grove Press [1955, c1948]
_____________________
 AUTHOR:  Stiver, Irene P.
 TITLE:   Beyond the Oedipus complex : mothers and daughters /
 IMPRINT: Wellesley, Mass. : Stone Center for Developmental Services and
          Studies, Wellesley College, 1986.
_____________________
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: slang
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:32:42 GMT



As a point of amusement, does anyone out there know what the slang
word "punk" means?  How about you, Jack (punk@bogus.com).  

I'll tell you, because this is rather funny....

Punk is a slang term, in the african american community, which means
the same thing as "faggot"...


Not only should this give you a laugh at Jack's expense, but it should
make you see some of the homophobia in rap music, where the call people
"punks" and "punk ass motherfuckers".




FWA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: To be or not to be.
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:57:35 GMT

To be or not to be, that makes all the difference in this newsgroup.
Someone made a comment about a TV show where a lesbian mother stop her
son from giving an opinion.
Reaction: This person had to present references such as: name of the show,
time, channel, city, and almost a transcript.
Someone said that an African ruler was Gay. An african said that it was not
true.
Reaction: The aseveration made by the Gay person was taken as true, and the
African was asked for proof that the ruler was not gay.

That is: If you are not Gay/Lesbian, your statements are always to be proven.
If you are Gay/Lesbian, your statements are always true.

In this debate about "babies", I was asked by el se~or FWA, to present an
argument explaining why I thought something. I presented the argument.
The reactions:

El se~or Jeff (FWA), did not recognize the theory by me presented, so, he
impeached me for references. I just copied the first few from over 1800
that the University have. He just said that Freud was full of shit. 
Was he asked for references about his affirmation: Modern psychology 
refutes the Oedipus Complex? No.

El se~or Dyer, went even further. He called psychology a mythological 
religion, and also claimed that modern psychology negates the Oedipus
Complex. Any reference? No. Just showng ignorance, perhaps.

Little JOhn, is the most surprising. He seems to remember for an 
introductory class that this Complex is uncommon. And, he went further,
he copied the reference I sent and asked for more recent references. 
Did he present any reference in his favor??? Why should I present more
recent references in my favor if he did not present even one in his???
Maybe just his word is enough?

Madam Elf!!! Compared Black and Homosexual discrimination, and said that 
they were the same. Great. An apple is a fruit, and orange is  fruit. Both
are fruits. Ergo: Apples are oranges.
Come on, you need to include economic causes of slavery, and the type or
relations that come from there. This is not the same for homosexuality.

Madam Nora, just lies. I did never said anything about violation halacha in 
soc.culture.jewish. The only one who said something like that was her.
She said that it is possible to be a Jew and a bisexual. This is just a case
of psychological projection.

Now Josh, comes, gives his piece and leaves. Any reference???
No.

So, why am I asked for some many references if all of you can just come,
said anything about it and Jeff does not ask for more references???

I have some more references about the Oedipus Complex from the last 5 years.
If someone wants them, I will post them.
In the mean time, I guess that the debate is closed. 

AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: I'm not your man...
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:36:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.150314.21105@amhux2.amherst.edu>  
twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <w23aJB3w164w@Bogus.COM> punk@Bogus.COM (Jack C. Royce)  
writes:
> >elf@polari.com writes:
> >
> >>    The fact that she is not shows just how safely, sanely, and
> >> carefully we have gone into our respective friendships, be the sexual
> >> or not, homosexual or not.
> >
> >You and your wife have extra-marital sex?  Hmm, interesting.
> 
> Consensual, too, and completely with partner's consent.  Welcome to
> the real world, punk.
> 
> -- 
> ____ Tim Pierce                / "Well, there's homosexuality in all  
animals
> \  / twpierce@amherst.edu      / but one, and that's the pig.  If it  
weren't
>  \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / for homosexuals we'd all have to live  
like
>                                  pigs." -- overheard at Sydney Mardi  
Gras

Sometimes it sounds like Tim Pierce and efl are the same person.
Anyway, to have your partners consent does not make it any better.

AAP
From: ai210@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Josh Steier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: References
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:09:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr8.040953.20952
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Excuse my bluntness, but Freud didn't know squat about homosexuality.

If any of the Freudian school of analyists knew about the origin of
homosexuality, they should at least be able to predict which people
will indeed turn out to be gay, and to switch this orientation
if desired. In fact, it is impossible to predict sexual orientation
from any information, and not possible to change purely same gender
oriented people into heterosexuals.

The freudian theory of the origin of sexual orientation flunks the
basic test of any scientific theory. The theory as expressed and
tested just does not agree with the facts.

You must do better.

be well
josh
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14707 alt.politics.homosexuality:2206
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Adream
Date: 16 Apr 1992 20:30:10 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Apr17.025019.4547@wam.umd.edu> 
aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
+ In article <kusaidINN9or@mizar.usc.edu> 
+ adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
+ >In article <1992Apr16.230202.23554@wam.umd.edu> 
+ >aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
...
+ >> [...] I also said that because I believe that homosexual couples 
+ >> follow the man-like and woman-like model that society sees as good  
+ >> (One dominant and one dominated), the Complex might be well resolved  
+ >> anyway. 
+ >
...
+ >I'm astounded at this stupidity.
+
+ Why do you think that this is stupid?

Why do I think it's stupid that someone imagines that in gay
relationships one partner inevitably plays the "man" and the 
other plays the "woman"?  Because it *is* stupid to believe that.

Arne
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:2156 alt.sex:14573
From: asg@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Homosexualism
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:00:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality

In <1992Apr12.232405.14534@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us> rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

>RSW:
>If a man has never tasted a mango, then he might discover upon first
>taste that they are his favorite fruit and that he never had expected
>to find such in his life. He has not chosen to like mangos, he simply
>does. He can then choose what to eat, but he will likely continue to
>prefer mangos. Isn't this plain, Mikhail? 

	Are you intimating that what foods you like are dependant on
genetics?? I certainly hope not. 

>But why roam the world then telling people
>that liking mangos is a bad choice?

	Certainly. Telling people that prefering the same sex is a bad
choice is ridiculous. However, it is perfectly valid to say that acting
upon that preferance is a bad choice.

>RSW:
>Not to offend or contradict, Gene, but is it possible that
>generically humans are bisexual, unless influenced in some manner
>inaccessible to them to be strictly homosexual or heterosexual, such
>as trauma or early preverbal experiences which might make the other
>seem as sickening as the mango "illness" in my analogy above? Is it
>possible that if one was starving that his body/mind might learn
>quickly to tolerate or even enjoy mangos?

	Certainly! In fact, many theorists speculate that all human
beings are partially bisexual (sexual preference is a spectrum
ranging from homo to hetero, and no one fits exactly at either end).
However, once again, I must point out that it is the action upon
those feelings that is most important. Homosexuality is clearly
stated as being against nature and God in the Bible (as is hetero
sex out of marriage). Now, to go around saying "Homosexual activity/
premarital sex is wrong" is fine, while saying "YOU are evil for
engaging in homosexual activity/premarital sex" is not.

>and cannot stomach it, literally. My wife had a similar reaction to
>bananas all her young life, but when we were starving during a hard
>a huge bunch of bananas. She finally yielded out of desperation and
>ate one, and after eating one she ate three more, and has loved bananas 

	Here you have proven that food orientation is NOT genetic.


			Bruce
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:1821 alt.sex:13709
From: 881277m@ace.acadiau.ca (WALLACE MCLEAN)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Homosexualism
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:59:39 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

In article <ktv7pmINN6el@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>In article <1992Apr5.195906.10728@husc3.harvard.edu> 

>| >Keep in mind that, like sexual preference, which race or ethnicity you
>| >prefer =is= a matter of choice.  There is no "likes black women" gene,
>| >or "likes political conservatives" gene.

>Oh, I agree absolutely.  Sexual preference is learned.

Yeah, you learn it from your parents. (heavy sarcasm)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dlu@wobble.uucp (Doug Urner)
Subject: Re: I'm not your man...
Organization: dlu UNIX Consultants
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:59:05 GMT

mathew@mantis.co.uk writes:

>punk@Bogus.COM (Jack C. Royce) writes:
>> Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to have a natural child.

>I think you mean "IMPOSSIBLE for them to have a child by purely natural
>means".  Which is true of many heterosexual couples.

I think you mean "IMPOSSIBLE for them to have a child by Jack C.
Royce's definition of purely natural means".

Sperm-meets-egg is a perfectly natural process in my book.  So is
people-get-together-and-use-their-brains-to-solve-a-problem.  The only
thing that looks unnatural to me is this insistence on trying to make
gay and lesbin people into some kind of other.
-- 
Doug Urner, dlu@wobble   "They tear down our comrades like leaves from a tree,
dlu UNIX Consulting       leaves from a tree, leaves from a tree, but the
Bellingham, WA            tree still stands, its roots locked to the land."
206/676-5759                              -- Song of the Exile,  Barry Guilder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: I'm not your man...
From: jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (The Chrome Jester)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 19:27:08 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407

aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) divulges:
->
->Sometimes it sounds like Tim Pierce and efl are the same person.

Why?  Because they're both bisexual and believe in open relationships?
If that were the only qualification, I know several people in my
social group that must be elf!!! and Tim...

->Anyway, to have your partners consent does not make it any better.

Does not make WHAT any better?  Are you saying that the open
relationship is a BAD thing?  Why?  Because "society doesn't like it"?

If all parties concerned are knowledgeable about the situation and
they all are safe and sane about their practices and no-one gets hurt
by it, how can it be bad?

JOhn.

-- 
/-John A Kusters, jr.----------------------------------------------------______
| jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu & phule@bbs.fubarsys.com              \    /
Silence keeps us all in darkness, we can't change things overnight!       \  /
But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovksy & Phillips
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: buckmr@vccsouth18.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Sodomy laws:which states?
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:20:41 GMT

monkey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (EGG NOGGIN) writes:


>     I have this report to do for english class, and I was wondering which
>states curretnly have sodomy laws?  If anyone can tell me where to find
>this information, I would be eternally grateful.

Try the November 16 1990 , C section of the _New York Times_. There's a map.
Since then Texas' law has been ruled unconstitutional.

>                                     Thanksamillion.
you're welcome.

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. 
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
PrinceMADONNAMariahCareySineadO'ConnorGeorgeMichaelKateBushEnyaCocteauTwins
MTVCNNFOXNBCCBSVH1RobertBarnardIsaacAsimovGoreVidalGlennCloseMerylStreep
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14890 alt.politics.homosexuality:2295