HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:09:53 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <C1F30p.G1q@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Gregory.D.Wadlinger@dartmouth.edu (Gregory D. Wadlinger) writes:
#In article <C1E1nB.3J4.1@cs.cmu.edu>
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## I wonder how many people who claim that there is no reason for
## anti-discrimination legislation would be willing to write such
## letters in the absence of that legislation.
#
#If you are gay, what do you do at work that sets you apart as gay and
#thus vulnerable to extraordinary ridicule?  

Oh, things like talking about your family when others ask would
do it.

#If you are fired because your boss doesn't like you (because you are
#gay), you are no different from any of us who have ever been fired
#because our bosses didn't like us.  I have been in this situation, and
#it has made me appreciate unions more, because no employer should be
#able to fire anyone unfairly.  If you are ridiculed for your sexual
#preference (merely ridiculed, not threatened or otherwise endangered)
#you are no more vulnerable to same than is an overweight person to fat
#jokes, or a Christian to televangelist jokes.

It is illegal to fire people for belonging to a particular race or
ethnic group.  It is illegal in most places to fire someone because
of their religious beliefs.   

The ordinances that people think grant special rights to minorities
say nothing about prohibiting jokes.  

#If I were gay and someone threatened me (and I chose not to beat him to
#a pulp) I would file a complaint with the police.  If someone told a
#gay joke in my presence, I would have no reason to write a letter to
#anyone.
#My point is, gays don't deserve any more protection than anyone else,
#and that is what Krueger is trying to illustrate in a humorous way.

As someone else said, neither gay men, lesbians, nor bisexuals
are asking for more protection.  They're asking for equal
protection.  Some people wish to discriminate against a group
of people, and they lie about the issues to cover up their
hatefulness.  I don't find these lies to be particularly
amusing - perhaps you have to share the ignorance that
underlies the prejudices to do so.

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:47:13 GMT

In article <1k5frmINNgho@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> zeng@mth.msu.edu (Zhonggang Zeng) writes:

>In article <1993Jan27.055513.20331@netcom.com> rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:

>>Suppose we
>>decided to make accommodations for the people who don't like Asians by
>>making some divisions open to Asians, and banning them in the remaining
>>units.
>
>If Asians were such a problem, then designating some Asian divisions would
>sound good to me.

It might sound less attractive if the Asian troops started getting
sent on suicide missions.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:55:01 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan21.233547.11972@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
| 
| Would you call flag-allegience a value-indoctrination?  I do.  We have
| told Sean that a "pledge" is a really important promise, and that he
| should promise anything like "allegience" until he knows what the word
| means.

"not promise".  Oh well, I am a programmer, not a proof-reader.

   Fritz

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10461 alt.rush-limbaugh:15435 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14153
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 07:08:49 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan25.184618.4946@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>Hey!  I'm a conservative republican, charismatic christian, white male 
>of european heritage, working in a leftist university.  I already know 
>what it feels like to be discriminated against every day.

Ted, it's not discrimination unless you somehow, as a 'conservative republican
ete etc etc', are being denied your rights to a job/housing/whatnot. Simply
having people disagree with your opinions is -not- discrimination. 

Comparing your differences with the rest of the faculty at the university to
the problems of gays, who routinely get fired from their jobs, refused housing
or insurance, and get beaten up by Neanderthal homophobes, is like comparing 
a hangnail to having one's fingers jammed into an active garbage disposal. 

-You-, Ted, need to quit whining. As a 'conservative republican, charismatic
christian [laughter], white male of European heritage', you have -all- the
advantages in this society. Claiming you're somehow discriminated against due
to those qualities isn't just silly, it's the sign of someone who is so lacking
in intelligence that they wouldn't know where to install a clue if they came 
across one. 


-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10342 talk.religion.misc:27652
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:54:58 GMT
	    <1jps8vINN8bp@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
	    <1993Jan26.003021.4613@lclark.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan26.003021.4613@lclark.edu>
daniel@lclark.edu (Daniel Snodgrass) writes:

&>In article <1jps8vINN8bp@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:

&>>(It would be nice, however, if [Fundamentalist Christians] could concede
&>>that homosexual orientation is not chosen.)

&>Even if Fundamentalists were to make such a concession, why would this
&>have an impact on the debate?  Afterall,  new studies are coming out all the
&>time that show that a variety of behavior patterns (aka: orientations) like
&>serial murdering, rape (and other sex offenses), alcoholism, etc. are not
&>choices.  Some make the point (to which I might agree) that some who
&>exhibit these behaviors can't help themselves because of some genetic
&>predisposition.  If it is proven conclusivly that these behaviors are not a
&>matter of choice for the individual raping, murdering, abusing children, etc.
&>then, by your logic (and you're not alone), it would follow that we should
&>not discriminate against them.  As a matter of fact, we should make sure that
&>school children are taught that serial murdering is a normal lifestyle.
&>Should we make it illegal to disriminate against rapists in housing or make
&>sure that no pedaphile is prevented from getting a job as a kindergarden
&>teacher? 

&>By your reasoning this would follow if these behaviors are not "choices".

&>Now there may be some valid arguments in favor of your position on homo-
&>sexuality, but the choice vs. predisposition is not one of them.

The problem with trying to refute Tim's point in this way is that discrimin-
ation must be defined in legal terms, and must conform to legal philosophies
and theories. Specifically, that any activity which does not initiate coercion
should remain legal. Then it is a moot point whether pathological murderers
should be discriminated against, since they commit coercive acts at the outset.

Anti-discrimination legislation works for groups with a certain predisposition
which does not lead to initiation of coercive activities.

Moreover, religion is a free choice to many, but remains protected as long
as practitioners don't force other people to accept their views.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10439 alt.rush-limbaugh:15403 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14104
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 27 Jan 1993 21:05:22 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan27.021500.5818@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Do you feel that fat and ugly people should be protected against 
>discrimination?  No??!!  Why, it's obvious that you must hate fat
>and ugly people!  Yes, that's it!  Fat and ugly people are just
>asking for equal protection, and for you to deny them protection 
>indicates that you must be covering up your hatefulness towards 
>them. 

Fat and ugly people -are- protected from discrimination. You can't fire someone
from their job just because they are fat and/or ugly, unless said condition 
affects their job. (No one has to hire a fat spokesmodel, for instance). You
can't refuse fat/ugly people housing simply because they are fat and ugly. Fat
and ugly people hold many positions of power and authority, and don't have to
hide the fact. Rush Limbaugh is living proof of this.

>I guess there's no need for some people to really think about the 
>purpose of the law and the impact that legislation would have on 
>businesses when they can just as easily assign evil motivations to 
>their opponents.

Gee, Doug, thanks. You've just very neatly summed up what you've been doing 
all this time; assigning evil motivations to gays/lesbians without actually
considering the legistlation.

What a self-perceptive person you are, Doug.
 
-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Header-1:    Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice
X-Header-2:    about Oregon, watch out for Ohio, Idaho, Michigan, Maine, and
X-Header-3:    Florida.
X-Header-5:    Beware lunatic actuaries in the night!
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:56:35 GMT

pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?)) writes:
>elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>>>So could you. The Colorado amendment simply prevents the enactment of
>>>certain laws, which don't currently exist. It doesn't establish

>>This is false.  The amendment prevents state agencies including courts
>>from dealing with claims of discrimination based on lesbian, homosexual,
>>or bisexual orientation.

>it is also false to say those laws didn't exist.  boulder, 
>denver and aspen had passed laws protecting gays, lesbians 
>and bisexuals from discrimination in housing, employment, etc.  

This may be just a point in semantics, but to me at least, it's an important
one....

The laws in Aspen, Boulder, and Denver attempt (present tense -- Amendment
2 isn't law and hopefully it'll stay that way) to protect *everyone*,
hets and lesbigay folk alike, from discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.

It's these little semantic points that make it all too easy for the
"No Special Rights" crowd to find ammunition for their flawed claims.

--
Michael D. Adams	| Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
University of Illinois  | them from injustice?	-- Lillian Hellman
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	| Religion has done love a great service by making it a
Standard Disclaimers    | sin.			-- Anatole France
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10050 alt.rush-limbaugh:14851 alt.politics.clinton:20960 alt.politics.bush:16264
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:48:11 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
> As it should.  Would homosexuals then allow beastiality?  Beastiality
> is against the law, yet it isn't hurting anyone?  It sexual deviancy
> just like homosexuality.  What's the difference?  Only who your
> partner is...right.  Well, our laws have developed from Judeo/
> Christian morals (for the most part).  Why is murder 
> wrong?  Why is child abuse wrong?  Why is theft wrong?  Why is lying
> wrong?  Because a moral code based on Judeo Christian beliefs says
> so and it has been incorporated into law.

Re-stated, what do the homosexual posters here think about laws 
against besiality?  Is it OK?  Should it be illegal?   

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: KENH@YaleADS.CIS.Yale.Edu (Ken Hudson)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Yale University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:52:23 EST

In article <john.727477570@misty>
john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
 
>
>WHENEVER the government enforces things, it is coercion - whether what
>is doing is good or bad - it is still coercion. However, I cringe when
>I hear about "enforcing civil rights" because all too often what it really
>means is constraining others' civil rights on dubious grounds.
>
 
Hmmm. Is that how you feel about the National Guard assuring that Black
students were allowed to attend public educational institutions during
the sixties?  You may cringe, but enforcing personal and civil rights
is about the only thing that really lifts this country above places
like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  If some powerful group suddenly started
excluding YOUR freedom to participate equally in this society, based
on some ethnic or inherited trait, you might feel very differently about
the government enforcing YOUR civil rights...
 
 
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ckmerril@athena.mit.edu (Christopher K Merrill)
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:21:14 GMT

Zhonggang Zeng (zeng@mth.msu.edu) writes:

>If the armed forces open up some divisions to homosexuals, and ban them in the
>remaining units, does the homosexual community accept that solution?

>To me, this is the only fair solution.  Homosexuals would not be discharged
>and straight soldiers would not be forced to sleep next to a gay either.

>I'm ready to be enlightened if somebody gives good reason that I am wrong.


Good, because you are wrong. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean 
that he/she is a rapist. Sleeping next to a gay isn't risky.  Its just your bias 
and fear that makes you believe that the straight would be sexually "attacked"
by the homosexual.  In most cases, you can't even tell that someone is a 
homosexual.  They'd have to tell you.  If you were a soldier, it really wouldn't
matter because there isn't time for much of a social life in a military situation.
Replace black or asian or Jewish for gay in what you wrote and let's see what
happens:

" To me, this is the only fair solution.  Blacks/Asians/Jews would not be
discharged and straight soldiers would not be forced to sleep next to a
Black/Asian/Jew either."

My guess is that this sounds a lot less palatable to you than what you originally
wrote.  Do a little thinking and then respond if you still disagree with what
I'm saying.
 Chris Merrill
From: atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu (David O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Intolerance
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:56:14 GMT
Organization: Enhanced Cybernetic Logic Operating Systems Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cis.brown.edu

In article <1jpc0rINNbvu@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>> As it should.  Would homosexuals then allow beastiality?  Beastiality
>> is against the law, yet it isn't hurting anyone?  It sexual deviancy
>> just like homosexuality.  What's the difference?  Only who your
>> partner is...right.  Well, our laws have developed from Judeo/
>> Christian morals (for the most part).  Why is murder 
>> wrong?  Why is child abuse wrong?  Why is theft wrong?  Why is lying
>> wrong?  Because a moral code based on Judeo Christian beliefs says
>> so and it has been incorporated into law.
>
>Re-stated, what do the homosexual posters here think about laws 
>against besiality?  Is it OK?  Should it be illegal?   

I am personally against bestiality. My rationale is that there are, to date,
precious few animals who are able to voice their consent to sex.

--David O'Donnell
  Rabid Moderate Queer

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9937 alt.rush-limbaugh:14640 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13290 alt.politics.clinton:20759 alt.politics.bush:16181 alt.sex:42723 talk.religion.misc:27136
From: ac999273@umbc.edu (ac999273)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Prototypical Gay?????
Date: 21 Jan 1993 10:05:33 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc8.umbc.edu

In article <1993Jan20.055945.19584@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

[Stuff about gay guys not dating women in the office deleted]


>What if the Above Stereotypical behavior is
>done by a celibate het male who is not into sexism?
>
>I hate to scare you or anything, but some of the
>male persons whom I respect as being actual 'christians'
>would fit into the above profile.
>
	How do these "actual Christians" find a mate?  These are people 
who don't date, and somehow still wind up happily married someday?! I think
not.  They probably have some orientation other than straight.  They could be
Aesexual, or gay.  I have met gays who claim they are religious when questioned
about their dating practices.  Ever think that could be what those people are
doing?
	Or, perhaps they are gay, and don't care to admit it to themselves,
so they act like fundamentalist Christians, and pretend everything is
going to be o.k.   I have met examples if that as well.   
	If they are straight, the would at least turn their head when an 
attractive woman walked by...  All straight people have the same kind of
urges.  Perhaps some can control them better or chose to control them better,
but the urges are still there.




Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10441 alt.rush-limbaugh:15406 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14109
From: quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 27 Jan 1993 23:20:48 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <1k6teiINNlpd@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
>
>Fat and ugly peopl -are- protected from discrimination. You can't fire someone
>from their job just because they are fat and/or ugly, unless said condition 
>affects their job. (No one has to hire a fat spokesmodel, for instance). You
>can't refuse fat/ugly people housing simply because they are fat and ugly. Fat

Who told you this Christian.  This is wholly and unambiguously untrue.
Employer have *complete* legal discretion to fire anyone they consider
fat or ugly, for *NO* other reason besides being fat and ugly.  Laws
don't mechanically (or even non-mechanically) do what you subjectively
feel is right... lacking specific legal prohibition, a thing is legal.

Lulu...
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: leus@aix.rpi.edu (Sheua-Wan Leu)
Subject: lift ban on military for gay
Keywords: gay
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:35:19 GMT

Is the gay issue more important than domestic recession problems for 
Mr. Clinton ? 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:52:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.223527.14747@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.212022.10517@netcom.com> rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.163402.9699@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
>>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>I just had an idea!  Let's all lobby to get gays recognized as a 
>>>bonified minority with special rights.  Then, after the laws  get passed, 
>>>write open letters to our bosses stating that we are coming out of 
>>>the closet.  Afterward, if we get fired or layed-off for any reason, 
>>>we can just claim homophobia and discrimination.  We will keep our 
>>>jobs for life!
>>
>>Never mind that you just don't get the point of laws prohibiting
>>discrimination.  Never mind the fact that the only "special" right being
>>sought is the right not to be denied or lose a job or housing by reason
>>of being non-straight.
>>
>>bigger fool.  Gay men may be a bonified minority, but the phrase you
>>want is "bona fide".  It means "good faith", and it has four syllables,
>>not three, when spoken by an educated person.
>>
>>--Rich
>
>Never mind you don't have a sense of humor.  Never mind that you don't 
>understand constructive sarcasm.  And never mind that you just don't
>get his point.  And never mind that you didn't even try.  Looks like 
>you couldn't even get past *bonfied*.

Oh, I understand sarcasm.  And I have a sense of humor ... but it must
be perverted too, because for some reason I found "bonified" much
funnier than I find ridiculing the protection of my civil rights.  No
accounting for taste, I guess.

--Rich
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush