HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:57:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.202525.8547@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.161114.15558@bradley.bradley.edu>, larry@bradley.bradley.edu (L. D. Stratton) writes:
>> 
>>    I focused on that bit of your logic to illustrate a mindset you already
>>    have.  Debate seems pointless.
>
>
>A mindset I already have?
>Ms. Shore said that gay teens commit sucide due to social pressure.
>However, we do not know why some people become homosexuals. So, we do
>not know if what drives them into commiting suicide is social pressure 
>or the same raeson that made the Gays.
>You see, it is neat to reduce everything to short phrases that sound good,
>such as:
>
>Gay teens commit suicide due to social pressure.

This is almost certainly true in the general case.

>If you do not like Gays, you are a bigot.

I have heard no reason for disliking the entire class of queer people
that I would not qualify as irrational.  Hence, yes, I think that's an
inaccurate generalization.

>If you voted yes on OR9 or Co2, you are a hate-monger.

That's a simple statement of fact.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: extremism
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:14:17 GMT
Reply-To: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu
Organization: Nihilists for a Better Tomorrow

In article <1jOZby#5m2Z4706JLYR4fNc621sfd4q=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

>I don't intend to.  I don't claim a right to "public" (that is, extorted)
>money for *my* health care either.

Then I certainly hope you intend to decline any and all medical procedures
which were designed/implemented by public funds, that being your attitude.

Don't get me wrong: I admire your consistancy in this area, inasfar as it
goes.  However, given that nearly *all* medical research is driven in part
by public funding, it's rather hypocritical of you to bash only those parts
of it which don't benefit you directly.

Moreover, consistency is a substitute for neither compassion nor common
sense.  The compassion argument speaks for itself, and you will either
accept it or not - I won't take up your time addressing it.  But consider
common sense:

=0= You seem to aim your ire at those people who acquired HIV through
"irresponsible" behavior.  However, a great number of people have been
infected with it through no fault of their own.  It will cost the same
amount of money to find a cure regardless of which group it is being
developed for.  Are you really willing to condemn the second group to
death for the misdeeds of the first?

=0= HIV is the first lethal retroviral disease known to man.  It will
NOT be the last.  The laws of evolution dictate that a successful model
will be imitated and replicated.  The next disease could be surface,
drinking water or even air-borne.  Do you want to spend the money on
retroviral research before or after this happens?  Consider what three
distinct varieties of the Plague did to Europe - we rarely get such
clear warnings of danger.

=0= You are not immune.  Think about it.


------------Nathan J. Mehl---------------(nmehl@pennsas.upenn.edu)------
It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed.
----[Hit Homophobia where it hurts - it's wallet: Boycott Colorado!]----
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Jesus was gay and John was his lover. (NOT!)
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:39:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <9NOV92.15554756@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu>, smothers@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu writes...
| 
|     As a dabbler in Christian apologetics, I can tell you that all such
|statements [See title] fall out of the bounds of reasonableness.

	True, but then most of the fundamental claims of Christianity fall 
outside the bounds of reasonableness... depending on what you think is 
reasonable, I guess.



|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.

	Actually, the Pauline Scriptures (epistles) suggest that the
homosexual /attractions/ are also sinful.  Remember when Paul spoke of
God giving men over to burn in their desires for one another?  Yes.



|    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

	What?


Bud Cox
Texas A&M University
From: Alan.Moorman@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Alan Moorman)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Text:  C0-2 and OR-9
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 12:57:10 -0600

Subj: Text:  C0-2 and OR-9           Conf: (35) Alt.Politi
___------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWS>  on which the claim of discrimination was based?  That is, you don't
GWS>  say "I was gay, so they fired me", but "My sexual orientation was
GWS>  different from that of my boss, so he fired me."

GWS>  Or am I nuts?

Probably.  But, nicely nuts!  :-)

Rocky.

 * OLX 2.2 * Mental Floss prevents Moral Decay.

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Subject: Re: A Gay Republican Voice
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:09:57 GMT

In article <1jNYO3#0BZn393WnFRK52DQ3H0xnWtz=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>In <1992Nov05.222553.27167@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Howard Black wrote:
>>     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.
>
>The people you call "true Republicans" are Libertarians now.  Verbum sap.

I'd have to mostly agree with that. 

If the Libertarian party plays it right they might end up with alot of the
"true conservatives" as well as people fed up with the drug war. 

While I have some disagreements with the Libertarian viewpoint I'd much
rather have a Libertarian president than a Republican one.
-- 
----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
\  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
 \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/
     Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568        
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg)
Subject: Re: "Gay rights group files complaint"
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:41:41 GMT

In his article, Steve Connelly writes,

>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)

"idiot bigot Leviticus"? Do you have even
the slightest clue to what you are talking about?
Guess not. Then get it.
From: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Clinton
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) 

JM>Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
JM>From: jlajka@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jason Michael Lajka)
JM>Subject: Clinton
JM>Message-ID: <Bx6EGD.MsG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
JM>Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 05:12:12 GMT

JM>My mentality has been filled with indescribable relief.  He kicked some
JM>Republican posterior.  :-)
Even here in Canada   ....we are HAPPY
                                 HAPPY
                                 HAPPY
                                ........Won't be long before Bush' pal
                                        Mulrooooony gets the BOOT!
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
---
 . DeLuxe. 1.21 #777sa . Go ahead! Do it! You can always apologise later.
                                                     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Pull every dollar you are sending to Colorado out...
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 06 Nov 92 21:06:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.004358.22828@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Keith,
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu writes:

>Ok, folks, here's my opinion wrt boycotting Colorado businesses...
>
>Do it.  If you were planning on coming to "Hate^H^H^H^HColorful
Colorado"
>for your vacation, don't.

In making a decision such as this, keep in mind that Amendment 2
FAILED OVERWHELMINGLY in Denver, Boulder and the resort areas.  It was
not enough to overcome the combined rural areas, however.

Retaliation is frequently appropriate, but aim carefully.  When you
attack your friends you are really shooting yourself in the foot.

Greg Bradt  aka  ()The Lensman()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:44:48 GMT

shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

>In article <1992Nov10.132745.44592@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> rminor@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>A question of clarification:  Does the Colorado vote mean that I can
>>discriminate against people who are straight?  

>No.  The amendment specifies, and I quote, "NO PROTECTED
>STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION."

    Well...  This is only true in the three cities that have sexual
orientation clauses in Colorado, namely Boulder, Denver, and Aspen.
Those clauses presumably specify "sexual orientation", so under
them heterosexuals are effectively protected while lesbigays aren't.

    "Equal protection" indeed, eh?

--
   Tim Russell                 Omaha, NE              trussell@unomaha.edu
      "Who can doubt that pleasure is the only goal of a reasoned life?"
                                                   -- Epicurus
From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A Gay Republican Voice
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:38:04 GMT
Reply-To: <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I too would like to see the Republicans take back their party from the 
fundelicals, but I hope lesbigays don't go flocking to their party until they
manifest concern for all other excluded groups, not just our own.   

Too often "the economy" gets talked about only from the point of view of
the middle and upper classes, not from the point of view of my neighbors
sleeping on the grates outside this university building in downtown Newark,
the Calcutta underside of the American dream.   Until we are in solidarity 
with all the downtrodden, our own claims to justice have limited merit.

Louie/Quean Lutibelle


-- 
  ==========================================================================
  Louie Crew, Assoc. Prof., Academic Foundations Dept., Rutgers U./NWK 07102
  lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu                                   201-485-4503
                            Closets are for prayer!
From: aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:55:51 GMT
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Nov12.211544.17333@bradley.bradley.edu>  
larry@bradley.bradley.edu (L. D. Stratton) writes:
> In <1992Nov12.202304.14752@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo  
Pinkas) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov12.193724.22309@tc.cornell.edu>  
shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> >>When
> >>you consider that 30% of teen suicides are related to
> >>sexual identity crises perhaps you can start to understand
> >>the effect that rampant anti-gay hostility has.

> >On this case of suicides, can you prove that they commit suicide  
because
> >of "rampant anti-gay hostility" and not because of the same causes that
> >made them homosexuals?
> 
>    You are supposing a relationship between 'causes' and 'made them'.
>    There is scant evidence of such a relationship as there is of 
>    the 'nature' hypothesis.  
> 
>    As for your question, can you prove any differently?
> 

I am not claiming either way. I am just asking because it seems to be a  
common argument. If you cannot show it either way, why using it?


> >>           Hate is not a family value.  Boycott Colorado
> >>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
> >Do you think that making a boycott against those who voted No on #2 is
> >a good family value?
>  
>    Many of those who voted No will understand, perhaps even join.
>    You don't seem to understand that we are fighting for our rights
>    and, in that fight, must sacrifice to win.  I give of a lot of my
>    time and money to win these battles - and I live in Illinois.

Must sacrify?
Great. So, if someone looses his/her job because of your boycott, even if  
s/he voted No, that person has to understand that s/he has to live on  
poverty and, maybe, stop living as a human being, even if for a short  
time, because of your rights. How about his/her rights?
Interesting. What if they decide to sacrify your rights in order to  
achieve some other goal?
Now, boycotting Colorado from Illinois is simple. Why don't you move there  
and then suffer the boycott?



AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OR-9 goes down in flames!!!!!
Date: 04 Nov 92 19:01:32 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Nov4.050235.19581@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>Just reported on ABC:
>
>OR-9:
>
>Yes: 40%
>
>No:  60%
>
>Thank you, Oregon, for your sanity!!!
>

The results as I currently have them are:

	Yes:  43%
	No:   57%

    The measure has been defeated, but not nearly decisively enough
to prevent the OCA and similar groups from taking additional actions
in the future.

    Everyone be aware - they'll be coming to your state next.

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mritchie@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael S Ritchie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Larry Kramer's new book
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:34:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: magnus.1992Nov7.043429.9722
Organization: The Ohio State University

According to an article in Esquire (I think), Kramer is also
working on a novel, a huge, sprawling thing called something like
_The American Dream_.  I also imagine his new play will be
published soon (I hope).
--Michael
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:6813 talk.politics.space:1436
From: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.space,dartmouth.politics
Subject: Libernet: a libertarian/classical-liberal digest and forum
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:11:38 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu

This is an announcement for Libernet, posted every couple of months
or so to the Usenet politics newsgroups.

***
Members of the network community should know about Libernet,
a mailing-list/discussion group.  Libernet is intended to be a
real-world, high-quality forum for libertarians, classical liberals, and others
interested in applying the philosophy of liberty to tough
policy questions. 

Libernet is for anyone interested in good discussion and provocative ideas, 
including (especially) non-libertarians who are curious about the libertarian 
perspective.  Criticism is not only tolerated but encouraged, provided it is 
kept civil and does not choke the list.  

Libernet is available in two subscription modes: "reflected" and "batch".
"reflected" mode subscribers will receive Libernet messages one at a time,
as they are sent out.  "batch" mode subscribers receive groups of Libernet 
messages in RFC 1154 Digest format, the defacto standard for e-mail digests.
(If you don't know what this means don't worry about it; nothing special
is required to receive batch mode messages).  These batches are published 
daily.  Subscribers should indicate which mode they prefer.

If interested, send mail to libernet-request@dartmouth.edu.  Thank you.

--Barry Fagin (libernet-request@dartmouth.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:55:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.132745.44592@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> rminor@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>A question of clarification:  Does the Colorado vote mean that I can
>discriminate against people who are straight?  

No.  The amendment specifies, and I quote, "NO PROTECTED
STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION."
--
           Hate is not a family value.  Boycott Colorado

       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: A Gay Republican Voice
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 12:54:08 -0600

  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: A Gay Republican Voice         Conf: (35) Alt.Politi
___------------------------------------------------------------------------
WLD>  around.  I believe the GOP will change for the better; one of my
WLD>  premises is that true Conservatism does not discriminate.  True Conservat
WLD>  will be around in the future when people look back on today and ask
WLD>  "How come they thought homosexuals were different?  All that matters
WLD>  is bringing people together and maintaining a good economy!"

Unfortunately for you, I believe that the majority of people who "think
homosexuals are different", as you so politely put it, are political
conservatives -- and usually Republicans.

If you really feel strongly about non-discrimination, I think you should
change your party afilliation (to a party which is up front about
fighting discrimination) and work to bring that party to your way of
thinking on other-than-discrimination issues (economics, etc.) instead
of allying yourself with a bunch of bigots, and then saying you don't
believe what they believe.

You're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time,
and that just doesn't cut it!

Get real!  :-)

Rocky

 * OLX 2.2 * Hello, I am part number ||X||||X||X||X||

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
From: Alan.Moorman@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Alan Moorman)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: CO-2 Ammendment PASSES 8
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 12:37:06 -0600

  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: CO-2 Ammendment PASSES 8-      Conf: (35) Alt.Politi
___------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBW>  Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality

MBW>    Colorado's ammendment 2, which lamentably passed by about 54% to 46%, a
MBW>  showing a 14% lag in the polls the day before, basically says the followi

One small ray of light there in Colorado, is that some of the larger
cities are classed as Home Rule cities, which means they can ignore that
amendment if they want to.  Right?

Do you know which cities, besides Denver, are HRs?  Are they likely to
ignore the amendment???  I understand that the Denver mayor has said
Denver will ignore it.  And the governor has said he/the state will
challenge the amendment, somehow.  Any further news???

Hugs,

Rocky.

 * OLX 2.2 * Hello, I am part number ||X||||X||X||X||

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: How Many Homosexuals?
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.misc
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:59:06 GMT

In article <69175@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:

>The LA Times poll came up with 3% gay for either national or CA polls.
>
>Another interesting parallel between gays and Jews - depending on 
>whether you looked at the CA or US exit poll, the LA Times poll showed
>that gays were either just above or just below Jews in preference for
>Clinton over Bush, exceeded only by liberals, Democrats, and Blacks.

   Another interesting parallel between gays and Jews, Arthur: If we
apply your statistics to the population of the United States, we find
there are "just" six million homosexuals.

   Anyone remember what happened to six million Jews?

            Elf !!!
-- 
      __        | The post you have just read is real, but it could
      \/        | have been avoided.  Inbreeding is everyone's
Elf Sternberg   | problem.  Contact your local Mormon church and 
elf@halcyon.com | be sure you aren't marrying a close relative.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg)
Subject: CO-2
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:45:34 GMT

What does the CO-2 amendment actually say?
From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: homosexual adoption
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:32:40 GMT
Reply-To: <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

gns0897@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:


>  I am writing an opposing viewpoints paper for a class on homosexual adoption
>So far I have been unable to find a lot of information on whether homosexual
>couples should or should not be able to adopt.
>  I would greatly appreciate any information you may have on this topic.
>  Thanks in advance!
>                                         Nicole

Check back issues of JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY.  We have published numerous
related articles, some as direct hits, some as important tangents.

Louie Crew
(on the editorial board, but speaking only for myself)

-- 
  ==========================================================================
  Louie Crew, Assoc. Prof., Academic Foundations Dept., Rutgers U./NWK 07102
  lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu                                   201-485-4503
                            Closets are for prayer!
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 03:05:27 GMT


Re: Don't encourage homosexuality...

No, Measure 9 went further than that; it was a 
resolution that basiclly stated that the offical 
governmental view if homosexuality is that it's 
unnatural, perverse and morally incorrect...
THEREFORE, since homosexuality is morally wrong, it 
isn't something you can teach in schools is an 
acceptable lifestyle.
-- 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:6798 soc.motss:46089
From: larry@bradley.bradley.edu (L. D. Stratton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Larry Kramer's new book
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:55:37 GMT
Organization: Bradley University


   Rumor has it that Larry has a new book out.  That is the 
   extent of my knowledge on the subject.  BTW, is Kramer with 2 'm's?

   Does (God I hate these mini-strokes), the author of "And the Band
   Played On", also have a new tome?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality