HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:15:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.011307.23542@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) 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!
>
>Actually, there's a lot to be said for Mr. Krueger's idea.  However,
>gays are somewhat integrated into many segments of society and it
>isn't clear that if Mr. Krueger were to be fired, that it might not
>be by a supervisor who either had a record of supporting gay rights,
>or who was gay him(her)self.   That would tend to undermine his idea.
>
>However, if Mr. Krueger claimed to be a necrophiliac, I doubt that
>he would ever run into the problem that his boss was one too.  If
>Ted wants me to help, I'll be happy as a clam to help spread that
>rumor about.  In fact, I even know somebody at the College of Medicine,
>and we could possibly get a body for Mr Krueger to keep in his closet
>at work.
>
>Hey, if we got Ted a male corpse, he could be a homosexual
>necrophiliac.   I'd love to see him write a letter to his boss
>about that!

Tell you what, Mr. Peregrin, I'll go along with this plan if the corpse is 
YOURS!

Ted raises a valid point about the enforcement of discrimination laws with
respect to homosexuals.  For that matter, he could simply claim bisexuality
and continue about his life without making any changes.  And forever after, his
employer would have the potential for a discrimination suit hanging over his
head if he fires Mr. Krueger.

Now you, on the other hand, raise no new or valid points in your response.  
Instead, you resort to an extreme position for the obvious purpose of
ridiculing Mr. Krueger, since you lack the points to counter his argument.
Now, using humor and irony to make a point is one thing, and even its use for
a cheap laugh is worthwhile.  However, when you fail to make a single cogent
point and only succeed in making yourself look petty and juvenile, you do both
yourself and the net a disservice.

					Tom the non hacker
					tsmith@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
					return address is set wrong, mail
					personal responses to the above address
From: LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Black Ski Group Refuses to Boycott (Rocky Mountain News article)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 14:04:34 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


The following is from _Rocky Mountain News_ (Sat, Jan 16, 1993), page 28.  

Article is reprinted here without permission:                   
                                   
==========================================================================

"Black skiers won't boycott Colorado:  Brotherhood plans to
 open office at Copper Mountain"

by Robert Jackson


   A national black ski organization will not boycott Colorado because
of Amendment 2, and instead will announce plans to open a satellite
office in Copper Mountain next year and eventually move its national office
to Colorado.

   The executive committee of the National Brotherhood of Skiers Inc.
made the decision Thursday, opening day of its 20th Anniversary Summit
in Vail, where nearly 6,000 members are expected to participate throughout
the week.  The formal announcement of the Copper Mountain office is
expected on Sunday.

   For every 1,000 black skiers who attend an NBS summit, an estimated
$1 million is generated, said spokesman Bob Bradshaw.

   NBS has 75 ski clubs in 62 cities and 22 states with a membership
of more than 14,000, Bradshaw said.

   "Colorado has been good to us," said Bradshaw.  "That's why we are 
moving an office here and are discussing relocating our national office 
here.  We see no reason to boycott.  If anything, we feel that it would
be appropriate to selectively boycott those cities that voted for
Amendment 2."

   Bradshaw said NBS is a non-profit organization and is required by law
to maintain a non-political posture.

   "The NBS is particularly sensitive to the significance of the issues
raised by the Colorado vote, as they relate to the ongoing struggle of
African-American people," Bradshaw said.  "However, the recent elections
took place one year after the NBS had signed and financially committed to 
a contract with Vail/Beaver Creek Resort."

   He said with more than 3,5000 people registered in advance, it was
impractical for the organization to choose another location.

   "Who would benefit?"  he asked.  "Not our members or the youngsters
in our National Youth Program.  It's at these events where we raise money
for them.  Vail would be the benefactor because our people have paid in
advance."

   "As always, we respect the right of free people in a democratic society
to pursue their separate or collective destiny," he said.

   NBS was founded at Aspen in 1973.  The group held summits in Colorado
in 1981, 1989, and 1992.

-end of article-
==========================================================================


Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10437 alt.rush-limbaugh:15402 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14099 alt.politics.clinton:21498 alt.politics.bush:16423
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Read this if you are Ted Krueger!
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:48:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1k1e4dINNdqo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:
>
>I just had an idea!  Let's all chip in to get Ted Krueger a dictionary. 
>Maybe we could hire someone to help him with the hard words, the ones
>that liberals use, words like "bona fide."  Afterward, when he gets fired
>or laid off, or even layed-off, he'll have lots of time to browse through 
>it and maybe learn a thing or two about writing coherent English prose.  He
>could keep this knowledge for life!

This is the second personal flame on me today.  All interested participants 
should recall that my limit is three per day.  Let's race to see who can 
get the last one in!

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 07:03:17 GMT

In article <1k4vcaINNgju@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> zeng@mth.msu.edu
(Zhonggang Zeng) writes:

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

If the armed forces open some divisions to Chinese-Americans, and ban
them in the remaining units, would the Chinese-American community
accept that solution?

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cjk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:35:27 GMT

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*.

In fact......we'll just never mind you.

Poor
cjk@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:29:27 GMT

In article <1jv6feINNbt5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> 
cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:

> After all, once you've "come out of the closet", you could never make
> -any- kind of reference to being straight ever again, could you? You'd 
> have to lie, and pretend to be gay, and pretend to be indignant when 
> someone says a -really funny- joke about AIDS, 

It's not necessary to be a homosexual in order to express indignation
over a "really funny joke about AIDS".  You're giving heterosexuals
way too little credit.  

> and you'd have to pretend to be 'between boyfriends',

I've had to pretend to be 'between girlfriends' before.

> and generally have to repress your own personal beliefs because you don't 
> want to lose your job. 

What makes you think heterosexuals don't have to go through
similar contortions?

>Christian Wagner 


Doug Holtsinger
From: ferret@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Paul Stephen Hinkle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:12:49 GMT
Organization: Homewood Academic Computing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

In article <1k4vcaINNgju@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> zeng@mth.msu.edu 
    (Zhonggang Zeng) writes:
>If the armed forces open 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 enlighted if somebody give good reason that I'm wrong.

How about this... not all l/g/b want to be out. Can't you see it--

   "Heh mom, I just enlisted in the army!"
   "Oh, I guess you will be leaving then. Where are you going?"
   "Umm, Lambda Division..."
   "ISN'T THAT THE QUEER GROUP??!"

Not to mention that other militery personnell would be able to readily
identify a "queer boy" if they wanted to go out bashing and such. Personal
privacy, job security and minimal risk of body are all factors in this
issue. Bashing will most likely increase as a result of integration, however
putting a division patch on a soldiers sleeve that screams "GAY" is not
going to help the situation at all. Setting gays apart will just open the
way for suicide missions, bashing and slow promotion. Other groups have
survived such a cooling off period, but those other groups also had loses
that should have been minimized. I hope this helps.


-- Paul Hinkle
-- 

Paul Hinkle                 |  "The harder to get the better to have...
disclaimer:                 |   Agreed...
I'm a techie, Not an actor  |   Agreed..."     --Stephen Sondheim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:57:07 GMT

StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams) writes:

]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

]>]As a gay person, I don't feel safe walking the streets.  I have no
]>]defense if I get fired for my sexual orientation.  Heterosexuals do.

]>As a white person, I don't feel safe walking many of the streets
]>of Phoenix.

]>What defense do I have if I am fired for my sexual orientation that you
]>do not have???

]In Colorado at least, and soon possibly Oregon, Idaho, and Ohio, you 
]could sue your former employer for discrimination on the basis of your
]heterosexuality, and try to get recompensated for lost wages and
]emotional trauma.

So could you. The Colorado amendment simply prevents the enactment of
certain laws, which don't currently exist. It doesn't establish
any grounds for lawsuits and it doesn't deny them. Nice try.

]In Colorado, homosexuals and bisexuals no longer have that "right"/privelege.

So what, neither to hets.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: larry@bradley.bradley.edu (L. D. Stratton)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 18:32:43 GMT

In <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
   There is a school of thought that CONSENTING sexual acts should be
   legal.  Note that I did not say moral - depending on one's particular
   moral code.
>> just like homosexuality.  What's the difference?  Only who your
   Whoa!  Since you have already condemned homosexuality, your ability
   discuss instead of argue has just been drawn asunder.
>> partner is...right.  Well, our laws have developed from Judeo/
>> Christian morals (for the most part).  Why is murder 
   The emphasis is on OUR.  You are not the only group in this country.
   And Judeo/Christian morals are not unique in condemnation of murder,
   child abuse, theft, lying.
>> 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.
   Wrong again.  Judeo/Christian beliefs are not unique in this respect.
   Therefore, how do you know that the 'law of the land' is based 
   specifically on Judeo/Christian beliefs?

>Re-stated, what do the homosexual posters here think about laws 
>against besiality?  Is it OK?  Should it be illegal?   
   What do the heterosexual posters believe?  Some will call it immoral,
   illegal, etc.  Others will ascribe to a more libertarian view that
   'whatever' goes. (My last statement is unfair to Libertarians but
   I admit I am not well versed in Libertarianism.)  The same distribution
   would be found among homosexuals.  

   But, let us return to an earlier point.  Since you readily state a
   condemnation of homosexuality, it is unlikely you will change your
   mind based on anyone's writings here and it is very unlikely anyone's
   mind will be changed by your writing.  The best to be expected is for
   all concerned to hone their argumentative skills.

   We may take hope that your views are not representative of all 
   Christians and others are not representative of all homosexuals.
   Each has his opinion and beliefs which differ from others of the
   homogenous group.  Argue on..........
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:34:24 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> 
> A better question might be: "Why is the sexual immorality of homosexuality
> still accepted by some through blind faith, while casting away the other
> social behavior laws?"

Other social behavior laws like women wearing pants, short hair, etc?  Some 
specific examples would help the answer. 

> Or, what is the real distinction between sexual conduct and social conduct?

I'm missing what you're driving at there. 

Walter
From: LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Injunction Appealed, Am #2 (Boulder's Daily Camera article)
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:31:09 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


The following article is from Daily Camera (Boulder, Colorado), 
Jan 20, 1993.

Article is reprinted here without permission:

======================================================================

"As promised, state appeals ruling on '2'"

By Linda Cornett


   As promised, the Attorney General's Office on Tuesday asked the
Colorado Supreme Court to overturn a district court injunction
against Amendment 2.

   The injunction issued Friday by Denver District Judge Jeffery
Bayless was "extraordinary" and based on "novel legal theories,"
according to motions signed by Deputy Attorney General Paul Farley.

   The Attorney General's Office also has asked Bayless to grant a
"stay" of his own injunction, reminding Bayless that his injunction
prohibits the enforcement of a voter-approved amendment to the Colorado
constitution and that this is an issue on which there is no specific
legal precedent.

   Voters on Nov. 3 approved Amendment 2, which prohibits laws or
policies protecting homosexuals and bisexuals from discrimination
based on their sexual orientation.

   Opponents, including the cities of Boulder, Aspen and Denver,
filed suit in district court, charging that the amendment is
unconstitutional. They also asked the court for an injunction to
prevent the amendment from going into effect while the lengthy court
challenge is played out.

   Following a four-day hearing, Bayless did so, saying that he
believed there was a good chance the amendment will be overturned.

   Less than two hours later, Gov. Roy Romer and Attorney General
Gale Norton announced they would appeal the decision. Norton and
Romer were named in the lawsuit because they are charged with
enforcing the new law.

   The Attorney General's Office also has asked the Supreme Court
to hurry its ruling on the appeal. "This is an extraordinary step,
and directly implicates the right of the people of the state of
Colorado to self-government," the motion states.

   Bayless' decision on a stay is expected within a day or two. It
is unknown when the Supreme Court will take up the appeal, according
to a court clerk.

-end of article-
======================================================================

By the way, Bayless has refused to change his ruling.  So now it
is up to the state Supreme Court.

-maria
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10287 alt.rush-limbaugh:15156 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13828 alt.politics.clinton:21230 alt.politics.bush:16366
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Try it if you want (Re: Read this if you are straight!)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:21 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

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!

	Sounds like a good idea Ted.  You must be very proud.

Gadson

--sig-------------------------------------------------------
The radical right clearly doesn't understand gays.  

It is now the trend in right-speak to declare, "No
special rights for gays and lesbians!"

But there's nothing "special" about gay rights.  What gays
ask for are the implied rights that most other people take 
for granted.  Straight people have the luxury of not getting
fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation.
Gay people ask for the same job security.  

People often do not realize that banning discrimination 
based on sexual orientation protects all people, gay and 
non-gay.  It's a /general/ right which protects gays from 
/special/ discrimination.

If we were going to ask for special rights, we'd 
think of something better than things like being allowed 
into the military or equity in the work force.

Rather, as special rights, we'd ask for something like a 
more buff Supreme Court (dump those dowdy robes, guys & gals, 
they went out of fashion about 200 years ago!).  We'd
ask for federally-funded tea dances, though, in these 
troubled economic times, only the first two mixed drinks 
would be subsidized.  

Oh yes -- our cats and our pickup trucks would count as 
dependents for tax purposes.  

But there's really nothing special about gays asking
protection from prejudices so that we may lead our lives
otherwise as "normal" as possible.  
------------------------------------------------------------ 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10374 alt.rush-limbaugh:15293 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13987 alt.politics.clinton:21372 alt.politics.bush:16399