HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
XXXDate: Thu, 28 Jan 93 17:06:11 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A78D6093FA040614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:06:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.000636.6549@anasazi.com> Brian Douglass,
briand@anasazi.com writes:
>If we had a law/series of laws that outlawed discrimination as a general
>activity, without having to enumerate every possible act imaginable, then
>ALL Americans would be protected against discrimination, regardless of what
>"class" they see themselves.  Such a law would protect the gay person in
>Colorado from being refused housing simply because he/she is gay, just as
>it would the smoker from being fired because they smoke in the privacy of
>their own home.  Such a law *embraces* all Americans under its protection
>instead delineating each of those within its bounds, and by corallary
>excluding those not mentioned.
>
>I'm no legal expert, but I believe the latest Civil Rights act has just
>such a clause within it.  Could someone please comment.

I'm not aware of any =active= legislation along the lines that you describe,
but it would certainly solve the problem.

I have heard about proposed legislation in congress which would prevent
employers from firing people for other than business related reasons.  This
would solve the employment problem.  Analogous legislation regarding
housing, employment benefits and social benefits would pretty much deal with
the whole problem.  Perhaps the current proposal is the first step in that
direction.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT                    | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172             | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243                |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:00:33 GMT

In article <1jpag0INNl9m@transfer.stratus.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.

Elf Sternberg made the following point: we enslave animals as our
"pets," we murder them needlessly for their meat and for their pelts
-- why should making them into our sex toys be considered more heinous
than anything else we do to them?  Well, Mark?  Why should it?

I would not participate in bestiality, as it holds no attraction for
me, and I wouldn't vouch for the mental health of someone claiming
to have entered into a deep emotional relationship with a non-sentient
being.  On the other hand, I'm not too sure of the mental stability of
most people who hunt for sport, either.

>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.

Hey, pal, call it a hunch, but I think you'll find an awful lot of
non-Judeo-Christian cultures that prohibit murder, child abuse, and
theft.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:55:17 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.
>  Gay men may be a bonified minority, but the phrase you
>want is "bona fide".

HAHAHAHhahahah.  I love it.  Hey, I'm not gay, but I enjoy getting
bonified as much as the next guy.  <rimshot>

Bows, exits quickly.

-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
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 19:14:21 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> 
> It seems to me that if one reads Paul's epistles carefully, a lot of Mosaic
> law has miraculously been carried over,

This I'll agree with; fortuantely, Paul isn't the only source in the NT 
for 'sexual morality' issues; see Acts 15 (Peter) 

> this in spite of the fact that
> large amounts of it, INCLUDING especially homosexual acts, were never addressed
> by Christ.

Homosexuality specifically, no; but sexual morality, yes. 

> Not only that, but Paul prefaced his opinions with the disclaimer that they
> were NOT the word of God, but his own under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

True.  Of course, to Christians, that's hardly something to be taken 
lightly.   

> Strange, although this is clearly NT and has not been superseded, most
> Christians no longer forbid women to speak in church, nor insist on head
> covering, nor any of the other "moral" laws Paul spoke of.
> Perhaps is it the realization that abandoning outdated cultural norms is
> NOT AT ALL the same thing as abandoning Christianity.

The items you mention, in terms of morality, are not nearly on the 
same level as sexaul morality.  

Walter
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,ca.politics
From: murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy)
Subject: Re: Facts on Gays and Number of Partners
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:56:31 GMT



Two things about the studies cited there:

Two studies are from 1982 or 1983.  Much about gay sexual behavior,
in general, has changed since then.  That was a million years ago.

> Winkelstein

This study is particularly flawed because it targeted only a very, very
narrow slice of the gay community, one targeted to be more promiscuous
than the population as a whole.  I wouldn't generalize from it, not a
bit.
-- 
-------------------
Daniel A. Murphy        Net:         murphy@well.sf.ca.us
San Francisco, CA       GEnie:       D.MURPHY11
U.S.A.                  MCI Mail:    377-7947
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10314 talk.religion.misc:27596
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:36:32 GMT
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1jp6inINN8h6@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>That explains this part of your response to kebarnes:
>>this is quite a presumption, actually.  do you have anything
>>other than your feeble mind-power to base it on (hint: it's
>>incorrect).
>*Remarkably* accepting, tolerant, and non-judgemenal. 

<smile> thank you.  when someone posts about something they
know nothing about -- their opinion -- as if it were fact, 
i call them on it.  i am tolerant, accepting and non-judgemental
as a person.  you can ask anyone who knows me, including all 
those who disagree with me.  

i notice *you* had nothing at all to say to anything i actually
said.  surprisingly enough.  

how many gay and lesbian parents do you know, walter?

peg

>
>Walter
>
From: markw@meaddata.com (Mark Wasson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Facts on Gays and Number of Partners
Date: 28 Jan 1993 18:32:14 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: linguist.meaddata.com

In article <74488@cup.portal.com>, Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
|> doc931/gayprom.txt
|> 
|> Are Gays Promiscuous? (More Politely - have more sexual partners on
|> average than heterosexuals?)
|> 
I'm not challenging the proposition that gays have more sex partners
on average than straights do.

The question of interest has to do with whether homosexuality directly
results in promiscuous behavior or is such behavior common among all
people in socio-economic groups in which homosexuals are
disproportionately represented.

Suppose, for example, that someone observes that the average black
woman is more likely to die from breast cancer than the average white
woman is.

- the average black household has a lower household income than the
average white household

- poor people are less likely to spend money on preventive medicine

- early detection (e.g., mammography) of breast cancer increases the
likelihood of surviving the cancer

The question for this example is whether there is something biological
that contributes to the higher incidence of breast cancer, or is it a
result of economic factors.  The correct answer is important in order
to correctly address the problem of cancer.

A greater proportion of whites earn college degrees than blacks do.  I
certainly hope that no one would use that observation to argue that
blacks are dumber than whites, when socio-economic differences are in
fact the cause.

A lot of racism and bigotry has resulted from the mis-interpretation
and/or incompleteness of studies that attempt to make claims about
classes of people.

When posting the results of some study, it would be quite useful to
post information on what all factors they analyzed to account for the
results - those factors that may contribute to the conclusion as well
as those that they rule out.

The conclusion of the study may be valid, but without detailed
information that demonstrates that other potential causes were in fact
analyzed and appropriately eliminated, the results of the study may be
called into question.

So what socio-economic factors might contribute to different sexual
behavior between gays and straights?

- For same sex/age/income/marital or SO status groups, how does
promiscuity compare between gays and straights?

- How does it compare in rural areas with only straight-oriented
public entertainment options, vs. smaller cities with a few gay bars,
to San Francisco with a rather open gay culture?

- How about cross-occupation comparisons?

To make some claim about gay promiscuity, such factors have to be
eliminated first.

Mark
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are homosexual.
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:40:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.064734.10575@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:

>In article <C1Htn6.7KH@agora.rain.com> taurus@agora.rain.com (Scott Burch) writes:
>
>>I just want gays and lesbian couples to be recognized as a joint union
>>between two people that love each other. 
>
>Who do you want to recognize this?  Its important.  If you want legal
>recognition that is fine and fair.  If you want *moral* social acceptance, thats
>a whole different matter.

Of course I want social acceptance, but this can't be prescribed.  (I
do believe that the letter of the law has an effect on what people
think of as "moral" and "immoral," but that's sort of another ballgame
here.)  For example, if my lover is hospitalized, if I can be assured
that my legal guardianship of him will not go contested by the
hospital, I don't give a flying fuck at the proverbial rolling
doughnut what you *think* of me.

>And mainstream
>heterosexuals and bisexuals may accept the right of homosexuals to exist as
>legal equals to heterosexuals and bisexuals, they will snicker and sneer and
>make jokes amoung themselves about them.

I don't understand this grouping here.  Are you suggesting that the
majority of bisexuals side with heterosexuals on this issue?  That's
funny.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10344 soc.motss:58563
From: gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Conservative Republican Sen. D'Amato supports gays in military
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:07:40
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: lugh.think.com


Dow Jones News Service reported that not all Republican are
supporting the ban.  In fact, Sen. D'Amato announced on the
Senate floor that he supports Clinton's efforts to lift the
ban.

From my bit of familiary with NY politics, D'Amato is quite
conservative and not a typical ally of gay people.  He won
by a very thin margin again Bob Avrams, a long-time ally of
the gay community (but new-found enemy of the
Italian-American community in New York).

I don't think Congress could override a Clinton veto; I also
think that Clinton would veto any legislation that tries to
impose the ban.  This issue goes far beyond gay rights.  The
president is the commander of the military, not the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and not Congress.

--gordon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:11:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.122654.5155@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.233547.11972@microsoft.com>,
>fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>> My 5 year old is being rote-taught the pledge of allegience, along with
>> all of the other 5 year olds in kindergarten.  This is contrary to my
>> value system and that of my wife.
>
>How specifically?  If it's the part about "under God", that was Congress'
>doing. :)
Does that make it any less objectionable?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10224 alt.rush-limbaugh:15057 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13730
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: 24 Jan 1993 22:50:22 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.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!

Actually, Ted, this isn't a bad idea. That way, assholes like you (and only 
assholes like you would try to pull a stunt like this) would understand how 
it feels to be a homosexual in today's workplace, constantly having to act 
like something you aren't in order to hold your job. 

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, and you'd have to pretend to be 'between boyfriends',
and generally have to repress your own personal beliefs because you don't want
to lose your job. 

Although, Ted, the boss could probably fire someone like -you- anyway. After
all, it's perfectly legal to fire someone if they act like an asshole at work.
And from the way you come across on the net, it would surprise me not in the
slightest to find out you're just as annoying in person.

Get a clue, Ted.

-- 
    "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:10362 soc.motss:58645
From: buckmr@rs6421.ecs.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Military Ban on Gays/ FAX NUMBERS
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:25:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: rpi.38p3jt#

tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett) writes:


>Take time, compose your letter, FAX it, and then send the copy in the
>mail.  There will be more issues for another day and we certainly want
>the avenues of communication to be left open.

Well, this is a VERY significant first issue for clinton to go to battle with
conservatives on. If we lose this it will MOST DEFINITELY affect what kind of
real progressive change can be accomplished later in his term.

Here are those addresses:


Gen. Colin L. Powell
Chairman
Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Pentagon
Washington, DC  20301-5000

vox: 703-697-9121.   
fax: 703-697-8758.   

Bill Clinton
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 456-1414
(202) 456-2883 [fax]

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``BOYCOTT COLORADO!''
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door."
                                                                 -Harvey Milk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen)
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:55:13 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?
>
>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.

Well, Mr. Zeng, let me ask you a question in return.  Some people don't
like Asians.  But we allow them in the military, of course.  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.  Would you find that acceptable?  Non-straight people think your
suggestion sounds like that.

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are entitled to be treated like other
people; if someone is uncomfortable with us, it is their problem, not
ours.  It is not a reason to treat us like second-class citizens, or
second-class soldiers.

--Rich
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10182 alt.rush-limbaugh:14990 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13634 alt.politics.clinton:21073 alt.politics.bush:16314
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 22:51:22 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov


In article <john.727818510@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|>fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
|>>In article <john.727477570@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|>>Someone else wrote, and many people jumped on,
|>>>>Furthermore, in the case of gays, you already have a higher average earning
|>>>>than het's in the US. You are not in a good position to claim economic
|>>>>victimhood.
|>
|>>If you are doing a survey of annual income of gays, the only people in your
|>>survey are those who are openly gay.  It is much more likely for a well
|>>educated and/or well established gay or lesbian to be able to be openly gay.
|>>Not too many gay labor workers are going to be openly gay.
|>
|>So what? Those who are not openly gay are not going to be discriminated
|>against for their sexual preference!

1) the original statement was "in the case of gays", implying all gays,
which includes those who are openly gay, and those who are not.  

2) in another posting, it has been pointed out that the survey in question
was actually comparing dual-income male couples to dual- and single- income
male-female couples.  Since in the US females generally make less than males,
of course any such survey will show that dual-income male couples make more.

3) Of course if one is openly gay, one is more of a target for overt
discrimination, but someone who is not openly gay is still discriminated
against.  He/she still cannot marry his/her partner, cannot receive dependant
benifits, cannot (without lying to the recruiting officer) join the military,
etc.

--
Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
SRL-1:  STS-59, launch date April 14, 1994
SRL-2:  STS-68, launch date December 1, 1994
finger for details
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10324 alt.rush-limbaugh:15211 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13882
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: 26 Jan 1993 08:13:11 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan25.214250.7296@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <C1E1nB.3J4.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>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.  
>>> ^^^^^^^^
>> I know that Kreuger is just excersizing 
>>             ^^^^^^          ^^^^^^^^^^
>I think Susan Garvin's misspelling of "exercising" and "Krueger"
>is at least as funny as Ted Krueger's misspelling of "bona fide".  
>Is anyone keeping score on this thread??   Do I win a prize??!! 
>... huh, huh??... yuk yuk... (note intentional misspelling of "yuk").

I think Doug's inability to comment on any -real- issues is at least as funny
as his inability to get his head out of his ass.

BTW, Doug, setting the 'Followup' line to 'misc.test' is -not- exactly the 
kind of action a mature Usenet poster performs. But then, of course, you -are-
posting from the Limbaugh groups, so maturity isn't something I expect from 
you. 

Grow up, Doug. 

>---
>Doug Holtsinger

'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation that Doug Holtsinger -really-
-- 
    "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