HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:19:33 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.

In article <dlhanson.30.726423550@nap.amoco.com> David L. Hanson writes:

>Mr. Barwell has again shown his ignorance (or is it contempt) of the Bible.

Really? I thought it was quite good... :-}}

>God wrote the Bible by inspiring mortals to write what He wanted to say.

Ah. Like demonstrating that pi=3 (check out 1 kings 7:23 - its quite 
specific), bats are birds, grasshoppers having four legs, differing
stories about Judas, etc., etc. 

If God really did inspire people to write this kind of stuff I would be
most disappointented in him/her/it/whatever.

>God does indeed hate sin including sodomy, adultery and divorce.  Let no 

Ah. Thats what I like to see, a real OT view of a vengeful God, hating
things... Ah well.

Incidentally I find it odd that people think God hates sodomy, when its
only ever mentioned in the context of gang rape or ritual cultic
prostitution (Old and New testament), and why people also think this means
a condmenation of homosexuality.

First off, what of lesbians, who commit sodomy fairly rarely at a guess, 
what of the many heterosexual couples who perform anal sex, and the many
homosexual couples who do not? 

People who commit sodomy and homosexuals are merely overlapping sets, and
neither identical nor a case of one including the other.

I do wish that these foaming fundies would
a) read their bible _properly_ 
b) get their facts right about what people do in bed

Have fun!
Dave

-------- daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk -----------------------------------------------
| Will you still suck me,    | #include <std.disclaimer.h>                    |
| tie me up and fuck me?     |                             ** Beard rides **  |
| When I'm 64...             | Whisky, Sex and Blues...                       |
---------------------------------------------- B5(6.5) f- t- g+ k+ s+ e r p ---
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:54:57 GMT

In article <1infnuINNdks@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >   The same difference as de facto segregation and de jure segregation;
> > the latter being a far more reprehensible and odious pronouncement.
> > Legalized privilege (or debasement) is several rungs down the ladder
> > to hell as it tries to give an odor of legal morality to that which 
> > otherwise stinks like shit.
> 
> Col#2 doesn't give "Legalized privilege".  

  Of course this is bull. You have purposefully left out the part
where homosexuals and bisexuals are removed from the sexual orientation
clauses but heterosexuals are not. This isn't privilege in it's worst
manifestation? Puleeze.

> The only thing it has really 
> done to this point is overturn Denver, Boulder, and Aspen's regulations 
> regarding 'sexual orientation' and discrimination.  Now, there are no 
> protections regarding 'sexual orientation' in the discrimination ordinances. 
> Which is the exact same case as with the Cracker Barrell situation, and 
> the exact same situation as in most of the country.  In most parts of 
> the country, there are no 'sexual orientation' clauses in the discrimination 
> laws.  So, for practical purposes, what makes the current situation in 
> Colorado any different from these other places where discrimination is 
> legal? 

  Next I suppose you are going to tell us that Jim Crow laws were
just great since they only codified the discrimination that was
already prevelent throughout society anyway. Sheesh.
  So Walter, I don't believe that I've seen you answer this one:
are *other* anti-discrimination laws OK, like the ones which prevent
discrimination on the basis of religion? If not why didn't the folks
down there in the Springs just make CO-2 be inclusive of *all* 
anti-discrimination laws? Can't you see where the smug hypocrisy
of all of this nonsense is?
  Unless you have some principle which says that as a general 
ideology anti-discimination laws are wrong, I give you just
about as much credence as the southerners howling about giving
the "niggers" and "kikes" special priviliges -- like being able
to vote. That is to say, none.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (C.J.K.)
Subject: Re: Gay marriage
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 09:36:43 GMT

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

>|In article <1204@bug.UUCP> Steven R Fordyce, stevef@bug.UUCP writes:
>|>What is the purpose of legal marriage?  That is the question you have to
>|>answer first before you can deal with any of the above.  There is only one
>|>justification for the legal institution of marriage: children.

>	Property too -- that is a justification.  And medical decisions and
>rights.
>
Visitation rights in hospitals, spousal rights for survivorship and
inheritance, family leave at work (if it exists), legal adoption of
spouse's children, options for tax filing, "next of kin" status, etc.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Educational Techniques(was Re: Sexuality)
XXXDate: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:28:43 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A772F9CBAA030614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 08 Jan 93 16:29:24 GMT

In article <dlhanson.31.726451977@nap.amoco.com> David L. Hanson,
dlhanson@nap.amoco.com writes:
>I too have read studies (I don't have the sources, sorry) that show that
>drug education programs (such as DARE) increase drug use, and sex education
>programs increases fornication. 

This is as shaky as a one legged table.  Yes, drug and sex education
programs are in place and yes, drug and sexual activity are increasing.  To
suggest that one causes (or even contributes to) the other is an unjustified
leap of logic.

>IF parents taught their children
>moral values instead of heathen relativism AND IF the parents shelter their
>children, there wouldn't be a problem to talk about.

I don't know if you've noticed, but we are moving toward an information
based society/economy.  You just =can't= hide information from people in
such an environment, as much as you might wish to do so, without moving into
a cave and cutting yourself off from the outside world.

Given that unavoidable reality, it is =much= better to get the =best=
available information to our children regarding things like drug use and
sex, so that if and when they decide to get involved with them, they can do
so in a way that has as little harmful consequences as possible.

>It is just that a
>large number of people don't get the connection between sin and its 
>consequences.

Sin isn't and never will be the issue.  People must understand the
concequences of =actions=!  That is what education is all about.

>Adult examples of the kind of seared consciences this kind of
>child rearing produces are becoming more and more common it seems.

We have similar problems with those who prefer to base their lives on
religious dogma (i.e. "sin") which blinds them to the realities of the world
around them.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Quotas
Summary: An interesting case of a proposed quota
Keywords: homosexual civil rights politics
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:50:16 GMT

With all the discussion about civil rights and gays, I thought I'd note
a recent occurance here at Iowa State University. It was recently proposed
(though not enacted0 that there be a set on the student government body
set aside for a gay or lesbian individual. (I guess I should say openly
gay or lesbian individual.)

While it never went anywhere, had it I most likely would have objected.
Why? Among other reasons, given the size of the GSB, there are almost
certainly gay and lesbian individuals present. I would also argue that
it is not a necessary requirement for someone to be openly gay/lesbian
to effectively represent all gay/lesbian individuals.

We should know that we are opening up a potential can of worms with civil
rights and should discuss these issues openly without name calling. There
is certainly a large fraction of the populace which favors civil rights
for gays, but not to the extent that racial minorities have.

Noone should be denied housing (if they can afford it) or a job (if other-
wise qualified) and I would support laws codifying this. However, there
are other issues which trouble me. For example, I do not believe that
sexual preference should play a role in hiring. Certainly, one can see
how with the recent selection of the Clinton cabinet that sex and race
did play a role.

It is quite true that most major corporations have defacto hiring quotas.
(I think the source for this was a Wall Street Journal article, but it's
been awhile.) The minority content of civil services (especially police)
is looked at very closely.

Whether or not you like it, these are issues which will come up. If not
addressed by the legislation, these issues will be brought up by opponents.

O.K. Flame-retardent suit on. Fire away folks!

Paul Lane
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:51:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.095031.21724@netcom.com> teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.022426.25252@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>In article <1it4hfINN75f@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>>In article 7747@wam.umd.edu, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>>	On the other hand, I have been *asking*, repeatedly, for a good
>>>>	argument in favor of homosexuality...
>>>
>>>Why should anyone justify her/himself to *you*?
>>
>>
>>	And, of course, the standard idiotic answer.
>>
>>	Why?  Because, perhaps, if you could come up with a valid
>>	argument, the assholes out there who findnothing wrong with gay 
>>	bashing would be inclined to stop.
>>
>>	Sounds like a good reason to me.
>>
>>-- 
>
>Who placed you above all others that anyone should justify themselves to
>*you*?


	Based on the bigger idito theory, I should have expected this
	response from John.  

	The present situation:  Lots of anti-homosexual violence.
	The cure:  Self-defense classes for homosexuals (something
		I think *everyone* regardless of sex or orientation
		should take *anyway*)
		   A philosophycally sound argument against gay bashing.

	The response: We don't need no stinkin' "sound argument"!
	
	What this accomplishes:  Jack shit.



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8928 alt.rush-limbaugh:12986 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11497 alt.politics.clinton:19585 alt.politics.bush:15509
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Sexuality
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:43:06 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <1993Jan04.182739.106978@zeus.calpoly.edu> jkusters@zeus.calpoly.edu (Chrome Jester) writes:
>casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) divulges:
>->
>->1st, Persecution of Gays does not have a biblical baisis.
>
>Well, I take *slight* exception to this assertation.  I have read the bible
>several times cover to cover, a couple of different versions.  I have read
>it from the atheists point of view.  Now, in several readings of this book,
>I have come across references in Leviticus that says that men who lie with
>men as with women should be put to death (something about them being an
>abomination).  If this is not encouragement of persecution, I don't know
>what is.

Well, ya gotta realize that in ancient Hebrewland, that there weren't
any such thing as condoms, "safer sex", or "due process".  People had
a dim view of those who had no regard for public health.  Note well
that there were restrictions upon when you could have sex with a 
woman, too.

Believe me, if you ran around having sex with lots of *anything*,
man or woman, they put you in the villiage square and lobbed lots
of big rocks at you until you were dead.

>Or is Leviticus no longer considered part of the bible?

It is.  But it's not supposed to be a replacement for common sense,
either.  A lot of self-professed Christians have signed their 
common sense over to God like some kind of two-party check.

[But not me. :)]

cpk
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9282 alt.rush-limbaugh:13513 alt.politics.clinton:19987 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12103
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gay marriage
Date: 10 Jan 1993 02:02 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

|In article <1204@bug.UUCP> Steven R Fordyce, stevef@bug.UUCP writes:
|>What is the purpose of legal marriage?  That is the question you have to
|>answer first before you can deal with any of the above.  There is only one
|>justification for the legal institution of marriage: children.

	Property too -- that is a justification.  And medical decisions and
rights.

	Besides, we don't attach the justification of children to marriage.
A couple does not make an agreement with the State to bear offspring.  The
state makes provisions for if children should arise, and for property 
accumulated under cohabitation.


on Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G
Gasdon Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gads
on Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:59:42 GMT

In article <1in1m7INN8li@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> > Most states have not explicitly voted for heterosexual privilege; it
> > simply exists by default.
> 
> And in practical application, what is the difference?  If Cracker 
> Barrel can get away with firing gay employees, and if in places 
> that don't explicitly state "sexual orientation" in non-discrimination 
> laws you can't claim discrimination based on that orientation, 
> how will things work any differently (in practice) in Colorado? 
> Seems to be, in practice, no different. 

  The same difference as de facto segregation and de jure segregation;
the latter being a far more reprehensible and odious pronouncement.
Legalized privilege (or debasement) is several rungs down the ladder
to hell as it tries to give an odor of legal morality to that which 
otherwise stinks like shit.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:26:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.230333.17538@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>God does not 'hate' homosexuals. He 'hates' the lifestyle. That a
>woman desires a woman or a man desires a man (sexually).

Tell me, how do *you* know what God hates?  Did he inform you personally?

I have a lesbian relative who is raising her (artificially inseminated)
child with another woman.  They are both very loving people.

Does God hate their "lifestyle"?  Should I call them and tell them?

You know, God just called me on the phone and told me
that He hates intolerant bigots.  He also said he hates your .sig.
Could you please get another?

>
>-- 
>Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.

Jeff Shallit

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9244 alt.rush-limbaugh:13467 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12061 alt.politics.clinton:19957 alt.politics.bush:15752
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
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: 9 Jan 1993 17:23:19 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> Most states have not explicitly voted for heterosexual privilege; it
> simply exists by default.

And in practical application, what is the difference?  If Cracker 
Barrel can get away with firing gay employees, and if in places 
that don't explicitly state "sexual orientation" in non-discrimination 
laws you can't claim discrimination based on that orientation, 
how will things work any differently (in practice) in Colorado? 
Seems to be, in practice, no different. 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rgordon@convex.com (Rob Gordon)
Subject: Amendment 2 Discussion
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:29:56 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

For  all CoSprings netters:

On Friday, Jan 8 at 6:00pm a Ground Zero representative (your's truly)
will be discussing Amendment 2 issues on KGFT 100.7FM on your
Christian radio dial. Will Perkins, Exec. Director of CFV will also
be a guest on the show. It is a call-in show, 531-5555, if you are interested.
It is a Christian radio station so I look forward to some good questions!



rob
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:44:15 GMT

In article <1ieishINNjnm@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> > I hate  ignorant people who push their brand of revealed religion on 
> > people who aren't shopping for any.
 
> Owen, somebody *asked* for other passages that mentioned homosexuality. 


So!
I still hate ignorant people who push their brand of revealed religion
on people who are't shopping for any, anyway.

my statement doesn't have to have any relation to what somebody 
asked for.

LUX ./. owen


--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, owen@autodesk.com
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
From: dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: These are my opinions.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:19:10 GMT

In article <kZgZwB3w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.203640.22101@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (
Stan>> >
>> >The passages in Leviticus have come up many times. No where else(that I know
>> >does the Bible say bad things about gays. Of course Leviticus also tells you
>> 
>> Romans 1:26,27 is another passage concerning homosexuals.
>> 
>> >wear clothing that is made from more then one type of material. Some seem to
>> >think that using Leviticus as proof that "GOD hates homos" is o.k. but that
>> 
>> God does not 'hate' homosexuals. He 'hates' the lifestyle. That a
>> woman desires a woman or a man desires a man (sexually).
>> 
>> If one of my children stole something from a store I would not 'hate'
>> them, I would 'hate' the act of stealing.
>> 
>> -- 
>
>
>God does not hate anything.  The writers of the Bible hated either the 
>lifestyle or Homosexuals, (depending on your interpretation.)  But this 
>book was written by mere mortals.  The many contradictions in the 4 
>gospels calls the trustworthiness and usefullness of the bible into very 
>serious doubt.  To therefore claim that this book displays the will of 
>god is probably  a view that is in doubt too.  God does not have much to 
>do with the biases of the bible.  Using the bible to condemn "the 
>lifestyle" is not an acceptable basis therefore to base our views and 
>especially our laws on as is done now.
>

Mr. Barwell has again shown his ignorance (or is it contempt) of the Bible.
God wrote the Bible by inspiring mortals to write what He wanted to say.
God does indeed hate sin including sodomy, adultery and divorce.  Let no 
reader be deceived by Mr. Barwell's "gospel". There is only one end 
assured for followers of that "gospel".     

Signature follows:
"Jesus saith unto him, I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life: NO MAN
cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME"  John 14:6
=========================================================================
David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
Any opinions expressed are my own!