HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:09:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


In article <1992Dec30.232628.27092@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil
Snodgrass) wrote:
> 
> In article <1ht66dINN65k@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> >snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> >> Pre-school.... I mean they are optional... Some parents with one way
> >> of value system might believe it is best to start their children at
> >> an early age...so they will send their kids to the pre-school class.
> >> They have that option.  Those who want to send their kids at a later
> >> age will send their children when they see fit or they may even opted
> >> out of sending their children period.......
> >> 
> >> Now...are yo willing to allow a class on sexuality that shows
> >> homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
> >> class that would be optional....?
> >
> >Not in pre-school, or early elementary school.   Even some of the people 
> >posting in favor of COTR say that first graders aren't able to understand 
> >sexuality.   I think it should be left to high school, if it is going to 
> >be done.  In your example, who is going to teach the class to the preschoolers? 
> >
> >Walter
> >
> 
> That isn't my opinion.......Why don't you respect and allow me to have
> my values....I would like for my child to bring up from day one
> to love all humanbeings......I agreed to the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Closed
> Minded should be able to send their children to school and not have them
> being taught values that conflict with the values they have in their
> home.  But to me you say NO!!!!  How dare you......


Now, wait a minute, Bill -- I think Walter's comment was a reasonable
answer to
a difficult question.  I don't think elementary kids are really capable of 
understanding sexuality entirely either, and I'm not sure that they have
the 
cognitive abilities (see Piaget's formal operations) to abstractly consider
the
issues the subject raises.  That's not to say that I wouldn't want them to
have
examples of other types of families and sexual orientations from early on,
but
formal study of the subject is not one I'd wish on them until they were
older.    
And I didn't see Walter saying no to your values -- he simply asked how you

would put them into practice, which I found an interesting question I'd
like to 
see answered.  And I mean no offense by this posting, and no disagreement
to your views as expressed -- I'd simply like to see a conversation rather
than a shouting match.
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)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
XXXDate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:28:26 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76889DA95030614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:29:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.234500.21163@anasazi.com> Brian Douglass,
briand@anasazi.com writes:
>Tell that to a smoker.  Clearly this is a lifestyle choice, and yet
>nonsmokers have persecuted them out of most public places.  Why?  Because
>nonsmokers find smoking offensive, smelly, and possibly dangerous to their
>health.  But in this battle the rights of a clear minority, have had little
>weight in comparison to the greater good of the public.  That is the rights
>of the majority have been deemed more important than the rights of a
>minority.  

An interesting parallel, but incompletely stated.  Smokers are not
persecuted, they are only prohibited from engaging in the act in public.  If
homosexuals were treated as the same way, then there would be no problem. 
By smoking in my presence I am, in effect, being forced to smoke.  This is
the fundamental justification for the ban on public smoking, and there is no
parallel in the issue of homosexuality.  Therefor, the parallel does not
apply.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | 
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: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:24:09 GMT

In article <BzoACo.2qD@unix.amherst.edu>
     twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.143507.12684@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
>    Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org writes:

>>And don't forget, the 10% includes *bi*-sexuals.

>Kinsey's numbers didn't.

   Actually, I beleive they did.  Kinsey stated that 3% to 4% of men
were life-long homosexuals, but that an additional 6% to 11% of the
population had had "significant consensual homosexual behavior" for
"several years" or "had a history of repeated homosexual encounters,"
i.e. bisexuality of some sort.

         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: walter smith
Date: 23 Dec 1992 23:49:22 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> > Or maybe I had a few days off, and didn't see the need in dialing 
> > in from home for this discussion?  Nah....
> 
> I considered that possibility, but I only wound up using one worm on the
> hook.

I didn't realize we were playing fishing games.  

> > (you sure you weren't a Jehovah's Witness at some point? You use their 
> > "first-name" approach pretty well...) 
> 
> OOooooh.
> did I trip over one of your hot buttons?

OOooooh, no; but I did find it rather condescending. 

> No I was never a J W , I've eaten a few for lunch though :-)

Charming...

> Tell you what, I'll drop that device, if you'll come back and deal with me
> on a peer level.

Me come back and deal with you on a peer level?  Um, Owen, who's the one 
playing games here?  Frankly, with your condescending attitude and game-playing,
(your baiting move above was *really* lame) I can't see where there is any 
point, do you?   Now, if you want to take *that* as a "victory" for you, 
knock yourself out...:-)  But I don't plan on wasting my time playing 
games with someone who plays cutsie games like you do.  Fortunately, I've 
found some other people in this forum who have taken the time to 
discuss various issues without the game-playing. 
> 
> now, we get a vacation here until Jan 4 and I'll probably be dialing into my
> netcom acct for news access .

Well, have a good Christmas, or vacation, or however you look at it. 
But please don't be too disappointed if I don't dial in...

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS: St. Louis Law
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:24:25 GMT

In article <30DEC199202252599@zeus.tamu.edu> olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:

>Am I making too much sense??

Oh, no.  Trust me, you're in *no* danger there.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8707 alt.rush-limbaugh:12673 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11086 alt.politics.clinton:19378 alt.politics.bush:15246
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: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 31 Dec 1992 21:20:48 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
> 
> An interesting parallel, but incompletely stated.  Smokers are not
> persecuted, they are only prohibited from engaging in the act in public.  If
> homosexuals were treated as the same way, then there would be no problem. 
> By smoking in my presence I am, in effect, being forced to smoke.  This is
> the fundamental justification for the ban on public smoking, and there is no
> parallel in the issue of homosexuality.  Therefor, the parallel does not
> apply.

Greg,

I agree with what you're saying here.  What has me confused is the difference 
between what you're saying (let us do it in private without discrimination) 
and what some of the other gay posters have said; that 'toleration' is 
a 4-letter word.  

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8815 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11252
From: manz@ee.ualberta.ca (Brett {Druid Queen} Manz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody i
Date: 2 Jan 93 12:05:43 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

In <93001.214923HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.153208.6085@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
>says:
>>
>>]Gays constitute about ten percent of the population.  This is a very
>>]significant percentage.
>>
>>This is a bogus number, also. It is based on a Kinsey study where the
>>subjects were self-selected, and where gayness was defined as anyone
>>who admitted any single instance in their life of any homosexual
>>activity.

>Utterly untrue. Do you just make this stuff up?

Indeed.  According to the Kinsey study mentioned, the percentage of
__self-identified__ *straight males who have had at least one 
homosexual experience to the point of orgasm is 37%.  The 10%
figure was a population average between men and women (13% for men, 
7% for women) who were predominantly homosexual past adolescence.

>>A better number is 2 - 2.5%.

>"Better" because you like it more?

"Better" because it agrees more with his viewpoint that we are
not significant.  I argue that the percentage is largely irrelevant.
-- 
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 My opinions are my own.         |  You can't be proud of who you are
 The truth belongs to everyone.  |  if you're ashamed of what you are.
   I can't even *think straight! |    Cruise Men, Not Missiles! - anon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:33:46 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DDF2AB0070614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 19:34:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.000912.4926@wam.umd.edu> Yamanari, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
writes:
>	No value judgements are made.  For instance, in "Johnny's mom
>	has a shiner" there is no judgemental text promoting or desparaging
>	Johnny's father, who is a wife beater.  Likewise, in 
>	"Daddy's best friend touches me" no disparaging language is
>	used to discuss one of the main characters, a brutal child molester
>	with a taste for bbreaking pelvic bones the hard way.
>
>	My personal favorite is a hard one to say. While I like the 
>	storyline behind "Sams Uncle's friend" about a reckless drunk
>	who (accidently, of course) runs down and permanently maims
>	a young teen (scott), I can't say I like it any better than
>	the equally amusing "Mary's mother cuts herself" or 
>	"That red splattered spot on Mary's front window" (which,
>	tastefully, addresses suicide). 

God(s) spare us from people with no grasp on reality.

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: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:52:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.150608.28353@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>I should have better defined what I meant in my original post by "same-sex" 
>couples.  I meant only (or mostly) homosexual couples, and my point was 
>that the sexual preference displayed by parents in the home has an 
>enormous effect on the sexual preference of children in the home...to the 
>extent that, children raised in a homosexual-parent home will be extremely 
>likely to be homosexual.  Anyone have any stats?  Any examples of straight 
>children coming from a home where the parent(s) had exhibited homosexual 
>behavior since the child was very young?

gee, ted, this argument has *huge* holes in it!!!  most of
the lesbigay-folk *i* know (all, actually!) came from households
where the parents had exhibited (sometimes profusely) 
heterosexual behavior.  some parents were even raving 'phobes.  

do you know of any les-bi-gay kids from les-bi-gay households?

i *do* think kids from queer households are more likely to 
be tolerant to others' sexualities, and possibly more open
to sexual experimentation with the same sex (not seeing it
as evil and taboo).  

peg
-an open queer raising 3 terrific kids, who knows *a* *lot* 
of kids from queer households (mostly straight, like those
from straight households {strangely enough}).  

your credentials?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: an265@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Bisexuals
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:02:14 GMT


twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:


>In article <1has1eINN87a@pith.uoregon.edu> dise@oregon.uoregon.edu writes:
>
>>they  
>>completely disregarded his homosexuality and expected him to act like a  
>>breeder
>
>A lot of bisexuals and women have serious problems with this term.

And that is the least of the problems bisexuals have.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:50:11 GMT

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>   Another term I'm especially fond of is 'Homo.'  Having had a
>classical education including three years of Latin, I find it amusing
>that a person would assure himself that I am something he will never be
>by screaming the word "same" at me.

Vini, vidi, nearly fell off my chair.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: engp2024@nusunix2.nus.sg (ALI NAJAFI)
Subject: What are these all about?
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:37:28 GMT


Hi there,

     Sorry for asking this FAQ. I have recently come to know about these
newsgroups under alt.politics. I was wondering what each of these groups
is all about. Can somebody tell me or give me an email address from where 
I can get information about these newsgroups.

     Thanks in advance.

ali.
   engp2024@nusunix2
or "ali%ee.nus.sg"@nuscc.nus.sg
From: dise@decoy.uoregon.edu (David Casti)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Date: 23 Dec 1992 23:09:17 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: dise@oregon.uoregon.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line67.uoregon.edu

In article <21DEC199210521002@venus.tamu.edu> crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE,  
CHARLES L.) writes:
> 1.  Would you be heterosexual if you had a choice?

I don't think so.  This is kinda like asking, "Would you remain uncircumsized  
if you had a choice?"  I prefer the way I am; heterosexuality holds no  
interest to me.

> 2.  What terms do you find offensive? 

Hmmm...  I happen to prefer "gay".  Some folks seem to like "queer" --  
something I find somewhat queer myself.  I don't know anyone who likes  
"faggot", although I have been known to refer to my husband as "my  
cocksucker"; the first time I said it he looked stunned, and now he thinks  
it's funny and often does the same to me.

> 3.  I never understood what the problem was with Perot...

I think someone else already voiced my opinion: Perot wasn't identifying a  
trouble spot, he was inviting trouble and asking for people to make an issue  
out of a non-job factor.

> 4.  Finally, are you able to have heterosexual sex and enjoy it?

Never tried it; never cared to.  I like men too much, and I'm not attracted to  
women in any way.

One more thing, Charlie.  Reading the replies to your message, I notice very  
few people actually answered your question -- they spent all their time  
talking about "the community" and how "gay people" think and feel.  This  
community doesn't have a spokesman and isn't very homogenous... take any  
expansive comments with a grain of salt.

David.
From: tom@flood.com (Tom Chatt)
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS: St. Louis Law
Organization: The Flood Group, Inc.  Torrance, Ca.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 10:40:00 GMT

lis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Elisabeth Riba) writes:
| The St. Louis board included a clause in its law to prevent it from
| being repealed by referendum, said James Wilson, the city's lawyer.

I'm very curious (dubious, even) about this "unrepealability" clause.
Anyone have any details?

-- 
Tom Chatt                        \   Don't take offense, take action.
Internet: tom@flood.com           \    Speak up. When we remain silent,
UUCP: ...!uunet!flood!tom        / \     we oppress ourselves.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:40:12 GMT

In article <21DEC199222470145@rigel.tamu.edu> olw7845@rigel.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:

>Rob, you have only reinforced my notion that the phrase "Consenting Adults"
>is a very gray area that adds to the vagueness of the PRO HOMO stance.

As long as you choose to debate the meaning of the word "adult," of
course it will be.

We have a legal definition of an "adult."  I'm not particularly happy
with it, and I'd be happy to see the age of sexual consent for people
who are not mentally handicapped lowered to 16 if not 14 or simply the
age of puberty.  But there you go.  An adult.  Be happy with it.

So what do you think the word "blue" means, Owen?

>Hetero, Homo, Necros, *Beasto's*, Pedo's, and Bisexuals (sorry I failed to 
>mention this earlier) are all _sexual orientations_.  It has also been said 
>that these behaviours are inhereted (for the most part).

It's also been denied.  It's also been argued whether it makes a rat's
ass of difference either way.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:12:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.103116.11450@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>necrophile.  It *is* unreasonable *to rape* a child or an unwilling
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^
>animal.  
 ^^^^^^^


It would be quite interesting to see how Mr. Sternberg can determine if the
animal is willing or unwilling to be part of the rape.



>   Personally, someone who collect Simeon Smith art or Bodil doesn't
>bother me in the least.  I might be a little leery of letting him/her
>near my kids and/or dog, but then I'd be a little leery of letting even
>friendly Mormons near my kids and/or dog, too...

I would guess that if some people "might be a little leery of letting
friendly Gays near their kids", and then they act on that feeling by
not allowing Gays to be in the Boy Scouts or maybe in some other places,
like in schools as teachers, you and some of your friends would start
crying: DISCRIMINATION, DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!  


>elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)
>


AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: u7913017@cc.nctu.edu.tw (CHANG SHU HAW )
Subject: Just a question!
Organization: National Chiao Tung University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:33:15 GMT

Hi!everybody !could someone tell me some polictics that the asian governmon
take or the society attitude toward homosexual,expecially China and Taiwan?
I think it is just a close question here now!Not many people discuss about
the right or responsability of these guys. 
                                           Thank you !
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: thrift@ra.csc.ti.com (Phil Thrift)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military 
Organization: TI Central Research Laboratories, Dallas
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 14:18:27 GMT

fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:

> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
|>BTW, in some services, hetro soldiers can still be prosecuted for consential 
|>sodomy or oral copulation with a women while on base.  Should Clinton repeal 
|>this ban also, while he repeals it for homosexuals?

> Gays and straights will still be required to separate their professional 
> and personal lives.  But who they date while they are on their own time
> should be of no concern to the military.

What are the rules that govern sexual behavior between male and
females in the military? The above post implies that a male soldier
can be prosecuted for having oral sex with a woman on base, but not
for having vaginal sex with a woman on base. But what if they are just
off base, say in the bushes, and they are performing oral sex. If the
male and female are in the same unit and are engaging in vaginal sex,
this is probably forbidden, but what if they are from different units?
What if the male is a soldier and the woman is a civilian? Vice versa?
etc. etc. etc.

Nothing is clear about the rules even for heterosexual behavior.
Perhaps the lifting of the ban can clear everyhing up (yea, right).


Phil




Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:07:06 GMT


In article <1992Dec21.182537.18766@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
|>
|>For reasons outlined below, I am hereby withdrawing from large-scale
|>participation in this debate.  

And then he goes on for 290 more lines.

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality