HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
X-Still-Continued: Idaho
X-Job-Hunt-Header: Unemployed actuary will work for food
X-Politically-Correct-Statement: Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott
X-Random-Header: Ignore this line
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
X-Pcs-Continued: Colorado, think twice about Oregon, watch out for Ohio and
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:16:43 GMT

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:

>    OK so far.  Of course, being homosexual isn't illegal.  

However, homosexual *acts* are illegal in many parts of the U.S.....

Therein lies a problem, eh?

--
Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | for themselves.  -- Abraham Lincoln
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | it at home.  -- Edward R. Murrow		
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman)
Subject: Re: Military Ban on Gays/ FAX NUMBERS
Reply-To: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:12:18 GMT

In article <7136361225011993/A02328/POSSE/1171CB1B2600*@mrgate.uwyo.edu> 
LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA) writes:
>Also, if anyone has good arguments that they suggest sending,
>why don't you post them?  (I was thinking of including a comment about
>how allowing women in the military presented the same logistical
>problems as allowing homosexuals, so why all the hoopla?  And, if the fear
>is that openly gay people will be having sex publicly or will be 
>making advances on straight people, then they should _educate_ themselves
>about gay people.  After all, many people used to maintain the stereotype 
>that black men were thieves and murderers...but even if _some_ were, that 
>did justify discrimination against all black men in employment.  And then

Gays and lesbians in the military is much closer to African-Americans in the
military than to women in the military. Why? Because women get their own
bathrooms. As for straight boyz being hit on by people they don't find
attractive, no one should have to deal with that, but you don't see anyone
banning the straight boyz because they hit on the women, do you? Also, quote
Plato's _Republic_. Plato was convinced that het boyz make terrible soldiers
and that only gay boys should be in the army. He gives some pretty cogent
reasons why, too.

-jenneke

   Only Boys Accepting Feminism Get Kissed Meaningfully  -- Geoff Marcy
The only unnatural sexual act is that which you cannot perform. - Alfred Kinsey
		jenneke is: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:35:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1jg1ipINNl1t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
| 
| Indeed.  The goal is an implicit value judgement.  Let's keep
| in mind that unless these parents are rich, they are FORCED by
| the state to send their children to these schools.  Thus, such
| parents are being forced to have their young and impressionable
| children exposed to someone elses values.  In the 70's we heard
| again and again to keep values out of the school.  Somewhere along
| the line, the tune has changed.

Uh huh, sure.

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.

Would you call flag-allegience a value-indoctrination?  I do.  We have
told Sean that a "pledge" is a really important promise, and that he
should promise anything like "allegience" until he knows what the word
means.

| Statism at it'e worse.  The state forces parents to have their
| children learn a set of values which may be contrary to those
| the parents want instilled.  Big Brother is alive and well.

Happens all of the time.  You only see it, however, when values conflict.

| History is one thing, value indoctrination is another.  

Yak shit.  History *is* values indoctrination, at least until upper
college-level history seminars.  High school history is replete with
value judgements.

| Point #1 - how many of the people who wrote and reviewed the book
| held liberal values?

Is tolerance defined as a "liberal value"?

| Point #2 - race is not analogous to sexual preference.

I say it is.  It has some points in common with race, some in common
with religion.

| Point #3 - if the parents were really consulted, why the parental 
| uproar?  

What percentage of parents are needed to make an uproar?

    Fritz

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10237 alt.discrimination:5688
From: 00bbharris@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Religion...flawed????
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:43:38 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's


	Those of you who are arguing the debate "is homosexuality wrong?" might
as well give it up.  Religion has been pound in our heads for a millenium, it
seems, and one decade of debate will not eradicate that.  

	Religion is built on faith, not fact, and therefor cannot be question
by those who partake upon it, for if you question it then you must have doubts
and if you don't your God, then all is lost.
	Indeed, since God has become the ultimate Boogy Man-Santa Claus, there
will be no turning of heads.  There will be no changing of hearts.  There will
be no end to the insulting love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin.  There will be no end.

	No, religion does not breed bigotry.  Interpretations do.  No, religion
does not substantiate the genocide or oppression of peoples.  Man does.
It is not God at fault here.   Nor Buddha.  Nor Alah.  But man's fault... anmd
his alone.  Man has changed religion (in all forms) so many times to fit their
needs, how can we expect them to change.  It defines their world.  It creates
their reality.  It limits their ability to span past the denials we place on
our lives.  It hinders us from the reaching teh level of godhood we can reach.

	Religion is not flawed.  Spirituality is not flawed. Man is...

brandon
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10208 soc.motss:58258
From: LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Address for Alterni-T's
Date: 24 Jan 1993 12:09:14 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

                                                                                
Hi.  I've gotten a lot of requests via email for Alterni-T's address 
(mentioned in posting on Pope's Moral Authority Gone Astray (Denver Post
article)).  So I thought I would post it.  

The address that I have for the store comes from a tag that was pinned on
a T-shirt that I bought from them.  I think that they may a catalog, 
but I'm not sure.   You may want to write to the address below first
before sending money, just to be sure the address is still accurate.  :-)  

   Alterni-T's                                                       
   Peace Studies                                                   
   411 West Bijou St.                                                           
   Colorado Springs, CO  80905     
   

-maria
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:26:16 GMT
	    <1jpc0rINNbvu@hp-col.col.hp.com>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1jpc0rINNbvu@hp-col.col.hp.com>
smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>Re-stated, what do the homosexual posters here think about laws 
>against besiality?  Is it OK?  Should it be illegal?   

With regard to your recent question to Tim Pierce, "What is sexual
immorality?", this is quite easy to answer:

Something is sexually immoral if not all parties involved do or can
give informed consent. Thus bestiality, child molestation, necrophilia,
and rape are all sexually immoral.

Homosexuality between consenting adults does NOT fall into this category.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Speaking of the AntiCatholic thing
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:12:22 GMT

shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
] In article <john.727478714@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
] 
] >Did you ever see Catholics pushing for a law that you couldn't discriminate
] >against them? 
] 
] Yup.  I don't know how well you know your history, but
] there's a strong tradition of American anti-Catholicism.
] Before and during the first year or so of the War Between
] the States there were anti-Catholic riots in many major
] American cities (part and parcel of general anti-foreigner
] sentiment).  As a result, the very first civil rights laws
] covered race, religion, creed, and national origin.


The Other Amusing part is that folks seem to
forget that a part of the struggle against
JFK had to do with his being a Roman Catholic,
and HENCE of Questionable Loyalty, should he
be elected to Presidency.

But I guess that was a long time ago, and folks
sort of forget that the KKK was still ranting 
about the Catholic Threat.... as well as the
Jewish Threat, and the Black threat....

And Now that the Roman Catholics are supporting
the Oppression of persons who want to exercise
their rights to abortion, it just NATURALLY
has to follow that they have always been a
part of the "Correct Group" all along, and
have finally finished the process of assimilation.


ciao
drieux

ps: for real fun, read some of the 'chic tracts'
that are passed out by some 'born again groups.'



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10291 alt.rush-limbaugh:15161 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13831 alt.politics.clinton:21232 alt.politics.bush:16368
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:36 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <C1F30p.G1q@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Gregory.D.Wadlinger@dartmouth.edu (Gregory D. Wadlinger) writes...

|If you are fired because your boss doesn't like you (because you are
|gay), you are no different from any of us who have ever been fired
|because our bosses didn't like us.  I have been in this situation, and
|it has made me appreciate unions more, because no employer should be
|able to fire anyone unfairly.

	Except that there are not usually enough Gays in a corporation to
form such an union with enough leverage to protect them from being fired
unfairly.  That is why Gays are asking the government to step in on their
behalf.  

	There are /some/ firms that do have enough Gays in the work force
such that there are unions or departmental groups.  And because of these
groups, some firms have enstated their own anti-discrimination policies.

Gadson

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10447 alt.discrimination:5707
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:42:32 GMT

In article <107980@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.224711.4068@wam.umd.edu>
>aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>
>>My dear Evelyn: I guess that you are confussed: [...]
>>At least they follow one rule, which is better than following none.
>
>Alberto, you ignoramus

Brutus, my son! You too?
Totus tuus?
Pucus pucus?


>---following a rule with blind faith is not better
>than questioning its validity.

They are religious people, ergo, they follow with blind faith.
There is no room for questioning its validity.
However, Evelyn did not question its valididty but question the
fact that those who follow this rule do not follow others. 
Argument which is, at least for me, quite dumb.

>
>We abandon part of our humanity if we accept things without question.

So, I will qustion your assumption that we abandon part of our 
humanity if we accept things without question.

AAP

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 straight!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:27:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.015111.16952@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <C1Foss.H0J@unix.amherst.edu> 
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>Gregory.D.Wadlinger@dartmouth.edu (Gregory D. Wadlinger) writes:
>>
>>> If you are gay, what do you do at work that sets you apart as gay...?

[my suggestions deleted for brevity]

>Many of these things are outlets for you to express your personality
>and individuality at work.  In many ways, heterosexuals do not have 
>a right to express themselves freely at work,

Mostly in the same ways that homosexuals do not have that right.  In
some areas, however, as you admit, heterosexuals have much more leeway
than homosexuals.  I'm not aware of any cases in which the reverse is
true.

>But I have
>to wonder whether you are pushing for legislation which would give
>you an equal right to 'expose' your sexuality, or because you really 
>want the law to help stamp out homophobia and legitimize homosexuality.

(Is "legitimize" supposed to mean anything more than "make legal?"  If
not, then hell, I'm all for it.)

Will the law stamping out homophobia and "legitimizing" homosexuality
make it possible for me to live my life on a par with straight people?
Then yes, I want that.  But my goal is equality.  I do not see what
your quarrel is.

>I can recognize the inherent 'unfairness' of being forced to suppress 
>your sexual orientation.  But you must understand that some heterosexuals 
>may be forced to suppress a key element of their personality at work too.

I'm aware that a work situation often requires people to suppress key
parts of their personalities, and I have no problem with that in
principle.  The situation in question, however, simultaneously
encourages such expression in general (consider how people
congratulate one another on their engagements, their marriages, their
anniversaries), while suppressing it in certain individuals.  That is
an injustice.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 23 Jan 93 17:00:29 GMT
	    <1jpabsINNaj4@hp-col.col.hp.com> <C1A0qI.JoL@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <C1A0qI.JoL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:

>smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>>Christians don't follow the Mosaic Law.

>So we're only supposed to be following the NT?  Why I thought
>that the Bible was supposed to be inerrant, and that there
>are no conflicts within.

>Yet it seems that there are conflicts in the *literal* word of the
>Bible.  You yourself have illustrated that sections of the New Testament
>conflict with those of the Old Testament.

Not only that, but there is internal inconsistency in the NT. There are
four accepted Gospels, and they contradict each other from time to time.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10273 soc.motss:58373
From: LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Military Ban on Gays/ FAX NUMBERS
Date: 25 Jan 1993 13:44:39 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


			 
Hey, folks.  If you have access to a fax machine, how about sending some
words of enlightenment to the people listed below about gays in the 
military?  Clinton is apparently facing fierce opposition to lifting
the ban, as you know.
         
Also, if anyone has good arguments that they suggest sending,
why don't you post them?  (I was thinking of including a comment about
how allowing women in the military presented the same logistical
problems as allowing homosexuals, so why all the hoopla?  And, if the fear
is that openly gay people will be having sex publicly or will be 
making advances on straight people, then they should _educate_ themselves
about gay people.  After all, many people used to maintain the stereotype 
that black men were thieves and murderers...but even if _some_ were, that 
did justify discrimination against all black men in employment.  And then
there's the argument that other countries have gays/lesbians in their
military and that hasn't diminished their defense systems.  OK, I'm 
rambling here...I'm just trying to compose ideas for my own faxes to 
send.  Suggestions welcome!)

The fax numbers below are from the National Fax Directory 1990. 
(A long list of such faxes was posted to misc.activism.progressive
several weeks ago, and these are simply taken from that list.)  


-maria

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
        
President George Bush, (NOW CLINTON?) The White House
                                         fax (202) 456-2883

Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney
                                         fax (202) 647-9080

Gen. Colin L. Powell, Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff
                                         fax (202) 697-9758

Rep. Thomas Foley, Speaker of the House  fax unlisted

Rep. Richard Gephardt, House Majority Leader
phone (202) 225-0100, 225-2671           fax (202) 225-7452

Sen. George Mitchell, Senate Majority Leader
phone (202) 224-5344                     fax (202) 224-6853

Sen. Robert Dole, Senate Minority Leader
phone (202) 224-6521                     fax unlisted

Sen. Robert Byrd, President Pro Tempore of the Senate
                                         fax (202) 224-8070

Sen. Sam Nunn, Chair, Senate Armed Services Committee
                                         fax (202) 224-0072
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Military Ban on Gays/ FAX NUMBERS
Organization: Real/Time Communications
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:54:54 GMT

LASAGA (LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu) wrote:
: 
: 			 
: Hey, folks.  If you have access to a fax machine, how about sending some
: words of enlightenment to the people listed below about gays in the 
: military?  Clinton is apparently facing fierce opposition to lifting
: the ban, as you know.
:          
: Also, if anyone has good arguments that they suggest sending,
: why don't you post them?  (I was thinking of including a comment about
: how allowing women in the military presented the same logistical
: problems as allowing homosexuals, so why all the hoopla?  And, if the fear
: is that openly gay people will be having sex publicly or will be 
: making advances on straight people, then they should _educate_ themselves
: about gay people.  After all, many people used to maintain the stereotype 
: that black men were thieves and murderers...but even if _some_ were, that 
: did justify discrimination against all black men in employment.  And then
: there's the argument that other countries have gays/lesbians in their
: military and that hasn't diminished their defense systems.  OK, I'm 
: rambling here...I'm just trying to compose ideas for my own faxes to 
: send.  Suggestions welcome!)
: 
: The fax numbers below are from the National Fax Directory 1990. 
: (A long list of such faxes was posted to misc.activism.progressive
: several weeks ago, and these are simply taken from that list.)  
: 
: 
: -maria
: 
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
:         
: President George Bush, (NOW CLINTON?) The White House
:                                          fax (202) 456-2883
: 
: Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney
:                                          fax (202) 647-9080
: 
: Gen. Colin L. Powell, Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff
:                                          fax (202) 697-9758
: 
: Rep. Thomas Foley, Speaker of the House  fax unlisted

His phone number is 202/225-2006 (couldn't get his fax number;
I got 202-225-7181 from someone in his office, but it's not a 
working number - someone more ambitious than I might try
and get it
: 
: Rep. Richard Gephardt, House Majority Leader
: phone (202) 225-0100, 225-2671           fax (202) 225-7452
: 
: Sen. George Mitchell, Senate Majority Leader
: phone (202) 224-5344                     fax (202) 224-6853
: 
: Sen. Robert Dole, Senate Minority Leader
: phone (202) 224-6521                     fax unlisted
:
Okay, Log Cabin Republicans - what happened?  Senator Dole's fax 
number is (202) 224-6721.
:                                          fax (202) 224-0072
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 
: 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10384 alt.rush-limbaugh:15315 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14034 alt.politics.clinton:21391 alt.politics.bush:16406
From: tonyd@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 27 Jan 93 09:35:41 GMT
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

you know what?  i really don't care about your laws anyway...

just STOP HURTING PEOPLE!!!

ok?  just stop telling gay jokes... and dumb blonde jokes...

just stop being scornful and nasty...

just stop looking at me and my lover like we're pariahs when we walk down the
street...

just stop spitting on me...

ok?  that's all i've ever asked of anyone...

stop raping people... stop having sex with them if they don't want to...
                                      
it's not a question of laws... it's a question of being kind...              

"For what does the Lord require of you but that you seek justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your god?"
					
why do i need to quote the bible to you? 
i'm just so tired of the pain...  

i don't need to be saved by you... or by your bible... or by your god...
not today...

it is our responsibility to be kind... to be thoughtful... 

STOP HURTING PEOPLE!!!



tonyd
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dbrownfi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Doug Brownfield)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:52:57 GMT

Does anyone else feel that there should be a provision added to the
Constitution that provides for protection FROM religion as well as freedom
OF religion?

So many of the religion-based arguments against homosexuality,
prostitution, and other sexually related "crimes" are just so much claptrap
for me because I simply can't get into your rituals and beliefs. And why
should I have to. A criteria for any crime should, IMnotsoHO, be based on the
measure of detriment to those around them and to society as a whole. 
Many of the laws on the books are nothing more than an enforcement of 
religious tenents.

Religion is simply being used to justify irrational emotions that are so
natural for humans. It should be used as a method to keep these flaws under 
control.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush