HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:13:20 GMT

In article <1gsskeINNgm8@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
> > On church property they can say whatever they want. 
> > Religious prejudice has no place in secular public
> > education.
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like:
> "On queer property they can say whatever they want.
> But queer propaganda has no place in secular public 
> education." 

Unless you actually have a reference in the Constitution where it
mandates the separation of queerness and state, and court decisions
that give queer property tax exemptions and special privileges, this is
simply refusing to see the point.  I might as easily say that on
heterosexual property they can say whatever they want, but heterosexual
propaganda has no place in secular public education.

You claim to want a reasonable discussion.  Some evidence for this claim
would be welcome.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 19 Dec 1992 14:15:39 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1gsskeINNgm8@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> >Sounds an awful lot like:
> >"On queer property they can say whatever they want.
> >But queer propaganda has no place in secular public 
> >education." 
> 
> If your objective is to show that the situations are parallel, I don't
> think you've done so here...
> (I'm uncomfortable with your use of the term "propaganda," but I'll
> let it stand.)

Don't infer that my "Sounds an awful lot like" is actually my own 
opinion; what I was trying to show was that people on either side of 
an issue can see (and usually do) the same thing in entirely 
different shades.  But thanks for not blowing up at me if you *did* 
get the impression I thought it *was* propaganda...:-) 

Walter
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Military Alternative Lifestyles??
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:14:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <BzGJD5.HsG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
>
>>All this stuff about Queers in the military is a dodge.
>>There always have been queers in the military, there always will be.
>>All that is being proposed is that we don't throw out people.
>>The Military will not see a flood of queers showing up to be signed
>>up, all that will happen is that the government will be recognising a
>>reality.
>
>Wrong.  They already recognize the reality by prohibiting it.  What the
>Bozone Brothers want to do is force the military to unconditionally accept
>homosexuality as a normal and perfectly acceptable lifestyle.
>

And it is normal and perfectly acceptable as a lifestyle.



Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 18 Dec 1992 21:59:28 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

The Dreamer <ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> 
> I think that you are confusing minority status with the quota issue.
> I think that queer people ARE a legitimate minority.  

In practical application, how would this minority status be introduced, and 
what would be the practical results? 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:59:00 GMT

In article <1ge3vhINNjit@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
#They 
#are willing to live and let live, but don't want their kids taught 
#something they do not find acceptable.  Why the need to force it, 
#if they are willing to live and let live? 

Err, they are willing to live and let live, but don't want their
children taught to live and let live?

What is wrong with this picture?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 16 Dec 1992 13:02:43 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> Thats OK, I don't expect you to conform to whats natural for me.
> Do you expect me to conform to whats natural for you.?

No.  

> Do you expect your daughter to conform to whats natural for you?

No. 

> > But I can be friends with a fundie, I can
> > accept that that is what they want to be, and are.  I don't have to 
> > accept their hard-line views to keep us from beating each other up
> > with tire irons.   
> 
> The problem with a lot of fundies is that they are the ones weilding the
> tire irons, but I agree with this basicly.

You accept the notion that I can disagree with a fundie and still accept 
him on a personal level; why is it so hard to grasp the idea that people 
see homosexuality as wrong, but can accept people who are homosexual on 
a personal level?  

> > What exactly must be done for things to be *OK* with you?  If I accept 
> > your right to peacefully be whatever you want to be, but don't find it
> > 'natural' or 'normal' or whatever you want to call it, is that OK? 
> > Or do I have to think a certain way for it to be OK with you?
> 
> Ok, now we are down to it.
> No you don't have to think a certain way for me, but I want you to 
> grant me the exact same rights , privileges and freedom you give to
> yourself.  Nothing less , nothing more.

Which by far the great majority, (including me) would also like to see. 
Including people in Colorado.  So if the majority of people on both 
"sides" want the same thing, why are things the way they are?  Why is 
it so hard for people to talk calmly?  Which rights, privileges and freedoms 
do you not have? 
 
> I have the same right to publicly be who I am as you do, 

Yes. 

> I want the laws
> which govern my responsibilitys as a citizen to be the same as those which
> affect you. 

Yes. 

> I want the same validation as a being as you get, and

? "validation as a bieng" is based on sexual orientation?  You think my 
"validation as a bieng" is based on that?  I sure don't.  

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rgordon@convex.com (Rob Gordon)
Subject: Need Help
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:37:26 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.

A new group Ground Zero has formed in Co Springs to fight discrimination
against g/l/bs in general and Amendment 2 in particular. We had a press
conference last Thursday, Dec 10. 

I am asking for any references to articles you have seen in either
gay or mainstream press. 

Pls send such by email. thanks


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: WHY?
Summary: That's what we'd like to know about Phil...why?
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:55:23 GMT

In article <Z6PyVB1w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:
>        >chimpanzees, dolphins, even seagulls exhibit homosexual behavior.  
>        
>Only because some of them are STUPID.  I remember earlier this year that 
>some flamingo at the San Diego Zoo was in love with a bush that was 
>trimmed to look like a bird.  He humped it every day, and it was on the
>news.  Real smart bird.  A fine example of propagation if ever I saw one.

Uh, Phil -- they exhibit that behavior in the wild, too, not just as captive
specimens in zoos.   Calling them stupid is nothing more than a waste of
time, at best -- they're designed best for what they do, and they do it
without any particular need for human-type intelligence.  So what's your
point, or are you just foaming at the mouth, as usual?

>        >Why do men like to stick it up other men's poopshoots....<eeewwww!>
>
>Excellent question!   I second the <eeewwww!> part, too.

If it's such an excellent question, why do you have no interest in finding
an answer that might not agree with your prejudices?

>I don't believe in sex before marriage, and I'm none too sure about it
>afterward, either !!!

Then don't have it, dimwit.  With all the smarts you've shown so far, the
human race doesn't need you pissing into the gene pool.

>        >Why do men like to stick anything up women's assholes?  
>        
>They don't.  The only men that do this are closet queers.        

Have you got some documentation for this, or is this another one of your
ravings that helped Sun decide to sack you?  (I know which of the two
possibilities I'd guess...)

>        >Because it feels good, because it's fun!  
>        
>No, fun is pulling the blankets up over your wife's face and FARTING        
>under the covers.  Poop-shooting is NOT fun.  It's dirty and NASTY.

Then don't do it.  That's your opinion, and quite a few of the rest of us
don't share it.

>        >And writing "eeewwww" won't do you a whole lot of good because, 
>        >after all, I can prove that five times as many straight women 
>        >as gay men like being on the receiving end of anal sex.
>
>Does this mean that all the coprophiliacs, er homosexuals, fight over
>who gets to be the "man" each night?  Not tonight honey, my butt has
>a big ZIT on it <eeeewwww!>.  :)

In your fantasies, maybe...real life tends to be a bit more dull than that.
Not that you'd ever notice, of course.

>                >Why am I straight and your not....
>
>        >Because you have no sense of adventure!
>
>AIDS is certainly an adventure, if nothing else.

Sure, it is -- and you'll tell us all about it when you get diagnosed,
right?  After all, us straights are the fastest-growing group for HIV
infection these days...

>--Philip Stromer The Great (peewee@infoserv.com)

Great what?  (Besides a great demonstration of how to get fired at Sun, I
mean.) 

--PLH, who has more important things to worry about than his friends' sexual
preferences 

--
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:33:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.48.150.6

In article <1gq31sINNel9@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> The Dreamer <ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|>
|> >      What we ask for is that, all other things considered, we have the same
|> > chance as anyone else to be hired.
|> 
|> No one can argue with that approach.  Has there been any discussion of adding 
|> this to an official statement-of-position by the gay-rights lobby?  If it were 
|> made crystal-clear that there was no desire for minority status (and quotas) 
|> that would effectively obsolete the wording of Col#2, which is likely to be 
|> used in other states.   

Pease be specfic.   Exactly which part of the wording of Col#2 would this
"effectively obsolete"?

I'd like to see a quote.

jon.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:29:55 EST
From: <KXS137@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Anybody named BOB

? do U call A GaY NamEd Bob







 Oral Roberts

 I do not hate gays, I only like to make fun of them.




Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8182 alt.politics.clinton:18882 alt.rush-limbaugh:11932
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:43:46 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> 	Doesn't this, in a round-a-bout way, imply that homosexuals 
> /cannot/ be discriminated against, since by singling out a person as Homosexual
> automatically classifies them in a minority group.

In a way, yes..;-)

> 	I gives them the status of an /unprotected/ minority, but still a
> minority.  Therefore, while the ammendment tries to prevent minority
> status, it actually codifies it.

Good point! 

> 	If the ammendment said something like, "no one may be distinguished
> based on sexual orientation (hetero, homo, or bi), for any legal or hiring
> purposes," then it would effectively remove minority status from people
> based on sexual orientation.
> 
> Gadson

That is what *should* be in every state constitution.  Or just make it 
federal.  I'll bet if worded like that, 80%+ of people would vote for 
it.  The ironic thing is that some people I know thought a yes vote
for #2 was actually anti-discrimination...

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: latarra@camelot.bradley.edu (Lisa Ehren)
Subject: Re: God i hate you all
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:20:25 GMT

In <rmcgrath.724074535@unix1.tcd.ie> rmcgrath@unix1.tcd.ie (robert patrick mcgrath) writes:
>This is a really god awful group.

I agree with a previous poster...if you don't like this group, why read it?

>God will burn you all.

My God won't.  My God loves me and supports me in everything I do,
including finding out who I am and what I like.  I don't know what your god
is like, but from what I hear about your god hating homos and bis and
supporting your discrimination and abuse, he doesn't sound like someone I'd
want to know anyway.

>A hot pokerup the ass is the order of the day!!

Have fun with it...I personally am not into SM.

>I hate you all and I will see you all go to hell

Why are you going to hell?  Just curious.
Btw, I don't believe in hell.  At least not the kind of hell I was taught
in parochial school.
--
He got up from the couch and stared out the window at a far-off place
inside himself that she couldn't see.

Fuzzies for anyone who wants them - New shipments every Thursday.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 19 Dec 1992 01:07:10 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <18DEC199217413519@zeus.tamu.edu>, crr4574@zeus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
|> I have many times seen dogs mount people's legs.  Does this mean that dogs are 
|> into bestiality.  NO!  The twisted attempts to justify human homesexuality by
|> comparing it to the behavior of animals is absurd. 

That's nice.   So why do people attack homosexuality by insisting that
it's *not* what animals do?

jon.
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 16 Dec 1992 13:23:10 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> 
> Segregation's ostensible reason for separating children in education
> was that blacks had "certain characteristics" which would interfere
> with the education of white children.   Once black and white children
> began to be integrated, those characteristics were shown to be myth.

While there are similarities between this and the current subject, 
there are a lot of differences.  No one (except maybe those 
on the extreme right) want to segregate children of gay parents from
other kids.   

> What's really going on here is not that people think too much information
> is confusing.   The real issue is a competition about who will supply
> that information.     

Partially, you;re right.  And you are trying to compete with parents about 
what their children will be taught.  Are you *sure* this is a good idea? 
What is going to happen when a kid is taught at school that it is OK, 
and at home they are taught it is wrong?   

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: beezer@cc.utah.edu (BEEZER)
Subject: [FORWARD]:  HOMOSEXUALITY VIA KIN SELECTION ?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Salt Lick, UT
Date: 12 Dec 1992 15:05 MST  

_____________________________________________________________________

THIS MESSAGE IS FORWARDED FROM A USER NOT DIRECTLY ON THIS NETWORK...

PLEASE USE SPECIAL ADDRESSES LISTED AT THE END OF THIS REQUEST...

LASTLY, PLEASE POST THIS MESSAGE TO OTHER NETWORKS/FORUMS...  THANX
_____________________________________________________________________


Subj: HOMOSEXUALITY VIA KIN SELECTION ?
Name: Your Conscience #190 @8118
Date: Sat Dec 05 00:20:29 1992



I'm writing a biologogical paper on a rather recent theory stating
that homosexuality could plausible be have evolved via kin selection.
To consider the theory more in-depth II need to gather some
information on homosexuality "in the wild". I have some data already
on homosexuality studies on mono and dizygotic  twins and some on
homosexuality in macaques, a primate in (I believe) Asia. I even have
a listing for a paper discussing something similar in cockroaches
(?!?). I'm wondering if there is any sort of source material you  can
point my way. It's an interesting theory that basically states that
in some ways homosexuality might actualy tie in with "kin selection",
the evolutionary notion of genetic relatedness as a primary selection
pressure. If the paper works out reasonably well maybe I'll send you
a copy if you'd be interested.

I'm kinda psyched about it. I came up with the topic due to it's
controversial nature and how it directly contradicts the narrow (read
fundamentalist, Jesus-freakish) view that runs rampant through our
culture and social policy. So any help you can give would be
appreciated.

    Thanks.

_____________________________________________________________________

INTERnet :  190-8118@wwiv.tfsquad.mn.org
WWIVnet  :  190 @8118
FIDOnet  :  N8118 U190 ON 1:105/25
_____________________________________________________________________
From: Zeke@Gays.should.be.in.the.military.so.they.can.be.casualties.of.war
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: One last comment on Funny Boiz in Military
Date: 15 Dec 1992 07:00 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    



I can see some good and bad things associated with the current ban on
homos in the military.

The good thing is that it now gives any man (hetero or homo) the choice
to join the military or not join the military.

If for some reason the draft is enacted (required for men only), a man
can now dodge the draft by just telling the military that he is a
fudge-packer. This will enable him to stay state-side and be protected
from any dangerous battle situation.

Why do gays bitch about the BAN, geez this BAN insures their protection
from serving in the military in case of a real conflict. Thus they can
stay at home and teach 1rst graders that when daddy puts is pee-pee in
uncle Joe's boo-boo, its okay and he should be accepted for his lifestyle.

The bad thing about the BAN is that it DOES indirectly protect homos from
serving in the military. I think that HOMOS should have an equal chance at
getting their ass shot off.  At least when their ass is shot off, Daddy
has one less place to put his pee-pee.

Thank you for your attention,


---------------------------------------------------------------
|The Zekester, PRO HETERO and proud of it!!                   |
|       **********         They call me homophobic,           |
|    ***          ***      They call me bigotted,             |
|  **<-------------****    They call me close-minded,         |
| **  \          **** **   They call me intolerant,           |
|**    \      ****/    **  They blame me for their problems,  |
|**     \  ****  /     **  They cannot tolerate me,           |
|**     ****    /      **  They cannot respect me,            |
| ** **** \    /      **   They do not know me,               |
|  ****    \  /      **         yet they judge me.            |
|    ***    \/   ***                                          |
|       **********         They must be heterophobes!!        |
---------------------------------------------------------------


Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8205 alt.politics.clinton:18893 alt.rush-limbaugh:11948
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:04:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa

In article <1gtnniINNlab@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> > 	Doesn't this, in a round-a-bout way, imply that homosexuals 
> >cannot be discriminated against, since by singling out a person as Homosexual
> > automatically classifies them in a minority group.

> In a way, yes..;-)

You should be aware that while you find the irony humorous, some of us
find it tedious.

> > 	I gives them the status of an /unprotected/ minority, but still a
> > minority.  Therefore, while the ammendment tries to prevent minority
> > status, it actually codifies it.
> 
> Good point! 

however it codifies us as a minority denied the same status as other
minorities. Thus mandating and codifying bigotry against us.
Hardly the kind of distinction that I find worthy of praise.


> > 	If the ammendment said something like, "no one may be distinguished
> > based on sexual orientation (hetero, homo, or bi), for any legal or hiring
> > purposes," then it would effectively remove minority status from people
> > based on sexual orientation.
 
> That is what *should* be in every state constitution.  Or just make it 
> federal.  I'll bet if worded like that, 80%+ of people would vote for 
> it.  

I would vote for such a statute in a hot minute.

> The ironic thing is that some people I know thought a yes vote
> for #2 was actually anti-discrimination...

It is for reasons like this that I have serious reservations about the 
iniative process. I would like to see more input from the citizenry,
and less beurocratic fluff from paid govt people, but honestly
some sort of standard needs to be applied to the wording and 
*sense* of ballot initiatives.

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:36:01 EST
From: <KXS137@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: WHY?

Why are we the only animals that are attracted to the same sex...
Maybe the rest of the animal kingdom is smarter then we think....
Why do men like to stick it up other men's poopshoots....<eeewwww!>
What is causing this sexual confusion......
Why am I straight and your not....

Please don't answer this post cuz I don't care...just ask yourself WHY.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality