HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fks@vax.ftp.com  (Frances K. Selkirk)
Subject: Re: raising children
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Reply-To: fks@ftp.com
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:46:48

In article <1992Nov7.233544.2675@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>     Unlike heterosexual parents, homosexual parents don't take their
>  children for granted.  They can't afford to.

Also, since child-rearing is not a standard social role for gay couples,
they only have children if they want them enough to really fight for it. 
A lot of heterosexual couples still have kids without really thinking
it over, simply because that's what straight couples are expected to do.

Definitely parental involvement is very influential in a child's education!


Frances Kirk Selkirk		 fks@ftp.com	           (508) 685-3600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is nothing in life so complicated that a Microsoft manual can't
make it completely incomprehensible." 		- Douglas Adams.

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: kamal@specialix.co.uk (Kamal Mortoza)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: Specialix International, London
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:53:41 GMT


	I frankly don't see what the respective genders of parents has to
	do with raising healthy (in mind and body) kids. Sadly, though,
	most gay adoptive parents will have missed out on the totally
	mind bending experience of watching and helping your child being
	born. I have never looked at the world the same way again since
	holding my eldest ( now fifteen) in the first moments of his
	life. 

	Kamal

-- 


=============================================================================
			|
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1729 alt.romance:13846 soc.singles:30217 alt.pagan:12633 alt.sex:35487
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.sex
Subject: Re: raising children
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:39:26 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

k138836@cc.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) writes:
>>How would having two parents of the same sex be "worse than a single
>>parent situation?"  Because they aren't teaching biased gender roles? 
>>Because for some reason they wouldn't love and cherish a child as
>>heterosexual couples do?  Or because of the hostility that would be
>>directed at the child by his/her peers?  I'm sorry, but my opinion is
>>that there is nothing wrong with same-sex parents, but there is
>>something VERY wrong with the society that would punish the child for it.
>
>!!! No, that IS NOT THE POINT here. The point of negative-positive attitude
>of gays/lesbos is definitely not the topic here. Usually here people don't
>mind about it. 

   [sigh]

   I wish I could infer from your phrasing that you therefore don't have
any problems with bisexual people...but I'm only too aware that you *do*
mean me, too.


>The same of course applies if we are talking, say some 
>peculiar hobby goers and their children, they'll have a measurable change 
>to end up something. See? No-one has been judged here, yet.

   The people who made the heterosexist statements made it quite clear that
they *did* have a problem specifically with the idea of same-sex parents.

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: ramsey@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Deon Ramsey [MW])
Subject: Re: I may be, SO isn't
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
Distribution: eunet
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:37:22 GMT

David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU> writes:

...

>Anyway - my SO is very worried about whether I'm poly, and we've discussed it.
>One of the things that she said is that if I really do want to love others,
>I can't have her.

>Aside from the obvious (i.e. don't sleep with friends) is there anything that
>you folks can think of?

It seems to me that your SO has a real problem. She cannot understand a major
facet of your charracter, and has decided that either you change, or she will
leave you. She may not have stated it this harshly, but that's what it seems
to boil down to. And, i have a recomendation that is just as harsh:
Leave her.
If she can't understand you, and must remold her to be as SHE wants you to be,
it will be better for BOTH of you to break things up now, before you hurt each
other further.

I will add that this is just my opinion, but i think you should think seriously
on it. ... And even more seriously.

     Deon Ramsey
 who wishes the above advice
wasn't necessary.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deon Ramsey : E-Mail                    Snail-Mail
              ramsey@rhrk.uni-kl.de     Deon Ramsey
              F'lor@PernMUSH            Kurt-Schumacher Str.8
<Take it Easy,                          6750 Kaiserslautern
 but Take It !>                         West Germany
B6 f- w- g- k s+ r- p
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.sex
From: radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (T. O. Radzykewycz)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:17:06 GMT

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
> Colorado did, however, pass another amendment protecting black bears.  
> So, someone has started producing t-shirts that feature a large pink
> triangle containing the words "don't shoot--I'm really a black bear."

I *want* one of those shirts!

Course, nobody around here would understand (unless they read the
net), but what the heck.

(black) Bear Blessings!

		-- radzy

------------------------------------------------------------
					|  An it harm none,
	T. O. Radzykewycz	     	|  do as ye will.
	The Incredible Radical Cabbage	|
					|  "Just pray for a
	radzy@cogsci.berkeley.edu       |  tough hide and a
	        			|  tender heart."
	        			|    -- Ruth Graham
------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal Mother was old, and lay ill on a bed of moss and
fern.   Her hair was long and grey.   Her face was very
wrinkled.    Tamura'nun-pa thought:   How beautiful you
are, Mother, so old and wise.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: kamal@specialix.co.uk (Kamal Mortoza)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: Specialix International, London
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:56:31 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>In article <1992Nov12.155341.13314@specialix.co.uk> kamal@specialix.co.uk (Kamal Mortoza) writes:
>> I frankly don't see what the respective genders of parents has to
>> do with raising healthy (in mind and body) kids. Sadly, though,
>> most gay adoptive parents will have missed out on the totally
>> mind bending experience of watching and helping your child being
>> born. I have never looked at the world the same way again since
>> holding my eldest ( now fifteen) in the first moments of his
>> life. 

>Ummm...that's not just "GAY adoptive parents," that's *any* adoptive
>parent.  Also, friends of mine have participated in births that were not
	Yessss - your right.
>of their children, and they seem to get quite a lot out of the
>experience...so I don't think anyone has to *completely* "miss out on"
>this experience.

>Muffy
>--

>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
>~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
> discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
> of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
-- 


=============================================================================
			|
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1695 alt.romance:13760 soc.singles:30017 alt.sex:35187
From: has3@peru.cxo.dec.com (Harry Schroeder)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:47:35 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

I have to agree with those posters that say that there are some special
challenges that a single parent faces. A single parent has noone to
share the responsibilities that are a part of parenting. Unless there is
a support structure made up of family and friends, the single parent has
no emotional support, a sounding board for frustrations and advice, 
a chance for quiet time, or the financial help.

In some cases, a single parent situation can be better than a two parent
situation. These cases have been fairly well discussed by the other
posters. I am the second part of a single parent situation. My ex-wife
is the primary custodian for our children. She has a set of problems
that she has to face on a regular basis. 

I have my children one night during the week and one day during the 
weekend. The sad thing is that they probably get more quality time with 
me now, since the divorce. 

I have made a special effort to be active in my sons' lives. I go to
their plays, parent-teacher conferences. I just spent last week at the
hospital and ex-wife's house taking care of my son, after sinus surgery.
I do this in spite of the pain that I feel having to face the fact that
I had some responsibility for the end of my marriage, for the fact that
my ex-wife is now dating someone, and the fact that I have to leave my
sons.             

So, maybe my situation is unique, though I doubt it. It does not seem 
to be the case in a majority of situations.

Has3

--
Harry Schroeder                                   Digital MCI Acct Support
719-548-2678					  Colorado Springs, CO
has3@peru.cxo.dec.com
"My trouble is I analyze life instead of live it" - Hugh Prather 
--
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1705 alt.romance:13793 soc.singles:30094 alt.sex:35288 alt.pagan:12556
From: donal@brewich.hou.tx.us (Donal)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Monogamy, Polygamy, and raising children (Was: Falling in Love
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 13:02:43 CST
Organization: The Brewers' Witch BBS, +1 713 272 7350, Brewich.Hou.TX.US

jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith) writes:
> 
> You seem to assume, on the other hand, that the partnerships also include
> shared child-raising responsibility, giving the child 3 or 4 parents.
> That does seem ideal, but also idealized.  Those folks I have known
> who are involved with more than one person at a time (in or out of
> marriage) do so in a divided-time/attention mode.  I've never met
> anyone who had two or three partners in the same house sharing life's
> responsibilities (maybe I need to get out more!  :)

I have known three serious line marriages, all of which included the 
understanding that children would be the responsiblity of ALL adults 
in the family. Of the three only one actually has children and, 
perhaps it is mere coincidence, that is the only one of the three that 
is still together. This house even survived the death of its founding 
husband. 1 male and 2 females became 3 males and 2 females became 2 
females and 2 males after the death of the first male. The dominant 
wife's lover has now become the "Lord" of the household (this is an 
SCA Household) and they have remained stable. The dominant female has 
2 children by the original male. For more explanation of the 'rules' 
for line marriages, read Heinlen's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ and 
the latter adventures of Lazarus Long, including _The Cat Who Walked 
Through Walls_, _Friday_ and _Job:A Divine Comedy_.


--------------------
Donal, SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS -- +1 713 272 7350
(Internet) donal@brewich.hou.tx.us  (Work) bill%pssi@brewich.hou.tx.us
(CIS) 76460,1443  (WFS) file-request@brewich.hou.tx.us  INDEX or HELP
(SCA) Ld. Donal Dubh, IC of Dun Bruddair, B of the Stargate, K of Ansteorra
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: dand@Turing.ORG (Dan 'Bart' Duncan (KD4IGW))
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment #2
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:28:02 GMT

In article <Bx91IC.FrI.2@cs.cmu.edu> anonymus+791@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu writes:
>I am a native Coloradan.  I would like to apologize for my fellow Coloradans for their vote to pass
>amendment #2 which basically legalizes discrimination against homosexuals.  I am embarassed that this
>law passed.  It nullifies three city ordinance in Boulder,Denver, and Aspen which prohibit this kind of
>discrimination.  I do believe the amendment will be challenged and I do not believe it will be found to
>be constitutional.  That remains to be seen.
>I am a heterosexual who doesn't support _any_ kind of discrimination.  Please don't think all
>Coloradans are uninformed rednecks.

Yes, the ammendment issue IS most unfortunate here in CO.  At least
discrimination was not legalized in Oregon.  I still think the reason
Ammendment #2 passed here in CO is because of the way it was worded.
I had to read it through a few times to figure out exactly what it
meant.  The group Colorado for Family Values (gag!) did a very smart
job of wording it. (Even though they are closed-minded and tight-assed
pieces of shit)
-DanD

-- 
# Dan Duncan dand@turing.org     dand@cscns.com               
#  KD4IGW     dbd2x@virginia.edu   IRCNICK=Installer 
#  "The city- if you can call Great Los Angeles a city; it is more of a         #      condition..."  -Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: 24-hour notice: anonymus@godiva going down
From: anonymus+570@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (Marky)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:26:26 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

Karl,
  Bummer.... :/  I just want to thank you for your efforts.  Please (please!)
save all of the code you used for the server just in case someone jumps up
and says "Hey!  Use *my* system!".  And maybe even keep the database?  So that
*if* it comes back up we'll have only to change the host part of the address.

Thanks again, Karl, for doing such a great job.

Peace and Love,
  Marky

I leave you with this not so randomly selected quote:

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by
legislation.  Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being
stupid.  But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence
is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically
and without pity."
                                        -Lazarus Long
-- 
By facilities staff decree, this service will
be dismantled by 12 noon EST, Fri 13 Nov 1992.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Question on finding couples
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:31:27
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: paradis@sousa.ltn.dec.com's message of 5 Nov 92 17:13:24 GMT

In article <2195@sousa.ltn.dec.com> paradis@sousa.ltn.dec.com (Jim Paradis) writes:
>>I have a question about etiquette for couples finding couples.  My SO and I
>>were at a club dancing on Friday night and there was another couple there 
>>who we both found very attractive.  Despite our subtle efforts to get our
>>message across, they either weren't interested or didn't notice.  Is there
>>a polite, sexy, not overtly blatent way of indicating interest in such a poly
>>situation that anyone has had success with?

>Well, this is exactly analagous to singles meeting singles, no?

No.  People treat a couple very differently.  If I go to a party alone,
a different group of people come up to me than if I am there with a
partner.  As a couple, they have different expectations about us, about
what is acceptable behavior on each side.  A major one is that people
tend to think of a couple as a unit which is complete and should not be
"intruded on."

I can't say what I would like to all that well...maybe it's just late.
However, the interactions of two singles and two couples is *very*
different, in my opinion, and should be handled differently.  Many of
the same ideas are applicable, though, like starting slowly, with non-
threatening invitations.  But as a couple, you have to start by
convincing them that you *want* to include other people.  As a single,
it is *assumed* that you would like to get involved with someone else.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1733 alt.romance:13849 soc.singles:30245 alt.sex:35513 alt.pagan:12638
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment #2
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:41:56 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

   [sigh] I'm really in Bi Activist mode today...

anonymus+791@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu writes:
>I am a native Coloradan.  I would like to apologize for my fellow Coloradans
>for their vote to pass
>amendment #2 which basically legalizes discrimination against homosexuals.

   Against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and other groups, actually.

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: raising children
From: anonymus+570@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (Marky)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:39:39 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>>   Unlike heterosexual parents, homosexual parents don't take their
>>children for granted.  They can't afford to.
>>
>>            Elf !!!
>
>#1 dumbest post of the month.
>Congratulations you have posted the hands down stupidist post for the
>month of November. You may print this award, roll it into a dunce
>cap and parade around in public. It couldn't hurt your image.
>Congratulations.

Hey Elf, is this one of those trick posts to see how many people come
to your rescue?  <<giggle>>  (Like you need rescuing)

Well I'm not falling for it this time!  :)

Peace and Love,
  Marky
-- 
No test posting.  To use this service, mail to (note misspelling, "anonymus"):
Anonymous posting:	anonymus+name.of.news.group@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Anonymous mail:		user's-alias@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Test path/get alias:	anonymus+ping@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Assign nickname:	anonymus+nick@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(in Subject:)
Anon administrator:	anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(anonymously)
			anonymus+admin@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(non-anon)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:32:42 GMT

>   Unlike heterosexual parents, homosexual parents don't take their
>children for granted.  They can't afford to.
>
>            Elf !!!

#1 dumbest post of the month.
Congratulations you have posted the hands down stupidist post for the
month of November. You may print this award, roll it into a dunce
cap and parade around in public. It couldn't hurt your image.
Congratulations.
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - I set'r free.Nyuk
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: I may be, SO isn't
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:15:38 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>Anyway - my SO is very worried about whether I'm poly, and we've discussed it.
>One of the things that she said is that if I really do want to love others,
>I can't have her.

   Ouch! That seems rather strong!

   It's also curious that even though you've put your stance as something
like "...sleeping with friends", she says (basically) you're not allowed to
*love* others...

   Now I'm sure that's not what she meant...after all, it would be a bit
extreme to blackmail you into not loving (for example) parents, siblings
or children...so I'm curious as to where exactly the point of contention
is.

   I've said many times in this newsgroup that I'm not Poly-supremacist...
and that's true. I'm always wary of saying anything that could be interpreted
that way. There may be many understandable reasons for this view of hers...
but it does seem rather cold to me.

   Well, she's made her stance clear. Unless you think you can be happy
and content (and remain that way) in a r'ship where your partner feels
they have a mandate to control who you love...don't attempt it. As a
sanity-preserving measure. It may be that she simply cannot understand
what being Poly is all about, and will only be able to see your feelings
for others as being feelings somehow taken away from her.

   My advice - talk, and plenty of it. Is it monogamy per se that she's
after, or merely concepts that she *associates* with monogamy? It's a
subtle distinction, but an important one IMHO.

   Sorry if I've sounded harsh!

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1720 alt.romance:13828 soc.singles:30189 alt.sex:35449 alt.pagan:12605
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Monogamy, Polygamy, and raising children (Was: Falling in Love
Date: 3 Nov 92 11:39:13 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <Bwx1zn.Cr8@access.digex.com> corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra) writes:
>Marion Zimmer Bradley in her Darkover novels, expresses an interesting
>viewpoint of the multiple partner family, as well as the concept of 
>fosterage of children. Given a large measure of understanding between the
>partners, raising children in such an environment should not be detrimental
>to their growth, either spiritual or emotional. Of course, in our society,
>those same children would have to face the views of that society, which
>don't accept a mutilple partner relationship, and this would be detrimental
>in the long run to those children.
>
>Bb,
>    Corun MacAnndra    |    My opinions *are* those of my boss, because
------------------------
Corun, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that social unacceptance is
detrimental in the long run to children. Many small religious
communities have weathered the ostracism of the mass, Judaism among
them. We do not have so much of a critical society here on the west
coast at least that the children would even know it if their parents
picked somewhere halfway sane to live and tutored them at home. It
would only be after the childrens' values were well taught by the
tribe that they would face the option to either reveal themselves or
not at all to the public slings and arrows. Most simply ignore society
whom I know practice multiple marriage, though some go looking for
notoriety. I would always say that I would let my children look for my
notoriety, IF they saw my efforts worthy of such!
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory