HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:26:53 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1993Jan21.233547.11972@microsoft.com>,
fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:

> 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.

How specifically?  If it's the part about "under God", that was Congress'
doing. :)  If you object to the pledge as a whole, perhaps you can
sympathize with those parents who object to the COTR curriculum.
Or do you think "multiculturalism" is a good idea?

> 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 not promise anything like "allegience" until he knows what the
> word means.

So you would prefer that the pledge be presented later, say during
the Super Bowl, or an Inauguration?  "Deconstructed" by a federally funded
professor of feminist literature as a tool of WASP oppression of the masses,
perhaps?  Scrapped altogether because of its effect on "family values"?

Just curious,

-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,711@compuserve.com**********************
"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow
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: 22 Jan 93 18:18:29 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1jpa1nINNkva@transfer.stratus.com>
markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:

>Evelyn: You are amazing ignorant on the Bible as a whole.  There were 
>people known as Pharisees who attempted to keep the letter of the law
>while missing the intent.  Jesus condemned them for this.  You seem
>surprisingly able to quote a verse without a single iota of 
>understanding about what it means and what the rest of the Bible says about
>these things.  Even Satan can quote scripture for his own purposes.

Is it then possible, Mark, that those who condemn homosexual acts without
question have missed the intent of God completely? Were Moses and Paul
above reproach?

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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 23 Jan 93 16:50:48 GMT
	    <1993Jan22.202831.14692@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>
 	    <1993Jan22.223401.27381@wam.umd.edu>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan22.223401.27381@wam.umd.edu>
aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes to Walter Smith:

>>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.

>OK. Let's assume that some male has lost one arm in an accident, and 
>that he got an orthopedic arm instead.
>Let's assume that such a person is masturbating with his artificial arm.
>Ergo, his arm did not consent to have sex with him!
>Is that immoral?????????

Silly me. Let's make that "Something is sexually immoral if not all parties
involved do give conformed consent, can no longer give informed consent, or
are not yet able to give informed consent to a sexual act."

To my knowledge, prostheses don't fit into any of these three categories.

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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Header-1:    Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice
X-Header-2:    about Oregon, watch out for Ohio, Idaho, Michigan, Maine, and
X-Header-3:    Florida.
X-Header-5:    Beware lunatic actuaries in the night!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:41:30 GMT

zeng@mth.msu.edu (Zhonggang Zeng) writes:

>If the armed forces open some divisions to homosexuals, and ban them in
>the remaining units. Does the homosexual community accept that solution?
>To me, this is the only fair solution. Homosexuals would not be discharged
>and straight soldiers would not be forced to sleep next to a gay either.

Let's try rewording that passage a few times....

|If the armed forces open some divisions to African Americans, and ban them in
|the remaining units.  Does the African American community accept that
|solution?  To me, this is the only fair solution.  African Americans would
|not be discharged and white soldiers would not be forced to sleep next to
|a black either.

|If the armed forces open some divisions to Chinese Americans, and ban them in
|the remaining units.  Does the Chinese American community accept that 
|solution?  To me, this is the only fair solution.  Chinese Americans would
|not be discharged and white soldiers would not be forced to sleep next to
|a chinaman either.

|If the armed forces open some divisions to women, and ban them in the 
|remaining units.  Does the female community accept that solution?
|To me, this is the only fair solution.  Women would not be discharged
|and men would not be forced to sleep next to a woman either.

(Ooops!  That last one hits a little close to another debate....)

Seriously, this type of argument has been tried before, and it's just
as bigoted now as it was then.

Contrary to popular belief, homosexuals do not go wandering around,
drooling and looking for little boys and manly men to exploit.
Homosexuals and bisexuals are just as able to control their sexual
urges as everyone else, folks!

Or are the military folks afraid that they don't have what it takes
to "protect" themselves from unwanted advances?  Are some of the
men in the military concerned that they will have to deal with the same
sort of unwanted advances that women in the military have been dealing
with for years?  (Can we say 'tailhook' boys and girls?)

Get real!

--
Michael D. Adams	|"Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
University of Illinois  | them from injustice?"	   -- Lillian Hellman
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	|"Computer, end program!"  -- Lt. Barkley at the end
Standard Disclaimers    | 	of ST:TNG, "Ship in a Bottle"
From: hither@yohn.Corp.Sun.COM (Thomas Yohn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:38:22 GMT
Reply-To: hither@yohn.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: yohn.corp.sun.com


>If Asians were such a problem, then designating some Asian divisions would
		     ^^^^^^^^^
>sound good to me. The top priority of military is winning wars anyway.

Gays are not a problem. Learn that and you will have a good start.

>Change needs time. I believe that PARTIALLY lifting the ban would be good
>for both sides. When gays and voluntary straights get along in that
>divisions. The theory against gays in military would lost its ground. 

14 of the 16 NATO countries have already lifted the ban against gays
in the military. How much more proof do you need????? And why do we
need to prove ANYTHING. We are taxpaying citizens of this country
and all we are asking is to be treated equally. 

And finally, there are already gays and lesbians in the military. 
There have always been gays and lesbians in the military. Nothing
will keep us out of the military. We have been showering and
fighting side by side with straight folks since the beginning
of time. We just don't want it to be necessary to have to hide
anymore. 

Thomas
through to you that there is no basis for fear about gays in the 
military. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are Ted Krueger!
Organization: Way down I-10 from Krueger's pit.
	<1k1e4dINNdqo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
	<1993Jan25.205821.20573@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
	<1993Jan25.223253.10218@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:09:14 GMT

On 25 Jan 93 22:32:53 GMT, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) said:

>In article <1993Jan25.205821.20573@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>>It would be unfair to condemn Ted Krueger as a dolt or a simpleton just
>>because he can't spell.   The only fair way to come to that conclusion
>>would be to read the content of his messages.

>BEEEEEP!  That's it folks!  Our game is over for today.  I'll have to 
>admit that it was a close call deciding if this was a flame or not, but 
>what the heck?  We have a winner! Tom Peregrin is gets credit for the 
>third personal hack on me for January 25, 1993.  Remember to play 
>tommorrow (sp!) folks.

>Thanks to those of you who played our game but could not make it in 
>before the deadline.

So what happens to those of us who came to the same conclusion as the
aforementioned three?  What will you do?  Hide under a rock until whenever
"tomorrow" is on your clock?  Judging from what little you've had to say, and
how much you've wasted to say it, all I can say is that's just confirmation of
something I've thought for a long time -- you're a dolt, and not even a good
one at that.  

--PLH, do your worst...on second thought, astonish the hell out of us and do
your best, for once.

--
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Facts on Gays and Number of Partners
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Header-1:    Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice
X-Header-2:    about Oregon, watch out for Ohio, Idaho, Michigan, Maine, and
X-Header-3:    Florida.
X-Header-5:    Beware lunatic actuaries in the night!
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 05:06:32 GMT

markw@meaddata.com (Mark Wasson) writes:

>I'm not challenging the proposition that gays have more sex partners
>on average than straights do.

>The question of interest has to do with whether homosexuality directly
>results in promiscuous behavior or is such behavior common among all
>people in socio-economic groups in which homosexuals are
>disproportionately represented.

And then there's a little hypothesis of mine.  I wonder if the
apparent increased promiscuity among homosexuals and bisexuals
doesn't have something to do with:

	a) Possible "underreporting" of het promiscuity.

	b) Since homosexuals and bisexuals have to buck several
	social moree's in this culture, perhaps several (many?)
	have also broken through (transcended, perhaps?) the
	taboo against promiscuity.

Granted, I don't have any documentation to back either theory.
It's just that I dream these things up right before I fall asleep
at night....
--
Michael D. Adams	|"Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
University of Illinois  | them from injustice?"	   -- Lillian Hellman
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	|"Computer, end program!"  -- Lt. Barkley at the end
Standard Disclaimers    | 	of ST:TNG, "Ship in a Bottle"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10030 talk.religion.misc:27254
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:15:19 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?)) writes:
> 
> please tell me what "gay values" are?  my values are 
> colored by my sexuality (i have a remarkable affinity 
> for acceptance, tolerance, non-judgemental attitudes, 
> open minds, etc),

That explains this part of your response to kebarnes:
>this is quite a presumption, actually.  do you have anything
>other than your feeble mind-power to base it on (hint: it's
>incorrect).
*Remarkably* accepting, tolerant, and non-judgemenal. 

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10288 alt.rush-limbaugh:15157
From: quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:12:25 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <19930125130952ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
>Actually, because there is language in the Colorado law which prohibits
>ANY branch of the Colorado government from enforcing claims of
>discrimination based upon homosexuality as a sexual orientation, this
>might be construed that a gay person could not have recourse in the
>court system to enforce a private contract between himself and his
>employer which forbids discrimination on s.o. grounds, as the judiciary
>is clearly a branch of the Colorado state government.

Several people on this or other threads have expressed the concern
that, should CO #2 go into effect, it would not only void the
protection given to "homosexual, bisexual orientation" in Denver, etc,
but would also make unenforceable any private contracts which granted
such protection:  for example, a company policy of non-discrimination
in hiring/promotion/etc.  Curious about this, I've spoken with
civil-rights experts whom I know with exactly this question, and the
opinion I've received has been that it's exceedingly unlikely that CO
#2 would be interpreted by any court that way.

	Therefore, for whatever bad things CO#2 might do if effected,
elimination of company anti-discrimination policies is not likely to
be one of them.  I am optimistic, however, that CO#2 will, in fact,
never be enforced given the temporary injunction, and likelihood that
the CO Supreme Court will overrule it.  Now we just have to worry
about the eleven other states where similar measures are being
drafted (which will take into account the specific ruling, if
negative, of the CO Court).
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was 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 22:36:41 GMT

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) = ws>
kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) = k>

k> A better question might be: "Why is the sexual immorality of homosexuality
k> still accepted by some through blind faith, while casting away the other
k> social behavior laws?"

ws>Other social behavior laws like women wearing pants, short hair, etc?  Some 
ws>specific examples would help the answer. 

k> Or, what is the real distinction between sexual conduct and social conduct?

ws>I'm missing what you're driving at there. 

Let me help out...

Many of the people who claim to follow the *literal* word of the Bible,
for some reason (some interpretation here, perhaps?) choose to
ignore many of the laws laid out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Why do these people who claim to follow the *literal* word of
the Bible, but apply some form of interpretation to certain passages,
claim that homosexuality is immoral simply because "it says so in
the Bible," without considering that these passages may require
similar interpretation.

For example, one of the characteristics of one of the other religions/cults
of that time and place was ceremonial same-gender (as well as other-gender)
prostitution.  Perhaps the authors of the appropriate sections of the Bible,
subject to more misconceptions about homosexuality than exist today,
really intended to condemn the behavior (prostitution, promiscuity, etc)
and not homosexual acts per se.

Yes Virginia, a correlation between a behaviour and a trait does NOT
imply a cause-effect relationship.

--
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,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Sexism a Requirement to be HET?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:01:31 GMT

ac999273@umbc.edu (ac999273) writes:
] In article <1993Jan20.055945.19584@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
] [Stuff about gay guys not dating women in the office deleted]
] >
] >I hate to scare you or anything, but some of the
] >male persons whom I respect as being actual 'christians'
] >would fit into the above profile.
] >
] 	If they are straight, the would at least turn their head when an 
] attractive woman walked by...  All straight people have the same kind of
] urges.  Perhaps some can control them better or chose to control them better,
] but the urges are still there.

WOW! I Love IT!

Sexism is a PART of being Het!

Hum....

Kind of makes one worry.

ciao
dreiux

ps: have you been 'straight' long, or
are you reading that stuff off a queue card...

pps: Melinda, have you ever been attracted to women?
Do You Turn Your Head if you see an Attractive Woman?

Maybe Lesbians are not Invisible, Just ClosetHets?





-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:49:08 GMT

In article <john.727478714@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>This is unrelated. People can always sue for inhospitable environments
>(especially in a hospital? :-) - this isn't a sexual orientation issue.

Wrong.  Her complaint was very specific.  Again, read the
published reports.

>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.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10376 alt.rush-limbaugh:15299 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13994 alt.politics.clinton:21376 alt.politics.bush:16401
From: taurus@agora.rain.com (Scott Burch)
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 03:28:17 GMT
Organization: Open Communications Forum

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>I just had an idea!  Let's all lobby to get gays recognized as a 
>bonified minority with special rights.  Then, after the laws  get passed, 
>write open letters to our bosses stating that we are coming out of 
>the closet.  Afterward, if we get fired or layed-off for any reason, 
>we can just claim homophobia and discrimination.  We will keep our 
>jobs for life!

I being a gay man, do not want "special rights".  I just want the rights 
everyone else has.  I just want gays and lesbian couples to be recognized
as a joint union between two people that love each other.  I don't believe in
quotas for gays and lesbians, or special treatment.  Just the same treatment.
It is that simple.  I don't want to deal with the hate and bigotry that I
deal with every day.  One little note from me!!  Don't judge a man until
you have walked a mile in his mocasins.  I have a lover, who loves me very
much, but we have to make sure we don't sit too close together on the bus.

Gay people are forced to watch straight sex on TV constantly, what if 
straight people were forced to watch gay sex.  Not to say that you have to 
watch that show.  But, if I want to go see a movie, we must suffer through
a sex scene that is very offensive to us.  Almost all movies and TV shows
have at least one.

			  Scott

t
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Burch                            "Homophobia is a sickness"
taurus@agora.rain.com
Portland, OR
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: All this stuff about God
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:47:14 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.

In <1993Jan20.180339.6901@athena.mit.edu> ckmerril@athena.mit.edu (Christopher K Merrill) writes:

>If homosexuals are truly beyond recovery, why can't you just try to
>forgive them and help them to make up for that flaw in their being by
>helping them lead more Christian lives.

Beyond recovery from WHAT, pray tell (no pun intended)?  Excuse me, but
I'm fine just the way I am.  You're also making an implication that
gay folks can't lead fully productive christian lives, which is a crock!
I'd rather have fundamentalists stay the hell out of my life and worry
about their own for a change than try to help me with what they perceive
as some flaw.

--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality