HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:33:33 GMT


In article <1993Jan7.035827.19080@Princeton.EDU>,
 niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

|>>"We do not have an anti-gay policy... The problems Boy Scouts are
|>>having are with people trying to get in - the gay community, the
|>>homosexuals, the atheists."
|>>Burford Hill, Western Regional Director, Boy Scouts of America. 
|>>5 June 1992, San Francisco Chronicle
|>
|>I never understood why someone would *want* to join an organization like
|>the Boy Scouts that made it clear that it didn't want them.  Actually, I
|>never understood why someone would want to join the Boy Scouts.
|>

Actual, its that scouts and scouters, including myself, discover that 
they are gay and still want to be part of the scouting movement.

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-libert
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:21:27 GMT

sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:

[...]
>I would like to see the colorado amendment extended to all minority
>groups. Then we might see "equal rights for all" instead of privelges
>granted by the government depending on how politically profitable it
>is.
[...]

Most all antidiscrimation laws are neutral in the sense that they
protect both majorities and minorities. They typically of the form:
    "Discrimination on the basis of X shall not be allowed in Y."

Where X is, for example, religion or race and Y is, for example,
housing or employment.

The only discrimination-related law that I know of that is not neutral
is Amendment 2. It outlaws, for example, state policies of hiring
without regard to gay sexual orientations while allowing state
policies of hiring without regard to the straight sexual orientation.

Don't let your opposition-in-principle to laws against private
discrimination blind you to Amendment 2's flaws.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:59:29 GMT

glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:

[...]
>If an employer wants to hire someone who is not the best for the job,
>then they will suffer.
[...]

You underestimate the stability of systematic discrimination.

A system in which one group (call it the blue group) keeps another
group (call it the red group) working very hard in very bad living
conditions is quite stable. If a few members of the blue group try to
to get economic advantage by defecting from the discrimination policy,
they will find that advantage lost because of retaliation by other
members of the blue group. If a few members of the red group try to
rebel they will be blacklisted.

To take a case in point, according to yesterday's "60 Minutes" the
U.S. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) used to
discriminate in hiring in of men. They now try to hire the most
qualified person without regard to sex. You predicted that this would
make them more productive, but in fact, they have become less
productive because the women employees are being so harassed that they
have trouble doing their job. Morale for all of ATF is very, very low.
I believe that the same thing happens at many private workplaces.

If it wasn't the threat of outside punitive actions from (other
branches of) the government, ATF would probably just give up on hiring
women, because it doesn't seem to pay.

- Carl


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:11:50 GMT

sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:

[...]
>The colorado amendment did not make homosexuals  
>second class (unless by second class you mean they don't have special  
>discriminatory priveleges enforced by the government. In which class then  
>white het men are also second class)
[...]

You have been misled. Please read the Amendment (enclosed).

Amendment 2 makes it illegal for Colorado to make a policy of hiring
*state workers* without regard to sexual orientation. Do you really
consider a policy of hiring *state workers* on merit and without
regard to sexual orientation a "special discriminatory privilege"?

As far as private discrimiantion. Amendment 2 allows laws that
prohibit private discrimiantion on the basis of hetrosexual
orientation and forbids laws that prohibit private discrimination on
the basis of homosexual orientation. In this way it makes, gays second
class citizens.

- Carl

=================
civil-liberty/amendment2.co.usa
=================
AMENDMENT 2  (AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION)
   "Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or
departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions,
municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce
any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual,
lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or
entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of
discrimination."

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-libert
From: gbalzano@black.clarku.edu (Guy David BAlzano)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Clark University (Worcester, MA)
Date:  7 Jan 93 16:15:03 GMT

jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:

>In regrards to hate-crimes against homosexuals: I was watching C-SPAN a
>few weeks ago with some HS group presenting crime stats in Colorado since
>A2 came up.  They reported that hate crimes (against gays) had increased.
>A reporter asked why THREATS had been included as CRIMES.  The spokesman
>said that they considered threats the same as crimes.  I, for one, was
>amazed.  Talk about deception....unbelievable.  I also don't think that the
>real crime counts were separated from the threats in their data, but why
>should it?  They wanted data to support their position and found a way to
>do it.  Another example of someone crying wolf and then crying foul when
>people have already stopped listening.

Last I heard a threat is an actual crime.  Makeing someone believe that
you are going to hurt the is the Assult (of assult and Battery fame)
while actually hitting/hurting them is the battery portion of the crime.

>Since when can't people seek recourse for crimes committed against them?
>Is a hate-crime different from a crime? If so, how?

While I'm not sure of the legal definition of a Hate Crime and why it
differs from a random crime.  Think about it you get mugged walking down
the street, why because someone wanted your money/valuables.  It sucks
(it has happened to me) but thats life everybody will get robbed at
least once in their life (in most Urban Areas anyway) but it is random
and not a statement against the person being robbed.  But a hate crime
is a directed attack against a person becuase of who or what they are.
It says to that person I did this because you are different and you have
to spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder because you
will always be different and there will always be A**holes like me
around to remind you of that perhaps just by not giveing you an
apartment or a job or perhaps with a baseball bat to the head and a trip
to the ER with a concussion or maybe worse.  

That is how I see the difference.  And yes I think the long term
psychological effect that has on a person are worth defining hate crimes
worse than random crimes.


>JSL.

			-Joe Lapolito
From: 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Gay Rights in Lafayette,IN
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:50:03 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's


In the city of Lafayette, there is a bill that went before the Lafayette City
Council amending pending state ordinances to allow homosexuals equal rights. 
As of the time of this posting, the city council had tabled the bill to (I
think) the state assembly to have THEM decide.  If the state assembly declines
to vote on the issue, it falls back to the Lafayette City Council.  More later.
From: LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Another Group Joins Boycott
Date: 10 Jan 1993 10:42:49 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


The following was announced on a local news station tonight (NBC-Denver):  
"Amendment 2 is being blamed for another convention cancellation.  
The National Association of Hispanic Journalists planned to bring 
a thousand members to Denver in March.  But today, the group's 
executive board voted to cancel" (transcribed from videotape).

Yes!!  Many thanks to the members of that association for letting it
be known that they will not tolerate any form of bigotry...

                             
-maria



Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: About Levi Strauss
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:14:12 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Below is an article on Levi Strauss and their policies towards gays, 
reprinted without permission from _Deneuve_ (a national lesbian magazine), 
December, 1992:

-------------------------------------------------
"Button-Flies and Boy Scouts"

Levi Strauss and Co., makers of 501 button-fly and other jeans,
recently ended its financial support of the Boy Scouts of America to
show its opposition to the discriminatory Boy Scout ban on gay Scouts
and Scout Leaders.  Levi Strauss has supported many gay issues in the past; 
it has a strong anti-discrimination provision, same-sex domestic 
partnership benefits and advertises in gay and lesbian publications.
After Levi Strauss withdrew funding of the Boy Scouts, the American
Family Association launched a boycott of Levi's.  Counter that boycott and 
let Levi Strauss know that you support its decision.  Thank Levi Strauss
at 1-800-872-5384 or write 

Chairman Robert Haas
Levi Strauss & Co.
P.O. Box 7215
San Francisco, CA  94111

fax (415)544-3939.
-------------------------------------------------

They deserve to be commended for their policies of tolerance!  Send
them a brief letter or make a quick call of support, if you can.

-maria
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:03:42 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1in1m7INN8li@hp-col.col.hp.com>
smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

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

>> Most states have not explicitly voted for heterosexual privilege; it
>> simply exists by default.

>And in practical application, what is the difference?  If Cracker 
>Barrel can get away with firing gay employees, and if in places 
>that don't explicitly state "sexual orientation" in non-discrimination 
>laws you can't claim discrimination based on that orientation, 
>how will things work any differently (in practice) in Colorado? 
>Seems to be, in practice, no different. 

In practice it IS different, because via the consitutional amendment
they think they've PREVENTED anti-discriminatory laws from being enacted
in the future.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8975 alt.rush-limbaugh:13040 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11550
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 06:53:29 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

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

> In article <casivils.726095832@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (cra
> >
> >1st, Persecution of Gays does not have a biblical baisis.
> >     -----------
> >     Christ spent a lot of his time with prostitutes, tax collectors and oth
> >     who lived "undesirable" lifestyles during their time period.
> >     Granted, the Bible is clear that Homosexuality is a sin.  However, so
> >     is lying, and everyone has lied.  Man places degrees on sin, not God.
> 
>     We all know this, Craig.  I'm aware that the persecution of gays has no
> biblical basis...that's why it gets me when people use biblical references
> to support their bigotry, especially when they freely disregard other bible
> directions when it doesn't suit them.
> 
> >2nd, Calling all Christians bigots is yet another "intolerance"
> >     I have seen several generalizations and expressions that the "Christian
> >     Attitude" is wrong.  Am I to assume then that you don't associate with
> >     Christians being as you can't condem someones actions/beliefs and 
> >     still respect ther precious rights.  Is tolorance only for the
> >     politicaly correct?  
> 
>     I don't remember reading anyone's claim that all xians are bigots.
> Unfortunately, few of the tolerant ones out there bother getting into net
> discussions, and the flaming "xian" 'phobes who do give the rest a bad
> name.  That is unfortunate, since I know many xians who really are tolerant
> and open-minded.
> 
> -- 
>    ******************************************************************
>      Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
>      Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 


And it is the Xian homophobes amongst us that are putting such things as 
referendum 9 in ashington, and Proposition 2 in Colorado.  And in the 
case of Colorado, getting their way.  This is a worrisome trend.  If this 
bothers other nonhomophobic Xians and Conservatives, better start 
opposing these people strongly less this homophobia become the image of 
the "average Christan or Conservative".  

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jbibb@eng.auburn.edu (John S. Bibb)
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Reply-To: jbibb@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:46:04 GMT

In article 726175165@node_508ba, casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
> In <1993Jan4.024856.6491@netcom.com> teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
> 
> Tolerance for what, your view?  And where did I mention legislation?
> There will always be people with different opinions, but I again ask the same
> question (in simpler words).  Alright, lets suppose that we don't use the Bible
> as a basis for morality.  Where does that lead us and what do we stand on?
> ( I'm not interested in hearing about some other religious book, the argument
> is -can a moral system exist with out religion and where would it lead-.
> 
>                               Craig
> 


On whatever you base your morality, the key word is not religion or even morals,
it is YOUR morality.  I survived just fine with 23 years of my morality not based
in any religion.  Parts of my moral code are found in Christian moral teachings,
as they are found in many other religious teachings.  Parts are from my inner self.
Imagine my surprise when at 23 years old I found a religion whose moral code was
basicly the same as mine!

I do not think it is fair to tell someone that they should not base their morality
on the Bible or anything else for that matter.  It is unfair for someone to impose
their moral code on ANYONE else.  To finally answer your question, YES a moral system
can exist without religion.  Hopefully it leads to a person better understanding 
themselves and the people and world around them.

J. Feeling a bit philosophical today Bibb
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:43:00 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan11.150028.16027@wam.umd.edu>
rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	And some Bible-weirdness:
>
>	Corinthians [11:14]:
>
>	Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have 
>	long hair, it is a shame unto him?
>
>	This one always interested me, because Jesus always seems to
>	be protrayed as a long haired hippie type.  Plus, he always looks
>	rather soft and effeminate, which brings me to: [blah blah blah]

Not to mention his relationship with the Beloved Disciple...

<I told you not to mention his relationship with the Beloved Disciple!>  :^)

Robert---for an atheist you seem incredibly anti-homosexual. Would you say
you are still suffering from post-traumatic Christian syndrome?

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:9125 alt.rush-limbaugh:13220 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11823
From: jkusters@zeus.calpoly.edu (Chrome Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:08:56 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) divulges:
->
->Mr. Barwell has again shown his ignorance (or is it contempt) of the Bible.
->God wrote the Bible by inspiring mortals to write what He wanted to say.

In other words, David, God intentionally wanted to confuse his followers to
the point where they would spend centuries arguing about the meanings of
certain words in certain passages?  He wanted his message to be so unclear
that several hundred different christian sects have shown up each professing
to have the ONLY correct interpretation of His word?  This is a cruel god
you have, Mr. Hanson.  A VERY cruel god.

JOhn.

-- 
/-John A Kusters, jr.--------------------------------------------------- ______
| jkusters@ares.calpoly.edu   b0- f- w g- s-- r p++                      \    /
Silence keeps us all in darkness, We can't change things overnight;       \  /
But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovsky & Phillips
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 23:24:52 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

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

|> 
|> Col#2 doesn't give "Legalized privilege".  The only thing it has really 
|> done to this point is overturn Denver, Boulder, and Aspen's regulations 
|> regarding 'sexual orientation' and discrimination.  Now, there are no 
|> protections regarding 'sexual orientation' in the discrimination ordinances. 
|> Which is the exact same case as with the Cracker Barrell situation, and 
|> the exact same situation as in most of the country.  In most parts of 
|> the country, there are no 'sexual orientation' clauses in the discrimination 
|> laws.  So, for practical purposes, what makes the current situation in 
|> Colorado any different from these other places where discrimination is 
|> legal? 
|> 
One practical difference is the following:

In states other than Colorado which lack state anti-discrimination
laws, individual communities are still free to enact their own local
ordinances to prohibit discrimination in their districts.

But in Colorado, although individual communities are free to enact local
ordinances to protect any group *except homosexuals* from
discrimination in their districts, these communities are barred from
enacting (enforceable) local ordinances to protect homosexuals
from discrimination.  Even the state legislature can't enact
protective legislation because the "unprotectable" status of
homosexuals has been built into the Constitution!

It sounds like Colorado has enacted "special non-rights".  :-(

Sure it's worse.  And it's not surprising, because the
Colorado measure was initiated by a group of people who
believe that homosexuality (if not homosexuals themselves)
should be stamped out.  Do you really think the CFV's
intentions were benign?

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9263 talk.religion.misc:25700 alt.rush-limbaugh:13495
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 10 Jan 1993 00:27:04 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

<SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
> It would seem then that "some of the gay posters" are wrong or have
> even misrepresented the intent of these two books.

Yes, since some of them even claimed to have read it.

> While this might cast a shadow over "some of the gay posters" it says
> nothing about the book, and evidently to Mr. Smith the book
> which he read was not objectionable despite the fact that it teaches
> more than just "queers exist."
> Is that the point?

No.  The bulk of the book was 'benign'; but the end part of the book is 
clearly an attempt to pass (a positive) judgement on the idea of 
homosexualty.  And in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of 
most of the people involved in the issue back in NYC, it doesn't 
belong in a first-grade curriculum.   

> The _US News & World Report_ excerpt seemed a bit crazed. 

I don't know about that; the old standard of "live and let live"
style tolerance is out the window in an approach like COTR.  Now, 
people have to "acknowledge the positive aspects" of their way 
of life.  That's how the curriculum was designed.  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS: St. Louis Law
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:24:54 GMT

tom@flood.com (Tom Chatt) writes:

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

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

I heard that the measure was done in an ``emergency session'' and thus can't
be repealed by referendum. I would imagine it must be able to be repealed in
some other way.

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ***Clinton-Gore 92!***
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"A visceral recoil from homosexuality is the natural reaction of a healthy
society wishing to preserve itself." Pat Buchanan, March 27, 1991, N.Y. POST
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush