HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:52:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.144507.1234@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>ck> If you were an emotionally troubled teen, faced with sure and certain per-
>    secution for the rest of your life, suicide would be an attractive alter-
>    native.
>
>  I wouldn't call persecution for being gay "sure and certain".

Really?  Are you gay?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightm
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:29:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 

AA>In article <1992Oct29.141824.28651@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@clio.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>>the homo community is that the homo cumminity is constantly special
>>attention.
>
>Typical heterosexist crapola.  You got any examples, chum?

AA>Gay Pride Day.
AA>Marching in Boston's St. Patricks Day, when they knew how the other would feel.
AA>Asking for legal marriage, when they know what that means.
AA>etc, etc

!!! The "homo" community should be PROUD after dealing with bigots like
    you (and much worse).  Wanting the same rights as straights does
    NOT equate with wanting special rights.  
---
 . DeLuxe. 1.21 #777sa . Now abusing Qmail DeLuxe....and loving it!
                                                                               
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 18:47:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.191428.22327@midway.uchicago.edu>
nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:

>Next, and more specifically, are societies obligated to allow all forms of
>sexual behavior?  What about incest between adults? 

What about incest between adults?  Do you have an argument here, or
are we just supposed to recoil in horror?

>In fact, what about sexual relations between adults and children?  If
>you say "that's different, we're only talking about relationships
>between adults," then I'll argue that that is your own little bias.
>Why shouldn't young people be allowed to have sex with whomever they
>wish?

An interesting thing about children which you may not have noticed is
that they need care and attention from adults.  If you are talking
about teenagers, different places have different rules.  At what age
should we quit trying to defend the young, and give them the freedom
to decide?  This is not something on which a large theoretical claim
can be made, because by the nature of the human species, we must
defend the young from themselves below a certain age, at any rate.

>The point is, you've chosen to engage in a practice/lifestyle that a large 
>portion of the population do not wish to see sanctioned or legitimized into
>the public realm.  You can huff and puff all you like, this is simply the
>way it is at this time.  You have a right to try to persuade people to change
>their minds, but I doubt if you will have any success by improperly casting
>people as bigots.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I say it is a duck.
You don't want to be called a bigot because you don't like the
implications of the word, but you don't dislike them enough to leave
off being a bigot.




-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:08:07 GMT
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division

In article <1992Nov10.132745.44592@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> rminor@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>A question of clarification:  Does the Colorado vote mean that I can
>discriminate against people who are straight?

No.  They may seek redress under the law for discrimination on the
basis of their heterosexuality.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Jesus was gay and John was his lover. (NOT!)
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:19:10 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

In article <9NOV92.15554756@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu> smothers@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu writes:
>
>     Actually, in response to the previous post, I too have heard this
>sentiment, though not written so bluntly from liberal scholars. I have
>also heard the reason that Paul was so hard on women was that the
>"thorn in his flesh" was homosexuality. I am surprised that the source
>of this ludicrous statement this time supposedly comes from a
>catholic priest.
I had heard that Paul was a womanizer and "this" was the thorn in the side
of his flesh. 
>
>    I would like to apologize for all the homosexual bashing by someone
>on this net who feels its his mission in life to offend you guys/girls using
>scripture as justification. Actually most of the christians I know are
>offended more at homosexuals wanted extra rights without actually qualifying
Please, we don't want any co-dependents in this newsgroup. Let him bash.
It takes time to learn that what we say actually hurts people. My
question is: Can Christians give unconditional love to Homosexuals?


-- 
jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org                                (214) 235-7161 x4100
John E. Spence                                                  CompuTrac, Inc.
"I don't speak for CompuTrac, and CompuTrac doesn't speak for me!"
From: IO92142@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: CO-2 Ammendment PASSES 8-(
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:23:45 GMT
 <1992Nov4.141446.20339@yang.earlham.edu>
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Maine System

There was a neat sound bite on NPR today.  They were covering
the Governor of Colorado's reaction to the passage of #9 and
he said something like...

"...I will fire any state employee who discrimintes on the
basis of sexual preference..."

I'm pretty sure he said "preference" :(, but his overall message
kinda didn't make the passage of such a terrible bill
feel so bad.

If anyone knows exactly what the Governor said please post it.

And now my personal message to the voters in Oregon...

*cups hands infront of mouth*
"Hey, Oregon!  Thanks!!  Just defeat it when it comes up again with a
wider margin!"




James Gray                    "Family values is a cheap way out,
io92142@maine.maine.edu        we all believe in family morals and
University of Maine            values.  I'm got going to put down what
                               your doing and don't put me down for
                               what I'm trying to do."

                               - Toni Rumsey, Freemont Michigan
From: rebeccag@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Gays using Gay-offensive termsquit
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:28:34 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <Bx8H1u.DBy@unix.amherst.edu>, jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) write> 	Hi, I'm Jesse Fuchs, and I'm new to the net. Althou
> darn computer, if you didn't guess - the sentence a few lines up should nteresting question.) Anyway...s. However, he asked why it w
ok, i've never done this before, so pardon my errors please.  Jesse, what 
might be considered offensive terms when non-lbg-people use them become 
acceptable when lbgs do because its part of a movement to reclaim the 
language and rework it for their own ends.  for example, many people now 
debate about the use of the word queer.  in the past it has been used as a 
derogatory term by others, but now is being reconfigured into the modern 
usage and reclaimed. (queer nation for example)
hope this is helpful, i don't have much time to think especially logically 
at this moment.  Rebecca
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: I am weird
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:55:38 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <1992Nov6.210804.22138@wam.umd.edu>, 
aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes...

  The admission and understatement of the day...
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:41:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov5.184650.5524@midway.uchicago.edu> nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>Americans are tolerant.  They simply do not accept the proposition that there
>is no moral difference between gay and straight behavior.

You use "Americans" very casually, then.  Recent CNN polls show about
70% of Americans think homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as
heterosexuals.

WHY do some Americans think there _is_ a moreal difference between gay
and straight behavior?  What moral difference, exactly?  And morals
with respect to who? 

>As I've said, our culture and our laws basically reinforce what the traffic
>will allow.  People believe that their kids will live happier lives and that
>society will function better if homosexuality is not encouraged.  

And the question again, so you don't duck it again, is WHY DO PEOPLE
BELIEVE THIS?  There are simply no facts which support it.

Apparently far fewer believe it now than in the past.  In the words
of our President-Elect: "We don't have a person to waste."  We are 
harmed by stigmatizing some of our own citizens.  We are harmed by
bigotry and by the lies the anti-gay factions spread.

I am very glad we will soon have a President who has stated that
lesbians and gays have a place in his vision of America.  As he has
also said: "Americans are suffering from the most curable affliction
in the world: ignorance."  Why not let the cure begin with you, Roger?
Why do you believe that gays are morally inferior to straights, and
that being against equal rights for gays is not bigoted?

-- 
Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe)
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:15:40 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Nov11.215311.20738@tc.cornell.edu>  
shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> In article <Nov11.195024.69810@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  
doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe) writes:
> 
> The exact same bigoted trash he posted on Monday in 
> article <Nov09.211748.72195@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>.
> Is there some reason that you feel the need to post it
> twice?
> --
So, are you the only one who has the privilege of posting to more than  
just one group?  Since we're, ahem, "talking" about Amendment 2, it is  
pertinent to alt.politics.homosexuality is it not?  In any case, now it's  
plain for all to see where the real hate lies.  Name-calling and insults  
might have worked on the playground in elementary school, but you'll need  
more than that to change my mind in the adult world.  Why is it you feel  
compelled to heap derision on people you disagree with?

>            Hate is not a family value.
Neither is anal sex.

>  Boycott Colorado
Your loss.  Our values are not for sale
> 
>        Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:21:52 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

An extremely tragic and saddening story.  I wish I had been in a position  
to try and befriend Booker, to let him know he was not alone and  
abandoned.  I can imagine, to a certain extent, the pain and loss that his  
friends and family are experiencing at this moment, having lost a former  
roommate to AIDS myself.  Nevertheless, the facts about his life that  
emerge from this story are:

1) He was a deeply troubled young man.
2) He had contracted AIDS.
3) He had tried to commit suicide 4 months ago.
4) His best friend had recently committed suicide, leaving him to  
proclaim, "I love and miss my Wendy too much."

We are all the authors of our own misfortunes.  I am no better a person  
than Booker.  Booker made some bad decisions in life, just as I have.   
Unfortunately, he made a fatal one.  To claim that CFV and Amendment 2 are  
somehow directly responsible for his death is unjustifiable,  
sensationalistic and serves only to muddy the waters.  I'm sure there are  
many at CFV who would have welcomed him with open arms and tried to ease  
his pain had he made an effort to contact them for help.  Moreover, please  
don't refer to the people at CFV as "ilk."  Can't someone disagree with  
you without you resorting to name-calling and insults?
From: cbehre@spock.usc.edu (Charles Behre)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: where are the totals?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 11:30:14 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: spock.usc.edu


In article <Bx917A.Fqz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, haynes@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Carl W. Haynes III) writes:
|> (Chad Edward Brown) writes:
|> >Does anyone have any idea how we're really doing?  I called
|> >Associated Press who said we have 2,048 votes with 48% of
|> >the votes counted.  This is obviously wrong.  Hopefully, it's
|> >more like 2,048,000.
|> 
|> According to the 11/5/92 USA Today (page 4A), The Libertarian Party
|> received 278,528 votes.
|> 
|> This seems awfully low to me, I was under the impression (from where,
|> I don't know) that we were aiming for 1,000,000 votes.
|> 
The LA Times gives the CA Libertarian total for President at 44,000 and change. In the
senatorial votes the LP was I believe fourth and fifth to the Peace and Freedom Party
and the American Independents.  

At first I was suprised at how many votes the Peace and Freedom Party received ( their 
social agenda is very socialistic), but considering the fact that both Diane Fienstien 
and Barbara Boxer won this seems reasonable.

--Chip
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:42:48 GMT

In article <BxH9q1.4Mu@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
}>Whether or not one thinks Marxism has anything real going for it, its
}>intended role is as a philosophy of liberation, primarily the liberation
}>from the economic power of capital.
}
}Yup.  That's why just CLAIMING to be for liberty isn't good enough.  You need
}to be able to define just what you mean by the term.

Brian, stop being so obtuse.  Substantiate your claims or withdraw them.
You've claimed that we libertarians don't know the meaning of liberty.  You've
claimed that we have marxists in the Party.  You've claimed to have attended
a libertarian world conference in San Francisco, but my friends who ran it
don't seem to remember anyone with a name like yours.

Either all these claims are false, or you're holding back on some special
revelation on the meaning of liberty, who these alleged marxists are, and
what your name was at the time of the conference - unless you tresspassed,
and attended without registering.

}The reason is what I have been writing about all along.  Just because
}someone SAYS he's "for liberty" that doesn't mean he really is.  In fact,
}a great many advocates of "liberty" (such as the anarchists and anarcho-
}communists) are actually proposing exactly the opposite of liberty.  Heck,
}Al Gore claims to be a champion of free market economics!!  Does that make
}him a pro-capitalist?

We both know that we can list anti-capitalist positions of Al Gore.  And
we both know that you can't list one anti-capitalist position of the
Libertarian Party.  So why don't you admit your pathetic failure and shut up?


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Keywords: Objectivism Libertarianism
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:31:27 GMT

In article <Bx438z.3u9@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. 
Yoder) writes:

[Binswanger comment from somebody else]

>>   "The 'libertarians'... plagarize Ayn Rand's priniciple
>>   that no man may initiate the use of physicial force, and
>>   treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context
>>   absolute." (Harry Binswanger, from _The_Ayn_Rand_Lexicon, p. 254)

     "The 'mechanics' ... plagiarize the engineers' vehicle
     design, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context
     absolute."

>>   Anyone care to argue this one?

>Sure.  Here's the bottom line.  According to libertarianism, why is liberty
>good?  What does it mean to be good?  They simply have no consistent answer.
>There are lots of people who answer that liberty is a gift from God.  For
>others, it's a subjective choice unrelated to reality.  For others it is
>emotion, or tradition, or hedonism.  The bottom line is that there is no
>rational justification given.  It is just an out of context conclusion, not
>a rational conclusion based on the facts of reality.
>
>Saying "I feel liberty is right" carries no more weight than saying "I feel
>liberty is wrong".

What is a political party?  Is it a philosophical movement?  NO!  The 
Libertarian Party assumes its members have their philosophies all worked out 
and have their own reasons for supporting the cause of liberty.  

Libertarianism is not the 'why', it's the 'how'.  This is what makes the 
Objectivists' comments so ridiculous:  The LP does not even pretend to be
a political movement.  It is the means to solving some very serious political
problems.  ATTENTION, anyone who isn't sure:  There is no contradiction in
supporting both movements.  Objectivism and Libertarianism are not meant to
be rivals.  They are out to accomplish _different_ _things_!  If only the
Objectivists would understand this...  Sometimes they seem like the smartest 
people in the world; other times they seem like they're dumb as rocks.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:43:10 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov3.215202.13460@EE.Stanford.EDU> bill@isl.Stanford.EDU (Bill Moore) writes:

>Why is it that so many computer types are libertarians?

>At least Picard has an artificial heart, better than none at all...

What makes you think libertarians don't care.  It's just that we prefer to
our caring with our own money, not somebody else's.

-- 
Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
Sometimes they don't even reflect the views of the author.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: This Stupid "LaRouche is a Lib" Thing
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:41:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov6.200613.2793@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:
|      (1) Has LaRouche ever been a Libertarian? If so, when and what did he do?

Never.

LaRouche used to have the US Labor Party, and then he bacame a Democrat.

|      (2) If he has never been one, how did the rumor start? (and please, no 
| unsupported conspiracy theories)

1.  Name confusion between US Labor Party and Libertarian Party.

2.  Confusion between pro-industry libertarian views and forced-industry
LaRouche views.

3.  Regretable media linkage (Time magazine).

4.  I hate to think it -- maybe, to the center-folk, fringe are fringe.

   Fritz

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:02:19 PST

In article <1992Nov6.104155.29979@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, on 6 Nov 1992 10:41:55 GMT,
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>This is contrary to my experience.  The movement is nowhere near being
>bomb-throwers like SDS or the Ayatollah, nor its leaders, unless you're coun-
>ting Rothbard, who left for the Buchanan campaign, then Perot, then Bush,
>all of which ships sank as soon as he got aboard.  Now if we can just get
>him to join Peikoff in Clinton's camp, then perhaps we can kill two birds
>with one stone...
>
What in the world has been going on with Murray Rothbard anyway? I
consider his two books _For a New Liberty_, and _The Ethics of Liberty_
to be excellent treatments of the principles and the philosophy of
Libertarianism. And his book titled _The Mystery of Banking_ is an
excellent introduction on the subjects of money and banking easily
intelligible to the non-economist.  Earlier this year he wrote a
well-reasoned op ed piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Times which
lambasted the trivial reductions in the military budget and the picayune
tax cuts that were being proposed at the time.

If he actually endorsed bigots and protectionists like Buchanan and
Perot and Bush, I am forced to conclude that he has become non compos
mentis.

>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>
>"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
>oneself and others." - Voltaire
>
        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian